Art vs. Entertainment

I haven't posted anything for awhile now...life has been busy. I'm still struggling to balance my schedule, work hard for my local church, love people, be honest with God and the folks I come into contact with about as much as possible, and struggle with issues I should be struggling with; that and dedicating myself to growing in what has become a beautiful relationship with Bethany that is better than I ever could have imagined. And that takes investment too!

Anyways, some events over the last week and half or so have come together to create some interesting thoughts in my head that hold the potential to transform some things for me, so I thought I'd write them out.

Things started a week ago when I listened to the Ryan Sharp interview from The Nick and Josh podcast, and they got into an interesting conversation about the difference between art and entertainment. I'll quote Ryan's thoughts in full on this subject...I tried to transcribe perfectly, but I know I didn't;

"I think that art can lose quite a bit of its value when it gets universalized. Most great art is great art because it exists within a certain context, so there's real meaning around the symbols that shaped the ideas. Very seldom is it artists just painting what they see; it usually comes from a series of conversations or inspirations they've had from a certain community.

Sometimes with art, whether it be a film or music or fine arts, when they go mainstream, they lose something...for example, say I'm going to watch an independent art film like Paradise Now...if I'm watching it as an art piece, I could say, "Wow, they're really flipping some things on their heads about terrorism, maybe I'll appreciate the cinematography as well or something. But if I view it as entertainment, (I might think) "Eh, it really didn't hold my attention...if they would've written it so it would've been more exciting, then I would've enjoyed it more. So there's a different relationship between entertainment and art. Too often, art is domesticated and placed under this entertainment umbrella, and when it is under that umbrella, people are able to distance themselves from it; they don't have to work through some of the issues that it's showing because it might just be too uncomfortable in the beginning and say, "Eh, yeah, I don't like what's going on here. It's not really my thing."

Basically, Ryan is addressing a culture-wide phenomenon in our country where nearly everything we do is judged by the criteria of how "entertaining" it is; and our spending habits reflect that reality. In this situation, marketers and movie producers and musicians aren't stupid, they give us what we're paying for, which is quite often "art" that is short on substance and long on persistent action and explosions and color and movement to keep us engaged and entertained. Some counter-cultural persons continue to give us movies and music, etc that is meant to draw us into the larger questios of life, but these are few and far between. We are enculturated from a young age to buy into the entertainment reality.

Just as a simple example, I'll use the movie Over the Hedge as support for this suggestion.

Over the Hedge was, by most accounts, a light, fun animated movie that follows the story of a group of forest animals who wake up from a winter-long hibernation to find themselves in a small patch of undeveloped land in the midst of a suburban subdivision that popped up overnight. Since their land to roam and gather food in is gone, the movie follows their hilarious adventures to try to find food from the suburban homes to fill up their log for their hibernation. The action keeps moving, certain characters keep the laughter going, and the animals end up banding together to have success. That's the entertainment value of Over the Hedge.

The art value of Over the Hedge came with often subtle critiques of individualism, suburban life and the whole mindset of suburban sprawl, SUV's, etc. Some deeper themes running throughout the movie include the value of family, the trouble of blind trust, the consequences of stealing, and the shallowness of much of our society's life. In one section, though, the point is slammed home very explicitly when RJ the raccoon introduces the other animals to suburban life;

One character asks, "What is that?" as they pass an SUV. RJ responds, "THAT is an SUV. Humans ride around in it because they're slowly losing their ability to walk." "Jeepers, it's big," another says, "how many humans fit in there?" And RJ remarks back, "Usually? One."

"They eat to live...these guys live to eat. Let me show you what I'm talking about. The human mouth is called a piehole. The human being is called a couch potato. That (pointing to the telephone) is the device to summon food. That (the delivery man ringing the doorbell) is one of the many voices of food. That (the door) is the portal for the passing of the food. That (the delivery man's scooter) is one of the many transportation vehicles for food. Humans bring the food, take the food, ship the food, they drive the food, they wear the food! That (match) gets the food hot, that (cooler) gets the food cold, that (the table with a family praying) is the altar where they worship food, that (alka seltzer) is what they eat when they've eaten too much food, that (treadmill) gets rid of the guilt so they can eat MORE food! Food, food, food, food, FOOD!!!!! So you think they have enough? Well, they don't! For humans, enough is NEVER enough!"

And the real kicker is in the song Ben Folds sings as the credits roll which is an adaptation of his earlier song "Rockin' the Suburbs." Check out the lyrics; biting!

But you know what the sad thing is? A vast majority of folks came out of the theater, gave the movie a one-word judgment; either "good" or "bad" (according to its entertainment value, of course), and went back to their lives that often included the very things the movie producers were critiquing without a shred of their conscience being affected. Why? Because they've been trained to exist on the surface level of the desire to be entertained and were oblivious to the deeper issues the movie placed before them.

And I know by using "them" language here it seems I am trying to exclude myself from being among that group. I am not. I write about this phenomenon because I am still deeply enmeshed in it, and have only recently become aware of how pervasive it really is in our society. It so thoroughly saturates our society that everything, and I mean everything is shifting to reflect this commitment to surface entertainment.

Governments love this, because a populace that is perpetually entertained no longer holds its leaders accountable for their actions and policies; they no longer have time nor the desire to do so; because why would someone dive into the complexity of policy making and long-term decisions (an area of frustration that requires depth of conversation and vision) when you can watch the newest Die Hard movie or stare at a female celebrity's body and sense that all is right in the universe? In fact governments can encourage this entertainment industry, especially when the movies provide simple categories of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong so that when the government labels someone as evil, the people channel some Bruce Willis or Clint Eastwood to eradicate the evil infestation.

And I dare say (some of my friends will sigh at this point that I've gone here) Satan loves this move to entertainment as well. Even those who make the move to be involved in church come expecting to be entertained, and so instead of an institution that has the guts and courage to challenge the status quo, the church becomes another provider of religious goods and services for the entertainment of the individual. One quickly finds if you are in the leadership of a church in our society if your message/presentation is more or less entertaining than the act down the road by how long folks stay at your church. If they leave relatively quickly, it might be because you're unhealthy and unfaithful, but more likely it's because you're not ministering to their felt needs quite the way they'd like, and so because their "feeling" is central to their understanding of what is "right," they leave for the spot down the road or, even worse, they're so crushed by the drive to be entertained that they stay paralyzed in their LA-Z-Boy in front of their 62" plasma with 3,000 channels with a Bose surround sound system, remote in hand, and with one click of the thumb can delude themselves to think all is right in the universe; or, at the very least even if they recognize the world is F-ed up, they have neither the time nor the energy to be involved in the complexity of saving it, so they settle for the pseudo-world in front of them.

There was a book written near the beginning of the twentieth-century that prophetically saw this coming called "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Read it. Then pick up "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neal Postman and read it. Then check out "The Saturated Self" by Kenneth Gergen and see if these suggestions about the nature of our society aren't dead on.

Then you'll find yourself where I am. Knowing the system exists, that I am compelled to battle the urge to be entertained as the goal of life, yet only sporadically engaging the fight. To be sure, it is frustrating to be able to see how deeply my life has been enmeshed in the desire to be entertained, whether we're speaking of movie after movie or song after song or book after book that keep me moving enough in my life to avoid my own hungering for something more and disquieting thoughts about how I'm living a false life vicariously through celebrities and characters in books. I am finding that the more aware I am of this impulse and the more I subject it to Christ in favor of real life, the more free I am. I can watch movies and hear them making an argument about the nature of reality and human existence much more now; I can read a book that challenges me (like Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" right now) and take some time to think about what he's saying rather than hop to another one because I want to hear something "new" and "exciting"; I am recognizing the importance of consistency in direction in life that provides a deep satisfaction (sometimes in spite of circumstances) instead of hopping from thrill to thrill to "feel good" about myself. This is recognizing the beauty and challenge of art rather than the drive to be entertained.

This awareness impacts so much, and I'll have some more thoughts on this soon, as well as another glimpse at a movie much deeper in meaning than Over the Hedge that reveals a little further my perspective on the entertainment vs. art divide.

Global warming and how one's perspective is deeply affected by one's environment

The BBC did a nice little piece on different evangelical universities (Liberty University aka College of Falwell and Eastern Mennonite University where I attend seminary) here in Virginia on the issue of global warming that is worth a read. You can find it here. Read the article, if you would, before looking at my remarks.

Did you read it? : )

I just want to raise a point related to the nature/nurture discussion that is probably raging more deeply than it ever has in society. When it comes to bringing that discussion to bear on the church, I found what Brian McLaren had to say on the Nick and Josh podcast matters greatly as another voice in the conversation. I'll quote it in full here (and yes, I'm a dork that transcribed what Brian was saying to MSWord while he was talking);




"If we think the purpose of the gospel is to deliver souls to heaven after death, then we're going to read the entire gospel in a certain way; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the rest of the New Testament and all the rest of the Bible in a certain way.

But if that's not the primary problem that the Bible is addressing (though it is the primary problem in a lot of systematic theology approaches that say or assume that is what it addresses); but I'm asking a rather provocative question; what if that's not really the problem it addresses, what if the problem it addresses is that God has this beautiful and good creation, and human beings rebelled against God, we have left this relationship with God (what the Bible means by sin) and that sin is suicidal...sin destroys human beings and families and cultures and civilizations, and ultimately it will destroy the planet, i mean, that's easier for us to see now than for any generation in history (naive belief that WWI was last big war b/c humans were evolving beyond war). Other people had to take it on faith, for us it is sight.

We know very well that we can destroy the planet in our human rebellion. Human sin and evil and violence, and hatred and greed can destroy the planet, so if the gospel is the message of the kingdom, and the message of the kingdom is not evacuating Earth, but it's as the Lord's Prayer teaches us, "Your kingdom come," meaning come to earth, "your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," then we have to look at every area of life and say, "What would this arena of human life look like if God's will would be done?"





What Brian has to say I think matters deeply for the issue of global warming, and led to my conviction regarding this issue that I believe so strongly I created a Facebook group representing my belief that, ultimately; It's not about global warming, it's about caring for the earth. The issue is very polarizing (often driving folks to occupy one of two extremes), but as I see it (and Brian McLaren sees it), the issue of conservation (caring for the earth) is deeply a gospel-related issue. I would agree with McLaren that salvation as it is presently conceived of in most Christian groups is about how to get to heaven when you die rather than joining up with God in His movement to reconcile all of creation, starting now. Now, certainly, this will not happen in its fullness until the "Day of the Lord," but this should not lead us (as most folks often do) to the place where we sit on our hands and wait for the sweet by and by because salvation is all God's work. There's a strong thread running through Scripture that we are to be co-creators and collaborators with God in His work to reconcile and renew all of his creation.

Thus, how one reads and the environment one grows up in deeply shapes one's way of viewing reality. So, in a very real way, Christians should seek to embrace a deeper and fuller reading of Scripture and the purposes of God, both for their sakes and for the sakes of friends, acquaintances, and future generations. This is where my bias is exposed; I think Jerry Falwell's perspective on reality is handicapped by the way he interprets the gospel, and his perspective is deeply affecting a LOAD of people that uncritically accept his reading; both at Thomas Road Baptist Church, at Liberty University, in the conservative Christian camp across America, and globally when folks from other religious traditions and countries see him and think he speaks for all Christians. I'm sorry Jerry recently passed away, but his perspective on the gospel, in my view, was more destructive than it was helpful. In the grand scheme of things, I think Falwell's legacy is more negative than positive if we're speaking of the kingdom of God and the lifestyle we are called to exhibit.

Check out the practical differences between the EMU and the Liberty responses to the question of global warming;

"A lesson taught by Dr Thomas Ice, Liberty University's senior theologian, focuses on headaches like Armageddon, salvation and the Second Coming. Compared to these concerns, global warming is considered a mere sideshow at best, or a left-wing conspiracy at worst.

Asked his opinion on whether global warming is a reality or conspiracy, Dr Ice answers forcefully.
"It's a hoax, certainly," he says. "I think global warming is being used like many political issues to try to move the world from nationalism to internationalism or global governance." And his class? Asked how many of them are worried about global warming, not one raises a hand."

Hold that opinion and environment together with the EMU report;

"There is a massive and mounting body of scientific evidence that global warming is a reality," he (Loren Swartzendruber) tells the gathered congregation. "Hone your God-given talents, grow your entrepreneurial skills and stretch your scientific minds to co-create with God a better world. As disciples of Jesus, we can do no less."
Here, when asked if they are worried about global warming, almost everyone puts up their hand.

Now, I recognize that EMU isn't perfect, and is deeply in need of critique from others who might be more conservative and challenge the leftist message some of the faculty spout off, but at the very least there is a vigorous conversation on campus where more "liberal" and more "conservative" folks have a chance to be heard and interact. In addition, I think EMU embraces what I believe to be a much deeper Biblical understanding of the gospel that includes all of creation. That seems to be almost completely lacking at Liberty; I don't think I'm overstating the reality that, functionally speaking, Falwell is almost deity status in that environment.

If you aren't interested in anything at all in this post other than one nugget to take away with you, please re-read the McLaren quotation several times because I think it's so important to be aware of. What is the gospel? How does it affect the way I see the world? And how does it affect my relationships with my environment, both in human relationships and caring for the earth?

And maybe most pointedly, how can we break out of the liberal/conservative extremes that folks want to slot us into to embrace that a life of discipleship is one that will seem "liberal" to some and "conservative" to others? I'd point you to two previous posts I made that quoted Pres. Swartzendruber's excellent article "Liberal or Conservative?" here and here where he engages what it means to reject the either/or extremes and follow Jesus with all of our being.

I love one of his quips from a mentor of his who said often, "On some issues I am rather liberal...because I take the Bible very seriously. Which is a conservative position."