Here Is Something Completely Different

Gaming and the World of Fantasy

2008-11-25T08:24:00.000-08:00

Finally! My last blog entry on the book, Understanding Evangelical Media. This has been a very interesting, sometimes fascinating, sometimes infuriating, journey. For the first time, I agreed with pretty much everything I read in the last chapter I had to read, “Evangelicals’ Quest to Find God’s Place in Games.” Kevin Schut, the author of this particular chapter, means of course video, computer, and role-playing games, not the Olympics.

Anyway, I often find that writing about something I agree with is one of the most difficult things to do. It’s easy to get angry at someone and rant for a while, but what do you say when you agree? Simply writing, “I agree with this chapter,” is not enough to fulfill this assignment. So my task, I guess, is to find something I agree with and add a profound thought to it that will make all 3 of my readers marvel at my intellect.

Kevin Schut takes a long at games produced by Christian evangelicals, and the evangelical response to some mainstream games. One thing he focuses in on is an evangelical attack on games (especially role-playing games) that they suck the player into the world of fantasy to the point where they lose touch with reality. Some have pointed, and with good reason, to the Columbine high school shooters and how these teenagers were nearly addicted to the first-person shooter game ‘Doom.’ This was a key factor, it is argued, in the massacre they carried out in 1999.

This argument does make sense, but I definitely don’t agree with the extreme version that all people who dive into the gaming world will lose touch with reality. Many people are quite capable of keeping the two lives separate. But for some, it doesn’t look that way. I guess, like anything, it depends on the person. Evangelicals should refrain from making across-the-board judgments, and look closer at the individuals in the situation.

“BIG NEWS: The Internet Changed Religion” Really?

2008-11-20T23:34:00.000-08:00

In one of the most boring articles I have ever read (and she calls herself a communications student) titled “Online Religion and Finding Faith on the Web,” Cheryl Anne Casey presents her view that a new media development doesn’t just add something to the environment it enters, but it changes it as well.

She expands this in her discussion about religion and the web. She says that religion’s arrival into the Internet was not just an addition to the Internet; it changed the Internet itself. In the same way, bringing the Internet into organized religion was not just an addition; it changed religion as we know it. This was in both clear and more vague ways.

The question is, is she right?

I don’t think so. Putting religion on the web has not changed any specific religion. Sure, they have presented themselves differently, and some are living out their belief system in different ways than before. (Ex, joining discussion groups to talk about specific aspects of a religion with people from around the world rather than just discussing it with those in your immediate area.) But the core doctrines of any religion have not really changed. The religion, then, is still the same.

What about the Internet? Has the arrival of religion changed the World Wide Web in any way? Not really. Religion has definitely added something to the Web, but I hardly doubt we can say it has changed it. The Internet is still basically the same. For example, before organized religion jumped onto the Internet-bandwagon, people discussed various issues online. And now, people still discuss things on online, though religion seems to be now a key topic.

Of course, I might be right out the window as well. Maybe if Casey had defined what she meant by ‘change’ a little better, her case would be stronger.

As it is, it isn’t.

www.media-ecology.org/publications/MEA_proceedings/v2/Casey02.pdf

Great Comics, Great Stories: The Perfect Couple

2008-11-18T09:58:00.000-08:00

“Mainstream comics [producers] are remarkably open to people of faith, unlike some of the other mass media.”

Thomas Carmody is very clear about his belief that readers of mainstream comics are more open to Christian messages. In chapter 14 of Understanding Evangelical Media, he explores how evangelicals have (and should) behave in the world of comic books, comic strips, and graphic novels. He argues that Christians, and Christian messages, can find a home here far easier than in any other form of media. He cements his point by director our attention to the Christian messages that have often come through the work of such popular mainstream comic creators as Charles Schulz (Peanuts) and Johnny Hart (B. C. and Wizard of Id).

But what Carmody does not mention is that besides the Christian messages that often appear, these are also great comic strips. Peanuts touched people with its lightly humorous tale of a klutzy boy named Charlie Brown and his friends for 50 years. The audience was so wrapped up in the story that they accepted the messages without opposition.

Many Christians in the media today seem to hold to the mistaken idea that they can simply produce media, no matter how awful, and God will use it to reach people. This type of thinking has lead to a line of terrible comics, appalling music, and horrendous atrocities some call ‘movies.’ They forget that Jesus often reached people through parables that not only contained great messages, but were also great stories.

Take the Prodigal Son, for example. Just the characters alone are enough to grab an audience. A father desperate for a rekindled relationship with his son. A son that, while at first wants nothing to do with him, now just wants to be back in the same household. And an older brother, jealous because of the father’s response to his son’s return. The captivating characters and great story help us to remember the message in the way that a bad story can’t do. People will probably be turned off from the story and not bother consuming the media long enough to get to the message.

This is what Christians need to remember if they hope to reach an audience larger than those who already agree with them.

Christians Made a Reporter Puke

2008-11-13T21:34:00.001-08:00

In an article that appeared in Rolling Stone Magazine in May of 2008, Matt Taibbi describes his often ridiculous journey through a Christian retreat program. But rather than say he is a reporter, he goes in undercover, pretending to be one of the many Christians traveling to this retreat. The results are very interesting, to say the least.

Taibbi subjects himself to several days of worship music (which he describes as ‘awful’), speeches by a “hulking ex-paratrooper pastor” and small discussion groups with five other men. The men sit around a table and describe a time in their life when they were spiritually wounded, something they would like healing for. Taibbi, not wanting to present any of his own story, goes for something less than truthful. “My father was an alcoholic circus clown who used to beat me with his oversize shoes.” To his surprise, his audiences buys every word of it.

The retreat ends with a final healing session. With the key speaker shouting instructions and yelling out names of demons (“In the name of Jesus Christ, I cast out the demon of lust! I cast out the demon of cancer! I cast out the demon of handwriting analysis!”), the crowd weeps and wails as, presumably, demons come vomiting (literally) out of their souls. Through all of this, Taibbi remains the steadfast skeptic.

So did I. When I first started reading, I figured this would be another colourful attack against Christians. I couldn’t believe this idiot of a reporter would rip apart Christians in this way. But gradually, my anger shifted to the Christians he encountered on his journey. Regardless of the fact that they didn’t know they were being watched and critiqued by a journalist from Rolling Stone, they still should have acted the way Christ would have. Rather than behaving like followers of Christ, they acted like a cult.

Of course I could be wrong, and Taibbi was simply presenting his false perception of the events. Regardless, I think this shows how much of the secular world sees Christians: bizarre and completely detached from the rest of humanity. We look totally inaccessible. Was this the Christianity Jesus intended to bring to earth? I doubt it.

Like Taibbi, I think the only thing I will take away from this is a demon vomit bag. Take that, you demon of handwriting analysis!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20278737/jesus_made_me_puke/1

Remember

2008-11-07T21:17:00.001-08:00

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

— Lt.-Col. John McCrae

Big Brother is Watching You . . . but is this a bad thing?

2008-10-28T12:20:00.000-07:00

Surveillance. It’s almost as bad as the f-word these days. People are terrified of it. We object to more cameras on our streets, we freak out when we realize Google Earth can zoom in to our back yards, and we scream “human rights!” when the FBI decides to tap terrorists’ phones. I find it odd that something that is meant to keep us safe has so many people running in fear.

From this article, it seems like we were on the opposite side of the extreme fifteen years ago. In “Sound Scans of the Urban Body: Cellphones, Eavesdropping and Ambient Music,” John Shiga talks about an English DJ in the 90’s named Robin Rimbaud. Rimbaud had taken to hanging out in his room with an audio scanner late at night (creepy). He figured out how to pick up the signals being sent between cellphones. He would record random conversation, edit them a bit, then add them to his music.

So if you called your mom from a bus stop in London, part of the conversation might have ended up on Rimbaud’s next album.

When Rimbaud’s music appeared, angry people took to the streets. You’d think so, right? Wrong actually. Most people seemed to be fine with it. Rimbaud was, after all, taking precautions to make sure know one would recognize their own voice. “He pitch-shifts the voices and edits out information that might identify an individual,” Shiga wrote in his article.

So fifteen years ago, people were okay with a random person buying a scanner and listening in on their conversations. Now, we freak out if the government says they have to do this for “national security.”

What changed? Not sure. And it doesn’t really matter. But the question now is, is this mentality of fear a good thing? Is it good that we’re all terrified of ‘Big Brother’ listening to our cell phones? No surveillance seems dangerous. These cameras and wire-taps have helped stopped many crimes from taking place.

But maybe there’s too much of what could otherwise have been a good thing.

Maybe we need to find some sort of balance.

How to Target the Wrong Audience

2008-10-21T08:44:00.000-07:00

During Spring Break this year, I traveled to the mid-western State of Kentucky to visit the Creation Museum. The creators of this 70,000 square foot facility built it to promote their view that the Biblical account of a six-day creation by God can be taken literally, word for word.

Using interactive displays, 3D technology and dozens of really creepy-looking life-sized plastic people, the creators spread their message in a fun, exciting way.

According to their website [www.creationmuseum.org], the museum’s mission is to (1) call Christians back to the absolute truth of the Bible, (2) be a witnessing tool, and
(3) be a resource for information and education.

It didn’t take me long to figure out that there was a lot more emphasis placed on #2 than the others. Beside an interactive display of the Garden of Eden, a poster clearly showed how Adam’s sin was paid for in Christ’s blood. The tour ended with a 10-mnute video telling me to make a decision about Christ right then and there.

Now I actually think it’s fine that this type of museum exists, one that promotes nothing but the six-day creation viewpoint.

But the owners should recognize that the majority of those who come through their doors already agree with their viewpoint. I probably wouldn’t spend $21.95 US to enter a museum completely devoted to a cause I didn’t already believe in, unless I wanted to learn about a different viewpoint than my own.

I think, then, that museums like this need to focus their presentation on their primary audience: those who agree with them. Witnessing could be a minor emphasis, but just not a predominant one.

It is better, I think, to equip those who do come through the doors to leave prepared to convince their friends that their viewpoint is right, than to hope evolutionists just happen to wander into a flood of salvation messages.

The iPod: A Gift From Heaven . . . Or Not

2008-10-06T21:59:00.000-07:00

I wonder how much Apple paid him.

In an article titled, “Iconic Designs: The Apple iPod,” Michael Bull lifts up the iPod to the level of the divine. He praises it as an astounding invention that gives people some control over their crazy lives as they play whatever music they would like wherever they would like. To aid his argument, he gathers some of the most biased quotes ever written by man. One writer says the iPod fulfills his childhood dream of having a “music machine” that plays “any song there is.” Another writes that this invention “puts the soundtrack to my life in my pocket and at my fingerprints.”

They might as well have stated it in a more Biblical-fashion: “I praise you, oh Apple iPod, because you were fearfully and wonderfully made. What you can do is wonderful; I know that full well.”'

Can you say “Apple Ad”?

This all sounds pretty ridiculous. Sure, Apple’s iPod is pretty cool. But comparing it to a Gothic cathedral, as Bull does later in the articles, is a little weird. One is a massive, stone structure, built hundreds of years ago for the glory of God as a house of worship. The other is a piece of plastic and metal that plays music. I just don’t think they quite compare.

The iPod is, after all, just technology. Pretty neat technology, but technology just the same. Something better will come along next year, and we’ll forget all about this “magical” invention.

You know what they say: today’s latest gadget will be tomorrow’s trash (or something like that).

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to listen to a CD on my Sony walkman.

“CCM Should Only Produce Worship Music” What???

2008-10-02T22:24:00.000-07:00

In an article titled, “Why the Devil Should Have All the Good Music,” Paul A. Creasman presents a scathing review of the contemporary Christian music (CCM) industry. He writes that by “mindlessly following one sales trend after another, the CCM business has left behind a legacy of miffed musicians, crashed crossover attempts and awful albums.”

Ouch. That hurts. But wait! Someone with such a crushing blow must have a brilliant idea for improving the system, right? He thinks he does.

“Rather than producing Christian imitations of mainstream fare, the CCM business needs to focus only on contemporary worship music.”

I’m sorry, Mr. Creasman, but the days of simply trusting everything my elders say to be truth, are over. Why does the CCM business “need” to focus only on worship music? Apparently, Mr. Creasman believes worship music is the only type of music Christians can produce well. But who made him the ultimate judge? Sure, Christians have produced some “awful albums,” but so have mainstream artists, and you don't see them focusing on only one genre of music.

But all worship albums are just gems dropped from Heaven, right? Wrong, Mr. Creasman. I’ve heard some really terrible worship albums too, full of bad music and bizarre theology. Like any type of music, there’s the good, there’s the bad, and then of course, there’s the very bad (but usually these are collecting dust in the 30% off section).

What’s wrong with “Christian imitations of mainstream fare” anyway? Bands copy other bands all the time, not just Christian ones. If they didn’t, today’s rock industry would have stopped at the Beatles.

And so, Mr. Creasman, I’m going to have to say this as nicely as I can: you’re opinion needs something I like to call "thinking".

Now there’s a rant for you.

PS: Many Christian bands would argue that what they’re producing is worship music. And so, in that sense, you’re perfectly correct, Mr. Creasman. Hats off to you, sir.

Fact: The Da Vinci Code Won't Destroy Christianity

2008-09-29T18:16:00.000-07:00

Christians love a good controversy. Especially when it involves a really popular medium, such as motion pictures. Remember The Da Vinci Code? Christians the world-over freaked out because the book, and subsequent film, was spreading lies about origins of the Christians faith. A friend of mine told me people were going to start hating Christians, and soon Christianity would be outlawed, and on and on he went. And what about The Golden Compass? Christians boycotted theatres, ranted about it with their Christian friends, and wrote very un-Christian things on their blogs.

By the reaction, you would have thought the entire Christian religion was in danger of becoming extinct.

The authors of Understanding Evangelical Media take on this subject on page 62 of their book. According to them, Christian film critics tend to point people away from films that, “glorify violence, use obscene or profane language . . . and malign religion and religious figures.” But, they write, these writings rarely have the effect film critics hope for.

“By offering such criticism publicly . . . evangelical critics also create publicity for the very movies they condemn.”

Bang on. Bull’s eye. Whatever you want to call it. Thanks to the controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code, people rushed to the theatres upon its release just to see what all the fuss was about. It brought over $75 million on its first weekend. Mind you, the film did not do very well after this, but this can be better attributed to bad movie making than evangelical boycotting.

Yet the controversy surrounding it drew people to the theatres by the thousands. Controversy is news; Christians should remember this before grabbing their cardboard signs and heading to the picket line the next time a possible anti-Christian film comes out.

Do I Want Eternal Sunshine in a Spotless Mind?

2008-09-27T13:29:00.001-07:00

I’m not a big fan of what I will describe as ‘warped’ movies, where the ending is just totally unexpected. But the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind actually took me by surprise, which I guess is the point of ‘warped’ movies anyway. In the film, Joel (played by Canadian Jim Carrey) discovers that his girlfriend, Clementine (Kate Winslet) has had their relationship erased form her mind. No biggie, right? Joel simply responds by running off to the same clinic that performed the operation and gets the same thing done on him. By morning, their relationship is gone from his mind. Along the way, Joel realizes there are some memories he wants to keep
The question the film poses is what affect our memories have on us. Will taking bad memories away somehow make us better people?
I can think of dozens of things I wish I could erase from my mind. Mistakes. Goof-ups. Spitting food out of my mouth right in front of a cute girl (true story).
Yet I wonder if I would actually be better off if they were erased from my mind. I mean, seriously. Gone. I know longer have to remember any of them. I can live in peace, without fear of any of them coming back to haunt me.
But would I be a better person for it?
Or do these bad memories actually help me in the long run?
Remembering my mistakes in a relationship will actually help me to do better in a future relationship. If I had the past mistake taken from my mind, I would probably make that same mistake again.
Maybe these bad memories actually help me to grow, to learn how to live a better life. Maybe I wouldn’t become the person God wants me to be without them.
Maybe.

Captain Kirk, My Phone Is Cooler Than Your Phone

2008-09-25T08:48:00.000-07:00

This is why they call it the Information Revolution. Conversations in the hallway of a college dorm have been traded for chatting with the guy in the room next to you over Facebook, as well as a girl in Calgary, Alberta, your aunt in Toronto, and a friend you met while you were in Brazil. Then there’s the 12-year-old kid at the bus stop listening to Linkin Park on his iPhone Touch, while at the same time as texting his friend, who is standing next to him.

Technology is booming these days, especially in the area of communications. Star Trek’s Captain Kirk used to call the deck below with his little phone-gadget thing, and we thought it was amazing. Today, I can buy one at the mall 20 minutes away, and it’s so much cooler than his!

But is all this technology a good thing? Sure, we can have multiple conversations at the same time over MSN, but how good is that communication? Are we losing anything by communicating like this? It is hard to convince a friend who is instant-messaging you about a problem that you care about them when you’re talking to 6 other people at the same time. Many of my friends still prefer face-to-face conversations, because MSN doesn’t send facial expressions or tones of voice through that thin, little wire.

What are we losing with all this technology? Are all these new toys worth the cost?

Open Your Eyes!!!

2008-09-23T09:17:00.000-07:00

“A book that persuades and entertains some Christians can offend others, so evangelical publishers review submitted manuscripts partly for potentially offensive content. They are less committed than mainstream publishers to freedom of the press. Does this self-regulation reinforce negative stereotypes against the tribe, or does it enable evangelical publishers to better serve their tribal audiences?” (Evangelical Media, chapter 6.)

I remember picking up a book a few years ago about two young Christian men who made their way through several US cities while pretending to be homeless. Along the way, they describe several interesting situations and people they come across. I always felt that there was something missing from their stories, some part they weren’t describing. And then I found it. On the second or third page into the book, there was a small quote from one of the authors. It basically said that several situations and conversations had been edited so as to please both the publishers and the audience the publisher was focusing on.

I thought this was perfectly fine, until this past summer. I worked for 12 weeks at a food bank/soup kitchen in a city in southern-Ontario. I heard stories I would never dare to tell my mother, and heard enough foul language for a lifetime. But this is the world in which those people live all the time. Sure, regulating ‘evangelical’ books so they don’t contain bad language and stories does shield people from this world. But sometimes I think we Christians need to open our eyes so we see the realities of our world, and not so we may tell ourselves how much God has blessed us. Rather, this eye-opening should lead us to further caring about God’s people. If we close our eyes to their realities and do not talk about them, we are stopping ourselves from being able to reach them on their level, the way Jesus did.

Why is Relevant successful? Because it's RELEVANT!

2008-09-18T17:09:00.000-07:00

Here I am, still writing about this book, Understanding Evangelical Media. In chapter 5, the author examines so-named "evangelical" print media, trying to find out why some magazines and webzines have been successful and some have not. He touches briefly on a 20-something "Christian" magazine called Relevant. (Is it Christians because it's produced by Christians? Or because the content is from a Christian viewpoint? Questions for another blog.) He describes its success, but doesn't really dive into why it is successful.

So I will. It's because, unlike many failing evangelical magazines, Relevant is, well, RELEVANT! And not just in terms of its content, but also the way it is produced. Many Christians seem to hold to the idea that since the print medium has succeeded up to now in presenting the Gospel to much of the world, it will continue to work fine in the future. They seem to forget that in our present time, technology is rapidly changing, and young people would rather view information on one of these new technologies than an old form.

But Relevant is different. Rather than sticking to the old ways, this magazine jumped on the new. Sure, they still print a magazine, and a very cool one at that. 96-full colour pages of stories about, as their tagline says, "God, life and progressive culture." I still find it amazing how I can find an article about techno artist Moby and one about mission work in the same magazine.

But Relevant doesn't stop there. A quick glance at their website [www.relevantmag.com] will tell you the creators of this magazine also produce a weekly podcast, 9 blogs, and tons of videos they put under the label "Relevant.TV."

Relevant has managed to catch the attention of 20-something Christians with their innovative style, enough to have 80,000 subscribers to their magazine (according to Evangelical Media).

Why aren't other evangelical magazine producers sitting up and paying attention?

Christian media is boring? No way!

2008-09-15T23:47:00.000-07:00

I recently started a book titled, Understanding Evangelical Media: The Changing Face of Christian Communication. No, I don't read this type of book for fun (sorry professor), but rather because I have decided to subject myself to that endless, mind-torturing invention we call college.

Anyways, I found it astounding how quickly the authors of this book managed to completely de-credit almost every action taken by Christians in the media over the last 80 years. They sometimes produce "bland media content," the authors write in the first chapter, often believing that the message is far more important than whether or not the media is any good. "They [Christian media producers] convince themselves that as long as the message is biblically true, the production is good - no matter how bored the congregants may be!"

It's sad how true this is. It doesn't take me long to think of examples to prove this, such as the Left Behind films. The trilogy's creators filled it with salvation messages, but apparently forgot that they were also making films they wanted people to watch.

On top of this, many of these Christian media producers could have reached a much larger audience if only they had put as much effort into their story-telling as they did their presentation of the Gospel. I think of the success of the classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, that barely mentioned its key message, but let the powerful story tell all.

If only today's Christian media producers would follow this example.

But maybe I'm just too cynical.