One of the skills we need to develop if we are to be insightful observers of culture is recognizing that cultural artifacts (the things humans make) are not neutral. They embody, shape or legitimate certain understandings of the world.  I was reminded of this fact while listening to some of the recent reports of the death of . . . → Read More: Vidal Sassoon, Haircuts and Worldviews]]>

One of the skills we need to develop if we are to be insightful observers of culture is recognizing that cultural artifacts (the things humans make) are not neutral. They embody, shape or legitimate certain understandings of the world.  I was reminded of this fact while listening to some of the recent reports of the death of Vidal Sassoon (1928-2012 ).

Sassoon was a hairdresser who came to fame in late 1950s in London. He revolutionized the way women’s hair was cut.  Previously, the predominant styles were heavy, high and labour intensive (curlers and hair-dryers). Sassoon pioneered “wash-and-wear” cuts that required little styling or ongoing care. In an interview for the Los Angeles Times in 1993, Sassoon explained his thinking as he developed his hair-cutting philosophy in the 1960s:

“Women were going back to work, they were assuming their own power. They didn’t have time to sit under the dryer anymore.”

Sassoon’s haircuts legitimated and reinforced the huge cultural changes of the 1960s.  They made a statement about the type of world we live in.  Haircuts matter. So does Fashion generally. As famous designer Coco Chanel has said:

“Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.”

There is a place, then, for Christian hairdressers and fashion designers. For the creation of styles that embody something of the gospel vision of the world and shape those who wear them according to that vision.

I am not quite sure what a Christian haircut would look like (though I have some idea what it won’t look like), but I am convinced that we are called as part of our faithful cultural engagement to not just observe culture, but create it.

I haven’t linked to his article, because even some of his watered-down descriptions are pretty graphic, but essentially he puts forward . . . → Read More: Rules of (cultural) engagement]]> A couple of weeks ago I read (and briefly commented on) a challenging article written by a pastor in the US who watched The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo….and then later wished he hadn’t.

I haven’t linked to his article, because even some of his watered-down descriptions are pretty graphic, but essentially he puts forward a call for us to be more discerning in our cultural engagement.  Our desire to engage shouldn’t be used to justify exposing ourselves to material that a.) by our very attendance sends a legitimising message and/or b.) is potentially very damaging to us…

A couple of quotes make the point:

While I have no desire to make too much out of the film per se, I do think it’s an interesting moment in our culture that raises broader questions about ethics and entertainment we desperately need to engage.  Sometimes I’m concerned that in the Western church we aren’t capable of having an informed enough conversation about such matters at all.  The rather vapid, uncritical moralism of the past (if it’s got a dirty word or a sex scene it must be from hell) has been largely replaced with vapid, uncritical laissez-faire moralism in which the morality of our entertainment is not seriously called into question.  It is possible for redemptive stories to be told that are in fact quite explicit, it does not follow that all explicitly told stories are redemptive.

…

It has never worked out well for us to attempt to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the darkness or the violence all around us.  I am not proposing that.  I am not proposing a return to a Puritanical refusal to engage with anything that we find unsettling or disrupting.  What I am wondering though, is what effect a prophetic witness for tenderness could have in the world we live in.  What if we were known not for squeamishness towards broken bodies, but a protectiveness of them that not only means that we bind up the wounded—but that pushes back at “entertainment” that does not honor those bodies?  It is true that many of our former markers of holiness have been arbitrary and unhelpful.  But is it not also true that holiness does in fact demand markers and distinctions?

Those are observations that I found myself resonating with…and challenged by.

What do you think?

Have you had to re-discover some markers and distinctions around your cultural engagement in order to protect and push back?

In it, among other things, author Ken Myer suggests that it isn’t “the culture” that is the problem – rather what we are doing (or not doing) in church, or as members thereof.  Or for want of . . . → Read More: Shaped to be “Christian-ish”]]> One of our Australian alumni posted a link to a great Q&A article on culture on the Compass Facebook page.

In it, among other things, author Ken Myer suggests that it isn’t “the culture” that is the problem – rather what we are doing (or not doing) in church, or as members thereof.  Or for want of a better phrase, our “church culture.”

In reply to the question “Practically speaking, how has the church been too influenced by the broader culture?” he offers the following short-list to get the conversation started:

• The way in which the dominant role of technology in our lives promotes the deep assumption that we can fix anything;
• The way in which proliferating mechanisms of convenience erodes the virtues of patience and longsuffering;
• The way in which the elimination of standards of public propriety and manners undermines assumptions about the legitimacy of authority and deference to the communal needs; and
• The way in which the high prestige accorded to entertainers creates the conviction that every valuable experience should be entertaining.

Those four short lines are deeply challenging.  Go back and consider them again and – instead of thinking “Yea, I know churches/people who do that…” - have a think about how those assumptions have influenced you.

Have you found ways to push back on those tendencies?  Feel free to leave a comment…

It’s a place of welcome and laughter, of healing and hope, of . . . → Read More: NT Wright describes the church I want to be part of…]]> I am reading Gabe Lyons’s book The Next Christians: Seven Ways You Can Live the Gospel and Restore the World at the moment (I’m a decent five for seven ; ) ) and I came across this beautiful quote by NT Wright on the church.

It’s a place of welcome and laughter, of healing and hope, of friends and family and justice and new life. It’s where the homeless drop in for a bowl of soup and the elderly stop by for a chat. It’s where one group is working to help drug addicts and another is campaigning for global justice. It’s where you’ll find people learning to pray, coming to faith, struggling with temptations, finding new purpose, and getting in touch with a new power to carry that purpose out. It’s where people bring their own small faith and discover, in getting together with others to worship the one true God, that the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

I have been thinking a lot recently about the power of imagination. The need for us to be able to envision something before we move toward it. I have been inspired by Wright’s vision this afternoon. It is not, I don’t think, idealism – but that strange mix of heaven and earth (the sublime and the ordinary) that is the mark of Christ’s earthly body, the church. Beautiful.

I don’t think we are frankly smart enough to be open students of popular culture who are able to engage difficult content with . . . → Read More: Reading in order to read…]]> Pastor and theologian Johnathan Martin recently wrote a challenging blog piece about the way we watch movies, which I will comment on next week.  In doing so, he makes the following observation:

I don’t think we are frankly smart enough to be open students of popular culture who are able to engage difficult content with discernment.  The baseline of being able to discern popular culture in a broad, comprehensive manner is that we maintain enough detachment from the broader culture to see it what it is.  Most Christians in America, quite frankly watch more than they read.  And in the most broad oversimplification I’ve ever written: I don’t think you can discern media at all if you watch more than you read (and I’m not just talking about the Bible here).  We are often not robust enough intellectually or formed deeply enough spiritually to even think about the higher stakes.

Martin admits that he is over-simplifying things, especially in the line that I have bolded, but I think he’s on to something.  The ability to read and discern the culture that is all around us (that we are IN) requires certain skills.  And I too am skeptical that we can develop those skills just by watching.  Commentators have long been lamenting the inevitable changes that our evolution from a print-based to an image-based culture is producing.  The hermeneutical ability that wrestling with language develops…is being  lost.

Reading words in order to read culture – do you think it makes sense?

Certainly comedian Louise CK thinks we have taken our watching too far…  Enjoy.

I find myself sharing Gandhi’s sentiments whenever I stumble across “ultimate fighting” (an oxymoron perhaps?!) on television.  In case you don’t stumble across the same sort of stuff that I do, ultimate fighting . . . → Read More: The Fight Club Generation]]> When once asked what he thought of Western civilisation, Mahatma Gandhi is reported to have answered: “I think it would be a good idea!”

I find myself sharing Gandhi’s sentiments whenever I stumble across “ultimate fighting” (an oxymoron perhaps?!) on television.  In case you don’t stumble across the same sort of stuff that I do, ultimate fighting is mixed martial arts (MMA) combat…in a cage…with very few rules.

Perhaps my own 65-kg frame has subconsciously given me a prejudice!  Even so, I can’t help but think that the explosion in popularity of these increasingly violent encounters paints a pretty forlorn picture of some aspects of our present-day “civilisation.”

A recent New York Times article entitled The Fight Club Generation observes that regular boxing has been replaced by a rawer, rowdier second-cousin.  “To this generation, who came of age alongside the notorious sport, mixed martial arts has come to represent everything that boxing once did to their fathers and grandfathers: the ultimate measure of manhood, endurance and guts.”

It’s like boxing, but with more blood and chaos – (Popular MMA blog is appropriately, if not a little alarmingly, titled The Bloody Elbow.)

It’s like boxing, but without the same rules and etiquette.

It’s like boxing gone postmodern.

Actually, it’s nothing like boxing.

The most interesting revelation in the article for me was not just the huge number of fans (MMA is now the fourth most popular sport among 18-34 year-old males, behind baseball, basketball and football) but who they are.  Robert Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University:

“‘People who don’t know these sports very well think their fans must be these kind of crazed, people-on-the-verge-of-a-breakdown, violent kind of thing.’  But the students he sees who are most interested in the sport ‘tend to have really good grade-point averages and be really fine students,’ he said. ‘This is not something that smart young people look down their noses at.’”

It goes on to suggest that following or participating in MMA may provide an outlet for a generation of males who perhaps haven’t really known or been shown how to be masculine.  As its title suggests, a generation whose imaginations and baser instincts were captured by the Edward Norton/Brad Pitt indy hit film Fight Club.  The article reports Professor Thompson’s agreement that “the impact of Fight Club could not be discounted; it became a manifesto for a generation of boys who felt estranged from their masculinity. ‘It became this kind of magnum opus, and it described a certain culture of this kind of sport… This was their thing, and they defined themselves accordingly.’“

I’m not exactly sure how we teach a generation of males how to be appropriately masculine – or, for that matter, a generation of females how to be appropriately feminine.  As a soon-to-be dad it’s something I am going to be thinking a lot about in the decades ahead – because doing nothing isn’t going to be an option.

But what I am pretty certain about is that any generation that gets its kicks from watching one individual beat the pulp out of another has probably lost something pretty central to an understanding of what it means to be human.

And if The Bloody Elbow is giving us our answers, we’re probably asking the wrong questions.

(You can access the original article and photos here.)

(The next entry will be serious, we promise.)

The ad, from prominent NZ brewery DB, features “Sean” staring sadly into a glass of wine.  The subtext is that this . . . → Read More: Beer and Whine…]]> Even though it risks descending into a bad commentary on comedy (especially following a piece about the Muppets) I couldn’t help but mention this advertisement…and the reaction it stirred.

(The next entry will be serious, we promise.)

The ad, from prominent NZ brewery DB, features “Sean” staring sadly into a glass of wine.  The subtext is that this (unmanly) beverage has been forced into his hands at a function where beer has (outrageously) not be supplied.  Alongside his forlorn look are the words: “Sean notes the complex mix of both shame and regret.”

(I should have also mentioned that it is unfortunate timing to be including this piece during Lent – sorry about that.)

The ad goes on: “One of the main problems with wine is that it isn’t beer … so the next time Sean finds himself socialising with his wife’s friends, he’ll have a choice. Drink wine and swallow his pride. Or drink Export Dry and swallow some beer.”

It’s hilarious.

Not according to some male wine aficionados.  They have come howling to the media about how insensitive it all is.  (Actually, in fairness, the media probably approached them, but in any case they took the opportunity to have a little whine.)  Apparently these sorts of ads are infantile.  Apparently we’re not living in the dark ages any more.  Apparently men can drink and enjoy both beer AND wine now…

Who would have thought?!

Apparently, also, male wine aficionados can have no sense of humour or irony…  (If nothing else, Sean’s enormous mullet should have tipped them off.)

Dominion Breweries have done what beer companies have always done – been larrikins.  And as someone who both enjoys wine immensely and is also prone to take himself too seriously, I enjoyed the ad because it poked fun at both of those traits.  Last week Bret McKenzie and the Muppets reminded us that we all need a good laugh from time to time – this week I’m suggesting that we also need to be able to do that towards ourselves.

Whatever your tipple, drink it with pride.  (AFTER Lent, and in moderation, of course!)  In the meantime, learn to have the occasional laugh at yourself.  It won’t kill you…  Honest.

Here’s a chart on what people are saying about your denomination to get you started…

It is the one-year anniversary of the second major earthquake in Christchurch.  While miraculously there were no deaths in the quake of September 2010, the toll from 22 February 2011 reached 185 – four of the dead have never been identified.

Christchurch Cathedral

Watching some of the coverage that began . . . → Read More: Earthquakes and Ash]]> This is a sombre day for New Zealanders.

It is the one-year anniversary of the second major earthquake in Christchurch.  While miraculously there were no deaths in the quake of September 2010, the toll from 22 February 2011 reached 185 – four of the dead have never been identified.

Christchurch Cathedral

Watching some of the coverage that began last night, I felt a mix of emotions.  Inspired by the courage displayed by so many that day (some of whom now, because of replayed footage, are quite familiar faces.)  Encouraged by their updates one year on, as they rebuild their homes and their lives. Heartened and humbled by the unity and selflessness that Christchurch residents continue to have towards each other.

But I would be lying if I said that they were the most dominant of my emotions.  Mostly I just felt sad.  Sad that cities crack and crumble.  Sad that buildings collapse without warning.  And deeply sad that 185 people woke up bright-eyed on this day one year ago and headed off to work and play…but didn’t make it home.

It is perhaps fitting that today is Ash Wednesday – a day of repentant prayer and fasting that marks the beginning of Lent.  Ash is often used in Scripture to symbolise mourning and so in many liturgical services, even today, a priest will mark a small cross on the forehead of each congregant and remind them: “Remember that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.” (Genesis 3:19)

Of course we know that Ash Wednesday isn’t the end of the story – Easter is coming.  And the resurrection is a glimpse – our guarantee – that one day all things will be made new.

But sometimes we can be a little impatient to get there.  And in our impatience we can miss the opportunity to stand in support and weep with those who weep.  As Christchurch knows well, no-one can fast-forward their way through pain.

Whether you are reading this on Feb 22nd, or over the next few days – pause for a moment to remember Christchurch and her people.

And lift them up in prayer.