My Thoughts on the Hunger Games Series

(If you haven't read the Hunger Games trilogy, you should probably quit reading now, since a moderate amount of spoilers are to follow in this post.)

To begin, I'll apologize for the lack of coherence that this blog post may reflect. It’s been ages since I've blogged anything due to college, work, and bouts of slothfulness. Christmas Break is already halfway over for me and I really haven't done much at all – not that this is a bad thing, but I was hoping to do some writing last week. I had some other topics lined up, but none are very fresh in my mind, so I'll just be writing about my recent thoughts; specifically, my thoughts on the Hunger Games Trilogy.

My experience with The Hunger Games began when I got a Kindle Touch for Christmas (it’s great by the way – and I wasn't fully sold on it [and the concept of ereaders in general] when I ordered it). Having a device to read digital books on, but possessing no digital books of my own, I decided it would be an opportune time to finally read the Hunger Games Trilogy that everyone’s been talking about (there’s a movie coming out after all so I knew I needed to have read the books before I saw the movies, or I’d risk be lambasted to do so by all of my friends and acquaintances).

Let me give you a breakdown of my mental-state throughout the series before I discuss some of my deeper thoughts. As I started the first book, I had to work fairly hard to get through the first chapter – it’s hard for a twenty-year-old male to be thoroughly captivated by an account of a teenage girl and a cat, especially on Christmas Eve. By chapter two though I was hooked, and ripped through the rest of book one without a second thought. From about two-thirds of the way through section one to the beginning of section three the book is simply enthralling. I was at the mercy of the book and felt my heart pounding hard for the entire duration of this passage. I found the last section of the book to be a bit on the disappointing side. It’s not bad by any stretch, but it pales in comparison to the section before it, and winds up being a bit predictable and stale. No doubt there are some great moments, but I feel that too many pages were wasted purely setting up the great moments and the grandeur of the previous section is partially spoiled by an absence of creativity. I was fine with the ending itself and while I won't praise it, I certainly won't penalize the book for it (although the rest of the series is penalized by it – more on that later).This book winds up being just short of a masterpiece (you could probably count the number of books I’ve called masterpiece on one hand so this is still a great compliment from me). I’d probably give Collins’ writing an 8 (recognizing the target audience) and her ideas a 9. For a sort of reference with other young adult/teen books let me say that I’d give the Harry Potter series a cumulative average of an 8.5 writing and a 9 on ideas while the cumulative average of the Twilight series has a writing score of 3 and an idea score of 5. So, all in all, I greatly enjoyed the first book and had high hopes for the rest of the series (although I already began to question whether such excellence could be maintained due to the nature of the first book and where the series seemed to be going).

Book two started off pretty slowly, but I remembered book one’s slow start which allowed me to maintain high spirits. In fact, most of section one is a snoozer with things finally heating up at the very end. The last two sections definitely improve, although they still can't recapture the magic of the first book. Really, in retrospect, the last two sections feel like a spliced together version of books one and three. This isn’t a great combination though considering one of book one’s main strengths was its freshness and creativity, something that clearly cannot be preserved if it is closely repeated. All in all, book two is solid, primarily marred by a slow first section and the hindsight for knowing what book three holds in store. I'd give it an 8 again in writing but only a 7 in ideas.

Book three is when we finally realize that Collins may have just hitched two books onto the first in order to get a heavy-handed ending that is rather predictable and safe, although perhaps not quite in the conventional sense. It’s kind of like going to an awards banquet with a fantastic opening dinner and ceremony, followed by hours of predictable speeches and obligatory messages that you have to sit through because you're locked in the room (maybe not literally locked, but locked nonetheless by social etiquette). The first section of the book once again is an entirely predictable and snoozable affair. What makes it worse though is that the book never really takes off, as it just goes through the motions of wrapping up what we knew was inevitable about fifty pages through book one. This doesn't have to necessarily be bad (in some sense it is required), but Collins’ execution is what makes it such a dull affair. Really the book is a mini-story with gobs of introspection set on repeat. Section two feels like it should have been the boring section one that has somewhat plagued all of the series’ entries; it's just stalling, waiting for section three to begin. While Collins doesn't make a Stephanie Meyer mistake and completely bag out of giving us the required (or at least greatly appreciated), climactic ending, she does a rather half-hearted job of it. It lacks any sort of creativity and just seems to mimic the dull repeating introspection we've already suffered through in this book and a large portion of book two. Katniss is tired throughout the whole book, seemingly reflecting Collins’ state and the soon to be state of the reader. I suppose one could give Collins credit for having written a consistent book in this regard. The last few chapters are drawn out and a bit sloppy. When we think the final climax is coming we get a confusing stall to a severely less dramatic climax that is about as shocking as finding presents under the tree on Christmas morning. Yeah, the presents weren't there the night before, but you knew they were coming. Anyway, the epilogue tries to wrap up the book properly, but after arguably sacrificing the entire book for her ending, Collins isn't willing to sacrifice her ending state for a proper epilogue; instead, we get what feels like a bit of staple fanficition. Overall the writing in this book comes in at about a 7 and the ideas drop to a pale 4. It’s a pretty sorry way to end a trilogy that began with such promise. It’s hard to give the series an overall rating as I feel the ending and narrative progression (a chain is only as strong as its weakest links) really hurt the series’ lasting effect. Hard pressed, I’ll give the writing an 8 but the ideas only a 6.5. Clearly a large factor in this letdown was a rushed book. If Collins had taken a little more time (or perhaps if the publishers has allowed her to) this could've been a suitable ending to the series.

Now to some more substantial (but still rather incoherent) thoughts.

The Ending of Book 1 and its Impact on the Rest of the Series:

As I said before, the ending of book 1 is a fine way to end the first book of a trilogy. In fact, with a few added pages, or perhaps even just paragraphs, it would be a serviceable ending to a standalone book (something that I think I would have preferred over what we got from the entire trilogy). The main problem is that the ending we are given at the end of the trilogy is far too similar to the ending we're given at the end of the first book. Essentially in both, Katniss returns home to spend the rest of her life with Peeta in a depressed state of mind and depressed environment. There a few noticeable differences as in the last ending it’s more of a freely-made choice to be with Peeta, Katniss is more scarred mentally and physically, and the environment is no longer under the harsh control of the Capitol. However, are these differences so great that they justify two additional books?

Taking into account the negative progression of the narrative, I feel that the differences aren't so great. First, the choice to be with Peeta still isn't exactly a completely free choice: Katniss is pretty messed up and Peeta is just kind of there while Gale has run off (he’s in no state to be anywhere else). Additionally, it wouldn't have taken too much to tweak book one just enough so Katniss is happier to be with Peeta. Secondly, it also wouldn't have taken much for Katniss to be more scarred in book one. Losing Prim is something different that would've been harder to add to book one’s ending, but it’s somewhat of an irrelevant factor as Prim’s death is barely touched on after it happens. Finally, in many ways, the environments balance out - taking into consideration what Collins gives us. While book one’s ending has Capitol control, Katniss gets a comfortable life in her new house and with the entire District still intact. Book three’s ending never really explores what the new government’s like; presumably it’s better, but for all we went through it leaves this point far too much alone. The District still seems rather depressed as it tries to rebuild and most of the people that seemed dead under the harsh control of the old government are in fact dead even in the new ending.

So in essence, the endings are rather similar. Perhaps if certain points such as the new government and Prim’s death were touched on more there’d be a more concrete difference between the two thus justifying the additional two books. Or even if a sort of disharmonious echo was drawn out between the two endings by Collins, it might have been easier to like or at least appreciate the trilogy's ending. What I've come to conclude is that an expanded book one ending would've been far more preferable to the rushed, minimalistic trilogy ending that Collins used. True, a story isn't just about the ending and is often more about the journey (a case in point being LOST), but as some of my next points address, the journey given by the final two books considerably drops off in quality from the first book, making me wonder why we even had them at all (corporate greed cannot be fully blamed as Collins adamantly states that the narrative was always intended to be in a trilogy format, something that is also clear in how she wrote the books).

Peeta and the Indecision of the Plot:

Here I feel that Collins never really could decide what kind of priority the Peeta and Peeta/Gale relationships to Katniss should have on the overall narrative. Originally it seems that the narrative of the Hunger Games is centered around Katniss’ survival. Obviously her relationship (not just romantically) with Peeta is an important part of her survival, but as the first book ends and as the second book progresses, it feels as if the narrative has shifted to Peeta’s relationship to Katniss. In fact, I think I very reasonable case could be made for Peeta being the main protagonist (or at least hero) of the Hunger Games and Katniss serving as a narrator for his narrative. This however breaks down as the third book ends leaving the reader (or at least me) very disoriented as to what he or she has just been reading (perhaps my next section has some bearing here). Is Peeta the hero of the series or just a sideplot and how important is the love triangle? Again, perhaps this could’ve been clarified and greatly improved if the third book had been handled better.

Katniss’ Internal State and Topic Range:

While Katniss serves as an interesting narrator, she seems wildly unreliable at times (while some authors like George R.R. Martin purposefully do this, I don’t know if Collins had this in mind) and certain sections of the books don’t come off clean and are a little clunky. I feel like an additional narrator or narrators (whether other characters or an unknown observer) could have enhanced the trilogy. I’m not saying they need to be given large sections of the book, but a few chapters here and there of some other narrator would've been helpful for some clarity and tone issues. Focusing on Katniss alone causes some confusion and greatly restricts the series from breaking some new, creative ground that would've added another dimension to the series. As is, we have a narrative that seems to want to be focused on Katniss, but doesn't quite work due to some of the other elements Collins has tried to weave into the series. Due to this, the range of the book is greatly limited which seems a waste given the potential waters that Collins has to tread in and seems to want to tread in. The effect of war on individuals is sufficiently explored via Katniss, but not as fully as it could be. Meanwhile, the effects of rebellion, tyranny, and public figures along with topics such as the power and role of government, ethics, and the power of the press are hinted at but never satisfactorily explored. I know these are supposed to be young adult books, but Collins clearly had a more comprehensive and complex narrative in mind, something she doesn't quite reach.

A Lack of New Creativity and Abandoning an Expanding Universe :

Perhaps the greatest bane hounding the series is the complete abandonment of creativity once book one comes to a close. Collins lays all of her groundwork in book one and expects it to carry the rest of the series. While this seems like a logical thing to do, most excellent narratives continue to add more and more into their mythos right up until the final act. A few new characters are introduced, but they comes across as flat and don't contribute a whole lot to the narrative. Most of the setting of the final two books follows very predictably from book one, keeping the final two books from having the level of excitement and wonder book one produced (book three is especially guilty of this). Collins signs off of world-making after book one, a cardinal sin in an expanding universe.

Sending a Message but Offering a Poor (if any) Response:

Perhaps the primary reason for this discard of creativity is Collins’ utter devotion to her message of the effects of war on (young) people. While this is a fine message to send and explore, Collins’ obsession to it limits the rest of the series. Any adventure elements are completely abandoned as we move into a single (somewhat one-dimensional) character study. As the series closes, the plot elements tightly constrict around this theme, greatly restricting the narrative. Any sort of plot choices are thrown out the window as Collins must craft her yarn around her message to ensure that it sticks in the mind of the reader. It does, but isn’t necessarily effective as it comes across as heavy handed and doesn’t quite resonate the way it should with readers. Also, Collins really doesn't offer any sort of advice to the reader. While not required, it would've been nice to have seen a bit more of a moral (or morals) drawn out and displayed towards the ending, especially since what we've been given has been excessively heavy-handed anyway.

Overall, the Hunger Games is an above average series (I focused on the negative in this post as I figure most people have already been told of all of its admirable attributes) that starts superbly, but roughly coasts to the end. The series could’ve been in the excellent or perhaps even legendary range if more time had been put into crafting a comprehensive and more focused final book, along with some refinements in the middle book to properly reflect the series’ expanded and yet clearer focus. What makes the Hunger Games so disappointing in my mind is the fact that this very good series could have and should have been an amazing one.

Film Ideology: An Education

I realize it's been quite some time (over two months) since I've updated my blog so I've decided to post something I wrote about six months ago just to having something new up here. I am hoping to write a short series of posts on a few various topics relating to Christianity (including things such as the negative influences of Platonism on Christianity, "reasonable" hope, Christian conflict, animals in The Kingdom of God, and the economics of Christianity) over the next few months or so - I've been extremely busy this semester taking 18 credits of Spanish, Physics, and Philosophy which is why the posts won't be sooner. Anyway, I hope you enjoy some of my thoughts on the film An Education. (Note: If you haven't seen the movie there are spoilers in my post so go and watch it - it's an excellent film - before reading this post)

“The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.” – Aristotle

In today’s world one can see, and in no short supply, conflicting views on not just what an education is worth, but also what an education is. Some call high school a proper education; others may scoff at this sentiment, going on to say that college is the truly adequate education. The arguments don’t end there however, with certain individuals declaring graduate school as the only worthwhile education and others completely rejecting the concept of institutionalized education all together, saying that one is not “educated” until he or she has begun to independently live and work among the general population. In the film An Education, this power struggle regarding the meaning of an education takes center stage, compelling viewers to examine and perhaps even reevaluate their view on the meaning of an education.

An Education is a 2009 BBC film following the development of a teenage girl, Jenny, in 1960’s suburban London, and how an older man, David, enters into and drastically alters her life. The movie contends that an education is more than any sort of institutional degree, arguing that it’s experiencing things first hand - making mistakes along the way that profoundly shape an individual’s life both positively and negatively. What the film suggests is that an education is in fact what many would call a worldview with an emphasis on experience shaping it. The film acknowledges that institutional schooling is important, but seems to argue that it is a means to opportunities in life rather than a direct path to developing a worldview. It is the opportunities in life, and an individual’s responses and experiences regarding these opportunities, that shape who people are as individuals.

An Education makes a strong argument for experience being the cornerstone upon which individuals build their worldviews. “’Action is character.’ I think it means that if we never did anything, we wouldn’t be anybody. And I never did anything until I met you.” In the film, Jenny, the protagonist, seems to routinely be caught between the ideals of her proper, traditional middle-class parents and David, an exciting, vibrant, thirty-year old. There is a stark contrast between Jenny’s parents’ dull, conservative lifestyle to whom playing the cello is a hobby, and apparently the only thing their daughter should do outside of school work, and David’s live-life-to-the-fullest-every-second-of-every-day-no-matter-what lifestyle. Due to her upbringing coupled with her recent experiences with David, Jenny completely misunderstands the meaning of “action is character.” Having lived a life of relative boredom with her monotonous parents and now experiencing all kinds of sophisticated things with David, Jenny uses this as a confirmation that her parents are in fact nobodies and that she is doing the right thing by continuing her relationship with David. Her whole string of thought is rather ironic in the context of where it occurs in the movie. Just previously to this scene, Jenny finds out that David is nothing more than a glorified confidence man and thief, seemingly doing whatever he can to make a buck - Jenny finds this out after watching David steal someone’s painting. David is able to justify his actions, to himself and Jenny, by saying, “We’re (referring to he and his friends) not clever like you so we have to be clever in other ways; because if we weren’t, there would be no fun.” Since Jenny is eventually taken in by his arguments, her worldview is forced to change in order to accommodate the meaning of “action is character.” Instead of taking it to mean (as she likely would have before she met David) “the type of actions one does reveals/builds his or her character” she now can understand it as “doing anything” is character in and of itself. There’s no denying the importance of experiencing things in individuals’ lives, and, as one can see with Jenny, these experiences do radically shape people’s lives and views.

No experience shapes a life more, and causes one to question the choices that he or she made, than that of a mistake. Mistakes are almost always recognized in hindsight rather than in the moment, partially due to individuals’ own pride and stubbornness and also due to an incorrect worldview. By observing Jenny’s father, Jack, this fact becomes perfectly clear. Throughout the film, Jack is seen as a rather stingy, uptight, slow-witted fellow. He can probably be best described as one of those people who acts as if nothing gets by them when in fact just about everything does. Jack pushes harder and harder throughout the film for Jenny to go to Oxford. It becomes clear that his reason isn’t for her to simply get an education and become a better person when he routinely puts money ahead of Jenny’s education and own interests. What viewers eventually find out is that Jack values financial security more than anything else. He only becomes aware of how foolish this philosophy is after Jenny drops out of school and finds out that David is a married man. He’s extremely upset with Jenny and her actions until she points out that silly school girls are always seduced by older men – their parents are the ones that shouldn’t be. Jack realizes that he’s made the mistake of allowing David to hurt Jenny’s life due to his mistaken belief that financial security is what matters in the world. “All my life I’ve been scared and I didn’t want you to be scared. That’s why I wanted you to go to Oxford.” Jack’s allowed his own vision of what he thinks the world should be like, Jenny marrying a rich husband, obscure how the world actually is - Jenny being tricked by an unscrupulous man. When at last he accepts this, Jack can finally take the correct view, encouraging Jenny to go to Oxford so she can learn and be happy. This, along with Jenny’s complete experience throughout the film (that there’s no easy way in life or as she says, “The life I want, there is no shortcut”), shows us that any education worth having comes with its share of trauma.

As much as one would like to say that an education is a good thing, after having many experiences and enduring suffering to get it, one realizes that everyone’s worldview is different and both positive and negative things stem from just about any worldview. David clearly has had his fair share of experiences and mistakes. These however haven’t seemed to give him a good education or positively affected his worldview. A line David says early on in the film, although said in a joking manner, probably best describes his worldview formation. “I study what I believe they call the university of life. I didn’t get a very good degree there.” We see throughout the film that David’s education has indeed failed him. Yet, even Jenny’s worldview at the end of the film isn’t without its own negative aspects. An Education was based on the memoirs of Lynn Barber, whom the character of Jenny is based off of. Here’s what Lynn had to say about her entire experience, “What did I get from Simon [The David character in the movie]? An education - the thing my parents always wanted me to have. I learned a lot in my two years with Simon. … My experience with Simon entirely cured my craving for sophistication. By the time I got to Oxford, I wanted nothing more than to meet kind, decent, straightforward boys my own age, no matter if they were gauche or virgins. … But there were other lessons Simon taught me that I regret learning. I learned not to trust people; I learned not to believe what they say but to watch what they do; I learned to suspect that anyone and everyone is capable of "living a lie". I came to believe that other people - even when you think you know them well - are ultimately unknowable. Learning all this was a good basis for my subsequent career as an interviewer, but not, I think, for life. It made me too wary, too cautious, too ungiving. I was damaged by my education." The film shows how wonderful, and yet still terrible, an education can truly be. It also illustrates how profound of an impact individuals’ mistakes can have on others close to them. When it comes to developing worldviews, it would appear that many people have some sort of stake in the process.

An important thing to remember is that a worldview is not a static thing; it’s dynamic, incorporating all of one’s mistakes and experiences. This in turn means that individuals’ worldviews can continually impact their lives in new ways, both positively and negatively. With so many variables and choices in a person’s life today, living a good, positive life may be seen as an extremely intimidating task. However, people can take comfort in the fact that everyone makes mistakes and that these mistakes can only make one stronger if one is willing to acknowledge and learn from them. Yes, getting an education and developing a good worldview is hard, but the end result is sweet.

Christianity and American Culture

American popular culture may be one of the most beautiful yet perverted things in existence. Beautiful in the sense of the emotional narratives and creativity it can express. Take the television program LOST for instance. The show masterfully displayed fully human, emotional experiences and stories in a new and imaginative setting. The audience was transported to a unique world where they could dare to dream. Yet this unique world still had deep emotional resonance as viewers could relate to the show’s characters’ feelings and stories. Unfortunately though, this free expression isn’t always put into practice by much of popular culture. Instead, we see human creativity stifled and marred by some of the terrible ideologies and ethics that our society and culture hold.

While it may be easy to talk about the various ideological systems that have seeped their way into American popular culture, it’s harder to actively identify said systems, analyzing the impact they have on our cultural expression. This course has greatly helped me to better diagnose and become increasingly aware of the problems that exist in popular culture today. In particular, after taking this course I have become more aware of the struggle for equality in American culture. Although equality is a core American value, close inspection of American culture uncovers an underlying power imbalance that should generate concern in American Christians.

One area where this power imbalance manifests itself is in the area of gender representation. In an astounding number of cultural texts patriarchal language and images perpetuate inequality through language and images that denigrate females, silencing women by denying them a voice, and by portraying women as lacking. In a country where men and women are supposedly equal, we see a systematic representation in popular culture that suggests just the opposite. Judging by media representations of gender normalizations, it would seem that gender inequality is not a problem of the past; rather, it is a major problem still plaguing our society today.

Race is another area where the power imbalance facing popular culture is abundantly clear. A claim that Americans often make is that everyone has a voice in this country. However, popular culture fails to express this as minorities are often portrayed in harmful stereotypes. Instead of coming across as unique, engaging characters, minorities often seem to be silenced by being placed in a comedic role or in a role that exists to serve as a means for white characters to use to achieve an end. In American popular culture one can see hegemonic whiteness in action as white value systems and ideals are attempted to be passed off as the values that all individuals in America should strive towards.

Perhaps the most disturbing way that inequality attempts to hide itself within American culture is through the perpetuation of the “American dream.” Despite all of the areas that contribute to the power imbalance in culture, many people fail to see and understand them due to the myth that “anyone can shake free of the limiting past in a struggling ascent toward the realization of promise in a gracious future” (Benre and Hefner). With this idea firmly implanted into many Americans’ consciousnesses, it becomes extremely hard for them to recognize and respond to the power imbalance that American culture faces.

With these ideas and observations in mind how do Christians respond to the challenges that American culture presents them with? One of the best ways to overcome any problem is through awareness and questioning. Individuals are often simply content with drinking in the messages culture sends without being fully aware of what messages mean and the implications that they carry. Many individuals will sit down in their nice, comfy, lazy-boy recliners after a hard day’s work and simply “veg out” while watching television or a movie. People don’t comprehend that various texts such as commercials and television shows that they are being bombarded with are drawing them into the systematic ideology that American culture holds. Individuals don’t take the time to examine and discuss with others the texts that they are being subjected to. They don’t question or critically examine the information presented to them. Instead, they allow themselves to fall into a state of slothfulness, letting American culture shape the interactions they have with it. If Christians want to break free of the ethic provided by American culture and truly serve the kingdom of heaven, they need to actively examine pop-culture as a whole and purposefully discuss it and their findings with other Christians, striving for God-honoring conversations, insightful knowledge, and potential paths of effective action. In this manner, humans can begin to subdue the popular culture’s influence and promote a Christian ethic.

After this questioning and examination, there is still more work for Christians left to do. If they stop short and only identify and spread awareness about the problems that exist within culture today, then no progress will have been made. If somebody goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with diabetes and doesn’t seek any sort of treatment, then nothing will change and they won’t get better. In fact, it is very likely that things will only get much worse. This is why Christians need to have a proactive response to the problems that they identify in popular culture.

Two of the best ways to do this are through creation and cultivation. If Christians are to create culture then they must find creative ways to do so that can be consumed by a broad audience. The option of creation isn’t available to most Christians. Few will find themselves in positions such as directors or writers that can do so. If Christians can’t create positive texts that fight against the problems that plague our culture then they need to cultivate culture. This means preserving or spreading existing texts that capture or portray certain positive elements that fight against the harmful generalizations perpetuated by culture. By creating and cultivating, Christians can muster an appropriate response that begins to combat the existing problems in American culture.

Stereotypes in The Big Bang Theory

I realize that it has been quite sometime since I've last posted on my blog. I hereby apologize for my extreme neglectfulness. Now that fall semester is over I have quite a few papers and essays I'm willing to publish on the blog and I will be doing so over the next few weeks. I may even write a couple new things (exclusively for this blog :P) over break. So, to kick things off here's a little piece I wrote for my communication class on stereotype usage in the popular CBS sitcom, The Big Bang Theory.

There are three universal topics of conversation in America: the weather, relationships, and television. Whether for good or ill, television has become a dependable, influential fixture in our conversations. We talk about it at water coolers, on internet forums, over drinks with friends, and on the phone with loved ones who may live thousands of miles away. Whether the topic is reality shows, sitcoms, dramas, or political talk shows, television is a source of commonality between millions of individuals. However, to hold onto a large audience, television shows need to make some “sacrifices," employing various stereotypes to easily generate humor and inform viewers how certain characters fit into the mythos of a show. While these sacrifices may lead to some negative effects, the utility and potential positive effects make stereotypes an extremely useful tool to employ in television programs. A case in point is CBS’s The Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory is a traditionally-shot sitcom about two physicists, Leonard and Sheldon, and the various situations they find themselves in with their friends, Rajesh, Howard, and Penny. The show began airing in September 2007 and has steadily attracted a wide audience, becoming the highest-rated live action comedy among the coveted young-adult demographic (ages 18-34).

One character on The Big Bang Theory who clearly falls into the territory of being a stereotyped persona is Rajesh "Raj" Koothrappali, portrayed by Kunal Nayyar. As an Indian astrophysicist, Raj displays many characteristic often associated with both Indians (or foreigners) and nerds. The character speaks with a thick Indian accent and often makes remarks about how great certain aspects of America are compared to Indian practices, illustrating the common behavior of Indians admiring Americans. Raj also suffers from a form of selective mutisim which prevents him from speaking to women – unless he is inebriated. This inability to talk to women seems to play into both the idea that male nerds have trouble talking to the opposite sex and the stereotype that young, foreign men having difficulty communicating with attractive women. Additionally, Raj’s parents are frequently shown trying to interfere with his romantic life – strengthening the association between Raj and what Americans believe to be typical Indian characteristics. Finally, Raj being both a nerd and Indian plays off of the resonance had by Americans between individuals of Asian ancestry being nerds versus the dissonance of Hispanic or African individuals being nerds. Viewers are encouraged to take Asians nerds seriously, while black nerds such as Steve Urkel are viewed humorously, because they don't fit into society's conception of nerds.

Another stereotyped character on the show is Howard Wolowitz, portrayed by Simon Helberg - a nerdy, Jewish, aerospace engineer. Wolowitz still lives at home with his extremely loud, overly informative, obnoxious mother. He is also explicitly portrayed as the creepiest and least likable character on the show. Wolowitz is completely out of touch with women and usually just ends up offending them when he attempts to interact with them. Here viewers are presented with several traits all popularly associated with young Jewish men. Wolowitz is very comparable in many ways with the famous Jewish sitcom character George Costanza of NBC’s Seinfeld, who also lives with his mother and is woefully inept at interacting with women.

One other significant stereotype on The Big Bang Theory is Penny – played by Kaley Cuoco – the protagonists’ next-door neighbor. Penny is pigeonholed into her stereotype so strongly that the writers have never even given the character a last name. She fits right into the typical “girl next door” character type in several ways. Firstly, she’s blonde and very attractive. She also hails from the Midwest (Nebraska) and works as a waitress as she tries to become a professional actress. Penny is initially portrayed as a sweet, unintelligent individual who gets by on her good looks and charm rather than possessing a strong intellect or talents. Finally, Penny fits the stereotype of a beautiful young neighbor by being presented as rather sexually promiscuous. Men are often seen leaving her apartment the morning after she's been on a date, and in episode 401,“The Robotic Manipulation,” Sheldon seems to accurately estimate the number of Penny’s sexual partners to be thirty-one.

Examining these examples, one could contend that the show uses stereotypes in two main ways. The first purpose is to generate comic relief at minimal investment. The common stereotypes incorporated in The Big Bang Theory are quite familiar to the majority of its audience. This allows the show to allot its time to better set up the main story threads it wants to promote while investing little to no time generating the secondary chuckles that sitcoms seem to require. In essence, using stereotypes often nets a show the best “bang for its buck.” While hour-long dramas have the time to develop side characters and situations, sitcoms writers know that time is at a premium. Networks expect them to fit as many laughs into a twenty-one minute time slot as possible. Character development is not essential to a sitcom, because the constantly changing scenarios provide for enough entertainment.

We can see stereotypes used to set up humor in The Big Bang Theory in a number of situations. One such case is in episode 108,“The Grasshopper Experiment.” In this case Raj’s parents – being the controlling, match-making Indian parents that they are – try to set him up with a woman from India. This situation based upon a stereotype allows humor to be found in multiple ways, including Raj taking up drinking to speak to women, Raj making a fool of himself in front of his arranged date, and Raj’s parents’ reactions when they find out the unfortunate results of said date. A similar situation occurs in episode 223, “The Monopolar Expedition.” Towards the end of this episode we see Raj’s and Howard’s over-controlling parents going at each other when their sons announce plans to go to the North Pole for a science experiment. Their ethnic backgrounds are played off each other to generate maximum comedic effect. Throughout the series one can see a plethora of simple jokes that require certain stereotypes in order to work. Without such stereotypes, much of the show's easily-generated side humor simply wouldn’t function.

The second primary purpose stereotypes serve in the series is to provide a shortcut in establishing who its characters are as people and how they fit into the show's mythos. In the very first episode we are introduced to all five main characters, and the stereotypes they are portrayed to fit immediately allow the audience to get a solid grasp on what it can expect from them. Raj is the awkward foreigner, Howard is the creepy Jewish guy living with his mom, and Penny is the desirable but dim girl next door. After one episode, with little exposure to these characters, the audience has a solid foundation for how to perceive them. Again, the show is using stereotypes to better allocate its resources, allowing it to focus on the main characters of Leonard and Sheldon.

It's important to note that these stereotypes are only a starting point for these characters. While certain elements of the stereotypes remain in place – such as Raj having an Indian accent, Wolowitz living with his mother, and Penny being attractive – others are removed in order for the characters to develop and show more complexity. In Episode 217, “The Terminator Decoupling,” Raj is seen interacting with a woman in a positive way, something not initially seen on the show. In Episode 212, “The Killer Robot Instability,” Wolowitz shows a sensitive side, and the audience is given an explanation for why he comes off as creepy and inept. Finally, in episode 207, “The Panty Piñata Polarization,” Penny is seen to possess a keen mind, proving herself to be an extremely capable foe for Sheldon. All of these significant developments take place in season two, which lends itself to the idea that the stereotypes were used as springboards, allowing characters to exist in a familiar form until the show had time to better define them.

While they clearly serve a useful purpose for shows, stereotypes can also have a negative effect, reinforcing and perpetuating prejudices of audience members. Seeing a character in a stereotypical role adds credence to the stereotype. However, as shown in the previous paragraph, the use of stereotypes can be a net positive if they are eventually explored and pursued by a show. If a show can establish a character of a particular stereotyped group and then turn certain conceptions of that character completely around, the audience’s perceptions may be changed. Counterexamples and surprises in the stories may bring traditional views into question. Of course, this is not always the case. Rather than adjusting the given stereotype to fit the character, the audience will sometimes chose to instead move said character out of that stereotypical group. Even in these cases, it still seems that audience members make a little progress into better understanding stereotypes.

As more and more television shows are produced, we can expect the use of stereotypes to continue. Despite the negative effects they may carry, they are simply too efficient at providing humor and establishing characters to be simply tossed aside. However, one can hope that as more shows employ stereotypes, these stereotypes will begin to dilute somewhat, due to audiences being shown so many variations of the same type of character. While this may simply cause broad stereotypes to fracture into smaller, more specific stereotypes, doing so will reduce the amount of generalization that each stereotype encompasses. Ironically enough, the continued use of stereotypes may, in time, show audiences more nuanced sides of various, stereotyped groups that exist in today’s television landscape.

(Special thanks to my lovely sister, Sarah Joy Hewitt for the input and corrections she provided me with for this piece.)

Some Things Are Just too Easy to Say

Some things are just too easy to say...

Whether you'll admit it or not, I know that some things are just too easy to say. Yes, go on, spout off your words hoping beyond hope that they will bring you the comfort and refuge that you seek; but I won't be so easily deceived by your antics and disillusion - no sir. I know what I need to say and when I need to say it. Do you see adults wasting time counting to three?

No, wait. Please wait - don't leave. I didn't mean that... it's just... well... fine. I'll say it.

I...

You know, some things are just too easy to say.

Freedom and Government (from a Christian Perspective)

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend one of Calvin’s “Unlearn Week” events entitled What Does It Mean to be American: Considering Glen Beck. Various attendees contended that Beck is an outsider, patriotic, an individual who “means what he says and says what he means”, and/or charismatic. This leads into a discussion on the question: “Is Glenn Beck radical?” This line of questioning turned out to be rather unproductive and left a great deal of disagreement of two questions: “Should the founding fathers be revered/respected?” and “What was America founded on (what’s the crux of the constitution) and have we lost this quality?”

Addressing the first may be more difficult than some would imagine. It would seem the majority of Americans have been raised in a tradition of putting America’s founding fathers up on a pedestal - I myself feel as if I have been raised in this tradition. I contend that while the founding fathers were extremely important in forming this country, they are in fact only human and shouldn’t be idolized. We should show respect for their (sometimes) heroic action and courage to stand up for what they believed in, but we shouldn’t go so far as to think they were infallible and always knew what was best. For instance, a number of them were involved with the persecution and violation of Native Americans and their rights. It may also be argued that they pushed a white male, upper/middle class hegemony that is emulated by many conservatives to this day. The list goes on of questionable, shameful acts that some of them participated in. Yet, despite these acts I can’t condone, I do believe that we can still look to what they valued/founded our country on along with their sacrifices and bravery. There are bad apples in every orchard. To burn the entire orchard down because of them seems like a bit of a waste from my point of view.

I think it fairly safe to say that a key point in the battlefield of American politics has been the question of what value(s) the country was founded on and what exactly we should do with the constitution. It seems to me that America was founded upon the idea of freedom. The constitution is a document written in that spirit, laying out a way to practically give freedom during the time period of the late 1700’s. We can see freedom being pursued throughout American history by various groups that came to America in the hopes of escaping persecution - examples include groups such as the Puritans and Jews. I won’t really try to pursue/prove this point any further because I think it to be pretty obvious and self-explanatory. I will though touch on a complaint in response to this. If America was founded on freedom, then why did it allow slavery through its first seventy to eighty years of existence? In this valid complaint we see the common clash of what is ideal versus what is practical/possible. Often times, we as a society have to (rightfully or wrongly) make a compromise between these two qualities. I don’t know if there is an adequate answer I can give on whether or not we should compromise - and if we do what that balance should look like. I will say though that if slavery (which a great number of founding fathers opposed) had been banned, the United States likely would never have gotten off of the ground. If our country barely survived the Civil War after establishing itself, how would it have endured a similar struggle when it was such a weak fledgling country? It would seem that the founding fathers were faced with the choice of having a country with legalized slavery or not having a country all together.

Coming back to the point of freedom, we get into the constant argument of the role of government and what its definition should be. Essentially, the argument between having a large, powerful government versus having a small, weaker government boils down to how individuals think individuals can be most free and what government should be (simply a means to individual freedom or something else). I myself stick to a definition where the government allows us to be free and make healthy choices that don’t violate others. Even if we can agree this in principle, we can’t always agree on what it means in practice. For instance, does the new healthcare program infringe upon our freedom by taking away some of our choice regarding our own healthcare, or does it promote freedom – allowing individuals to make healthy choices and not be bogged down with the concerns of not having healthcare? Does it do a good job promoting our right to life (which is an essential component of freedom)?

Going in this direction I think it's important to examine how Christians view government. First of all, let me be very clear that I believe the Bible teaches both social justice and personal responsibility. This leads me to think that both need to be upheld and pursued in the world. How is this done? Well, again we come down to an argument of what the role of government should be; in this case, what are the roles of both government and the church? How do they overlap, and if they do, should they at all? I find it interesting that the Conservatives are the ones who are often accused of bringing their religious views into politics (often on issues such as abortion and gay marriage) while liberal Christians seem just as “guilty” of bringing the Bible’s message of social justice into politics. Let me state that I believe in the separation of Church and State as it was intended and that this idea is of vital importance - protecting all religions (theoretically) from governmental prejudice and persecution. However, asking someone to leave religion out of their values is equivalent to asking a white, middle-class, small-business owner from Texas to forget that he’s all of these things when he interacts with the world and makes political decisions. It’s pretty darn hard to do. So, while religion shouldn’t directly dictate government, it is unavoidable that some aspects of religion seep into politics. Anyway, back to the argument of the role of the church versus government (from a Christian perspective).

In an ideal world I think it should be rather obvious to most that the church should be in charge of social justice. I think we would see a church that is willing and able to help everyone with their financial needs; in essence, one would see the church practice its own form of socialism (as we see the apostles doing in the New Testament). However, we can also quite clearly see that we don’t live in an ideal world. Throughout history the church has proven to be ineffective at its mission and often hostile, violent, and insensitive. With this in mind, many Christians see the government as a way to enable the social justice that the world and this country lack. This all boils down to whether we should try to use the government to enforce social justice; if so, is this approach right from a political standpoint? Here I will leave everyone to their own thoughts; I’ve rambled on quite long enough.

(Thanks for reading. I’m trying to write more for the blog but due to this, quality of posts may be reduced - so please bear with me. Also, what do you think of the new look?)

My Quick, Informal Glee Critique

I have seen three episodes of Glee: The Lady Gaga episode from season one and both season two episodes. I have found all three lacking. I know Glee is an extremely popular show and I'm trying to figure out why. Yes to some degree it is simply opinion, but there are some universal factors in regards to television shows that should guide our opinions. For Glee I examined 3 factors.
1 - Are the characters likable and is there satisfying progression in the storyline/storytelling? From what I've seen firsthand and the summaries I've watched I would tend to say no. The characters seem uninspired to me, fitting into the usual high school stereotypes without too much likability - or, in my case, relatability. Plot lines seem to be who is sleeping with who mixed in with trying to gain popularity or reveling in a lack of it.
2 - Is there good comedic value in Glee (since it falls under the genre of comedy/musical, I think it fair to judge this component, especially considering what one might call traditional drama components - see my previous factor - are greatly lacking)? Again, I would say no. I've seen little humor at all and the bit I've seen seems to be trying to play off of high school elements in ways that have been done again and again. The little comedy there is simply seems to fall flat.
3 - Is the music good? Well, here there may be many varying opinions that I can see some merit in. The music is generally catchy - in a show tunes kind of way - but this catchiness often seems to come at the expense of substance. Also, many of the covers seem to really strip the original versions of their artistic merit by replacing it with simply fun and enjoyment. Is this wrong? I would argue yes, but others may not see it that way. I think pop culture should be more than just amusement.
The bottom line is that I have trouble seeing what's so enjoyable about Glee. Also, I don't see many elements that give Glee an overall message worth watching. (I'll admit, there does seem to be a strong theme of individuality and acceptance present throughout the show, albeit, not always presented in the best possible manner.) However, I've only seen three episodes of the show so perhaps there is more I haven't seen. I have tried to watch enough of Glee to give it a fair critique and I feel that I have seen enough to give my two cents. That being said, what do you fans of Glee think? What compels you to watch the show and what themes and elements do you see presented in the show?

Free Will and Augustine on the Existence, yet Nonexistence, of Evil

Free Will

Throughout the course of human history a question has been frequently asked and heavily debated – the question of whether or not human beings have free will. During my extremely brief existence, I have searched for an answer I believe to be correct and have often struggled to come to a satisfactory answer. What I have come to realize however is that regardless of whether or not I am a “free being,” I must still act as if I am one.

Why must we act the same way regardless of the truth? Well, even if free will doesn’t exist we must act like it does so that we can live in society. If we don’t act as if free will exists, then how do we punish or reward individuals that commit bad or good acts? If we don’t believe in free will then I can rob a bank and if I’m caught, I can simply say that whomever/whatever (be it my environment, my genes, or God) is control made me do it. A puppet can only do what its puppeteer commands it to do. In order to live as civilized human beings we must believe in free will or civilization will crumble. We must accept personal accountability in order to function correctly (or what we view as correctly) and that’s what acting as if free will exists allows.

As I continue on in life I hope to come to a better understanding of free will. I see obstacles in believing either side which makes me wonder if the answer to the question isn’t a simple yes or no. Perhaps I need to ask different questions in order to find the elusive answer I believe is out there.

Augustine on the Existence, yet Nonexistence, of Evil

“God saw everything that he had made and indeed, it was very good.” (From Genesis 1:31) As one finishes reading the first chapter of Genesis, he or she is left with the knowledge that everything God created was good. He or she is then left to wonder how evil can be explained. We see and recognize it in our lives but yet how can it exist when God, who created all things, is good and created all things good? Augustine’s answer to this question was that “nothing evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity.” Evil as the absence of (a greater) good is similar to a hole being the absence of ground or dark being the absence of light. One can’t have holes in the air because there simply isn’t any ground there.

I believe that Augustine is correct in his belief that everything that exists is good. I agree with his reasoning on this position, which goes something like this: Everything that exists or has being was created by God. God does not and cannot (because He is good) create anything that is not good. Therefore, everything that exists is good. If the two premises stated are true, then the conclusion must be as well because his reasoning is valid.

In relation to this, what I find interesting (although I’m sure that either there is an explanation for it or I am mistaken on the Reformed position– I’m not from a Reformed background) is that the Reformed Church believes in both predestination and Augustine’s view on evil. I don’t understand how Augustine’s view on evil can work without free will. (Yes, free will and predestination aren’t the same thing, but I would argue that they are extremely interconnected.) Augustine’s view would seem to indicate that the act of turning from a greater good to a lesser good is what evil is. We can’t choose evil because it is not a thing, but we can choose a lesser good and turn away from God by doing so. This means that the source of evil is in the free will of humans. If free will is cut out of the picture then what is the source of evil?

One other interesting, relevant thought is the idea that no moral growth will occur in the next life of the New Heaven and the New Earth. I would argue that God allows free will so that humans can grow and develop as they face struggles with evil. If in the next life no evil exists, as scripture would seem to indicate, then there can’t be any more moral development because we won’t be allowed to choose between a greater and lesser good. It would seem that there is an urgency to morally grow in this life because once we die we’re done growing. This seems to indicate a loss (one could argue, in a sense, by choice) of our free will in the next life because our free will appears to be the source of evil.

Whether or not anything I have written in the previous two paragraphs is true or logical (although I would hope there is some truth and reason scattered in), I still think it’s safe to say that Augustine’s view on good and existence is not only interesting in itself, but also for all of the other thoughts that can spring up by its examination and discussion.

A Few Thoughts on Death

As one of life’s two certainties (at least according to Benjamin Franklin) one would think that human beings would spend more time contemplating death. Instead, many (primarily young) individuals spend what (little) time they do think, pondering questions and situations that either are unlikely to or simply never arise. While these musings aren’t necessarily bad or unproductive, as they can lead to self-discovery, it is still quite odd that humans too often neglect thinking about the only event guaranteed to happen after they are born. I suppose one may conclude that humans are afraid of the “mystery” (or unknown) of death and therefore go into the common state of denial. When society finally does see the reality of death, often having to be shocked into doing so by horrific events such as September 11^th, no one – not even groups like Christians – can come to a consensus on what exactly happens when one finally “kicks the bucket.” (As one who finally does discuss death may call it in an attempt to euphonize the topic.) Due to this befuddlement, over the course of history humans have come up with a number of theories attempting to explain, as some might call it, “what lies beyond the grave.”

I believe that the correct view of death to be the conscious intermediate state theory since this theory best fits with my interpretation of Scripture concerning death, life-after-death, and (as NT Wright would call it) life after “life-after-death.” Why? First of all, I believe humans have both mental and physical components. After humans’ physical bodies die, their souls/minds remain conscious and are sent to heaven if Jesus knew them. (Matthew 7 - I use this particular terminology because it is the simplest description with, what I think most would call, uncontroversial language.) Eventually, after an unknown - to all but God - period of time, there will be a resurrection, for those that Jesus knew, returning them to their physical bodies, in which everything in the Earth, including their bodies, “will be made new.” Heaven and Earth will be joined together in a new reality.

Comparing my aforementioned ideas to the different views on death, it is fairly easy to see which view fits most closely with my own. To begin with, the three materialistic view of death (extinction, extinction/re-creation, and resuscitation) can all be eliminated from the list of potential matches because they contradict my belief in dualism. Next, let’s eliminate the Greek view because it clashes with our physical bodies being resurrected. Reincarnation can be thrown out too because it as well clashes with our souls being returned to our remade physical bodies. Annihilation too can be scratched of the list of possibilities because I believe those not sent to heaven and eventually resurrected will be sent to hell rather than completely destroyed. Finally, immediate re-embodiment can be eliminated since it doesn’t fit with my beliefs of souls temporarily residing in heaven, or with our return to our physical bodies and the renewal of earth. So, with all of these views easily being seen as contradictory to my own, what views are left? The remaining views are soul sleep, and conscious intermediate state.

To decide between these final two theories, let me state one more belief. In the gap between death and resurrection I believe our souls will exhibit some level of consciousness (among other reasons, Luke 23:43 would seem rather odd if this was not true). Therefore, the soul sleep view can be eliminated and I am left with the conscious intermediate state, since it is the only view that does not contradict any of my stated beliefs.

Does it really matter what I, or anyone for that matter, believe about death? Well, I’ll leave for you to decide. Sure death will come whether or not it is contemplated and any sort of knowledge of what occurs at death won’t directly help. However, the ramifications of this knowledge are incredibly important. No matter what view of death one subscribes to, the implications of that view will directly impact the way one lives his or her life. So no, you don’t have to think about death. However, if you don’t think about death, then how are you living?

How Important are Pleasure and Pain? Which, if Either, is Ultimate?

Epicurus’ idea that pleasure and pain constitute good and bad captured my attention the most. His belief that what is good is pleasurable and what’s bad is painful is very interesting to examine. Looking at the idea from a physical perspective, most humans realize that when something is wrong with the body, one often (although not always) experiences pain. For instance, if an individual has a cavity, his or her tooth hurts. If someone has a broken leg, then pain will be experienced in the leg that is broken. A link can be seen between things not working properly (bad) and the perception of pain. Likewise, the same can be said about things working properly and the feeling of good. However, far too often humans have to experience pain before they are willing to say that the body operating normally is pleasurable. I remember as a child being sick with the flu and thinking about how great it felt to not have the flu and have my body operating normally (good). This fits well with Epicurus’ thought that pain is the absence of pleasure.

While there undeniably is some kind of link between pleasure and pain with good and bad, I don’t think that good or bad are determined by what is pleasurable or painful. I would argue that holding the previously mentioned view leads to the belief of moral relativism. Pain and pleasure are not experienced in the same way by any two individuals. Since pain and pleasure vary from person to person, then what is good, and what is bad, must then vary from person to person. For instance, many people understand murder to create pain. (In this case let’s only think about emotional pain to the person committing the murder. Completely forget about the person being killed.) Therefore, murder is bad because it is painful. However, some individuals derive pleasure from killing another human being (think of certain serial killers). To them then, murder is good because it is pleasurable. Murder being bad for some while good for others would appear to be a case of moral relativism.

Despite some disagreements I have with Epicurus, I strongly support his idea that, pain is the absence of pleasure. I think most people would agree that heaven is good/pleasurable while hell is bad/painful. Christians believe that God is good and is the ultimate source of our pleasure. So, in this comparison of heaven versus hell, which defines the other (or which is ultimate)? Well, we know heaven to describe being in the direct presence of God (while this isn’t the best definition it generates the point) while hell is the absence of God. Expanding these definitions we can say that heaven is pleasurable while hell is the complete absence of pleasure. So, it would appear that pleasure is ultimate thus leading to the conclusion that pain is the absence of pleasure.

The Path of My Travels

It’s a relatively warm day as I stroll through a small patch of trees in the confines of a rather large city. In such a small area one would think that the path he or she walks would be short, winding to accommodate for conditions. Yet, as I turn a corner, I step onto a long, straight path that stretches as far as I can see; or, perhaps simply as far as I dare look. I exhale deeply, preparing myself for the steps to come. These will be costly steps. They have great meaning and purpose although I don’t know why. I can simply feel their gravitas. After a moment of consideration I finally act.

I take a step.

The Connection between Church and Pop-Culture: Utilizing Film in the Church as a Means to Engage Pop-Culture

“If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3.15). In the wake of Jesus’ revolutionary time on Earth, the community of those who believed his message was soon referred as the church. As time progressed and the movement known as Christianity expanded, churches sprouted up in countless cities and towns, separated from each other by physical distance, but still one community under the rule of God. Today, as in the past, the church is tasked with using its members’ gifts to glorify God, encouraging believers, proclaiming the Gospel, and preparing the way for the return of the risen Lord. However, the church often neglects that to accomplish its mission, it must engage the world and not box itself into its own version of the “Twilight Zone;” a place that some call, the “strictly religious zone.” So, why does the church so often place itself in such an isolated position? There would appear to be two contributing factors that together provide an answer.

When the idea of “separation of church in state” was introduced by John Locke in 1689 in his “Letter Concerning Toleration,” individuals began to compartmentalize life, placing state (politics) in one compartment, and church (religion) in another (Uzgalis, par. 3). This idea really caught fire in the late eighteenth century when the United States implemented the idea in its own founding. To be clear, there was nothing inherently wrong with the idea that religion should not control government and government should not control religion. In fact, most Christians would agree that this idea is of vital importance, protecting all religions (theoretically) from governmental prejudice and persecution. Today however, many people, under the influence of the empire, have taken the idea a step too far; now believing that any views or thoughts shaped by religion should be kept in individuals’ religion compartments. Frankly, this is an absurd belief. Asking someone to leave religion out of their values is equivalent to asking a white, middle-class, small-business owner from Texas to forget that he’s all of these things when he interacts with the world and makes political decisions. So yes, in today’s world the empire is partially to blame for the church’s distance from pop-culture. Taking all of this into account, ultimate blame still falls on the church.

What lies at the heart of the great disconnect between pop-culture and the church is the fact that the church has become “afraid of the dark.” The word “dark” as used here refers to the sin, corruption, and evil found in the world ever since the fall. The church has attempted to shelter itself from what it perceives to be the darkness of pop-culture by retreating to its own little sphere. The empire thrives in the darkness that this retreat allows and because of it, the empire has exerted its control over pop-culture. While this picture does sound very bleak, there is still hope for the world yet. For while the empire represents darkness, Christians, and thus the church, represent light. "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Mat. 5.13-16). Even in the darkest of rooms, the dimmest light will still shine through, overcoming the darkness. With this in mind, Christians should realize that it is the church’s duty to go out into the darkness of pop-culture and shine Christ’s light. This doesn’t mean that Christianity needs to “wash out” current pop-culture. However, what it does mean is that Christians need to be actively engaged in the world, using God’s light to search for the truths that already exist within pop-culture. In essence, Christians need to view artifacts of pop-culture, examining and thoroughly discussing what each one has to say about the human experience. This includes looking at what kingdom truths and imperial myths an artifact presents and identifying what each artifact’s significance is. What story is an artifact telling, and how does it fit in or clash with the kingdom’s story? By using this practice, the church can engage in pop-culture while minimalizing the risk of pop-culture negatively influencing the church.

Now, one may ask, “How exactly can the church participate in pop culture?” While there are many areas of pop-culture that should be explored by the church, one avenue in particular stands out: film. Movies are an ideal way for the church to engage in pop culture for multiple reasons. To begin with, they are easy to watch and don’t require as much skill as other mediums such as literature. Secondly, they don’t require a large time commitment. A movie runs, on average, for about two or three hours; while television, for instance, requires consistent weekly viewing to fully appreciate the messages being sent and the stories that are being told. Finally, movies are the most expensive pop-cultural artifacts to manufacture. Over the years production and advertising costs have continued to go up. The most recent blockbuster, Avatar, reportedly cost as much as half of a billion dollars to make and market (Tyler, par. 1). This fact tells us that films are important to individuals because the world tends to spend the most money on what it believes to be most important. Specifically in this case, businesses spend an exuberant amount of money producing movies because movies grip the attention of consumers, thus causing them to spend more and more money to satisfy their thirst for attention-grabbing entertainment. Movies can and should have a role in the church, but this idea needs to be applied. How can film be used in the church?

In the year 2004 many churches set out as congregations to the movie theater to view Mel Gibson’s retelling of Jesus’ crucifixion, The Passion of the Christ. Since then, the church has remained mostly quiet in the film industry, only making a small amount of noise when The Da Vinci Code was released. This noise only lasted for a few weeks and really didn’t amount to much. Some people were riled up about the film - strangely enough, many of these individuals never bothered to read the book or watch the movie - while others just brushed it off as another fictional Hollywood blockbuster. There are questions just begging to be asked here. Why does the church only bring to the forefront and discuss films that are made by churches or specifically about Christianity? In cases with movies like The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, why hasn’t the church opened up to the community and provided both screenings of the films and discussions revolving around the truths and lies that these films’ stories present? The bottom line is that there are ways for churches to utilize movies and they need to start now.

The most obvious way to do this is to hold screenings of films that the church finds culturally significant. What movies the church chooses to examine can be determined by pastors, elders, a special committee, or even the entire congregation. Selected films can be watched in a church reserved movie showing at the movie theater, in the church itself, or in homes of individuals willing to show them. Showings can be for either the church community, or the local community depending on the church’s wishes and the movie being shown. After the film is over discussion could take place. Whoever selected the movie would be in charge of compiling a list of pertinent discussion questions and insights into the film. As a congregation the church could then together examine the movie’s narrative, finding the truths presented and ways to apply them along with identifying the lies that are told and what the dangers and effects of the lies are. These are just some options that are available. There are many more out there and it is for each church to individually decide which options are best for it.

Another way the church can encourage more examination of film is by building a library within the church that contains a wide variety of “secular” films. Along with these films, the church could include discussion guides similar to the ones used for the church screened movies. These guides could be specially tailored for the intended audience of the movie. For instance, a movie like Up might have questions more geared toward families and young children, whereas District 9 may have questions aimed at teenagers and younger adults. The point is that movie showings don’t have to be formal or even a big church activity. Movies can be viewed and discussed by smaller communities within the church.

To provide a specific example of what a film discussion might look like, the movie The Dark Knight will be examined. The Dark Knight is an excellent film both in quality and in depth. If presents many themes and ideas. One theme it conveys well is justice. While Bruce Wayne is a vigilante – a position that can often be used by the empire – fighting evil in the world, he has his own rule that keeps him from falling into evil. He’s not an executioner -he knows that he’s not the ultimate judge. The same principle applies to humans. Humanity has been called out into the world to overcome evil, but we were not made to judge the world. That is God’s job. On the flipside, one of the final messages that the movie presents is clearly spoken by the empire. “Sometimes the truth isn’t good enough.” This line is very problematic because God is truth and truth is good. God has commanded us not to lie, and by suggesting that lying can be better than telling the truth, the movie seems to be telling viewers that it knows better than God. Some questions that the film raises are: Do you believe the Joker’s belief that all humans will dispense their codes and morals when fear overpowers established order? (Explain.) Is there a difference between believing that men are truly depraved when only pushed and believing that all men are sinful? If so, what’s the difference? While this is only a small sample of what a discussion might look like, the general idea outline of a discussion can be seen.

Finally, before the church begins to utilize movies, any potential dangers of using film in the church need to be examined. First of all, Church members need to show discretion when choosing a film to watch. While violence in movies strongly impacts some individuals, others can handle it. People need to be conscious of what they can and cannot properly handle so that certain situations, that they knows they can’t deal with, can be avoided. Secondly, if discussion and discernment aren’t participated in and practiced, then individuals may become desensitized and they may begin to be drawn into the messages that the empire presents. It is essential that church members are in fellowship together, looking out for one another and holding each other accountable. Finally, the church needs to make sure that it is firmly grounded in scripture. It needs to remember that God’s word is the final authority, and that while movies present many interesting ideas, many can lead to bad places if not handled correctly.

While the church and pop-culture will never fully see eye to eye, the church still needs to make an effort to understand pop-culture and its influence on the world. By doing so, the church has an opportunity to reach more people by being able to better relate to them. This also will allow the church to come out of the “religion box” that the empire has attempted to put it in. By utilizing film correctly, the church can continue to follow the instructions of Jesus and advance the kingdom.

Works Cited:
Tyler, Josh. "Avatar Cost $500 Million And James Cameron Won't Get Paid?." Cinema Blend. 11 Nov 2009. Cinema Blend LLC, Web. 26 Jan 2010.

Uzgalis, Bill. "John Locke." Oregon State University. 01 Sep 2003. Oregon State University, Web. 26 Jan 2010.

The Unexamined Life

When Socrates said “the unexamined life is not worth living,” I believe he meant that if individuals don’t take the time to examine the world around them, their actions, and their thoughts and feelings, then they are wasting their lives. This thought does an excellent job of capturing Socrates’ beliefs on human existence. Since, in Socrates’ eyes, justice, truth, wisdom, and virtue were essential to humanity’s true purpose, then a person who lived an unexamined life would be living a worthless life. The only way to find justice, truth, wisdom, and virtue is through examination and reflection. An individual isn’t born being wise. Wisdom is obtained through observing life’s experiences and understanding the patterns of life that govern existence. Without examination, a person would be fully distracted by his or her body and neglecting his or hers soul’s true purpose of contemplating deep truths. Neglecting the soul’s true purpose would be living a meaningless life because the soul would be unhealthy meaning that an individual couldn’t have success when he or she was finally “freed” from the jail of the body through the process of death.

I agree with Socrates’ thought that an unexamined life is not worth living. I believe that human happiness is determined by one’s thoughts and purpose and not by one’s experiences. If an individual doesn’t have anything to live for, then one can’t ever be truly happy because he or she won’t have accomplished anything. The only way to have a purpose, and therefore meaning and happiness, is through examination. Yes, one can try to argue that basic thoughts are meaningful by themselves. For example, the thought of being hungry and the reaction to this thought (procuring sustenance) is necessary for physical life which is needed for examination to occur. However, if one does define this as a meaningful thought (as opposed to a biological process) then they might as well say that a dog’s life is just as meaningful as a human’s because they too exhibit this behavior. What gives importance to existence is not existence in itself, but reason for it. Imagine, that someone invented a new object that did “nothing” but simply exist. It couldn’t perform any function (including acting as an economic commodity). It’s probably safe to say that no one would by this product because it would be completely useless. Yes, it exists, but there’s no reason for its existence. It is not of any worth.

In the simplest of terms I believe that worth needs meaning, meaning needs purpose, and purpose needs examination. With this laid out I’d like to ask the question, “Is it possible for ‘human’ life to exist without examination?” I believe the answer is no. It seems to me that humans are born with an innate consciousness that inevitably involves examination. In other words, humans are all born with a sense of wonder that leads to questioning and examination. Perhaps what is of true importance is not the process of examination but the results of it. Does the purpose of an individual’s life determine if it is of worth?

God’s Great Gifts to Humanity – Creativity and Imagination

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Gen. 1.1-3). How does one imagine an entire world and all of its minute details? In the recent film Avatar, James Cameron did bring his own imagination of a unique world, know as Pandora, alive; however, his ideas were shaped by this world and the ideas that already existed within it. At the very start of history, as we can comprehend it, God not only amazingly imagined the planet we call Earth, He also created it out of absolutely nothing, proving that He is indeed a powerful God.

As creation progressed, He eventually created humans who were made in the image of God. This meant that humans had been given an amazing ability to mimic God’s own creativity. While humans can’t necessarily think up brand new ideas, they can, and are, constantly creating “mash ups” of what God made in the first place. It is through their own creativity that they can honor God, diversely expressing themselves, and bringing Him glory, through what they create (Plantinga, p. 39-40). This process calls to attention a specific question: “Exactly what are humans called to create?” God not only created the world physically - He also came up with a biblical story for the world. This story can be broken up into a six act drama with the acts centering on “Creation,” “The Fall,” “Israel,” “Jesus,” “The Church,” and “The Second Coming.” With four of these acts complete, humans now understand themselves to be living in the penultimate, fifth act. While God “wrote the scripts” for the final and previous four acts, He has only partially revealed the script for this fifth act humans are currently living in. Humanity has been tasked with “faithfully improvising” the remainder of the current act they live in until God comes to finish the play (Walsh and Keesmaat, p. 133-134). This “faithful improvisation” can be described as humans creating a story that follows the example shown by God and existing within the framework He has given them. So, answering the question of “what are humans called to create,” humanity is called to create stories that are faithful to the kingdom, fitting into the overall drama that God has created.

Everything humans do fits into and becomes a story within itself. While these stories are “acted out” by humans under God’s supervision, they are strongly influenced by either the kingdom – best described as the characteristics and qualities found in God– or the empire – best described as the characteristics and qualities not found in God. The kingdom and the empire are two polar opposites that are constantly fighting in the battle for control over an individual’s imagination. The imagination is the ultimate prize of this particular fight because if an imagination is influenced strictly by the empire, it will be stifled, suffocating under an authority that controls the will of those under its power.

A good way of thinking about the empire’s control is to examine the species known as the “Borg” in the fictional Star Trek universe. The Borg is a race of cybernetic organisms, organized into a collective that has its decisions made by a hive-mind that it is ultimately controlled by the Borg Queen. Just as the queen has complete control of the drones who are part of the collective, the empire has complete control of the imagination of those who are under its influence. Both would have those fighting against them believe that “resistance is futile.” However, those who serve the kingdom should come to the realization that resistance is absolutely necessary.

If the empire has monopolized an individual’s imagination, then the individual becomes a mindless drone, responding to the challenges, problems, and events of life within the mindset of the empire. Instead of questioning the practices of companies that use sweatshops and attempting to find an alternative solution for fixing this problem, an individual will fall in line with the empire by either deciding that while sweatshops are a problem, there isn’t a feasible alternative solution, or ignoring the problem altogether. This is precisely why the loss of our God-given creativity and imagination is such a problem. Christians living under the kingdom are called to engage in life and the human response to it (pop-culture), examining the themes presented, identifying problems within these themes, convincing others of these problems’ existences, and finding solutions to the problems. Without creativity and imagination, none of these things can be accomplished. If we can’t think outside of the empire’s mindset, then we are bound to its pattern of thinking and the consequences that this type of thinking brings (the temporary subduement of the kingdom - meaning the constraint of “good”). So, how exactly does one actively fight against the empire’s attempts to control imagination?

The best way to overcome any problem is through awareness and questioning. Yes, this may sound ridiculously obvious – of course a person needs to know about a problem to confront it – but far too often humans are simply content with drinking in the empire’s messages without being aware that the empire even exists or is sending us messages. Many individuals will sit down in their nice, comfy, lazy-boy recliners after a hard day’s work and simply “veg out” while watching television. People don’t comprehend that the advertisements they are being bombarded with are drawing them into the empire’s web of consumerism. They don’t take the time to examine the many moral, philosophical, and spiritual questions that a show like LOST throws at them. They don’t question the information presented in front of them. Instead, they allow themselves to fall into a state of slothfulness, letting the empire think or, in this case, not think for them. If people want to break free of the empire’s oppression and truly serve the kingdom, they need to actively examine pop-culture as a whole (and its elements which include advertising, food, fashion, music, and film), and purposefully discuss it and their findings with other human-beings, striving for God-honoring conversations, insightful knowledge, and potential paths of effective action. In this manner, humans can subdue the empire’s influence and promote the kingdom.

As humans continue to “faithfully improvise” the fifth act of the biblical drama, we need not despair at the apparent strength and influence of the empire. God created us with the tools to fight against it and we can do so by using our God given gifts and by trusting in Him. The struggle with the empire has been raging on ever since the fall. However, we have recently seen humanity’s hope, Jesus Christ. In Him, we can fully place our longing and desire for a world made perfect by God.

Works Cited:
- Plantinga, Cornelius. Engaging God's World. 1st ed. Grand Rapids, MI, 2002. 39-40. Print.
- Walsh, Brian, and Sylvia Keesmaat. Colossians Remixed. 1st ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004. 133-134. Print.