Taking a look around

What would Jesus Deconstruct? According to Caputo, the first thing would be the Church. There is plenty that could be changed about the church, but what if instead of small cosmetic changes, we sought to radically take apart the “why” and “what” of our spiritual lives and our Christian communities? What if this could also be done with humility and gentleness, not out of hatred for the Church, but out of love for God’s people? Honestly, I’m tired of fruitless gripes against the church, including my own.

The discussion on “myth” was very interesting when thinking about my own American culture. Many of us have been intrigued by “The American Dream” at one point or another. The idea that anybody can succeed with some willpower is attractive because it provides hope. All myths have a certain degree of truth, but not necessarily truth for all groups of people. Myth keeps people going.

Just today, a couple won 270 million dollars, it could happen to you. Just believe in the American Dream!

“Why are youth attracted to online communities in the massive numbers they are? Is there a emotional, relational or spiritual void that these sites feed towards youth that the church can/should tap into?”

Joe makes some interesting points about the fascination with online communities. It seems that these virtual portals have become more popular as regular relationships have weakened in society, especially among adolescents. Maybe people don’t know how to have relationships with others anymore. If there is an emotional or relational void, it is certainly not being fixed by online relationships or communities. These sites offer community without the sacrifice and relationships without a need for authenticity, depth or discomfort. The problem is worsening but it is not hopeless. The Church is uniquely positioned to reclaim relationships and emotional wholeness as we explain what true community was intended for. Internet networks are not wrong, but they are insufficient. Facebook can be a fun addition to community, but it cannot be a substitute for the real thing.

Barker looks at how cultural studies has discussed the broad topic of “cultural politics”. One of the most interesting portions of this chapter was the delineation between “traditional” and “organic” intellectuals. While intellectuals have traditionally been people working in places like universities and the media, Barker presents a contrasting “organic” intellectual, influential movements of thinkers within the working class. This group offers a “counter-hegemonic class” to think through key societal issues.

Where are church leaders to fit into this mix?

“Youth is not a universal category of biology. Rather, it is a changing social and cultural construct that appeared at a particular moment of time under definitive conditions.” p.375

Adolescence did not always exist. For most of history, there were only two phases in life, childhood and adulthood. Today, adolescence is one of the most confusing questions of culture. One of the interesting debates that Barker brings up is on the “homogenization of youth culture”. Some people believe that there is a global youth culture, that all youth partake in similar cultural norms and attitudes. Other people maintain that youth culture is scattered and chaotic, representing the hybrid nature of global culture. As a youth minister, it is my job to better understand this ever-changing phenomenon in order to share the Gospel in appropriate ways.

“The covenant/jeremiad formula is a lost paradise script, and one of the most recurring in popular culture.” P.220

Cobb points out that “appetite is frequently associated with the loss of paradise”. Certainly, we can see Adam and Eve losing a perfect home thought their own greed and desires. It was interesting to see that this narrative is so common even in other traditions, like in Buddhist mythology with “Vasettha”. Cobb describes two ways that this “losing paradise” narrative is played out, in both Covenants and Jeremiads. It is interesting that even some of the Oscar-winning movies this year deal with similar themes. This is a topic that continues to be on our minds, well after the original story was written.

In Bevans’ discussion of the Synthetic model, I was finally satisfied. Up until this point, I was frustrated with the holes that were left with the exclusive usage of individual models. This model uses the best features of all the other models, with special emphasis on the translation model, which to me was the most significant individual approach. As Bevans says, this approach is a “middle-of-the-road model”. That may be why I like it, it is balanced. This method may also be the most applicable and realistic, since few people use theology in exclusive ways, there will usually be a certain degree of blending.

“People are weary of words” This statement in class made me think. Words can only begin to paint a picture, action really finishes and illuminates a canvas. When words are not backed up or acted out, they begin to lose their meaning. People have heard many words about God, many theories, and calls to help the poor, but may not even know what these things look like. In our day and age, action will give meaning to words, and not vice-versa.

I enjoyed doing the “Western” exercise in class today. I’ve often thought about how most movies of similar genres have the same basic structure or “langue” as we learned in class. However, the “parole” or the specific details depend on the individual movie. When a genre departs from the standard structure, it often gains critical acclaim for going against popular expectations. We looked at movies to better understand our language, we are saying many of the same things, but in different ways.

“The sentiment that a person is the brand-named commodities they cocoon themselves within is more widespread that most would willingly admit, at least about themselves” p. 184

Cobb’s discussion of “accessorized identities” was fascinating since we all fall into this. Our primary way of constructing identity is like we are “shopping for a self”. We are defining ourselves by what products we consume and are subscribing to a certain lifestyle as a way to set ourselves apart from others.

Especially interesting was the discussion of people who seek to resist the enticements of advertising and brands. These people reject shopping at Starbucks, McDonalds and having an SUV, and instead will go to independent coffee shops, drive Vespas and old Volvos, watch art-house films and eat whole foods.

These anti-brand and anti-logo people actually end up where they started, using consumption as the primary way to define self. As Cobb says, “even non-brands have become a brand”.
Funny thing is, I see myself in Cobb’s description sometimes.