Marc van Bulck (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} marc_van_bulck) wrote,@ 2009-06-01 14:27:00 |
|
A PLEA FOR EDUCATION IN THE PUBLIC SPIRITUAL DIALOGUE
I'm going to exercise my right on LiveJournal to use it as a purely emotional knee-jerk reaction soap box for my own intellectual agenda because, really, if I can't do it here, then when can I?
Last night, I watched a video on YouTube. It was an old episode of Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher from waaaay back in 1999, and the topic was the "ethical dilemmas" of buying and selling celebrity eggs to parents who want good-looking children. The issues they discuss are a little dated, (not to mention fairly ridiculous), but here's the clip if anyone is interested.
Now, as many of you have probably surmised by now, what drew me to this clip was Penn Jillette because I enjoy virtually everything that comes out of his mouth. As I watched this clip for the first time, I ranted to my friend, Lindsay, over instant messenger giving my live commentary. But the content of the video isn't even my real issue. It's something just a wee bit deeper than that.
First of all, I don't like this religious lady who is arguing with Penn. She's condescending, and she perpetuates the stereotype of the spiritual community. I am a religious man. I'm a seminary student. I am by no stretch of anyone's imagination a Bible scholar. I'm more than 2/3 away from having a Master's Degree in my chosen field, and I've taken enough classes and read enough books to hold a decent conversation about the Bible and spirituality to maybe, kinda, sorta pretend like I know what I'm talking about. But that's about it.
There are, however, people who have spent the better part of their lives devoted to the intimate, scholarly, academic study of collections of writings such as the Torah and the New Testament and theological theory. These are people like Walter Brueggemann, Kathleen O'Connor, Beth Johnson, George Stroup, David Bartlett and the late, great Shirley Guthrie. People who eat, drink, live, bleed Scripture.
And then there's this chick. People who, when someone with a different point of view actually challenges them, will just laugh and say, "He has no spirituality!" like this somehow writes off their thoughts and beliefs.
If the media wants to include the spiritual community in the public dialogue (and yes, I realize that the agenda is really more about advertising than it is about education), then at least do the public the service of finding someone who knows what they're talking about. I mean, I understand if a certain percentage of the population has had it up to here with what the religious and spiritual community has to say. Believe me, when I see someone who claims to be religious on television, my first thought is usually, "Oh, boy, here we go..." and I'm saddened to confess that I'm rarely surprised by what tends to unfold.
But I also feel that if there is a percentage of the public that is, at least, vaguely interested in that point of view, then they deserve an actual academic, Biblically, historically, and contextually educated perspective on it, rather than simply being preached at by the likes of Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, or Billy Graham like they're the local heathens in church (yeah, that's right. I threw Billy in there. I'm not a huge fan).
Back in the 90's, PBS did a six hour special with Bill Moyers called "The Power of Myth" where he interviewed Joseph Campbell. I have it on DVD, and it's fantastic. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this stuff. Now, Campbell was by no means religious at all (at least, not in anything organized), but he was by his own admission a spiritual man, and I really wish networks had the chutzpah include more educated spiritual folks on television rather than just finding crazies who can TALK REALLY LOUD AND CREATE DRAMA! (Read: attention, ratings, and advertising revenue)
Walter Brueggemann should do interviews. Shirley Guthrie should have done interviews when he was alive. People who can maintain civilized discourse for the public conversation. The public deserves that when learning about religions, cultures, beliefs, myths, and spirituality.
But let's take this lady, for example.
"I think we should just kick back and let the Man Upstairs take control."
Again, we're talking about the buying and selling of celebrity eggs.
Disclaiming again that I'm only a 24-year-old with two thirds of a Master of Divinity degree, I think this woman is doing a very, very, very horrible disrespect to God. And she doesn't realize that she's doing it. She's disrespecting the viewers, secondly, but she's also disrespecting God or the idea of God, depending on how secularly or non-secularly you want to look at it.
"I think we ought to sit back and let God take control."
The topic here is reproduction. Whose eggs we choose to fertilize with whom. It's basically, "Who do we want to have sex with (without actually having sex?)" If the argument here is that you want God to "take control" over who you reproduce with...regardless of how you do it whether through these means or my preferred method (the ol' fashioned way)...you are giving God responsibility for your own actions and choices. At least, when it comes to sex, in this case.
By that very same well-intentioned but totally crazy logic, I, Marcel van Bulck, a bona fide good ol', Southern, Presbyterian, church-goin' boy, would like to point out that when her roommate in college gets drunk and bangs some random frat boy, this lady is saying that it was God's decision. Not hers.
I'm sorry. But no.
NO.
NO.
NO!
God gave him a penis and some sperm. God gave you a vagina and some eggs. And God gave you the capability to decide as adults what you choose to do with them and the responsibility to deal with the consequences.
See, here's the problem. What this lady is REALLY trying to say is, "I don't like this idea. It doesn't appeal to me." That's it. That's all she's trying to say. Watch that clip again. Look me in the eye, and tell me that's not what she's really thinking deep down but just doesn't know how to articulate it. The problem is that for some back ass-wards reason, her thought, "I don't like this idea. This does not appeal to me" comes out, "THIS IS NOT WHAT GOD WANTS."
Me = God. What I want = What God wants. What I enjoy = What God enjoys. That's pretty self-absorbed. I mean, Penn Jillette is a hardcore atheist, and he's making more theologically sound arguments than this woman. She means well, but she has no idea how to have this discussion. She is not self-aware of what's coming out of her mouth. She's not thinking about what she thinks while she's thinking it. She just has a knee jerk emotional reaction and just says it (kind of like what I'm doing right now. Hence my disclaimer at the top of the post).
I went back to the beginning of the clip to see what her credentials were to represent the spiritual voice here in this discussion. She has none. She is an actress. I totally understand why the media would be wary about being too spiritual-friendly. The spiritual voice in the media hasn't exactly made a reputation for itself of being a kind one. But if the viewers and the public are interested in what that demographic has to say, then they have a right to be spiritually educated, without necessarily being indoctrinated. To actually learn something rather than just being preached at. I could care less if the public agrees with folks like me, theologically, but it's painful to see someone like Kirk Cameron on TV and wonder if my friends, loved ones, or peers who know I'm in seminary think that I feel the same way they do.
So, that's my plea to the media. I mean if CBS, for example, wants to hold a debate on evolution, instead of watching the Reason Response Squad versus Kirk Cameron and Way of the Master bitching each other out, I would love, love, LOVE to see folks like Richard Dawkins and Walter Brueggemann engaging dialogue about the creation of the universe and humanity's reflections. Why are we not seeing programming like this?
And who knows? Maybe one day, it will happen. Colbert got Anne Lamott on his show. Maybe eventually, the media will stop just putting extremist nuts on either side of these debates on television and start inviting real live scholars or academics who actually understand civilized discourse and dialogue so that we can actually learn something. That is, you know, without being made to feel guilty for being intellectually curious.
Take care,
Marc
I'm going to exercise my right on LiveJournal to use it as a purely emotional knee-jerk reaction soap box for my own intellectual agenda because, really, if I can't do it here, then when can I?
Last night, I watched a video on YouTube. It was an old episode of Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher from waaaay back in 1999, and the topic was the "ethical dilemmas" of buying and selling celebrity eggs to parents who want good-looking children. The issues they discuss are a little dated, (not to mention fairly ridiculous), but here's the clip if anyone is interested.
Now, as many of you have probably surmised by now, what drew me to this clip was Penn Jillette because I enjoy virtually everything that comes out of his mouth. As I watched this clip for the first time, I ranted to my friend, Lindsay, over instant messenger giving my live commentary. But the content of the video isn't even my real issue. It's something just a wee bit deeper than that.
First of all, I don't like this religious lady who is arguing with Penn. She's condescending, and she perpetuates the stereotype of the spiritual community. I am a religious man. I'm a seminary student. I am by no stretch of anyone's imagination a Bible scholar. I'm more than 2/3 away from having a Master's Degree in my chosen field, and I've taken enough classes and read enough books to hold a decent conversation about the Bible and spirituality to maybe, kinda, sorta pretend like I know what I'm talking about. But that's about it.
There are, however, people who have spent the better part of their lives devoted to the intimate, scholarly, academic study of collections of writings such as the Torah and the New Testament and theological theory. These are people like Walter Brueggemann, Kathleen O'Connor, Beth Johnson, George Stroup, David Bartlett and the late, great Shirley Guthrie. People who eat, drink, live, bleed Scripture.
And then there's this chick. People who, when someone with a different point of view actually challenges them, will just laugh and say, "He has no spirituality!" like this somehow writes off their thoughts and beliefs.
If the media wants to include the spiritual community in the public dialogue (and yes, I realize that the agenda is really more about advertising than it is about education), then at least do the public the service of finding someone who knows what they're talking about. I mean, I understand if a certain percentage of the population has had it up to here with what the religious and spiritual community has to say. Believe me, when I see someone who claims to be religious on television, my first thought is usually, "Oh, boy, here we go..." and I'm saddened to confess that I'm rarely surprised by what tends to unfold.
But I also feel that if there is a percentage of the public that is, at least, vaguely interested in that point of view, then they deserve an actual academic, Biblically, historically, and contextually educated perspective on it, rather than simply being preached at by the likes of Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, or Billy Graham like they're the local heathens in church (yeah, that's right. I threw Billy in there. I'm not a huge fan).
Back in the 90's, PBS did a six hour special with Bill Moyers called "The Power of Myth" where he interviewed Joseph Campbell. I have it on DVD, and it's fantastic. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this stuff. Now, Campbell was by no means religious at all (at least, not in anything organized), but he was by his own admission a spiritual man, and I really wish networks had the chutzpah include more educated spiritual folks on television rather than just finding crazies who can TALK REALLY LOUD AND CREATE DRAMA! (Read: attention, ratings, and advertising revenue)
Walter Brueggemann should do interviews. Shirley Guthrie should have done interviews when he was alive. People who can maintain civilized discourse for the public conversation. The public deserves that when learning about religions, cultures, beliefs, myths, and spirituality.
But let's take this lady, for example.
"I think we should just kick back and let the Man Upstairs take control."
Again, we're talking about the buying and selling of celebrity eggs.
Disclaiming again that I'm only a 24-year-old with two thirds of a Master of Divinity degree, I think this woman is doing a very, very, very horrible disrespect to God. And she doesn't realize that she's doing it. She's disrespecting the viewers, secondly, but she's also disrespecting God or the idea of God, depending on how secularly or non-secularly you want to look at it.
"I think we ought to sit back and let God take control."
The topic here is reproduction. Whose eggs we choose to fertilize with whom. It's basically, "Who do we want to have sex with (without actually having sex?)" If the argument here is that you want God to "take control" over who you reproduce with...regardless of how you do it whether through these means or my preferred method (the ol' fashioned way)...you are giving God responsibility for your own actions and choices. At least, when it comes to sex, in this case.
By that very same well-intentioned but totally crazy logic, I, Marcel van Bulck, a bona fide good ol', Southern, Presbyterian, church-goin' boy, would like to point out that when her roommate in college gets drunk and bangs some random frat boy, this lady is saying that it was God's decision. Not hers.
I'm sorry. But no.
NO.
NO.
NO!
God gave him a penis and some sperm. God gave you a vagina and some eggs. And God gave you the capability to decide as adults what you choose to do with them and the responsibility to deal with the consequences.
See, here's the problem. What this lady is REALLY trying to say is, "I don't like this idea. It doesn't appeal to me." That's it. That's all she's trying to say. Watch that clip again. Look me in the eye, and tell me that's not what she's really thinking deep down but just doesn't know how to articulate it. The problem is that for some back ass-wards reason, her thought, "I don't like this idea. This does not appeal to me" comes out, "THIS IS NOT WHAT GOD WANTS."
Me = God. What I want = What God wants. What I enjoy = What God enjoys. That's pretty self-absorbed. I mean, Penn Jillette is a hardcore atheist, and he's making more theologically sound arguments than this woman. She means well, but she has no idea how to have this discussion. She is not self-aware of what's coming out of her mouth. She's not thinking about what she thinks while she's thinking it. She just has a knee jerk emotional reaction and just says it (kind of like what I'm doing right now. Hence my disclaimer at the top of the post).
I went back to the beginning of the clip to see what her credentials were to represent the spiritual voice here in this discussion. She has none. She is an actress. I totally understand why the media would be wary about being too spiritual-friendly. The spiritual voice in the media hasn't exactly made a reputation for itself of being a kind one. But if the viewers and the public are interested in what that demographic has to say, then they have a right to be spiritually educated, without necessarily being indoctrinated. To actually learn something rather than just being preached at. I could care less if the public agrees with folks like me, theologically, but it's painful to see someone like Kirk Cameron on TV and wonder if my friends, loved ones, or peers who know I'm in seminary think that I feel the same way they do.
So, that's my plea to the media. I mean if CBS, for example, wants to hold a debate on evolution, instead of watching the Reason Response Squad versus Kirk Cameron and Way of the Master bitching each other out, I would love, love, LOVE to see folks like Richard Dawkins and Walter Brueggemann engaging dialogue about the creation of the universe and humanity's reflections. Why are we not seeing programming like this?
And who knows? Maybe one day, it will happen. Colbert got Anne Lamott on his show. Maybe eventually, the media will stop just putting extremist nuts on either side of these debates on television and start inviting real live scholars or academics who actually understand civilized discourse and dialogue so that we can actually learn something. That is, you know, without being made to feel guilty for being intellectually curious.
Take care,
Marc
