Down With Bumperstickers!

I hate bumper stickers. I hate the in-your-face way they try to push or say something, the way they show that the driver has "attitude" or "morals" or "a sense of appropriate balance between quilting and not taking quilting too seriously." These aspects of bumperstickers are annoying but not what I hate the most about bumper stickers. What I hate most is the idea that a short statement is all one needs to express one's belief, faith, ideals, or position with an argument. It is as if all arguments occur via bumper stickers:

Christ Saves!

Darwin will eat the Christian Fish

The Truth of Christ will eat Darwin

Why can't we all "CoExist"

Warning, in case of rapture the car will lose its driver

Do you see the argument in that?

Stickers like, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," "End(less) War," "Let's Take our Nation Back," and "Abortion Kills" states broad, general statements that miss some important, key aspects of any debate:

NUANCE!

(if you put something in all caps then I'm yelling, and what better way to get across the idea of nuance then to yell it.)

If you think about it, none of these bumpersticker statements really say anything; they make broad, absurd claims that need to be unpacked to be understood. I would love to stop someone who has a "Jesus Saves" bumper sticker and ask, "Saves what? What does it mean to be saved? Who is Jesus? How do you know? Why should I care?" and so on. Obviously this goes for the political rhetoric as well. 

I have recently been reading The Meeting of East and West by F.S.C. Northrop (1946). While it is a book that is older than my parents there are some great statements concerning politics in there. In the interest of nuance I would like to state them:

Democracy… if it is to function and preserve itself must be accompanied by two conditions. The first of these was emphasized by its founders and is one of the highest fruits of democratic cultures. .. The first requirement is universal education. The second is that this education must concern itself not merely with applied science and literature and art and practical matters but also with man's [sic] basic beliefs concerning the nature of himself and his universe.

Northrop continues:

For if the inquiry with respect to the latter matters is not pursued, it is inevitable, as the increase in man's scientific knowledge alters the traditional scientific and philosophical doctrines concerning the nature of man and his universe,… that the people will be left without any knowledge or appreciation of the importance of these [politics, morality, religion, etc.] matters.

Finally:

Then emphasis upon the traditional, outmoded, moral, religious, and political sentiments will become a positive menace, preventing man from making the reconstruction in his sense of values…

(Meeting of East and West, 1946, p.101)

Naturally I had to cut a lot, so there is even more nuance missing. If you didn't feel like reading the three sections, the bumper sticker summary would be:

Learn to read long, complicated, nuanced passages!

So please, lay off the bumper stickers dealing with faith, theology, politics, philosophy, etc. Let's try to actually talk to each other, listen, and take the time to understand the varieties of different positions.

In other words: Down with bumper stickers! 

I think I'll put that on my car.

The Movie was Better than the Book

I haven’t ranted about a book in a while and I don’t want people to think I am not reading any more. I just finished Irving Singer’s book, Cinematic Mythmaking: Philosophy in Film. I got into the book with a friend of mine hoping to find some profound, radical philosophical ideas and thoughts in film. Maybe Singer would point out how Kant’s categorical imperative shows up as a norm of ethics in more movies than many have realized. Or maybe he would consider Nietzsche’s übermensch as a major them/model for the protagonist. Or, considering the title of the book, he would look at some of the cultural anthropologists like Eliade, Frazer, or Weber and how symbols/themes/structures are used to convey certain myths of our society through film. This is what I was hoping.

Unfortunately this is not what I found. I won’t say Singer’s work is bad or weak, but I won’t say that it is a strong work either. Most of the work seemed to analyze scenes of the films discussed, symbolism and the like. When he spoke of mythology it was more of creating a reality in the film and inviting the audience into that reality. This is just a technique of film, not really mythmaking.

Perhaps it would have been helpful if Singer explained what he meant by “myth,” which he never did. In my understanding, a myth is a story or an explanation that speaks to a certain held truth of a community. A myth need not be a false or made up story, although at times it is. When we think of myths our collective imagination usually turns to the Greek and Roman deity stories. These are stories that speak to a collectively shared truth of the community. An example of a myth that pervades today might be:

All politicians are lying, selfish individuals who do not care about making things better.

This isn’t true, not all politicians are like this, yet it speaks to a shared truth of our culture. We have a shared distrust of politicians as well as a shared cynicism towards the political system. Rather than speaking to each and every experience that may lead someone to such distrust and cynicism we tell a story about politicians to ground our “truth.” They are all crooked. This is the myth. It may be true or it may not, but it speaks to a shared truth.

Singer could have made this point, and could have argued that the movies speak to the transformation of a person from one point in their life to another. There is a lot of fertile ground to be found in such a premise. The myth may be something like:

“A significant life-experience can lead to a change wherein the individual will be different and yet maintain essential aspects of his or her character after the fact.”

Nice and convoluted, huh. The movies that Singer discusses speak to such a change and to a degree speak to such a myth. We could consider existential philosophers such as Camus, or Kierkegaard, or others.

This could have been a good book, but in the end it was so-so. In other words, “meh.”

Here is a list of the major movies discussed in the book:

The Lady Eve

My Fair Lady

Pygmalion

Vertigo

The Heiress

Washington Square

La Belle et la Bete

The Testament of Orpheus

2001: A Space Odyssey

8 ^½ 

DCY2 - The Summary?

I have failed as a blogger for this week. One week in Washington D.C. and only two posts to show for it. On the bright side, I have posted a number of pictures on Facebook in “realtime” giving people the illusion that they are experiencing the journey with us.

Part of the reason for the dearth of posts was the dynamics of the youth group this year. We had a larger group which called for more energy and attention in the evening. It is difficult to write brilliant musings when people constantly ask questions like:

Can we go to ‘fro-yo’?

What are we doing for supper?

Can we go to Target?

Should we change our clothes?

When the museums close?

Can we go to fro-yo?

How long until we leave?

Where are we going to eat tonight?

Can we go to fro-yo?

As you can see, these questions are tantalizing, profound, and thought provoking. I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to have cogent, lucid thoughts when considering such important existential questions.

Since I am currently on the train on the way home and only have to deal with the wonderful antics of four adolescents sitting across from me I should be able to focus and write something profound.

Overall I would say it was a very good week. Everyone worked hard, were very responsible, and I am glad to say that I am proud of the youth. The dynamics of the kids was very different. The staff was together, organized, and it showed. The kids were much easier to work with. One of the many observations that I made was concerning unchurched children. I was teaching about Jesus and the idea of life-giving water and the kids (ages 10-12) were having a difficult time understanding what Jesus was talking about. Again and again the kids thought Jesus had some kind of water that would quench any thirst and would keep anyone from ever being thirsty again. I tried to explain in the little time I had about forgiveness and the grace of God through Jesus but it was something that was not connecting with the kids. First, the kids were convinced that they did not do something wrong every day. They told me, in all sincerity, that there were days when they would do nothing wrong. How am I supposed to explain the life-giving water of Christ when the do not even think that they are thirsty? This does beg the question – maybe they aren’t thirsty at all, maybe I am pushing a sense of guilt on them that doesn’t necessarily exist. I think this is a good and realistic question to ask and one that we should ask ourselves.

I only got to spend a week with the kids, so I can’t say if any of them are or are not perfect. I can say that just about all of them were “scolded” in one way or another every day. I also can safely say that everyone I know, including myself, screws up in one way or another every day. It may be about desiring forgiveness (or at least wanting to do better) that leads to a thirst. Regardless, it is not easy to try to introduce Christ to kids who have no community connection at all.

With all that said, everything went well. Kids were doing flips in the pool and no one was hurt. We ran backwards races and no one fell or stepped on dog poop. Kids were given knives to help cook and no one lost an appendage. It was a good week.

Maybe we will go back next year, but first I need to survive this train ride. Is it possible to leave a youth in New Haven CT?

Enjoy some pictures:

DCY2 - The Saga Continues... in Good Spirit?

I’m sure many are looking at this blog and wondering, “what happened to the DC team?” I have not been able to write any  posts in two whole days, and I am sure people are beginning to worry. Well, let me assuage your fears – we did not get abducted by the CIA or the FBI, nor were we carried off by angry, giant cockroaches (we gave the cockroaches the children first). We have been active, very active, and it has been good.

Monday is normally the worst day of every camp that I have done because people are getting used to each other, learning the ropes, seeing what does and does not work, etc. I have to say that this Monday things went well. Everyone from the youth group fit into their role, found a way to help, and kept the program going smoothly. The summer staff has been doing a great job because it is clear that the kids know what they can and cannot do, what is expected to them, etc. It went very well. Now I am expecting that things get worse and worse because I can only assume that the kids put up a front to relax our defenses. Then, when we least expect it – bang! – bad behavior reigns (isn’t that similar to what the Trojans did?).

Tuesday people went to the zoo (I didn’t go to the zoo because I was needed to play Candy Land, lose at Horse, and heat up sandwiches). Those who went to the zoo got to observe kids in their natural habitat – walking uphill – and heard their defensive cries of whining and complaining. Fascinating!

After the day was over we went to see a bunch of monuments, got separated, and walked the distance of two marathons (at least it felt that way).

So far everyone is doing very well. I’m very proud of our youth – they are wonderful with the kids. Today, however, we are going bowling which includes a 45 minute train ride with the kids. I hope one is injured on this trip (intentionally or unintentionally); I will be amazed. I guess you would say a trip with no incidents would be a “hole in one”!

There are some pictures on the church facebook page.