I went to seminary this year. Briefly.
It seems so absurd to me now, though only two months later. My faith is in such flux I can't imagine actually training for the clergy at this point in time. Yet, six months ago I was ready to assume my position in the fold, wherever that may have been.
I think I realized pretty quickly that my desperation to know God drove me to theological school. I was all set to learn how to lead people to a God I was still trying to find myself. I resented the church subconsciously for alienating me from God, yet in a rash and desperate move to try to seize faith by the throat I decided to join its ranks.
I looked at the wreck of wrong turns I had recently accumulated and felt certain that it would be a fierce and devout faith in God that would lead me to safety. The dull ache that accompanied the days, I assured myself, was a distance I had created between the Creator and myself.
Like an explorer with the Bible as my map, I set off to find the sunken treasure of Yahweh. Somewhere, in the folds of Greek and canonical formation and Reformation theology and exegesis was the pot of Go(l)d. And when I found it, I reasoned to myself, I would lead others like me, zealous and thirsty adventurers, to the fount of faith.
I left seminary in Sydney early: shortly after discovering that the Bible was not a treasure map to God, after all. And the Aussie man I left America for, whose rib I was sure God had given to me, was not my Adam.
I still am an explorer. I am seeking God desperately. More desperately than before, when I sought after him in the ministry. Yet, the Bible is no longer a map I seek to guide me to God. Instead, it is like a lighthouse in a storm, its distant rhythm of light in the darkness reminds me that there is hope. Despite the terrifying walls of water surrounding me, I have some faith that land is near each time the light flickers up ahead.
Yet, the terrifying question remains, driving me ever forward, increasing my desperation. Will my faith survive the storm?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
big brother
I know a guy who was on Big Brother.
My childhood friend's college besty won Rock of Love.
I took classes with a girl who made it to the 3rd round in American Idol.
My college gal pal was on the audition episode of You're The One That I Want.
I'm not trying to impress you.
No, I'm actually just balking at some facts about my friends that make me painfully aware of how addicted we are, as a culture, to reality television. The great minds of yesteryear were reading great literature by candlelight and we sprawl on our sofas for hours of The Bachelor and A Shot Of Love With Tila Tequila. (Yes, I have been transfixed by episodes of both. I plead guilty. They are fascinatingly sad.) The supermarket aisles remind me that these shows are anything but real with their bubble letter headlines on The Hills. And as reality programming takes over the tube we become more discerning critics, finding holes in all our now-familiar favorites. Yet, we keep coming back. And reality programming multiplies before our eyes. Literally. Despite the fact that we know it's not even real. (Well, all except Intervention. That show is just rock solid.)
How far will our obsession with unreal "reality" go?
Well, I turned on the computer tonight (where YouTube has the internet market cornered) and, upon checking election coverage, heaved a sigh of disappointment. The drama, the name calling, and the mudslinging will continue. And as real drama unfolds around us (Myanmar, anyone?) we will instead tune into...
Uh oh!
Real reality TV.
No! Could it be?! Obama and Clinton have done an excellent job campaigning through the new and popular forms of media; they are featured on YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, maintain blogs, and make sassy appearances on comedy shows and in honky tonk bars. In light of this mass reality addiction, is it possible their teams got together and decided to launch the ultimate reality extravaganza?! The numbers over the last few months certainly seem to have been manipulated by producers eager to ride the ratings as long as possible.
You couldn't have found two better reality stars: the sleek, sly, powerful minx Hillary Clinton and the hopeful, grinning, young hero Barack Obama. I can hear it now.
Voice Over: Barack and Hillary battle to make history. Tune into see who will be the last man, or woman, standing to fight John McCain to be the most powerful person in the world.
Only it isn't a voice over. Or, well, sometimes it is. Turn on any vintage reality TV show (otherwise known as "The News") and you're sure to hear similar lines. Every day a new episode airs. And sometimes you half expect someone to get their hair pulled! Reality programming at its finest.
The parallel is easy. In the supermarket aisles, right next to headlines on Heidi and Spencer you'll find the latest gossip on Hillary and Barack. And, at a time when the airwaves are dominated by cat fights, betrayals, and gossip, is it really that far fetched to wonder if the whole thing really is rigged by some smarmy cigar smoking producer?
Things sure have changed since Franklin Delano made the presidential television debut back in 1939. Now, almost seventy years later, viewers wait in anticipation of who America will choose to give the final rose.
(As for the Republicans, their show, featuring John, Mitt, Mike, Rudy, and Ron was cancelled due to low ratings.)
My childhood friend's college besty won Rock of Love.
I took classes with a girl who made it to the 3rd round in American Idol.
My college gal pal was on the audition episode of You're The One That I Want.
I'm not trying to impress you.
No, I'm actually just balking at some facts about my friends that make me painfully aware of how addicted we are, as a culture, to reality television. The great minds of yesteryear were reading great literature by candlelight and we sprawl on our sofas for hours of The Bachelor and A Shot Of Love With Tila Tequila. (Yes, I have been transfixed by episodes of both. I plead guilty. They are fascinatingly sad.) The supermarket aisles remind me that these shows are anything but real with their bubble letter headlines on The Hills. And as reality programming takes over the tube we become more discerning critics, finding holes in all our now-familiar favorites. Yet, we keep coming back. And reality programming multiplies before our eyes. Literally. Despite the fact that we know it's not even real. (Well, all except Intervention. That show is just rock solid.)
How far will our obsession with unreal "reality" go?
Well, I turned on the computer tonight (where YouTube has the internet market cornered) and, upon checking election coverage, heaved a sigh of disappointment. The drama, the name calling, and the mudslinging will continue. And as real drama unfolds around us (Myanmar, anyone?) we will instead tune into...
Uh oh!
Real reality TV.
No! Could it be?! Obama and Clinton have done an excellent job campaigning through the new and popular forms of media; they are featured on YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, maintain blogs, and make sassy appearances on comedy shows and in honky tonk bars. In light of this mass reality addiction, is it possible their teams got together and decided to launch the ultimate reality extravaganza?! The numbers over the last few months certainly seem to have been manipulated by producers eager to ride the ratings as long as possible.
You couldn't have found two better reality stars: the sleek, sly, powerful minx Hillary Clinton and the hopeful, grinning, young hero Barack Obama. I can hear it now.
Voice Over: Barack and Hillary battle to make history. Tune into see who will be the last man, or woman, standing to fight John McCain to be the most powerful person in the world.
Only it isn't a voice over. Or, well, sometimes it is. Turn on any vintage reality TV show (otherwise known as "The News") and you're sure to hear similar lines. Every day a new episode airs. And sometimes you half expect someone to get their hair pulled! Reality programming at its finest.
The parallel is easy. In the supermarket aisles, right next to headlines on Heidi and Spencer you'll find the latest gossip on Hillary and Barack. And, at a time when the airwaves are dominated by cat fights, betrayals, and gossip, is it really that far fetched to wonder if the whole thing really is rigged by some smarmy cigar smoking producer?
Things sure have changed since Franklin Delano made the presidential television debut back in 1939. Now, almost seventy years later, viewers wait in anticipation of who America will choose to give the final rose.
(As for the Republicans, their show, featuring John, Mitt, Mike, Rudy, and Ron was cancelled due to low ratings.)
Thursday, May 1, 2008
just pretend i'm not a liberal for a sec
Pardon me, while I pause for pop culture.
Over the last few days I have noticed some pretty striking billboards as I've traveled throughout Chicago: Grand Theft Auto IV, which I guess debuted yesterday, as my recent search results tell me. Apparently I missed a bit of the buzz until now. A string of shootings on the South side of Chicago have been linked by some groups to the violent video game series' upcoming debut. And the unveiling of the ads in New York (also known as Liberty City in the game) was met with lots of media fanfare.
Critics of Grand Theft Auto IV cite that the game is too violent, that it encourages armed robbery, prostitution, and senseless murder. Some stop there, but some see a connection with games like GTA IV and violent tendencies in children. I happen to be in that camp, though I don't like to blame the video games solely. The people at Rockstar Games, where the game is made, point out that Grand Theft Auto's unique attribute is its element of satire. They argue that the game is a commentary on American culture and consumerism. And ultimately they point out that the game is rated Mature, and their intent was that it be played by adult gamers, not children.
Yet, children and teens are getting their hands on this video game and in large numbers. Bans on purchasing for people under 17 have been tightened, forcibly, after a backlash of media attention and criticism of the game. But the recent rash of controversial billboards makes me suspicious of Rockstar Games' defense. They chose to place provocative ads in places visible to schoolchildren and frequented by families, where a cigarette ad would normally be banned. Furthermore, isn't it convenient that this "satire" preys upon the very marketplace it apparently derides?
However, my real criticism of Grand Theft Auto is a bit bigger than the game's influence on children and teens. My criticism lies in a market and a culture that, despite mild protest, accepts a game like Grand Theft Auto into the commonplace. While billboards like the one on Canal Street certainly have the ability to shock us momentarily, Grand Theft Auto and all of its contents, no longer dismay and disgust us.
How can we, as a nation, seek peace, when we spend our leisure time faking war?
Watching the "trailer" for Grand Theft Auto IV is like any violent thriller you might catch at the multiplex these days. There are masked men storming at the screen with cocked weapons. There are ominous men at tables with armed cronies nearby. There are gunshot-flecked car chases. Explosions. Prostitutes. Even an intense soundtrack. (Complete with a lead-in commercial from Honda narrated by the friendly Kevin Spacey.)
So I guess the crux of my criticism isn't merely that Grand Theft Auto exposes children to senseless violence but that this kind of senseless violence (not to mention satire, right?) is appealing to so many "Mature" gamers. Why, exactly, do people today want to hold the reins for armed robbery, prostitution, and drunk driving? Is it all, as Rockstar Games would have us believe, a postmodern exercise in exploring our culture and seeking its flaws and inadequacies? An intellectual pursuit on par with a game of chess or an evening with a novel?
War saturates the world.
So why do we need to play at it? People scoff at the notion that little kids are affected by the games they play, that television influences its viewers, that media sways its audience. Yet, who can argue that this society is saturated with violence? That most of us have become numb, immune, and past dismay with most of the senseless violence going on around us? For some of us, the violence seems like folklore from within the tree-lined walls of privilege. Yet, for many the violence is so constant and pervasive that it is no longer shocking.
It is easy to ignore games like Grand Theft Auto gaining momentum and becoming fixtures in popular culture, earning gamers a platform where they can vehemently defend their right to roleplay murder and malice.
To what else can we link school shootings, snipers on highways, and gunmen in shopping malls but a culture so saturated by violence that it no longer has the frame of reference to be shocked by scenes like the ones from Grand Theft Auto played out in real life and with a controller? I'm not going to blame Rockstar Games for the fate of the world. But I blame the market that promotes it and the culture that accepts it.
War is not only in the newspapers. It lives on the streets of Anytown, USA and something tells me that simulating that war in my living room with a joystick isn't halting the gunfire.
Over the last few days I have noticed some pretty striking billboards as I've traveled throughout Chicago: Grand Theft Auto IV, which I guess debuted yesterday, as my recent search results tell me. Apparently I missed a bit of the buzz until now. A string of shootings on the South side of Chicago have been linked by some groups to the violent video game series' upcoming debut. And the unveiling of the ads in New York (also known as Liberty City in the game) was met with lots of media fanfare.
Critics of Grand Theft Auto IV cite that the game is too violent, that it encourages armed robbery, prostitution, and senseless murder. Some stop there, but some see a connection with games like GTA IV and violent tendencies in children. I happen to be in that camp, though I don't like to blame the video games solely. The people at Rockstar Games, where the game is made, point out that Grand Theft Auto's unique attribute is its element of satire. They argue that the game is a commentary on American culture and consumerism. And ultimately they point out that the game is rated Mature, and their intent was that it be played by adult gamers, not children.
Yet, children and teens are getting their hands on this video game and in large numbers. Bans on purchasing for people under 17 have been tightened, forcibly, after a backlash of media attention and criticism of the game. But the recent rash of controversial billboards makes me suspicious of Rockstar Games' defense. They chose to place provocative ads in places visible to schoolchildren and frequented by families, where a cigarette ad would normally be banned. Furthermore, isn't it convenient that this "satire" preys upon the very marketplace it apparently derides?
However, my real criticism of Grand Theft Auto is a bit bigger than the game's influence on children and teens. My criticism lies in a market and a culture that, despite mild protest, accepts a game like Grand Theft Auto into the commonplace. While billboards like the one on Canal Street certainly have the ability to shock us momentarily, Grand Theft Auto and all of its contents, no longer dismay and disgust us.
How can we, as a nation, seek peace, when we spend our leisure time faking war?
Watching the "trailer" for Grand Theft Auto IV is like any violent thriller you might catch at the multiplex these days. There are masked men storming at the screen with cocked weapons. There are ominous men at tables with armed cronies nearby. There are gunshot-flecked car chases. Explosions. Prostitutes. Even an intense soundtrack. (Complete with a lead-in commercial from Honda narrated by the friendly Kevin Spacey.)
So I guess the crux of my criticism isn't merely that Grand Theft Auto exposes children to senseless violence but that this kind of senseless violence (not to mention satire, right?) is appealing to so many "Mature" gamers. Why, exactly, do people today want to hold the reins for armed robbery, prostitution, and drunk driving? Is it all, as Rockstar Games would have us believe, a postmodern exercise in exploring our culture and seeking its flaws and inadequacies? An intellectual pursuit on par with a game of chess or an evening with a novel?
War saturates the world.
So why do we need to play at it? People scoff at the notion that little kids are affected by the games they play, that television influences its viewers, that media sways its audience. Yet, who can argue that this society is saturated with violence? That most of us have become numb, immune, and past dismay with most of the senseless violence going on around us? For some of us, the violence seems like folklore from within the tree-lined walls of privilege. Yet, for many the violence is so constant and pervasive that it is no longer shocking.
It is easy to ignore games like Grand Theft Auto gaining momentum and becoming fixtures in popular culture, earning gamers a platform where they can vehemently defend their right to roleplay murder and malice.
To what else can we link school shootings, snipers on highways, and gunmen in shopping malls but a culture so saturated by violence that it no longer has the frame of reference to be shocked by scenes like the ones from Grand Theft Auto played out in real life and with a controller? I'm not going to blame Rockstar Games for the fate of the world. But I blame the market that promotes it and the culture that accepts it.
War is not only in the newspapers. It lives on the streets of Anytown, USA and something tells me that simulating that war in my living room with a joystick isn't halting the gunfire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
