JOLLYBLOGGER

Rush is Right and Let's Have Three Big Yawns for the Evening News

This past week my son and I were discussing the tragedy that is life in this world, and he let me know that he had recently been informed that America is in dire straits and that he needs to keep up with Fox News to understand just how bad things are.

Whenever someone says we need to keep up with Fox News or some other "conservative" media outlet I immediately think of this post from Joe Carter.  During his brief time on the Huckabee campaign Joe interacted at length with the mainstream media and says that he generally got a fair shake from the MSM, save the "conservative media."

My gripe isn't so much with Fox as it is with the idea that the news media provides an accurate picture of the world as it is, and this is why I encouraged my son to take what he hears on the news with a grain of salt, or a yawn.

Back in the day, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh a good deal, and I can remember him describing the purpose of his program and the purpose of callers.  The overall purpose of the program was to gain listeners, and thus to gain sponsors, and to make money for the sponsors and the show.  The purpose of callers was to make the host look good.

In saying that, I don't mean to imply that Rush doesn't believe what he says on the radio. I believe he is singularly committed to and articulate about his conservative ideology.  But the bottom line is ratings, and to insure good ratings, he must first be a good entertainer.  This does not mean that an entertainer cannot inform, it just means that you have to be aware of where the priorities lie.

And it's not just Rush, it seems to me that the purpose of any news outlet is to garner ratings, and thus the package often must trump the product.  And when it comes to ratings, there is one thing that drives ratings - sensationalism.

February 29th, L. B. Graham, Lewis, Chesterton, Utilitarianism, Dwight, Angela and Jim

Yep, if you read the post title you are right - Jolly has a bunch of stuff on his mind and is just looking for a blog post to spew it on.  So here goes.

My friend L. B. Graham, author of the Binding of the Blade series, which is one of the best fiction series by a Christian writer in some time, has a new blog and a fun post for today.

All right, I'm just going to put this right out there. Anyone who has a blog or personal website or whatever and just ignores the 29th of February is crazy. How can you do that? You won't get another chance to post on the 29th of February until 2012!

So, in honor of L. B. this is my official 2008 leap year post.  And what better time to tell you to read L. B.'s books and check out his blog.  He's got great insights for writers in particular.

Now, on the theme of fun, here's a quote from G. K. Chesterton:

The true object of all human life is play. Earth is a task garden; heaven is a playground.

I love it - reminds me of the immortal words of Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive - "I'm not having any fun here, you know how I get when I'm not having fun."

C. S. Lewis says something that relates in The Four Loves (HT - David J. Theroux):

“Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. . . . It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that gives value to survival.”

That relates in the sense that we could argue that "play" and "fun" have minimal or dubious "spiritual value."  We can descend into a kind of "spiritual utilitarianism" that is a misuse of I Cor. 10:31 ("do everything to the glory of God').   If Chesterton is right, and I think you could argue that he is, "play" is one of the things that makes following Christ so valuable. 

Yes, yes, I know that following Christ is it's own reward, or Christ is His own reward, but even the old stick-in-the-mud Westminster Divines linked "enjoyment" with glorifying God, they go hand in hand (as John Piper says "man's chief end is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever").

And yes, yes again, I understand that "play" or "fun" is neither the defining mark nor highest value. I forget which philosopher it was, but he struck the fatal blow to hedonism by asking the rhetorical question "is there such a thing as an 'evil' pleasure?"  If there is, and there is, then to admit that there is an evil pleasure is to admit that there is something above pleasure by which pleasure can be judged, and thus, pleasure cannot be ultimate. 

So it is for us - the law of God, the character of God, the will of God, etc. stands above "play" and "fun," and judges them.  But, let's also remember the ultimate spiritual gift is rest from your labor.  And this rest is not the rest of nothingness.  It is the rest of celebration and feasting. 

True, we walk through the vale of tears, the valley of the shadow of death, right now.  Life can't be dominated by play and fun now.  But that doesn't mean we can't be "play-full" people now.  Christians are the ones who have cast away their burdens and who experience infinite love and care (I Peter 5:7).  If anyone has a reason to play and have fun, it's us.

In short and in conclusion - we have too many Angela's and Dwight's - we need to be more like Jim.

Philippians 4:8 and Evaluating Art

Philippians 4:8 says this:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of respect, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if something is excellent or praiseworthy, think about these things. (NETBible).

This is a verse which can and should guide us in the evaluation of art - literature, film, visual - and all of life for that matter.

Alan Noble has an interesting post up over at Christ and Pop Culture wherein he suggests that some of our well-known Christian film critics lift one element of that verse out and make it the litmus test for films, while ignoring others.  He says that these folks tend to be very conscious to evaluate film on the basis of purity, but in regards to truth, respect, just-ness, loveliness and commendability - well, not so much.

I'll just come right out and say that I think he is spot on, but I want to point out one particular point he makes that challenges my own thinking.  I think he makes the point well, but I don't know if I'm 100% sold yet and would love it if we could get some discussion going on this.

I have come to evaluate movies in terms of their redemptive value - good movies have redemptive themes and I look for those themes.  He also mentions the common Christian view that good should triumph over evil - if a movie portrays this then it is better. 

But Alan doesn't think this is required for film to be considered good or for it to conform to Biblical principles. 

But this raises the questions, in what way is the theme of redemption the only judge of aesthetic excellence and should we try to convince filmmakers that these kinds of films ought to be made because they are profitable?

To answer the first question we should look to the Old Testament. Even a cursory reading of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes makes evident a common truth in the Old Testament: the world is unjust. The unrighteous rule, gain wealth, and go unpunished, while the righteous are abused and go unavenged. The Bible gives us no hope for true justice in this life. To demand that all films show good triumphing over evil, or justice over injustice is to go beyond the Bible and lie about the fundamental nature of the world. When Baehr argues that a movie is only good if it properly contains these themes, he either shows an ignorance of the Old Testament, or he is advocating art as pure escapism. While watching a hero win out against incredible odds is uplifting, to claim that any other plot structure is unbiblical and unworthy of praise is nonsense. It is precisely a world where the unjust currently go unpunished that Christ came to save: a fallen world.

From Print to Visual and Beyond

My estrangement from Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" continues, well sort of.  Think of this estrangement as a lovers spat.  In any friendship or marriage you often come to realize that you love the other person dearly, but there are some things you just have to put up with and tolerate - you just don't see eye to eye with them on that.  So it is with Postman - in terms of intellect he is to me as Mt. Everest is to an anthill and in terms of influence he is to me as the Pacific Ocean is to a raindrop. But, as I mentioned here, I find myself more and more skeptical about his views on the superiority of print culture to graphical culture.

I am intrigued with the work of Steven Berlin Johnson who says that "Everything Bad is Good for You."  He makes the audacious and heretical claim that things like TV and video games are actually good for you - claims which are doubly heretical coming from a preacher like me who seems to be endorsing them.  After all, we all know that TV and video games are ruining our society and it is the job of clergy like myself to protect society, and impressionable young minds in particular, from these things.

I am still a bit agnostic on whether or not Johnson is right.  You can get a quick summary of his thesis in this review of his book by Malcolm Gladwell.  His thoughts are intriguing to say the least.  It would be helpful if you can read Gladwell's review before you read what I am writing next because it is an important piece of background.  On his blog Johnson imagines a world where video games preceded books.  Now, a new thing has come out which is replacing the old - in this imaginary world, books have been invented and people are shifting en masse to reading them, and this alarms those who have been a part of a video-game driven culture. 

Again, this is imaginary and Johnson prefaces what I am about to quote by saying he doesn't believe this.  He just wants to show the possible objections that those who have spent centuries in a video-game based world might offer to the intrusion of books.  And I offer this as an alternative to Postman - Postman is concerned about what we will lose in the transition from a print based to a graphic based culture. Johnson imagines things the other way around.  And, at the end, I want to suggest that a transition similar to what Johnson envisions has already happened in our past.   

"Imagine an alternate world identical to ours save one techno-historical change: videogames were invented and popularized before books. In this parallel universe, kids have been playing games for centuries –– and then these page-bound texts come along and suddenly they're all the rage. What would the teachers, and the parents, and the cultural authorities have to say about this frenzy of reading? I suspect it would sound something like this:

Reading books chronically under-stimulates the senses. Unlike the longstanding tradition of gameplaying –– which engages the child in a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images and musical soundscapes, navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements –– books are simply a barren string of words on the page. Only a small portion of the brain devoted to processing written language is activated during reading, while games engage the full range of the sensory and motor cortices.

Books are also tragically isolating. While games have for many years engaged the young in complex social relationships with their peers, building and exploring worlds together, books force the child to sequester him or herself in a quiet space, shut off from interaction with other children. These new 'libraries' that have arisen in recent years to facilitate reading activities are a frightening sight: dozens of young children, normally so vivacious and socially interactive, sitting alone in cubicles, reading silently, oblivious to their peers.

Many children enjoy reading books, of course, and no doubt some of the flights of fancy conveyed by reading have their escapist merits. But for a sizable percentage of the population, books are downright discriminatory. The reading craze of recent years cruelly taunts the 10 million Americans who suffer from dyslexia –– a condition didn't even exist as a condition until printed text came along to stigmatize its sufferers.

But perhaps the most dangerous property of these books is the fact that they follow a fixed linear path. You can't control their narratives in any fashion –– you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you. For those of us raised on interactive narratives, this property may seem astonishing. Why would anyone want to embark on an adventure utterly choreographed by another person? But today's generation embarks on such adventures millions of times a day. This risks instilling a general passivity in our children, making them feel as though they're powerless to change their circumstances. Reading is not an active, participatory process; it's a submissive one. The book readers of the younger generation are learning to 'follow the plot' instead of learning to lead."

Now again, all of you who have turned purple, please relax.  Johnson is giving a fictitious scenario and doesn't hate books - after all, he promulgates his ideas through books.  But I would suggest that something similar to what he describes here happened in the shift from an oral culture to a print based culture.

Network Television R.I.P.

Most everyone knows about the writer's strike in Hollywood.  Marc Andreessen has a couple of posts up about the writer's strike and potential effects here and here (HT - Richard Florida).

It's all pretty interesting.  I know a number of folks who think television is the spawn of Satan and will probably rejoice in these misfortunes that are befalling the denizens of the city of iniquity, i.e. Hollywood.

Personally I'm only a little bit interested in the strike itself, as I only have a few programs I really follow, but if those programs go off the air it should take me about 20 minutes to deal with it and move on with my life.  I'm a bit bummed that 24 might not make it back in January and I really enjoy the new show Chuck, so I'll miss that if it goes away.  Oh yeah, I'll probably lose lot's of sleep wondering what happens to the castaways on Lost if that doesn't make it back. 

Other than that, for me the highest purpose of a television is show college football games so as long as the writer's strike doesn't affect Bowl season and next year's football season I should be fine.

But, all that silliness aside, Andreessen has an analysis worth paying attention to.  He says this:

The writers' strike, and the studios' response to the strike, may radically accelerate a structural shift in the media industry -- a shift of power from studios and conglomerates towards creators and talent.

Friday Humor - Dave Letterman works the Drive-Thru Window at Taco Bell

On Fridays I like to share something humorous from time to time.  Today I've got a video of David Letterman working the drive thru at a Taco Bell.  For those of you who are looking for intelligent videos, Joe Carter has a bunch of them in his Outtakes of today.  For those of you who aren't looking for intelligence in the blogosphere, I'm your man - enjoy.

HT - Parentopia

Great comments on the media and the Va. Tech Massacre

Allow me to introduce the blog world to a colleague and good friend of mine - Glenn Parkinson, pastor of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Severna Park, MD.  Severna Park EP is the mother church of the church I now pastor and, as I said, Glenn has become a good friend and counselor to me since I have been here.

In his blog from April 18th he wrote some of the best words I have seen on the media and the Va. Tech. massacre.  Basically, our experience of this tragedy has been mediated and interpreted and our responses to it have been shaped by the media.  In doing so the media has taken on a "priestly" function that used to be that of the religious community.  Here's a good excerpt:

The nature of modern media – not just TV, but now the internet and cell phones – assures that selected crises can and will draw the attention of the entire nation. In other words, our own personal trials are no longer enough. Now, we must enter into the personal torment of others – others we do not know, and whose agonies are chosen for us by the whims of the larger media.

I suppose this only seems natural to generations who have watched thousands and thousands of brief stories on TV and in the movies, from westerns to comedies to dramas. Every one of them, from Gunsmoke to CSI, to Mash to Lord of the Rings, are designed to grip our souls and take us through a crisis to its resolution in one sitting. Before movies and TV, people would only be exposed to that kind of theatrical art on only a couple of occasions in a lifetime. Earlier, most drama had been in the form of reading, which invites the thoughtful, active participation of the reader, rather than the hotter medium of theater, which is much more passive for the participant.

Anyway, my point is that I wonder whether managed newscasting has added another dimension to modern theater, and that using theater to model our response to crisis has become our chief method for learning how to live. In other words, are we learning how to behave by imbibing scripted crises and watching how they are resolved?

If so, this is especially significant because in this country, Christian faith used to play a larger role in such a response, even in the media. This response included not only comfort and hope, but also humility before God’s judgment and supplication for his grace.

Now, however, secular institutions have largely taken over that “priestly” role. Alongside the traditional impact of TV and movies, the news media determines what emotionally stresses us, while the comments of institutional leaders and the reactions of the newscasters give us the cues that condition how to respond correctly.

Case in point: the memorial service at Virginia Tech. Representatives from four religious traditions – Islam, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian – all said essentially the same thing as the psychologist, which was that we simply had to hang in there and collectively cope with the insanity of life. No answers, no reason. Just the well meaning but ultimately empty encouragement to cling to others until you can once again get on with your own goals.

From there, Glenn goes on to talk about how we can offer a gospel based response.  Read the whole thing here.

Related Tags: Religion, Theology, Church, Christian, Christianity, Media, News, Current Affairs, Va. Tech., Virginia Tech, Va. Tech. Massacre, Virginia Tech Massacre

A World Without Christian Restraints

In First Things, Gerald J. Russello reviews the HBO series Rome and while he doesn't claim it is a perfect presentation of ancient Rome, gives it several kudos for it's portrayal.  He says this:

What was perhaps the most pro-Christian show on television did not have a single Christian character in it—and there was no way it could have. Rome, the hit series that has just completed its second (and for now final) season on the cable channel HBO, turned out to be a surprising affirmation of the Western religious tradition. While it is packed with sex and violence, its message—intended or not—is that the Roman world was desperate for Christianity.

And, after looking at the immorality and brutality that was so prevalent in ancient Rome, concludes with this:

These days, some contend that a world without Christian restraints would be more egalitarian, less violent, and more individualistic. But for those with a historical sense, Rome shows that another alternative is more likely. The classical world was not all marble columns and noble rhetoric. It was a world where the strong ruled, and those who could not conquer were themselves conquered. Far from being egalitarian, the only clear rule was inequality: between masters and slaves, husbands and wives, or plebeians and patricians. Those wishing to reject the West’s Christian heritage should take a hard look at what that world was like.

Hat Tip - Allen Thornburgh at The Point

Related Tags: Television, HBO, First Things, Religion, Theology, Culture, Rome, Ancient Rome, Christian, Christianity

Lost - Locke, the Pharisees and The Man Born Blind

I haven't posted much on Lost lately for a few reasons.  I TiVo it and sometimes don't get around to watching it till the week after it is shown.  Plus, I think the plot is still a little too labyrinthine to wrap up neatly.  Most of the theories I read seem to me to be more "pieces of the puzzle" than paradigms.

But I did want to comment on one thing in tonight's show, the first one I have watched on the same day shown in a while.  Others probably caught this, but in case you didn't, there is one parallel between one piece of dialog tonight and the story of the man born blind in John 9.

The dialog was between Locke and Ben, when they were in Ben's house and Locke told Ben he didn't deserve to be on the island, and he called him a hypocrite and a Pharisee.  Locke said that Ben didn't deserve to be on the island. I forget the details right now but it came out that Ben is interested in Locke because Locke has been healed by the island of a back injury.  Ben, on the other hand, had this disease of the back and was not healing very quickly after Jack's surgery.  At one point Ben mentioned that he had been on this island his whole life, suggesting that he was entitled to the healing.

Treating Prostitutes with Dignity

Drew Goodmanson relates a story which was told by his pastor, David Fairchild, on how the gospel compelled a prior group of Christians to treat prostitutes with dignity.

There was an old preacher in Wales in 1735 which none of us have probably heard of because his messages were in Welsch.  His name was Daniel Rolands.  He was an Episcopal minister who was spiritually dead.  No one liked his messages; his church was dying.  He thought Christianity meant being a moral person.

He went to hear a man preach who was visiting, who said, “The determining factor in your relationship with God is not what you have done, but what Christ has done for you.  It is grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone.”  Daniel went back and thought about this for a month, until one night he was taking communion and this truth exploded in his heart.  He realized what Christ had done for him and it became a power to him.