flying.farther

Some may find the pictures below disturbing. The intent is not to disturb or shock for the purposes of sickening the reader into numbness. They primarily function to point towards our complicity.

Union is holding a conference on empire, “Empire: Resistance and Reimagination.” But they are far from alone. Empire studies seems all the rage right now. The sole purpose of some theologians is to engage complicity. And not to be left out, some fellow bloggers have focused on complicity in one form or another lately as well. Talk of complicity seems to be in the air. However, complicity goes deeper than a mere theological fad. One could argue that the constant question of complicity thoroughly permeates theology, if theology is being rightly done.

And so, how do we do Seminary, or more general, how are we Christians to live in a country of power? Power to abuse, that is. Importantly, there is little room in the Jesus story for those who kill. In the narrative, we’re the centurion at the foot of the cross. Covered in blood that is not our own, how do we read the bible with stained hands? To complicate reading, and indeed living as well, we do not exist apart from our context. We (or at least I) live in a milieu that is called American society. It is important to note, that in such a society, discourse is fundamentally violent, voyeuristic, and governed by Hollywood/TV.

To say that pop-culture’s imagination is violent is an understatement. We have a culture that relishes imaginative situations, which demand the good hero resort to gladiatorial violence and Machiavellian means.1 The beauty is in the blood that flies.2 “Through the safe distance of the media, we become death-watchers, voyeurs of what has become culturally obscene.”3 This warped view of aesthetics is based on a milieu of voyeuristic entertainment: “Entertainment is the supra-ideology of all discourse on television. No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is there for our amusement and pleasure.”4 Comedian, and social critic, Jon Stewart made this same point when he visited the political show “Crossfire.”5 Even the “news shows” that make space for pundit “discussion” are primarily oriented towards entertainment. What is more, Stewart went on to lament, such entertainment is violent, as indicated by the name of the show and the argumentative action of the participants.

However, television is not simply voyeurism for a few; rather, it functions as a nation-wide, visual bacchanal of violence that forms society’s identity. “Television is our culture’s principal mode of knowing itself. Therefore—and this is the critical point—how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged.”6 Quite simply, the visual storytelling of Hollywood, imaginative and adrenaline-filled, defines culture’s categories and the primary category is the unquestioned use of violence and Machiavellian means.

And, so, again, how do we read our Bibles, construct a theology, and live our faith in such a context?

Well. First we have to acknowledge what we look like. We (or at least I do, as a complicit person) look like this:

and this

and this

and this

However, merely acknowledging our hands drenched in blood that is not our own (perhaps stemming from a theology that seeks or cares not about other’s blood) will not do. I am attempting to raise the issue in a way that breaks with our common method of discourse. We must engage complicity, rather than passively take it in like the hermeneutics of Hollywood would like us to do.

So, what should our method be? It can’t be violent or voyeuristic or subject to commercials. It must be loving, dialogical, and free. But what does that look like and how do we maintain that method of discourse?

_____________
1. The television show “24” is one of many examples.
2. An example is the movie 300.
3. Anthony Kelly, Eschatology and Hope (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2006), 97.
4. Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), 87.
5. CNN’s “Crossfire,” October 15, 2004. A rough transcript may be obtained here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html.
6. Postman, 92.

I took the pictures above from a performance by a friend of mine for the Empire conference here at Union.

Amidst my browsing of the internet lately, I found two very different circumstances that point to the same relationship: theology and television. While I am no luddite, I find a problem with the two when they merge.

Television is a one-way communicative medium, which in itself may or may not be inherently problematic. However, I suspect for theology, and religion in general, that television is not merely a tool. Instead, this “tool” has its own limitations that it forces theology/religion to adhere to. Simply put, to maintain an audience beyond the commercial break, or even from changing channels while the pastor is preaching, Christianity that attempts to publish itself on television undergoes a change that may dramatically alter the core substance of the Christianity being broadcasted.

The first instance from this week concerned the prosperity gospels of Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar.

Osteen here:

And Dollar is here (although I can’t seem to imbed the video):
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4152778&affil=wabc

The second instance concerned the well known “row” involving Rowan Williams, from the BBC:

…two factors in particular work against Rowan Williams.

The first is his inability, or refusal, to say everything in the neatly-packaged soundbite most of the media now demand.

It’s hard work understanding an archiepiscopal speech or sermon these days. But it’s always worth the effort, which has certainly not been the case with all his recent predecessors.

It is interesting to note that Williams does not function like Osteen or Dollar. In fact Osteen and Dollar are the antithesis of Williams for Williams does not seem to alter his theology for the medium of television — out of context sound bites, glitzy stage production and the cult of personality — and I think rightly so. But what is the problem with altering theology for the medium? I cannot say it any better than Neil Postman in his classic work, Amusing Ourselves to Death:

… on television, religion, like everything else, is presented, quite simply and without apology, as an entertainment. Everything that makes religion an historic, profound and sacred human activity is stripped away; there is no ritual, no dogma, no tradition, no theology, and above all, no sense of spiritual transcendence. On these shows, the preacher is tops. God comes out as second banana. (116-117)

The second conclusion is that this fact has more to do with the bias of television than with the deficiencies of these electronic preachers, as they are called. It is true enough that some of these men are uneducated, provincial and even bigoted. … What makes these television preachers the enemy of religious experience is not so much their weakness but the weaknesses of the medium in which they work. (117)

… Though it may be un-American to say it, not everything is televisible. Or to put it more precisely, what is televised is transformed from what it was to something else, which may or may not preserve its former essence. For the most part, television preachers have not seriously addressed this matter. They have assumed that what had formerly been done in a church or a tent, and face-to-face, can be done on television without loss or meaning, without changing the quality of the religious experience. Perhaps their failure to address the translation issue has its origin in the hubris engendered by the dazzling number of people to whom television gives them access. (118)

… But television is not well suited to offering people what they need. It is ‘user friendly.’ It is too easy to turn off. It is at its most alluring when it speaks the language of dynamic visual imagery. It does not accommodate complex language or stringent demands. As a consequence, what is preached on television is not anything like the Sermon on the Mount. Religious programs are filled with good cheer. They celebrate affluence. Their featured players become celebrities. Though their messages are trivial, the shows have high ratings, or rather, because their messages are trivial, the shows have high ratings. I believe I am not mistaken in saying that christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion altogether. (121)

Perhaps we would do much better as Christians to not serve up snippets for the media. But you say, isn’t that why Williams is in this mess to begin with? Sure he is, but its not his fault for creating the hysteria. Perhaps its time for the media to finally deal with Christianity that is honest and thinks. I wonder that if we were to package our theology all neat and tidy, we would be tremendously dishonest, or at least misleading. If there are a few things that are not tidy, it is human relationships and theology.

A friend of mine some weeks ago asked me for a book list. In fact, he said, “Just give me a list, I don’t care whats on it, I just need to start reading again.” Well, I didn’t take him too literally, but I did come up with a book list for the lay person. These books are generally rather readable and well written, but more importantly, could be interesting instead of boring theology.

1. Risks of Faith by James Cone. This book is from a prof here at Union and is actually my go-to book for exposing someone to black theology or maybe even liberation theology in general. Its very readable, and spans Cone’s career as it is a selection of essays, but the text also hits at what Cone is known for, starting “Black Liberation” theology. The work will get you/or keep you thinking on race, gender, poverty - you know, the important things.

2. Myths America Lives By by Richard T. Hughes. While at times I do have some criticisms about the work on certain points (and I may or may not agree entirely with his conclusion, hint, probably not), this book is very readable and hits at the general heart of what the hell really is going on with what we believe as American Christians. Once thats all sorted out, we can finally address if we really should be believing any/some/all the myths.

3. Theopolitical Imagination by William T. Cavanaugh. This book is short and expensive (read here, the publisher is being a jerk), but damn worth it if you can keep up. I would recommend Torture and Eucharist by Cavanaugh, but thats denser and bigger. Theopolitical Imagination may be one of the biggest stretches in terms of reading accessibility on the list, but in this case, that shouldn’t matter - struggle through this book five times if you have to (though I don’t see it being nearly that hard to understand, I think most people could understand it well enough with one reading and some discussion) - just read the damn book. It changed me in such a fashion that my whole theological world-view will never be the same. Ever.

4. God Is Not: Religious, Nice, One of Us, An American, A Capitalist edited by Brent Laytham. This collection has a good spread of essays on negative theology (negative theology is saying what we know God not to be) which in this case strikes at the very nature of what we assume God to be, and sometimes, we assume wrongly. Hence this book.

5. Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore. Possibly one of the funniest books I’ve ever read and I would often times find my self laughing out loud quite often, but also at times is incredibly well researched, in fact if I were teaching a Gospels class or intro to New Testament, I would use excerpts from this book.

6. Dracula by Bram Stroker. The book is riveting and I love the style, but also it is incredibly mature in how it deals with corruption and death. Rather astute I think. One of the most interesting things of note is what happens when a vampire dies - they sigh in peace, in fact, its not a horrible death at all. The vampires are finally allowed to rest and the evil is purged - they become people again in a very real sense. Perhaps we should look at our enemies like this - that there are people underneath all that evil, except we don’t need to use the violence. I used to not be a vampire fan, and I’m still not really, but this book I really like and it seems to have all sorts of theological ideas.

7. Anything by Dorthy L. Sayers, particularly the Lord Peter Wimsy Stories, they’re good mysteries.

8. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther by Roland H. Bainton. This work is one of the definitive biographies on Luther by a very respected historian, but it is also incredibly readable and personal. In fact, any good reformation class in college that I’ve seen uses this book as one of the big texts. Its just that good.

9. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman. Brilliant, just brilliant and it was written in 1984…ish.

10. The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. Something to get ya thinking about pacifism, it certainly did me, and it should also be noted that this book had a large impact on Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi. You know, some of the real, successful people.

11. The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware. Here is a well written introduction to Eastern Orthodox Theology, well, some of Eastern Orthodox Theology. I’m not sure they’re quite as unified as they say they are. Nevertheless, Ware puts forth clearly certain Eastern Orthodox views that I found rather valuable during my freshman year in college.

12. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology by Rosemary Radford Ruether. If you want to put your toe into feminist theology, this would be one of the works to start with. Apparently it is also still one of, if not the only, feminist systematic theology text written (this means that the book deals with the typical categories of theology - the nature of the text, method, language, humanity, Christ, evil, eschatology and a few others that are brought up by feminists). Even if you don’t agree with a large majority of feminism, or are even someone who reacts to feminism negatively, if you haven’t read this book, you can shut up or give this book your open mind. Why? Because this is one of the biggest voices for the past 20 years and this is one of the texts for theological feminism.