Pranking and Public Discourse

It happened in our neighborhood a month or so ago -- some pranksters came through and spray-painted graffiti on the sidewalks. It was strange graffiti: peace signs and slogans like "an eye 4 an eye makes the whole world blind". Our neighbors quickly called city services; the graffiti was gone the next day.

This week, I've seen new graffiti going up all over town -- bridge overpasses, tunnels, sides of old buildings. It reads thus: “Habeas Corpus 1215-2006 RIP”

This graffiti refers to the Bill on Military Commissions that has been the topic of such discussion lately (see the White House information on the bill; see the wikipedia article; see this critique).

I have to give the pranksters credit – they’ve learned their subversive playbook well. They have accomplished their task of raising awareness. Hopefully, people will actually take the time to refresh their memories about habeas corpus. After all, it was way back in High School when I studied the US constitution that I last gave serious consideration to habeas corpus. Like most people, I take a topic for granted when I don't have to have it on the forefront of my mind everyday. I recalled that Habeas Corpus basically had to do with our right not to be held without warrant. However I found much more in wikipedia's article and in Lectlaw.com. In these articles I found appreciation for how Habeas Corpus is a vital instrument in the balance between executive and judicial power. I found that it is rooted in the heritage of common law that has been bequesthed to us. I found out about its prior suspension during the Civil War (in both the union and the Confederacy) and Reconstruction periods. There is a great legal heritage in Habeas Corpus to which I was re-introduced. So on that point, it’s a nice thing that these graffiti artists are raising questions for us.

However to the more pressing issue: we have to be aware that in some cases Marshall McCluhann was right – the medium us the message. By choosing the medium of defacing public property to promote their message, these pranksters ultimately undermine the goal of a orderly society upheld by laws. It does seem disingenuous to protest the suspension a just law by breaking laws. While it may seem clever (“we’re showing that the oppressive government has essentially nullified the rule of law”) it is ultimately unhelpful. Their actions show a disregard for generally agreed upon conventions of social order – such as don’t mess with property that belongs to someone else. These actions send confusing messages -- either they care society but are unwilling to live by its constraints (which makes it hard for me to put any trust in them) or they are insidious, seeking to take down civil society (which makes it impossible for me to trust them).

A while back, I wrote about Ray Beldner, an artist who teaches a course in Pranking as a means of Culture Jamming: "Beldner said he wanted to teach students how to bring issues to the public eye using creative methods. His course syllabus defines 'culture jamming' as 'a resistance movement to the perceived hegemony of popular culture.' 'These are serious-minded pranks,' he said. 'It's not just about people goofing around.'"

Pranking as a means of culture jamming is an interesting idea, but ultimately it puts one at cross purposes – while advocates of pranking claim that it is a way of getting a message across in a system that is skewed toward the rich and powerful and clever, I might challenge them by simply asserting they send mixed messages. They are likely to turn as many or more people off by their antics as they are to win adherents. They would burn and tear down and destroy -- but they offer very little that can be put up in place of what they destroy.

Now perhaps there’s a deeper psychological need for pranking – perhaps it is rooted in a feeling of powerlessness, or perhaps in a need to be heard. More likely it’s rooted in a chaotic impulse that resides deep within all of us – we have the seeds of destruction that are sown within us. Why is the little boy frying ants with a magnifying glass an iconic picture now? Because it is emblematic of that destructive impulse. It’s there in the vast majority of people, whether we like it or not. We learn to tame it, restrain it, and control it through convention, custom, social pressure, and self-control. We as Christians believe that conquering such destructive impulse requires the dramatic intervention of the Holy Spirit within our lives.

So I have to ultimately reject the methodology used by these pranksters to get my attention as unhelpful and ultimately counter to their stated purposes. Your thoughts?

Excelsior
Russell

Microcredit makes the big time

I know I've been beating the drum for a while, but notice that Microcredit has hit the big time with the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Muhammed Yunus, the founder of Grameen bank -- the granddaddy of all microcredit enterprises. (see the news story here -- thanks to Presbyweb for the link).

Followers of the Eagle and Child know I've been posting on this in the past:
* Talking about my experiences with Kiva, a popular microlending non-profit.
* Explaining the concept as an alternative to big check handouts to developing world governments.
* Writing on the mentality of handouts vs the mentality of loans.

Needless to say, I'm pretty jazzed that one of the pioneers in this field was chosen as a Nobel Laureate.

Soli Deo Gloria
Russell

Links for Edification

* Just put up (finally) my review of Crunchy Cons at Writer's Read. Those of you who followed the blogging series can read my "official" review of the book (thanks to all those who commented -- all your thoughts were helpful).

* Walter Kaiser gives us a great article on the 15 most important archaeological finds for Biblical Studies -- a great collection of testimonies regarding the reliability of God's Word. (hat tip to Adrian Warnock for this tidbit).

* Going to Chicago -- a while back, in celebration of my fifth anniversary as pastor, Covenant-First Pres gave us a travel voucher -- we're finally cashing it in (in celebration of our 10th wedding anniversary) to go to Chicago. While there, we'll take in the King Tut exhibit at the Field museum and the new Boublil/Schonberg musical "The Pirate Queen". More to come on that trip later!

Soli Deo Gloria
Russell

Now find your strengths

Rubi Ho, one of our church deacons, is exploring a new ministry. He's calling it Passion Quest -- he uses the Clifton Strengths Finder to help people analzye and discover their innate strengths and then he takes them through a process of self-reflection to discern their true passions so that we can more appropriately point them toward ministries that suit them.

I really like this Clifton Strengths finder -- more than any other "assessment" tool I've used. Don Clifton worked for the Gallup organization, and in his consulting work he found that most companies focus on correcting weaknesses. You have a hard time with time management or conflict resolution, then your boss will send you to training to imrove those weaknesses and then expect you to do better. Of course, we always need to work on improvement, but Clifton becaome convinced that we put too much effort into improving weaknesses and too little into leveraging strengths (think the 80/20 principle -- 80% of your results come from 20% of your producers -- thus you should pour your best time and energy into that 20%). Clifton began to develop an arena of "strengths psychology" -- he focused on what people did well and how to maximize those strengths.

For the purchase price of the book "Now Discover Your Strengths" I received access to the online strengths finder assessment. This questionnaire drilled me through a barrage of questions (just like Myers-Briggs, DISC profile, etc) and then it gave me a list of my top five strengths (out of 33 possibilities) (innate potential -- it did not say how well I've developed the strengths -- simply that they reside there latently).

Here's my five strenths (believe them or not):
INPUT (I like receiving lots of information and putting it in my collection)
POSITIVITY (I have a preference for optimism and looking at the positive side of things)
STRATEGIC (I weigh potential options and potential outcomes)
CONNECTEDNESS (I see interconnections among disciplines, people, ideas, and things)
INTELLECTION (I enjoy working in the realm of ideas)

Now here's the rub, Clifton encourages folks to play to their strengths and manage around their weaknesses as best they can. I like this. It's simple -- it's not putting us in a box. It's identifying tools with which we can work. I like it because it points us to gifts that God has given us; I like it because it sets us in a stewardship mindset.

I have been interested that some people going through the process have been disturbed because they didn't like their strengths (particularly the "command" strength -- the ability to command attention and followership). It seems that some folks are assigning a value judgement to the strength itself, rather than realizing that the strength is a tool that can be used for blessing or for harm. I'm not sure what all the issues are there, but it is a pattern that I've seen in a few people.

Looking forward to seeing where Rubi's work goes...
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell

Now Playing: High School Musical

I missed it on the Disney Channel when it first aired on January 20, 2006 (sorry, don't have cable). I've been oblivious to it all through the summer -- but in August, High School Musical came on my radar as a "must see film".

I first read about it on ypulse, the marketing website geared at helping adults of all walks (marketers, teachers, coaches, youth ministers) understand the contemporary youth culture. There I found out that High School Musical was one of the hottest soundtracks of the year and a casual survey of a few middle schoolers informed me that this was indeed a phenomenon! Tammy had heard about the film as well, so we put it at the top of our Netflix queue. Last night, after the girls were in bed, curled up on the couch to enjoy.

First, a few things you need to know. This follows the conventions of old fashoned musical comedy: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy must regain girl. People break into huge song and dance numbers in odd places: on the basketball court, in the school cafeteria. It even shares that genre's mania for self absorbtion (how many musical comedies deal with the the main characters "putting on a show"?). However, the genre is wed with Disney Channel production values, themes, and writing. So what we get is a squeaky clean story in which the romantic leads barely kiss, and then it is just on the cheek. There's no raunchy humor or double entendre at all (thus breaking at least one convention of musical comedy).

The gist of the tale is that jock Troy and Brainiac Gabriella both discover they have a love of singing. They decide to audition for the school "winter musicale", and they are so good, that they threaten the brother and sister team who had starred in the previous 17 musicals. However, because Troy and Gabriella are breaking out of their social roles to do something different, the whole social stratification falls into chaos. The other basketball players team up with the academic decathaolon team to break up Troy and Gabriella and restore order to the school. Misunderstanding and deception lead to pain and sorrow. Then the friends all realize their error, repent, and find a way to get Troy and Gabriella back to the last auditions. It ends with a great musical number with everyone (even the villans) happy and singing and dancing together.

Now, here's the tough part -- the film is really bad art. It deals with cardboard characters, broad stereotypes, cheesy dialogue, unrealistic situations, and largeley forgettable songs (save the two big song and dance numbers, that I'll come back to later). I found myself rolling my eyes through this until the very end (and I must admit, the last number hooked me). However, realize, this film wasn't made for me. It was made for pre-teens -- and in that respect, it's a great film. The Washington Post did a great article on this film in which they interview producer Dan Schnieder (who produces films and TV just like this for the "tween" market)

Schneider says his watchword in creating his shows is " 'Kids win, kids rule.' What I try to do is create a world where the kids are in charge. Real kids are always being told what to do. Parents and teachers run things and kids are subject to their rules and whims." Not on tween TV: "The adults are silly and buffoonish," Schneider says, "because it's fun [for children] to see someone making fun of authority. It's the same for adults when someone makes fun of the president."

There's also kid-wish fulfillment and aspirational fantasy. "Zoey 101's" title character boards at the impossibly lush Pacific Coast Academy (actually, Pepperdine University in Malibu), while Drake and Josh share a bachelor pad-like room above their family's garage. Says Schneider: "People tell me the shows aren't realistic, but who wants that? I want ice cream and roller coasters. I want fun."

This is good old fashoned escapist fantasy, designed to appeal to kids, and if adults come along for the ride, all the better. Now we can go back and forth on the values of escapist fantasy and the particular values espoused in this film. However one of the nice themes (that is generally common to musical comedy, but explicit here) is the longing for a reconciled community. Notice how at the end of musical comedies, there's always a big song and dance number where all the conflicts are reconciled and everyone is in step together. In this film, we even see the villans get in on the act and take the lead dance role toward the end -- the song lyrics reinforce that theme of everyone being together and being a part of the great final number:

Together, together, together everyone
Together, together, come on lets have some fun
Together, were there for each other every time
Together together come on lets do this right

Troy:Here and now its time for celebration
To finally figure it out(yeah, yeah)
That all our dreams have no limitations
That's what its all about!!

Gabriella:Everyone is special in their own way
We make each other strong(we make each other strong)
We're not the same

3 girls: We're different in a good way

Gabriella:Together's where we belong!!

We're all in this together
Once we know
That we are
we're all stars
And we see that
We're all in this together
And it shows
When we stand
Hand in hand
Make our dreams come true (ooo..)
Gabriella:Everybody now!

Together, together, together everyone
Together, together, come on lets have some fun
Together, were there for each other every time
Together together come on lets do this right

Ryan:We're all here
and speaking out in one voice
we're going to rock the house(yeah-yeah!!!)
the party's on now everybody make some noise
come on scream and shout

Sharpay:We've arrived (arrived) because we stand together
champions one and all

We're all in this together (together)
Once we know
That we are (that we are)
we're all stars
And we see that
We're all in this together (Ahh-oo)
And it shows
When we stand
Hand in hand
Make our dreams come

We're all in this together (together)
When we reach
We can fly
Know inside (ahh)
We can make it
We're all in this together
Once we see
Theres a chance
That we have
And we take it ......

Shakespeare it isn't, but it does catch some of the themes of Shakespeare's comedies -- the longing for restoration of relationships, unity, recognition and celebration of individuality. These are themes that Christians find fulfilled in Christ. In Christ we have union together. In Christ, we see history as coming together in a great climactic song and dance number at the end of the ages where we all will be together, wrongs will be reconciled (though, not all villans will be included -- in some musical comedies, the villan is notoriously excluded from the final number), and a new society will be inaugurated centered on Christ. And if this film plants some seeds while having some great fun -- then all to the good.

Soli Deo Gloria
Russell

Link Spectacular

Things have been a little hectic this week -- life does catch up with us. Sooo...Here are a few tidbits worth looking at:

First -- if you must have some of my oh so clever writing, read my church newsletter article on the concept of Covenant in the Bible.

Second -- If you haven't seen Markus Watson's blog, Stretchy Church, you really ought to pay him a visit. He's had some outstanding pop culture posts on Battlestar Galactica and on Lost vs. The Lord of the Rings. Well done Markus.

Third -- Presbyweb tells us that revival is breaking out .... in India!

Soli Deo Gloria
Russell

Banking, Usury, Payday Loans -- what can we do?

You've seen them -- the payday loan stores that offer a short (usually two week) loan. The loans are typically small (say $300) for which you pay a small fee (say $30). The way this works is that you write a postdated check for $330 and receive your cash for $300. When payday rolls around and you deposit your money in your account, they cash your check.

Except.... You still have the negative cash flow and don't have resources to fully cover the $330. So you go back to the payday lender asking them not to cash the check -- you pay them what you can (say $200) and then you take out another loan, paying another fee -- and so on and so forth. Sometimes people get stuck paying the equivalent of 300% a year. But such operations are not subject to usury laws because they're not charging interest, they're charging fees.

I've been hot under the collar about these outfits for a while, for while they are legal, I see little that is beneficial to society about them (yes, they offer financial services to people who otherwise might not be able to have access to them -- but at what cost? they're creating a new form of indentured serviture). Just because they're legal doesn't mean I have to like them.

This came on my mind again when I received the newsletter from the Presbyterian Church's Washington Office (full disclosure -- I have been a critic (in one post last year) of the concept of the Washington office, and I'm philosophically opposed to the idea of having a lobbying arm of the PCUSA. I signed up for their newsletter because I felt I needed to be informed of actions that are taken on my behalf as a Presbyterian). The newsletter contained a thoughtful piece by Carolynn Race on Presbyterians and Usury.

She pointed readers to the 217th General Assembly's adoption of a report on "A Reformed Understanding of Usury in the 21st Century". This report is well worth the read -- it's thoughtful and while it contains the usual large scale policy solutions, it also makes very firm statements about personal responsibility:

There is one more way in which the understanding of “usury” needs to be re-engaged for the 21st century. The Book of Confessions not only links usury to the business practices of the lender but also to the economic habits of the borrower, indeed of the whole society of which the borrower is a part. Thus the Westminster Larger Catechism not only states the positive duty for “faithfulness and justice in contracts,” but also the positive duty for “moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections, concerning worldly goods” and for “frugality” (7.251). Stating this latter concern in terms of what is forbidden by the eighth commandment, the catechism specifies “inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others” (7.252). A proper concern with usury in the 21st century cannot rest content with the practices of lenders, but as in the 16th and 17th centuries, must reckon with the habits and behaviors of borrowers.

Throughout the history of reforming the small-loan industry in the U.S. recounted earlier, various efforts were made to provide not only relief from excessive interest but also to provide financial counseling that would make the resort to small loans for financial emergencies less frequent. Although such approaches may have been characterized as having “equal measures of sympathy and paternalism,”20the fact was that borrower behavior was also considered. Although a borrower’s financial habits are decisively limited by the macroeconomic conditions in which they are exercised, they are not irrelevant to the borrower’s financial well-being. Indeed, it might be that the emphasis that the personal finance industry developed in the first half of the 20th century on personal financial planning,21 was a proper effort by lenders to take into account “procuring and preserving the outward estate” of the borrower.

In any event, some of those who have wrestled more recently with the dilemmas of the relatively poor who are forced to avail themselves of alternative financial services, have continued to see a role at least for encouraging savings that might obviate the need for recourse to payday lenders when financial emergencies arise. In addition to the incentives for financial literacy classes cited in the case of the Northside Community Federal Credit Union’s PAL program, Michael S. Barr also argues that strategies to bring low-income persons into the financial services mainstream need to include initiatives designed to increase savings for short-term financial stability and to improve access to less expensive forms of credit where appropriate—“for example, with overdraft protection, account-secured loans, credit cards or loans with automatic withdrawals from pay directly deposited into accounts, but with significantly longer terms than payday loans.”22 He also describes America Saves, a program sponsored by the Consumer Federation of America, which combines financial education with low-income savings plans building on self-identified savings goals that could serve as a model for increasing savings among low- to moderate-income families. Barr also believes that nonprofit and faith-based organizations can play important roles in partnering with financial institutions to expand financial education to low-income households.

And this takes me back to Carolynn Race's article. She begins her suggestions for what we can do, not with advocacy (though she does touch on that later in the message), but with working directly in the local community. She makes Recommendations like:

1. Support efforts to provide more effective and less costly financial services to people who are now forced to utilize high-cost alternative financial resources by:

* Partnering with and supporting legitimate, ethical nonprofit organizations that provide both educational and financial services to those not eligible for mainstream services, including participation in the development of community credit unions;

* Partnering with local community organizations that help low-income people learn about resources in the community that can provide them better opportunities for both saving and borrowing;

* Supporting faith-based investor groups that seek to change discriminatory lending practices; ....

And

2. Support and implement education for financial literacy by:

* Learning what organizations, resources, and educational materials are available on the web and in the community;

* Developing or securing appropriate (for age, culture and language) educational materials and/or educational sessions for children, teens, college students, young adults, adults, and seniors to demystify savings, credit, and lending and encourage savings and frugal use of credit cards and loans;
....
* Encouraging Presbyterian publications to make articles on financial literacy part of total stewardship of God-given resources.

(Ellipsis indicate that I've cut out a bullet point or two for brevity's sake)

Now these are recommendations I can get on board with. I can heartily commend financial education programs like Crown Financial Ministries. I can point people toward local nonprofits like Smart Money (hat tip to John Jensen here) that provide affordable financial services and financial counseling to the working poor. I can celebrate ministries like Jobs Plus that help people develop Job Skills, and life management skills. Good work is being done out there to rescue people from sharks. Praise God.

Soli Deo Gloria
Russell

Marketing Faith Based Films

I received a letter today from "FoxFaith", a division of Fox films. They're announcing "a new, ground-breaking program that will impact Christian families across the country and - particularly - your community..." It then moves into a plug for the upcoming release of the adaptation of Janette Oke's Love's Abiding Joy -- and a promise that following that release "the FoxFaith theatrical program will release a minimum of 6 FoxFaith films in theaters across the country...films that are either derived from a best-selling Christian author or that have an overt Christian message." They'll also have promotional flyers and accompanying Bible Studies for participating congregations.

A visit to the FoxFaith website shows that they're marketing not just new releases, but old classics (like the Sound of Music or The Agony and the Ecstasy), contemporary blockbusters (like the Passion of the Christ or The End of the Spear). They also have downloadable study guides and resources for many of the films on their list.

How Nice.

But I'm a little cynical (surprise?)

Don't get me wrong -- I like many of the films on the list. I would recommend many of the films that they have available. I'm also appreciative that Fox is making a diligent effort to make thoughtful films that are family friendly or rooted in Christian values. I believe that when such films are of good quality, we ought to support them with our dollars and our recommendations.

Where I'm cynical is this -- I as a pastor don't want to be treated as an extension of your marketing department. When we as a church do something like "The Gospel According to Star Wars", it's because someone in our church thought it was a really cool way of relating something that we like back to the Scriptures. We didn't do it as the latest zowie thing to attract lots of new people -- and we certainly didn't do it to promote the Star Wars films.

When I recommended people see the Passion of the Christ or The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, it was because I had an intuitive sense that these films would make a big splash on our culture in general, and I wanted our congregation to be conversent with them.

I react against the idea that all the Fox Marketing department has to do is send out a letter and we Christians will come salivating for a sugary sweet film simply because we're told that it's friendly to Christians.

Here's my suggestion to the Fox Folks -- Make good films. Stop trying to make demographic based films. Let directors work out of love of the craft rather than trying to figure out how to capture a demographic by paint by numbers. Why do you think The Lord of the Rings and The Passion of the Christ were such huge hits -- they were labors of love done by really good artists.

My other advice is this -- there are some labors that are just plain worthless. Eschew them. The films that exalt nihilism, torture, degradation, and over-the-topness may bring in lots of dollars, but ultimately they weaken our society and our souls. Please show some responsibility and self-restraint in your offerings.

And if you follow by those two maxims, you'll save lots of marketing dollars AND win the hearts of a lot of Christians (and non-Christians as well).

Excelsior
Russell