Theological Frameworks

So I was really fascinated with the differences between dipensationalism and reform theology. I have heard professors (okay, mainly Dr.Waalkes) talk in general about reform theology. I have also heard different profs and students talk about dispensationalism, and I had sort of picked up on the differences, but having Andrew Rudd talk about it really cleared up a lot of my confussion. Then I realized I have no idea where my church came from because I see elements of both in our theology (this will be my new identity crisis). Either way, that is not my point. My point is it is amazing how our theological framework prevades even the most ordinary and mundane of each of our lives (or it least it has the potential to give people a way of looking at the mundane). This is a concept I had sort of always recognized, but it really came to light when reading this book. A seemingly mundane, ordinary activity like watching a movie or listening to music can (and should) be thought about through the lens of our faith. And it is also amazing that as Christians we can come to so many different conclusions about how media is supposed to be looked at. Two Christians who are coming from two slightly different theological frameworks can come to vastly different conclusions on an ordinary activity. It makes sense to me that these same two people would come to different conclusions about communion--which I would argue is not an activity that fits into the mundane category, but listening to music; it seems as if we should be on the same page with that one.
As I have been typing I am starting to question my original premise that watching a movie or listening to music fall in the category of ordinary. It is arguable that because it is possible to have an aesthetic experience when you watch movie it would hardly be considered ordinary. With this new thought, it seems more likely that one's theological framework could cause you to see this event differently than someone of the same faith who comes from a slightly different theological framework.

Why do I use media

I totally use media for surveillance purposes. Somewhere deep inside of my lives what Andrew Rudd described as a gypsy. As much as I would like things to stay the same, the actions I take(or plan to take) would suggest otherwise--ie studying in the Middle East for a semester. Because that little voice inside of me is always screaming "move on!" I tend to keep watch on the areas that I want to move on to or at least visit for a short while. Thus, my media diet is pretty much international news or international documentaries. I like to keep my eye on what is going on with our global brothers and sisters. At one point in time I believe I used media solely for entertainment purposes, but somewhere around high school I forgot about media for entertainment, but now I believe I am in some ways back to media as entertainment/ritual. When I read the daily newspaper not only do I get to survey what is going on in the world, but U am also taking part in a morning ritual, and I am being entertained by the words in front of me. I think in some ways I also still use the media to find out about myself. When I read or watch about other countries happenings I learn how their situation, culture, etc. affects me. I find out a great deal about myself by seeing what stories turn my stomach, what stories move me to tears or what stories bring me great joy. Whereas I would say surveillance is my primary reason for media use, I believe also that I can make a case for other reasons I might use the media.

Opinion Leaders

I would love to say that I am an opinion leader, but the sad truth is I am totally a follower leaching off the media experiences of others. While sitting in class trying to determine which category I fell into (follower or leader), I did a quick run through of my media intake for the last few months or so. I could not think of a single original media idea I had, and then it occurred to me that I am in a very large group. Where did the people that recommended the media to me get their idea to take in that particular text? Professors maybe, pastors, friends, coworkers--who knows? But where did those people get the idea--television? Internet blogs? I would venture a guess that 90% of us are merely followers. This is not to say that some of us aren't higher up on the media intake chain, but we are still followers. If this is true, then those people at the top of the chain are incredibly powerful. Media shapes our opinion about relationships, politics, normalcy and all sorts of other topics and the people who get to chose what we read and view about such topics have the potential to exercise great influence over society.

John Edwards, my close buddy

Like your average 20-something girl I have a parasocial relationship with a 52-year-old politician, John Edwards. That's normal, right? Probably not, but like I believe I have mentioned before, my upbringing wasn't exactly average--there was a high emphasis placed on political figures (in second grade I remember defending Bill Clinton to my Republican teachers). I believe I first became aware of my parasocial relationship with John, former senator from South Carolina and Vice Presidential candidate in 2004, when I began reading everything I could get my hands on about him in the Dispatch. The obsession leaked into stopping to listen to him speak every time I saw him on TV. I knew I was in real trouble when I could recite large portions of his stump speech. (FYI- Tony Campolo used a piece of his stump speech in his chapel talk) What made my parasocial relationship really blossom was being around other Edwards supporters. When Edwards finally bowed out of the primaries and joined John Kerry in the race for the White House I felt betrayed. I felt John E. was the man for the job, and I was upset with the American Democrats for not believing the way I did. It took a while for me to warm up to the man who stole Edward's dream, but I finally came to the conclusion that is what John Edwards would want me to do. I then started to read up on Kerry and watch him, and that is when parasocial relationship #2 started. So what is the point? I believe this parasocial relationship was healthy. John Edwards brought me hope for a bright future in the midst of a bleak time in my life. He and his story allowed me to embrace great possibilities. (His story very well could fit the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" myth, but at the same time his politics does not buy into this myth.) He directed my attention to the greater needs of society with his "two Americas" image. I don't think any of this is bad or unhealthy...so that is my take on my own parasocial relationship.

Why are some forms of fandom more acceptable than others? (Part II)

Some forms of fandom are seen as more acceptable because the fruits of the fandom are evident; the fruits are beneficial to the rest of society. I believe this is one of the greatest reasons religious fandom was supported for so long, and to some extent still is supported today. The church in the early days of the United States was crucial in developing schools, hospitals, mental institutions, and taking care of the poor. The church took care of some key needs society had. Their practices might have seemed a little odd to those who weren't part of the Christian affinity group, but people on the outside could say, "well, those differences are okay because they are taking care of the nice widow down the street." Unfortunately, it has become so much easier to renounce Christian fandom because we are steadily taking care of less of the practical needs in society. Political fandom is also on the decline. At one time it was okay to be seen as a fan of a political party because there was a general belief the political bodies were doing something beneficial for society. This is less the case now. People are generally apathetic when it comes to politics because of all the negative actions the government has taken that have actually hurt society. All of this to say, when fandom (or even a fan group) is contributing to the basic needs of society, it is seen as acceptable. I might still think of more reasons and blog about them.

Why are some forms of fandom more acceptable than others?

This question has been really bothering me. Why are sports fanatics okay? Why are religious fanatics (of some types) more acceptable? Why are academic enthusiasts acceptable? I believe one of the chief reasons some of these practices are acceptable is because they are supported by governing institutions. Think about it. Sports are supported by the institutions in society that set order. The president of the US always calls the winners of big sporting events (super bowl, collegiate lacrosse champions, etc.). Our cities set up departments to run sporting events for the youth in the community. I work for the city of Hilliard Department of Parks and Recreation. I help run the swim team, and the local government has created an institution to support the sport--I never thought about that, but it is crazy when you do realize how much institutional support there is for certain forms of fandom. The early government and even the current government supports certain forms of faith. One of Bush's big ideas for policy was "faith based initiatives" to solve societal ills. I am going to take a guess, but there were probably no fundamentalist Islamic institutions that received a check from the government to carry out any programs to solve problems in society, but I would guess that there were more fundamentalist Christian churches that did receive checks to deal with maybe a poverty crisis in community. On the flip side governing institutions in Iran probably would support more fundamentalist Islamic institutions while certainly not supporting any Christian institutions. The state supports academics (cough::cough::well, most administrations have supported education cough::cough). The fans that we find odd are most likely not supported by governing institutions...trekkies, dungeons and dragons role players, cross-dressers, Japanese animation fans, etc.) This is not to say that the only forms of fandom that are widely accepted have institutional support; however, it is much easier for fan groups if their obsession is supported by the powers that be. It is possible that I will explore this question later and come up with another answer as to why some forms of fandom are acceptable.

My Personal Fandom

I am a Middle East enthusiast. If you can be a fan of a region of the world, I definitely would qualify as one. But its not even so much the geographic region that I am a fan of, I am a fan of the culture, the politics and the rich history.

What fandom does for me:

• Like other fans, this slight obsession helps define my media diet. I take in media that deals with the ME, like the news. When I read the news, I have a tendency to jump directly to any article that refrences Jordan, Syria or the West Bank.
• My fandom has also inspired me to do new things. It has pushed me to apply to study abroad fall semester of next year (in the ME of course).
• My obsession/fandom has helped determine my career choice and friendships. One day I hope to live in the ME. I also encourage all of my friends to take in interest in my obsession. This has worked well since everytime something happens in the ME, my best friend calls and talks to me about the event.

I am not entirely sure if this counts as fandom, but it is the best way I know how to apply the principles we learned in class for the reasons fandom is healthy. (then again this could just me a way to justify my obsession!!)

My dad is a Trekkie

I am putting it out there once and for all: my dad is a trekkie. But it's not just my dad, its his three brothers too. I do not believe that my dad has reached the point that he would make the video. The only abnormal trekkie matter that we have accumulated in our household are Christmas tree ornaments. They are a little bizarre, but I do not see them as being over the top. One of my uncles, I fear, is video material. I noticed the problem a few years ago when I called my cousin and the answering machine picked up featuring each member of my uncle's family as a member of the "star ship" asking the caller to leave a message. At Christmas of the same year I noticed another oddity, my uncles license plate read "entprsC." Any Trekkie would know this is to be translated Enterprise C (which, fittingly, was the lost enterprise). When I eventually went over to his house around Christmas time, I found that he too had collected Christmas tree ornaments, but he had also collected other paraphernalia (dolls, uniforms, pictures, etc.) At first I was disturbed by the obsession, but then I came to the conclusion that all of us have our obsessions. Mine happens to be the Middle East. Yours might be music. Also, I was thinking that the people featured on the video have families, just like my Uncle is my family member. Okay, so this might not seem like a big deal, but coming to the realization that they have families helped make them more human to me. Their obsessions might get overlooked in their families because, hopefully, their families have some sort of unconditional love for them that does not see the oddities, or at least is able to look past these behaviors. So, that is my thought, placing the so-called weird people in a family context help make them seem more human/normal.

Ugh...Bridal Showers: A look at the ritual

As I am sure you can tell from the title, the bridal shower, as it were, is a ritual that I often pass judgment on. Because of my age and gender, I have had the pleasure of participating in this ritual more times than I would really like, but it is my attempt in this blog to gain insight on this ritual, and if only for five minutes to withhold judgment (see Andrew Rudd--I am going to attempt to understand bridal shower enthusiasts from their point of view).

To the best of my knowledge the bridal shower, as we know it in United States, is unique to those of us who claim ties to the "American" culture. Bridal showers are traditionally only attended by females many of which are 20-30; however, there is always room for any of the bride's female friends and family who might not fall into this age group. This ritual is to honor, and today, mainly to supply the bride with much needed gifts to get her and her husband started on a prosperous path. One look at the tradition of bridal showers contends that the ritual started in Holland when a young girl planned to marry a penniless miller. The girls family, distraught by her decision, refused to pay the groom a dowry. As a result the towns people showered her with gifts to make up for the lost dowry.

The ritual as we know it today can happen in many different places: homes, places of employment, parks, churches, etc. Prior to the ritual occurring games are planned, food is prepared and family, friends and coworkers of the bride are invited. Traditionally the maid of honor is in charge of this ritual and plans all of the stupid (oh wait--trying to withhold judgment) games.

Bridal showers are interesting in the sense that often times they bring people together that wouldn't normally come together under any other circumstances. Not only do they bring these people together, but then the ritual requires that they play games together that most adults would never play under any other circumstances (ie- dressing up in toilet paper fashioned like a wedding gown). Bridal showers are a bizarre ritual in popular culture. My suggestion: a reality show could be made about the secret, inside world of bridal showers.

Celebrities

What a great responsibility! Some have argued it is not entirely fair that celebrities have the eyes of the world watching them. Should you have to live your life in a socially responsible way just because your craft takes you into the public eye? I suppose you shouldn't have to, but I would hope the celebrities would want to. That they would see what great power they posses and what a great responsibility they have. Right now my personal favorite celebrity is Bono. I feel as if he has not only accepted the challenge of being a celebrity, but embraced it. So for one of my classes I have to read a publication called the UN Wire (from the United Nations) and I have to read it daily. In one issue of the publication they had an article on U2's Bono. What a great example of a celebrity, while possibly not making the best personal decisions all the time (I'm not sure if he does or doesn't) taking his fame and doing something socially responsible with it. For those of you who have not heard Bono is the new expert on African issues including the AIDS crisis and economic development. Bono has created a socially responsible line of clothing too (meaning that it wasn't created in sweatshop conditions like some of the clothes you might even be wearing right now). I believe some celebrities are doing more than their fair share to making sure they use their fame well. If a celebrity is doing well in this department, I believe it is up to the public to support these people to let them know we appreciate what they are doing. We might see more celebrities like Bono spring up if they are fully supported by the public.

Acceptable Gender Behavior

As I sat in class on Monday, I found myself deeply concerned for how media actually does influence acceptable behavior for each gender. I found myself frustrated that at times the media (mainly tv and movies) reinforces ideas that may not be true about genders. I was frustrated not only for my sisters across the United States who were told for far too many years that their place was only in the home (thank you June Clever), but also for the men across the United States who have been told by the media that they are not to show emotion with other men. It is arguable that to some extent it is the media that does not allow people to act the way they really are designed to act. Okay, so I might sound like a liberal right now, and recognizing that is sometimes unpopular I will attempt to justify my ideas through scripture. I appeal to the story of David and Jonathan in I Samuel 18-20. I can recall when I read this that people today, were they to see the loving nature of their friendship, would probably condemn them for getting "too close" as male friends. Then I felt bad because David and Jonathan's story of friendship is truly beautiful, but it would not be widely accepted in our culture. For some reason, men are not allowed to make sacrifices for each other (unless on a battle field) and they are not allowed to "love" their friends or "become one in spirit" with thier friends. I can't help but think that the media has reinforced these ideas that might be false and might not necessarily be Biblical. As a Christian community it is important that we see the harm in these myths and live our lives counter to them if the myths are not Biblically based.