Earlier this week I heard a familiar statement. It came from the food industry but it theoretically applies across the board. A farmer was being interviewed about the generally unhealthy nature of the food that we eat and especially the conditions under which poultry and lifestock are mass produced. The farmer said something like this... We could produce healthier food sources. We could feed cattle what cattle were meant to be fed. We could raise free range chickens. We could produce, market and distribute whole grains. All it would take is demand...
Behind the farmer's comments is an idea, an ideal really. It is the ideal of the free market economics. In free market economics, no one is ultimately responsible. The individual is but a dot on the page, a fraction of a data point. What matters is the aggregate. The sum of many data points and how they trend. The farmer's explanation for the unhealthy food that is produced and consumed in our society is us. Look, he is saying, if people didn't want things like soda and potato chips and cheap beef, then it just wouldn't be produced. If there is not a market for it, then it is wouldn't be here.
I'm going to set the reasoning aside here while we consider some of the other things that we must really, really want... Things like exhorbitant health care costs and NBA players with guns. Things like eight-hour school days and thirty-percent tax brackets. Things like ten-percent unemployment and jobs that pay seven dollars an hour with no benefits. If free market economics is truly the best decision making mechanism that we've got, then it seems to me that we need to get a little bit more excited about things like sweat shops and gang crime and homelessness. Right? Isn't that the way the argument works? If we've got it, then this must be what we're demanding...
While I think that I understand what the farmer is trying to say, I also think that it is not especially imaginative. Essentially, he is saying, Look, give me something more wholesome to do with my time and energy and I'm glad to change my ways. O.K., but is not part of the responsibilty also on the producer and business man or woman? Aren't they supposed to help us with our tastes? Because it sure seems that they spend a lot of time and money trying to influence them. What I mean here is how exactly do things like advertising and lobbying fit into the whole free market thing? How is that the people can be both the data and the the excuse for it?
For example, I recently gathered with a group of people in a Bible study and we were talking about the recent disaster in Haiti and some of the bizzare comments that have come out about the earthquake. We noted that there was certainly some corruption going on down there. While none of us were ready to suggest that the earthquake was connected to this, we did imagine that perhaps something better could rise from the rubble... But as we discussed this, I immediately thought about the lobbying system in our own country. Lobbies are real and they are very powerful. Even though most people would not equate them with corruption, it seems to me that they certainly skew the free market.
Lobbyists do not represent the people. They represent the people who are trying to sell things to the people. Of course, this is perfectly legal in our society but my question is this: don't things like power and influence affect the data? The farmer seems to suggest that someone is holding out a chicken to us. He knows that it is poisonous and he knows that he could offer a better example but also knows he doesn't have to. Because we appear to be quite happy with the poisonous one. Never mind the fact that most of us don't know the difference. Never mind the fact that he's got billboards and radio spots and television ads dolling up that chicken and sitting it next to our favorite movie stars and professional athletes. Never mind that he is paying lobbyists untold millions to make sure that no one ever raises issue over whether or not we should be eating this stuff.
I am not saying that it's not our fault. I'm just saying that it's not really as it seems. It's not ONLY about supply and demand, markets and taste...
"Poison in the Well" 10,000 Maniacs
Tell me what's gone wrong.
I tilt my head there, under the faucet, but when I turn it on -- dry as paper. Call the neighbors.
Who's to blame for what's going on?
In the dark without a clue I'm just the same as you.
O, they tell us there's poison in the well,
that someone's been a bit untidy and there's been a small spill.
Not a lot, no, just a drop.
But there you are mistaken, you know you are.
I wonder just how long they knew our well was poisoned but they let us just drink on.
O, they tell us there's poison in the well,
that someone's been a bit untidy and there's been a small spill.
All that it amounts to is a tear in a salted sea.
Someone's been a bit untidy, they'll have it cleaned up in a week.
But the week is over and now it's grown into years
since I was told that I should be calm, there's nothing to fear here.
But I drank that water for years, my wife and my children.
Tell me, where to now,
if your fight for a bearable life can be fought and lost in you backyard?
O, don't tell us there's poison in the well,
that someone's been a bit untidy, that there's been a small spill.
All that it amounts to is a tear in a salted sea.
Someone's been a bit untidy, they'll have it cleaned up in a week.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Damned if we do
...'But to what will I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, "We played the flute for you and you did not dance; we wailed you did not mourn." For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "he has a demon"; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, "Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners!" Matthew 11:16-19
Jesus gets us, doesn't he? Although I do not know the specific circumstances to which he is speaking here, it is not hard to imagine, is it? We're kinda like this aren't we? We may not know what we want but at least it won't takes us long to get over it.
It was 14 degrees in Charlotte yesterday. The view from the Portico is bleak. So I figure it's either Lou Reed or Tiger Woods. It's been a day or so since I've heard a talking head or read an Internet headline referencing our latest hero turned villian so perhaps it's safe to offer some considerations about this blood bath.
Actually, I did see one blurb about Tiger, it was a quote by Mel Gibson. "I feel sorry for Tiger Woods...Why are we talking about this when we're sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan? ... He's being used as a diversion, and it just drives me crazy."
I came by this via a CNN headline but the link took me to an article that had actually come from "People" Magazine which was apparently quoting Britain's, "Mail on Sunday Live." I will save all that for a warmer day but you might want to go back and read that last sentence just so you can see it in your mind... That's CNN tagging "People" on a juicy connection in which it was citing a lesser known tabloid. In case you're counting, that's fourth-hand news reporting. And what's the news? That would be one recent media-maligned celebrity commenting on another.
Anyway, I liked the quote. Not that the statement is terribly profound but that it is coming from one of the last guys we crucified. It looks like Mel Gibson is still kicking and he has a new revenge movie out so he's either been resurrected or at least sufficiently mutilated to merit our collective satisfaction.
I recently heard someone say that if Tiger would just "confess and repent" then the American people would forgive him. The person was entirely serious--as though Tiger might stand up on public television and tell us all how sorry he is and that by doing this, it will allow us to get back to the good ole days where he is winning and he is our hero. I heard someone else say that Tiger is a Buddhist. Is that right? (I'll check "People.") Anyway, let's set that aside for now. So this must be how it works. We, the attentive public are the new priesthood. Guided by the tabloids, we worship. We learn when to look up and when to look down... When to gather stones for the altar and when to cast them at whoever we've placed upon it...
I suspect that what is really going on here is just some kind of vile consumption--of anything and everything. Celebrities have become both the saviors and the sacrificial lambs of our time...
If i could stick my pen in my heart
And spill it all over the stage
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would you think the boy is strange? ain't he strange?
If i could win ya, if i could sing ya
A love song so divine
Would it be enough for your cheating heart
If i broke down and cried? if i cried?
I said i know it's only rock 'n roll but i like it...
If i could stick a knife in my heart
Suicide right on stage
Would it be enough for your teenage lust
Would it help to ease the pain? ease your brain?
If i could dig down deep in my heart
Feelings would flood on the page
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would ya think the boy's insane? he's insane
I said i know it's only rock 'n roll but i like it..
(m. jagger/k. richards)
Jesus gets us, doesn't he? Although I do not know the specific circumstances to which he is speaking here, it is not hard to imagine, is it? We're kinda like this aren't we? We may not know what we want but at least it won't takes us long to get over it.
It was 14 degrees in Charlotte yesterday. The view from the Portico is bleak. So I figure it's either Lou Reed or Tiger Woods. It's been a day or so since I've heard a talking head or read an Internet headline referencing our latest hero turned villian so perhaps it's safe to offer some considerations about this blood bath.
Actually, I did see one blurb about Tiger, it was a quote by Mel Gibson. "I feel sorry for Tiger Woods...Why are we talking about this when we're sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan? ... He's being used as a diversion, and it just drives me crazy."
I came by this via a CNN headline but the link took me to an article that had actually come from "People" Magazine which was apparently quoting Britain's, "Mail on Sunday Live." I will save all that for a warmer day but you might want to go back and read that last sentence just so you can see it in your mind... That's CNN tagging "People" on a juicy connection in which it was citing a lesser known tabloid. In case you're counting, that's fourth-hand news reporting. And what's the news? That would be one recent media-maligned celebrity commenting on another.
Anyway, I liked the quote. Not that the statement is terribly profound but that it is coming from one of the last guys we crucified. It looks like Mel Gibson is still kicking and he has a new revenge movie out so he's either been resurrected or at least sufficiently mutilated to merit our collective satisfaction.
I recently heard someone say that if Tiger would just "confess and repent" then the American people would forgive him. The person was entirely serious--as though Tiger might stand up on public television and tell us all how sorry he is and that by doing this, it will allow us to get back to the good ole days where he is winning and he is our hero. I heard someone else say that Tiger is a Buddhist. Is that right? (I'll check "People.") Anyway, let's set that aside for now. So this must be how it works. We, the attentive public are the new priesthood. Guided by the tabloids, we worship. We learn when to look up and when to look down... When to gather stones for the altar and when to cast them at whoever we've placed upon it...
I suspect that what is really going on here is just some kind of vile consumption--of anything and everything. Celebrities have become both the saviors and the sacrificial lambs of our time...
If i could stick my pen in my heart
And spill it all over the stage
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would you think the boy is strange? ain't he strange?
If i could win ya, if i could sing ya
A love song so divine
Would it be enough for your cheating heart
If i broke down and cried? if i cried?
I said i know it's only rock 'n roll but i like it...
If i could stick a knife in my heart
Suicide right on stage
Would it be enough for your teenage lust
Would it help to ease the pain? ease your brain?
If i could dig down deep in my heart
Feelings would flood on the page
Would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya
Would ya think the boy's insane? he's insane
I said i know it's only rock 'n roll but i like it..
(m. jagger/k. richards)
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The Generation X Pop Quiz
It seems like yesterday when the culture was flooded with Baby-Boomer themes. Hippies, Yuppies and Dinks... "The Wonder Years," and "Thirty Something"... Bill Clinton and George W. Bush... Remember when everything was about "them?" Of course, if you're one of them, you probably didn't notice but the rest of us sort of had to suffer through what seemed to be an endless stretch of indulgence.
Occasionally, we'd hear talk of the "next" generation. This, of course, meant people born after the Boomers; Generation X as it has been so affectionately named. These were kids who were known primarily for what they were not. Specifically, they were not part of the greatest generation to have ever graced the planet. Due to their (our) unfortunate point of birth, the expectations have proven to be appropriately low... Low ambition...Low SAT scores... Low standards... In contrast to our energetic elders who seemed to be shaking things up since they came out of the womb, Xers are typically known for our lack of enthusiasm. While the Boomers were collectively making the world after themselves, we have tended to prefer individual sports like playing video games and watching MTV. Although perpetually harangued over the disappointment, prior generations are getting used to the response...Whatever.
This has all been a curious experience for me, perhaps because I was born in 1964--the very year that neither generation wants to claim. Some mark 1964 as the end of the Baby Boomers; others insist it is the beginning of Generation X. And I've got to admit it, at times I have identified with both groups and their respective causes. And now, as the world passes to yet another generation (they've been dubbed The Millennials), I find this whole generation thing a bit overstated. But before we find our world completely turned over to folks who were raised on Barney and Hip Hop, let's revisit the lost generation one last time.
Here is a quiz to see what we know about Generation X. It is not exhaustive and you will have to keep your own score. Disappointed? Shut Up Beavis!
1. What was the first video ever played on MTV? (5 points)
2. Who are the latch-key kids? (3 points)
3. Name one or more members of Nirvana not named Kurt Cobain? (5 points for each)
4. Which of the following were Gen X styles? (5 points if correct, none if incorrect)
a. leather ties
b. plaid shoes
c. flannel shirts
d. a and c
e. all of the above
5. What are the names of the Pacman ghosts? (1 point per correct, minus 1 for wrong answer)
6. Who are Steve, Stephen and Bill? (5 points if entirely correct)
7. Name four films starring Eric Stoltz (1 point per correct)
8. Who were the original MTV VJs (2 points per correct)
9. Name the only Heather who wasn't named Heather? (5 points)
10. What is a Mallrat? (1 point or 5 points)
11. Who taught American History at Ridgemont High? (5 points)
12. True or False: Most Gen Xers are more interested in owning a PC than they are in being PC? (5 points)
13. What are the first and last names of the two main characters of the X-files? (2 points each)
14. What was Jeremy's nickname in the 1991 Pearl Jam hit? (5 points)
15. Name the eight typically cited members of the "Brat Pack." (1 point for every correct)
Answers...
1 "Video Killed The Radio Star" If you didn't get this one, it might be a long quiz
2. The Xers! If you came home from school and no one was there, you might be from my neighborhood
3. Krist (or Chris) Novoselic and one of several drummers but most notably Dave Grohl
4. The answer is E. Gen X fashion included many styles from new wave to grunge
5. Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde [Sue belonged to Ms. Pacman]
6. Steve Jobs, Stephen Wozniak and Bill Gates... These guys are Boomers but most Gen Xers would recognize thier names
7. He was born in 1961 but we will claim him.
8. Nina Blackwood, Mark Goodman, Alan Hunter, J.J. Jackson and Martha Quinn
9. "Veronica" Winona Ryder works too
10. If you said a kid hanging out at a mall, you get one. If you reference the classic 1995 film, you get five!
11. Mr. Hand!!! Don't ya remember learning about Cuba and having some food? C'mon Dude!
12. True. If you missed this, your not from th th th their generation.
13. Fox Mulder and Dana Scully
14. King Jeremy The Wicked
15. Anthony Michael Hall, Emilio Estevez, Rob Lowe, Andrew McCarthy, Demi Moore, Judd Nelson, Molly Ringwald and Ally Sheedy
How did you do?
Above 50: Not Bad
Above 60: Pretty Good
Above 70: Careful Now
Above 80 Whatever
Occasionally, we'd hear talk of the "next" generation. This, of course, meant people born after the Boomers; Generation X as it has been so affectionately named. These were kids who were known primarily for what they were not. Specifically, they were not part of the greatest generation to have ever graced the planet. Due to their (our) unfortunate point of birth, the expectations have proven to be appropriately low... Low ambition...Low SAT scores... Low standards... In contrast to our energetic elders who seemed to be shaking things up since they came out of the womb, Xers are typically known for our lack of enthusiasm. While the Boomers were collectively making the world after themselves, we have tended to prefer individual sports like playing video games and watching MTV. Although perpetually harangued over the disappointment, prior generations are getting used to the response...Whatever.
This has all been a curious experience for me, perhaps because I was born in 1964--the very year that neither generation wants to claim. Some mark 1964 as the end of the Baby Boomers; others insist it is the beginning of Generation X. And I've got to admit it, at times I have identified with both groups and their respective causes. And now, as the world passes to yet another generation (they've been dubbed The Millennials), I find this whole generation thing a bit overstated. But before we find our world completely turned over to folks who were raised on Barney and Hip Hop, let's revisit the lost generation one last time.
Here is a quiz to see what we know about Generation X. It is not exhaustive and you will have to keep your own score. Disappointed? Shut Up Beavis!
1. What was the first video ever played on MTV? (5 points)
2. Who are the latch-key kids? (3 points)
3. Name one or more members of Nirvana not named Kurt Cobain? (5 points for each)
4. Which of the following were Gen X styles? (5 points if correct, none if incorrect)
a. leather ties
b. plaid shoes
c. flannel shirts
d. a and c
e. all of the above
5. What are the names of the Pacman ghosts? (1 point per correct, minus 1 for wrong answer)
6. Who are Steve, Stephen and Bill? (5 points if entirely correct)
7. Name four films starring Eric Stoltz (1 point per correct)
8. Who were the original MTV VJs (2 points per correct)
9. Name the only Heather who wasn't named Heather? (5 points)
10. What is a Mallrat? (1 point or 5 points)
11. Who taught American History at Ridgemont High? (5 points)
12. True or False: Most Gen Xers are more interested in owning a PC than they are in being PC? (5 points)
13. What are the first and last names of the two main characters of the X-files? (2 points each)
14. What was Jeremy's nickname in the 1991 Pearl Jam hit? (5 points)
15. Name the eight typically cited members of the "Brat Pack." (1 point for every correct)
Answers...
1 "Video Killed The Radio Star" If you didn't get this one, it might be a long quiz
2. The Xers! If you came home from school and no one was there, you might be from my neighborhood
3. Krist (or Chris) Novoselic and one of several drummers but most notably Dave Grohl
4. The answer is E. Gen X fashion included many styles from new wave to grunge
5. Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde [Sue belonged to Ms. Pacman]
6. Steve Jobs, Stephen Wozniak and Bill Gates... These guys are Boomers but most Gen Xers would recognize thier names
7. He was born in 1961 but we will claim him.
8. Nina Blackwood, Mark Goodman, Alan Hunter, J.J. Jackson and Martha Quinn
9. "Veronica" Winona Ryder works too
10. If you said a kid hanging out at a mall, you get one. If you reference the classic 1995 film, you get five!
11. Mr. Hand!!! Don't ya remember learning about Cuba and having some food? C'mon Dude!
12. True. If you missed this, your not from th th th their generation.
13. Fox Mulder and Dana Scully
14. King Jeremy The Wicked
15. Anthony Michael Hall, Emilio Estevez, Rob Lowe, Andrew McCarthy, Demi Moore, Judd Nelson, Molly Ringwald and Ally Sheedy
How did you do?
Above 50: Not Bad
Above 60: Pretty Good
Above 70: Careful Now
Above 80 Whatever
Monday, December 28, 2009
Morning After Blues and Reds
I figured that I would be writing on "AVATAR" this morning. But I saw that the film grossed $212 Million in its first five days so it would appear that there's no one left for me to tell about it. I praised the story in my sermon yesterday and now kinda wish I hadn't. Not because I have had a change of heart but because the scope of the film really doesn't lend itself to five minute summaries. I only hope that the people in the parish pursue any questions that the comments might have inspired.
One interesting thing that I will share is that the film immediately reminded me of "Dances with Wolves" not only because the subject matter was similar but because of the way that I felt after the film was over. I saw Costner's film the night it opened with my wife and another couple who were close friends. I remember feeling strongly that what we had just experienced was much more than a movie. That there was a mythical transcendence about the story and the message (or messages) within it. I felt as though I understood. I also sensed that understanding would demand a lingering sense of sadness and regret. And I frankly doubted that my movie-going companions would be up to this. And indeed what most people recall about that film was the cinematography.
"AVATAR" is a little different because twenty years later, it is nearly impossible to make a film that is not first about entertainment. And yet, the elements are still there. This is a story that people should experience. It is transcendent. But unlike "Dances with Wolves," the transcendence is more hopeful. I am not yet sure what this means but if $212 million worth of people have already seen this story, it will be interesting to see if its legacy transcends the dazzling technological marvel. The element of hope that the story offers is quite powerful and well beyond the cheesy examples that we have come to expect from feel-good movies. People will no-doubt feel good after seeing "AVATAR" but they will have also witnessed something pretty new in the process. I hope people allow their hearts to weigh the story.
Speaking of which... We just finished the annual pilgrimage to Bethlehem--which for many is a lot like going to the movies. And because most people don't see the need to see a movie more than once a year, my expectations are generally pretty low for the Sunday after Christmas. Yet much to my surprise, the Whos were out in numbers yesterday. Despite the commercial overkill and the now familiar anticlimactic thud that arrives on the 25th, the faithful of Saint Francis were there to greet the actual season of Christmas... The fanfare had come and gone; yet, the people returned. Puzzling...
And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store? What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more?
Here are some more comments on the wonder that is Christmas.
http://quotations.about.com/od/specialdays/a/christmas5.htm
One interesting thing that I will share is that the film immediately reminded me of "Dances with Wolves" not only because the subject matter was similar but because of the way that I felt after the film was over. I saw Costner's film the night it opened with my wife and another couple who were close friends. I remember feeling strongly that what we had just experienced was much more than a movie. That there was a mythical transcendence about the story and the message (or messages) within it. I felt as though I understood. I also sensed that understanding would demand a lingering sense of sadness and regret. And I frankly doubted that my movie-going companions would be up to this. And indeed what most people recall about that film was the cinematography.
"AVATAR" is a little different because twenty years later, it is nearly impossible to make a film that is not first about entertainment. And yet, the elements are still there. This is a story that people should experience. It is transcendent. But unlike "Dances with Wolves," the transcendence is more hopeful. I am not yet sure what this means but if $212 million worth of people have already seen this story, it will be interesting to see if its legacy transcends the dazzling technological marvel. The element of hope that the story offers is quite powerful and well beyond the cheesy examples that we have come to expect from feel-good movies. People will no-doubt feel good after seeing "AVATAR" but they will have also witnessed something pretty new in the process. I hope people allow their hearts to weigh the story.
Speaking of which... We just finished the annual pilgrimage to Bethlehem--which for many is a lot like going to the movies. And because most people don't see the need to see a movie more than once a year, my expectations are generally pretty low for the Sunday after Christmas. Yet much to my surprise, the Whos were out in numbers yesterday. Despite the commercial overkill and the now familiar anticlimactic thud that arrives on the 25th, the faithful of Saint Francis were there to greet the actual season of Christmas... The fanfare had come and gone; yet, the people returned. Puzzling...
And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store? What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more?
Here are some more comments on the wonder that is Christmas.
http://quotations.about.com/od/specialdays/a/christmas5.htm
Monday, December 21, 2009
What is real
I watched the final episode of Survivor last night. I'd never seen the show before. But as I was flipping through the channels looking for a mindless way to conclude a long Sunday, I came upon a compelling picture of a tropical paradise. Nothing like big screens and HD to change your value system. I am always raging against the evils of television but seeing that crystal clear image of white sands and turquoise waters, I happily sat my butt down for two and a half hours. I am sure the tan bodies had nothing to do with it.
I have mixed feelings about the digital age. I am amazed by the clarity. My television works better than my eyes do. And that is not an exaggeration. I honestly do not see well enough to fully appreciate things like 1080i (whatever that means) but what I can see--especially on channels like Discovery and Smithsonian--simply blows me away. But at the same time, if I think much about it, I always get creeped out. I have serious doubts about digital representations of the world. Something tells me that they are not real.
Part of the reason for this is that I shot film photography for years. When digital cameras started showing up, I held them in disdain partly because I was something of a purist and a zenophobe but also because something told me that digital photography was completely unreal. Of course, my holdout didn't exactly slow the transition. Technology sort of works like that. It's kind of like an invading army or a virus. It sort of has to run its course. And sometimes that means completely taking over. I watched as the pixels went up and up. I saw how handy it was to put pictures on computers instead of paper. And most of all, I could not deny the quality. It was a trifecta. Quality, Convenience and Price... I purchased a Nikon D90 earlier this fall and I have not been disappointed. Still though. It's all sorta creepy. I am not sure how it works but the image sure looks a lot like what I am pointing the camera at--just better.
A woman named Natalie won Survivor. It was an upset. She appeared to be the meakest person left on the island, cowering behind Russell the arrogant and manipulative alpha male. But all that expediency came back to bite Russell as he sat before the jury. Of course the jury was made up of people Russell had lied to and disposed of earlier in the contest. In the end, the jury had little to work with. The nine judges had to choose a winner from three dispicable people. It was either going to be Russell who plowed his way through and over everyone else on his way to the finish line or one of his two coat-tailed submissives. Mick was apparently a non-option altogether receiving zero of the nine votes. Natalie was finally chosen because her cowardess appeared more forgiving than Russell's arrogance.
As I said this was the only episode that I saw. I am sure that there were other people in the contest that might have been more deserving of the million dollar prize but given that these folks had long been eliminated, I guess Natalie was the best choice. I have this theory about good-looking women who sell pharmaceuticals and copiers... Perhaps the saddest moment was the very end of the show. After the votes had been cast and everyone had the opportunity to go home, shower and return to the LA studio for the final announcemnt of the winner. Mick, Russell and everyone else showed up pretty much as we remembered them from the show but Natalie was frankly unrecognizable. She had her hair done and enough make up to smother every tiki torch on the island. I tried to imagine who had made this decision. Was she hoping to parlay her 39 days on Samoa in to somekind of Hollywood acting contract or did she really believe that she looked better as a Barbie? And how does the answer to that question relate to this whole business of surviving?
At the beginning of the show, I sort of got hooked. I told my wife that I thought I could do this "Survivor" thing. But as the show wore on, I was reminded of what was really happening. In the end of the day, these people were on TV. I think I might be able to handle eating the bugs and suffering the elements and even dealing with the personalities. But being turned into a zillion dots of light simply for entertaining the masses? That would probably kill me.
I have mixed feelings about the digital age. I am amazed by the clarity. My television works better than my eyes do. And that is not an exaggeration. I honestly do not see well enough to fully appreciate things like 1080i (whatever that means) but what I can see--especially on channels like Discovery and Smithsonian--simply blows me away. But at the same time, if I think much about it, I always get creeped out. I have serious doubts about digital representations of the world. Something tells me that they are not real.
Part of the reason for this is that I shot film photography for years. When digital cameras started showing up, I held them in disdain partly because I was something of a purist and a zenophobe but also because something told me that digital photography was completely unreal. Of course, my holdout didn't exactly slow the transition. Technology sort of works like that. It's kind of like an invading army or a virus. It sort of has to run its course. And sometimes that means completely taking over. I watched as the pixels went up and up. I saw how handy it was to put pictures on computers instead of paper. And most of all, I could not deny the quality. It was a trifecta. Quality, Convenience and Price... I purchased a Nikon D90 earlier this fall and I have not been disappointed. Still though. It's all sorta creepy. I am not sure how it works but the image sure looks a lot like what I am pointing the camera at--just better.
A woman named Natalie won Survivor. It was an upset. She appeared to be the meakest person left on the island, cowering behind Russell the arrogant and manipulative alpha male. But all that expediency came back to bite Russell as he sat before the jury. Of course the jury was made up of people Russell had lied to and disposed of earlier in the contest. In the end, the jury had little to work with. The nine judges had to choose a winner from three dispicable people. It was either going to be Russell who plowed his way through and over everyone else on his way to the finish line or one of his two coat-tailed submissives. Mick was apparently a non-option altogether receiving zero of the nine votes. Natalie was finally chosen because her cowardess appeared more forgiving than Russell's arrogance.
As I said this was the only episode that I saw. I am sure that there were other people in the contest that might have been more deserving of the million dollar prize but given that these folks had long been eliminated, I guess Natalie was the best choice. I have this theory about good-looking women who sell pharmaceuticals and copiers... Perhaps the saddest moment was the very end of the show. After the votes had been cast and everyone had the opportunity to go home, shower and return to the LA studio for the final announcemnt of the winner. Mick, Russell and everyone else showed up pretty much as we remembered them from the show but Natalie was frankly unrecognizable. She had her hair done and enough make up to smother every tiki torch on the island. I tried to imagine who had made this decision. Was she hoping to parlay her 39 days on Samoa in to somekind of Hollywood acting contract or did she really believe that she looked better as a Barbie? And how does the answer to that question relate to this whole business of surviving?
At the beginning of the show, I sort of got hooked. I told my wife that I thought I could do this "Survivor" thing. But as the show wore on, I was reminded of what was really happening. In the end of the day, these people were on TV. I think I might be able to handle eating the bugs and suffering the elements and even dealing with the personalities. But being turned into a zillion dots of light simply for entertaining the masses? That would probably kill me.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Peace on Earth
Yesterday was the third Sunday of Advent. Perhaps you have witnessed the progressive lighting of candles either at your current place of worship or at some point in your spiritual past. I first encountered the Advent wreath as a child. Our family was asked to light the candles and do the readings a couple of times. I remember trying to figure out all those weeks and themes. Even as a pastor, I often have to check back to make sure that I have it right. After briefly consulting the sources out there, it appears that the prevailing order of the themes are: Hope, Peace, Joy and Love. While each of these are worthy postures and celebrations, today I want to say a word or two about the second. I am probably doing this as much for confession as anything else.
When I began my ministry some twenty-plus years ago, peace was a central theme not merely of Advent but of my deepest understanding of Christianity. Three wars and twenty years later, I am not even sure I deserve to say the word anymore. Our world, and the Church as well, have gone in for a way of life that is decidedly not peaceful. Whether or not this is acceptable in God's sight remains to be seen. But for someone who's call to the ministry was closely tied to the coming and reign of the Prince of Peace, our contemporary comfort with war, violence and discord is a quieting reality. I live in this world and I accept that I am certainly contributing to the horrors but if the truth be told, I am far from comfortable with this.
Last week they gave the Nobel Prize for peace to the commander in chief. This has happened before. So what I say here is not so much about the chief as it is about us and about the world in which we live. What does it mean that the most peaceful person we can find is a war-time leader of the most powerful empire in the world? And did you read some of the comments from that speech? It takes rhetorical skill (and sizable kahunas) to thank the world for a Peace Prize while simultaneously laying out an argument for war. I was also a little concerned about his reference to "rules of conduct." Of course, this was an entirely political statement and perhaps understandable given the recent past. But it is still tragic, especially given the context. When we're listening to a man of peace suggest that there are rules to war, we can probably trust that we are listening to the voice of the empire.
I hope that this is not offensive to anyone. It has frankly been a long time since I have said something worthy of offending the powers of this world. But that is really the point of the blog here. It is a confessional. Where is the Church of Peace? Where are the peacemakers of our time? Where are the followers of Christ who believe that the path of discipleship is greater than the path of might?
When I began my ministry some twenty-plus years ago, peace was a central theme not merely of Advent but of my deepest understanding of Christianity. Three wars and twenty years later, I am not even sure I deserve to say the word anymore. Our world, and the Church as well, have gone in for a way of life that is decidedly not peaceful. Whether or not this is acceptable in God's sight remains to be seen. But for someone who's call to the ministry was closely tied to the coming and reign of the Prince of Peace, our contemporary comfort with war, violence and discord is a quieting reality. I live in this world and I accept that I am certainly contributing to the horrors but if the truth be told, I am far from comfortable with this.
Last week they gave the Nobel Prize for peace to the commander in chief. This has happened before. So what I say here is not so much about the chief as it is about us and about the world in which we live. What does it mean that the most peaceful person we can find is a war-time leader of the most powerful empire in the world? And did you read some of the comments from that speech? It takes rhetorical skill (and sizable kahunas) to thank the world for a Peace Prize while simultaneously laying out an argument for war. I was also a little concerned about his reference to "rules of conduct." Of course, this was an entirely political statement and perhaps understandable given the recent past. But it is still tragic, especially given the context. When we're listening to a man of peace suggest that there are rules to war, we can probably trust that we are listening to the voice of the empire.
I hope that this is not offensive to anyone. It has frankly been a long time since I have said something worthy of offending the powers of this world. But that is really the point of the blog here. It is a confessional. Where is the Church of Peace? Where are the peacemakers of our time? Where are the followers of Christ who believe that the path of discipleship is greater than the path of might?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Saving the Planet
This is an important week, at least in terms of world politics. The gathering in Copenhagen to address the issue of climate change is an important event no matter what we might think about the question. This is a gathering of world figures around a discussion that apparently concerns us all--not all the people in the room or all the people in the nation or in a particular region but in the world. Again, I do not know whether or not the gathering merits the urgency that seems to surround it but in some ways it makes no difference. The fact that there are this many people, representing this many countries gathered to one place to discuss anything at all is monumental. Or so it seems to me.
The title of my blog is purposeful to the extent that I wanted to echo the emotional tone of the discussion. I recently was listening to a radio news show that was covering the summit in Copenhagen. It began with the voices of children. They were clearly representing different countries and many were speaking a language that was not their native tongue. Yet, each child said the same thing, and in English: Please save the world...
It is always a risk to get children to do our bidding for us. The image of children spurs strong emotions. But it is not easy to predict which emotions will emerge. For example, consider the "Children's Crusade" of the middle period. Sending children to do the bidding of the Church or bring the message of God might initially sound charming but give it some time and it turns a bit--mostly in the stomach. The picture of kids entering the Holy Land to face the same hostile forces that already slaughtered thousands of adults is likely to inspire a few descriptives but charming is probably not one of them.
Such was my impression of hearing the voices of children proclaiming the urgency of the Conference on Climate Change. Not so much because it was personally dangerous but because it was such a blatant example of exploitation. Whatever comes out of Copenhagen is destined to be both controversial and politically charged. There are going to be some people who are happy and some people who are furious about whatever happens next. Why would you want to associate children with this. No matter what it is going to appear exploitative... because it is...
But some might argue that why not play every card available. After all, isn't this a matter of life and death? Should we not use every resource at our disposal to drive home the serious nature of this issue???? My answer here would be "no." Using children is not OK for any crusade--no matter how righteous it might appear. In addition to the example above, here are two more reasons.
First, my point here has nothing to do with the question of global warming or its urgency. Of course, children are going to suffer whatever the future brings. Reminding delegates or watchers of this only insults their intelligence and calls their integrity into question. Call me idealistic but I just sort of assume that anyone who is attending something called, "The United Nations Climate Change Conference," has at least some authentic interest in future generations.
Second, "Please Save The World" is a hugely unfaithful thing to say. Therefore, putting such words in the mouths of children is especially despicable. I think most Christians would accept that humans cannot save the world. But it is equally true that humans cannot destroy the world. We might wreak havoc on the plant but just as we did not make the world, it is neither our's to destroy. That work belongs to God.
This point was brought home to me twice in my lifetime by two very different people. The first was a liberal Christian pastor. The second was an orthodox Christian theologian.
Some twenty-five years ago, I was driving in a car on the way to Colorado with a friend. He and I and a number of others were going to Estes Park to climb Long's Peak. I had just finished college and was attending Divinity School so my mind was alive with ideas and my spirit was filled with purity. At one point, I began talking about the environment and how humans tear it up so well. I don't know what sparked my enthusiasm exactly; perhaps we were passing a feed lot or something. There are certainly plenty of examples of the topic on the road from Des Moines to Estes Park.
Anyway, I raged on for a few minutes about everything from water pollution to strip mining. I finally stopped to catch my breadth and wait for an atta-boy from my mentor. But instead he said something that rather surprised me. He said, I think you underestimate the earth. It's taken everything that we've thrown at it thus far. The planet has a marvelous way of healing itself...
WHAT?! I thought to myself. How is this helping? Why isn't this guy sharing my righteous indignation? But I had just enough humility left to think a little about what I had just heard... And I've been thinking about it ever since.
Then about a year later I was sitting back in class at the Divinity School. Our professor was talking to us about the arrogance of modern Christianity. He said, many people in the Church would have you believe that it's all up to us--the proclamation, the poor, the planet--it's not. We're just creatures here. This is God's world to make, to judge, to redeem... We don't have the authority to destroy the world. That's God's business.
The first time we hear something like this, we say, "of course but." The of course means that while we acknowledge God...it is sort of a mute point because we're the only ones here--the only ones who can have an impact... But the real of course is that this is an unfaithful thing to say. If we truly believe that this is God's world then does this not mean that it will always be God's world? That at any given moment it remains God's world? And so, while our influence might appear profound to us; all is probably not as we imagine.
Now, does this mean that we should not be concerned about things like Global Warming? Or, that we should not gather with other nations to discuss better and worse ways to live and work and behave on the planet? Of course not. But it does change the starting point. While I am not especially excited about an urgent gathering to "save the world;" I can certainly see the value of an urgent gathering to rethink our place on it and our relation to it... To speak of our role as faithful stewards and humble servants of the God's generous trust.
Things like exploitation and pollution are just plain wrong quite without threatening the end of civilization. These things should have our attention long before we hear the voices of children or threats concerning the end of the world. That's the confession--that it takes such hyperbole to capture our interest... But the Good News is that God is God and this really is God's world. And the earth, which is part of God's world, is pretty amazing. Though we humans tend to be quite impressed with ourselves and, in this case, our ability to break things; the fact is, we have only been around for a few thousand years. The earth has seen things that we have never seen. It has endured things--truly catastrophic things--that we might not even be able to imagine.
As humans, we surely might be in danger of destroying ourselves...we always are... But we're really not in a position to destroy God's world.
The title of my blog is purposeful to the extent that I wanted to echo the emotional tone of the discussion. I recently was listening to a radio news show that was covering the summit in Copenhagen. It began with the voices of children. They were clearly representing different countries and many were speaking a language that was not their native tongue. Yet, each child said the same thing, and in English: Please save the world...
It is always a risk to get children to do our bidding for us. The image of children spurs strong emotions. But it is not easy to predict which emotions will emerge. For example, consider the "Children's Crusade" of the middle period. Sending children to do the bidding of the Church or bring the message of God might initially sound charming but give it some time and it turns a bit--mostly in the stomach. The picture of kids entering the Holy Land to face the same hostile forces that already slaughtered thousands of adults is likely to inspire a few descriptives but charming is probably not one of them.
Such was my impression of hearing the voices of children proclaiming the urgency of the Conference on Climate Change. Not so much because it was personally dangerous but because it was such a blatant example of exploitation. Whatever comes out of Copenhagen is destined to be both controversial and politically charged. There are going to be some people who are happy and some people who are furious about whatever happens next. Why would you want to associate children with this. No matter what it is going to appear exploitative... because it is...
But some might argue that why not play every card available. After all, isn't this a matter of life and death? Should we not use every resource at our disposal to drive home the serious nature of this issue???? My answer here would be "no." Using children is not OK for any crusade--no matter how righteous it might appear. In addition to the example above, here are two more reasons.
First, my point here has nothing to do with the question of global warming or its urgency. Of course, children are going to suffer whatever the future brings. Reminding delegates or watchers of this only insults their intelligence and calls their integrity into question. Call me idealistic but I just sort of assume that anyone who is attending something called, "The United Nations Climate Change Conference," has at least some authentic interest in future generations.
Second, "Please Save The World" is a hugely unfaithful thing to say. Therefore, putting such words in the mouths of children is especially despicable. I think most Christians would accept that humans cannot save the world. But it is equally true that humans cannot destroy the world. We might wreak havoc on the plant but just as we did not make the world, it is neither our's to destroy. That work belongs to God.
This point was brought home to me twice in my lifetime by two very different people. The first was a liberal Christian pastor. The second was an orthodox Christian theologian.
Some twenty-five years ago, I was driving in a car on the way to Colorado with a friend. He and I and a number of others were going to Estes Park to climb Long's Peak. I had just finished college and was attending Divinity School so my mind was alive with ideas and my spirit was filled with purity. At one point, I began talking about the environment and how humans tear it up so well. I don't know what sparked my enthusiasm exactly; perhaps we were passing a feed lot or something. There are certainly plenty of examples of the topic on the road from Des Moines to Estes Park.
Anyway, I raged on for a few minutes about everything from water pollution to strip mining. I finally stopped to catch my breadth and wait for an atta-boy from my mentor. But instead he said something that rather surprised me. He said, I think you underestimate the earth. It's taken everything that we've thrown at it thus far. The planet has a marvelous way of healing itself...
WHAT?! I thought to myself. How is this helping? Why isn't this guy sharing my righteous indignation? But I had just enough humility left to think a little about what I had just heard... And I've been thinking about it ever since.
Then about a year later I was sitting back in class at the Divinity School. Our professor was talking to us about the arrogance of modern Christianity. He said, many people in the Church would have you believe that it's all up to us--the proclamation, the poor, the planet--it's not. We're just creatures here. This is God's world to make, to judge, to redeem... We don't have the authority to destroy the world. That's God's business.
The first time we hear something like this, we say, "of course but." The of course means that while we acknowledge God...it is sort of a mute point because we're the only ones here--the only ones who can have an impact... But the real of course is that this is an unfaithful thing to say. If we truly believe that this is God's world then does this not mean that it will always be God's world? That at any given moment it remains God's world? And so, while our influence might appear profound to us; all is probably not as we imagine.
Now, does this mean that we should not be concerned about things like Global Warming? Or, that we should not gather with other nations to discuss better and worse ways to live and work and behave on the planet? Of course not. But it does change the starting point. While I am not especially excited about an urgent gathering to "save the world;" I can certainly see the value of an urgent gathering to rethink our place on it and our relation to it... To speak of our role as faithful stewards and humble servants of the God's generous trust.
Things like exploitation and pollution are just plain wrong quite without threatening the end of civilization. These things should have our attention long before we hear the voices of children or threats concerning the end of the world. That's the confession--that it takes such hyperbole to capture our interest... But the Good News is that God is God and this really is God's world. And the earth, which is part of God's world, is pretty amazing. Though we humans tend to be quite impressed with ourselves and, in this case, our ability to break things; the fact is, we have only been around for a few thousand years. The earth has seen things that we have never seen. It has endured things--truly catastrophic things--that we might not even be able to imagine.
As humans, we surely might be in danger of destroying ourselves...we always are... But we're really not in a position to destroy God's world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
