Why I Like "Glee"

While I may not be a full-blown "Gleek," I must admit there's something about this show that stirs my soul. The evidence came in a season-2 episode called "Never Been Kissed" (my wife and I gave up cable and are slowly playing catch-up with this series). Without explaining all the 'who's who' details, I'll summarize the episode by saying that a couple of the guys in Glee Club have been finding it very hard to make out with their girlfriends, who only want to kiss and continually halt them from going further. For these guys to handle this hormonal pressure, they find that they can think of something unsexy and abruptly 'cool off.' They begin thinking of their female football coach, the tomboyish Coach Beiste (yes, pronounced like 'Beast'). The girlfriends begin to suspect that they're thinking of Coach Beiste when they're making out. Not realizing their motives, the girls get jealous and begin to say off-the-cuff remarks to Coach Beiste. Their Glee Club teacher, Will, hears about this and then admonishes them for doing the very thing that the Glee Club is supposed to stand up against (discrimination of those on the 'outside'). He tells the guys to stop doing it and that they'll never tell Coach Beiste about it. When pushed as to why the guys on the football team have been acting so weird around her, Will tells Coach Beiste what the guys have been doing. She is heart-broken and decides to resign. Will goes to see Coach Beiste as she's cleaning out her office. He comforts her by saying he understands what she's going through, as he was also an outcast in high school. "I've never been kissed, Will," she says. "I'm 40 and I haven't taken those baby steps yet." Will tells her that she's beautiful and then gives her a kiss on the lips. The guys try to make things right by singing Coach Beiste a song at the conclusion of the episode, and she decides to stay.

This episode did something for me that previous episodes had not. I connected with its storyline on a personal level. Most of us can relate to being picked on in grade school, but what I really connected with was Will's willingness to chastise his Glee guys for doing something seemingly harmless. He wants them to examine their motives, remembering that they're viewed as outcasts, too, simply because they like to sing in the Glee Club.

Simple, but very profound.

I connect with what Will Schuester does because it's the very same thing that I attempt to do with my youth group at church—promoting acceptance at a heart level. The logic is that even thinking cruel thoughts about someone else is wrong. Maybe it's wrong because it allows a level of bigotry into your subconscious. Maybe it's wrong because what's in the mind tends to flow out of the mouth. Maybe we can't explain why, but we know it's just wrong.

In this episode, in particular, we see that words sting, and even the most harmless looks can cast a long shadow of judgment. This happens, too, with another student. Kurt is the only openly-gay student at the show's high school and is constantly harassed by the jocks on the football team. He finds a friend and ally in Blaine Warbler—a student in a competing glee club. By the end of the episode, Kurt is standing up for himself against his harasser, saying he's not going to change no matter how badly he's treated. There's something special about this sequence, too. The ability to stand up for one's personal convictions is very hard to do, especially in high school. Then frame that in light of being harassed for those convictions, and it would be almost impossible not to just give up and try to blend in with everyone else. Again, in my youth group I try to teach students to be themselves, but also to be willing to go against the crowd. I don't want them to try to rock boats, but I do want them to rise above an immature status quo.

This episode, more than any other, has turned me into a true fan of Glee. I admit, sometimes Glee sends mixed messages that contradict the real point of the show. But there's also many virtuous undertones that I truly appreciate. I love the heart and soul of Glee—to not be afraid to show who you are, and to bond (rather than fall apart) in the face of opposition. And while I didn't expect to find such depth in Glee, I'm glad to say I've found it there.

Super Bowl Salvation

Photo by Scott Nellis

Street preachers....oh, how I loathe thee. As I walked through downtown Indianapolis, I saw a spattering of these pharisaical evangelists with their megaphones and brimstone signs. Indy's Super Bowl Village was the prime spot for these opportunistic preachers to do their thing.

Disgrace. And un-grace, too.

It's hard to fathom that people still believe that condemnation and judgment trump sincere love. I suppose these gentlemen feel that their duty as Christians is to take the Saul-of-Tarsus approach and convict people of their sinfulness, lest they end up in hell. But street signs and megaphones? Really? I've read my gospels, and I don't remember Jesus ever using those tactics. I wanted to tell them that I'm about to enter seminary and I've committed most of the sins on their sign. Then I wanted to ask them where that left me. Doomed to hell? I know this: there was no mention of forgiveness, grace, or love. They surely have missed the point.

It's kind of pointless to write and rant about such things. These guys have always been around, and always will be around. But still... They don't honestly think that soapboxing in Super Bowl Village is going to win any souls? Apparently they do.

Post With Caution

I was reading a blog recently by a pastor named Jonathan Martin, http://pastorjonathanmartin.com/. He wrote some very interesting thoughts about social media in relation to ministry (though his thoughts apply to any area of vocation). Here's the excerpt:

Last year, I contributed a chapter to a book for Dr. Raymond F. Culpepper called The Great Commission Connection.  I was asked to write about the connection between the great commission and media, with a special emphasis on social media.  In it I wrote at length about not only the promise, but the peril of social media, especially with the ability to so quickly speak destructive words within the Body of Christ without safeguards of Biblical accountability.  I tried to address this constructively in the broader construct of a theology of online life.  To quote myself:
When we have such powerful tools at our disposal, making it possible for us to broadcast our every thought and whim to the world with such ease, the key to using media in our mission may lie as much in our restraint as in our creativity.  Within a matter of seconds, I have the capability to share my opinions about any conceivable topic or issue with the world in a matter of seconds.  But just because I can, doesn’t mean that I should…
I try to heed my own counsel and be cautious about what issues I do in fact choose to address in this kind of format.

Jonathan's words resonate deeply with me. I, too, have found myself with an aversion to Facebook posts and tweets that hastily communicate things that wouldn't be said face-to-face. I agree with him that it's just too easy to hit "post" and send your thoughts out to the world. In my work, people have left our church over issues that could have been resolved in a face-to-face meeting, but instead a train of emails set off a firestorm of hurt and misinterpreted motives. In fact, I hope to share this topic in future conversations, as blogs can cause the same problems as Facebook posts, emails, and tweets. And I, too, have found myself explaining why I said something in an email and what I meant by it. It's just not worth the confusion and trouble.

To reiterate, Jonathan said, "When we have such powerful tools at our disposal, making it possible for us to broadcast our every thought and whim to the world with such ease, the key to using media in our mission may lie as much in our restraint as in our creativity." In other words, watch what you say. This is truer now than ever. If the subject of an email is of significant importance, then that topic probably deserves a phone call. If you find yourself posting and tweeting about controversial matters, whether it be politics, religion, or even the antics of someone in the news, then pause. Stop for a moment and consider how your post will be received by those on your list of "friends." Will you alienate people? Will you offend people? Is this the type of comment that you would share at dinner with your friends?

I read posts on Facebook all the time that I find very...well, let's say 'enlightening.' Most of these posts are random, spur-of-the-moment thoughts. If these thoughts are simply that you're watching CSI tonight, then you're fine. But—and this is a very big but—if you find yourself posting your thoughts on a hot-button topic, then beware. These are the exact thoughts that will get you in the most trouble. If you're truly impassioned about a cause, then write your senator; don't post it on Facebook or Twitter. You will only ostracize yourself and cause others to question your motives.

The Evolution Of Reading In A Digital World

So I've been doing a lot of online reading lately, along with my standard two to three books at my bedside. I'm starting to notice the stark differences between the former and latter, and I'm finding myself a little torn. Every time I think of buying a Kindle or Nook and saving myself a lot of bookshelf space, I run across a dilemma that makes me want to regress to the pre-digital days.

My Digital Dilemma
I'll try to explain my dilemma by example. Every time I start to read a great online article or blog, I find my attention seized by another linked article within the text. Does this happen to you? The best recent example I can find is by a blogger and pastor named JR Forasteros. He has a great review of the new, controversial book Real Marriage by Mark and Grace Driscoll. I loved his review and thought it was very insightful. Still, reading the first paragraph of the review was like having my attention thrown in a washing machine. His review exemplifies what I've been doing here, which is what every blogger and news site seems to be doing...embedding links to anything and everything within their article. It's hard enough to carve out time to read in our advertising and media-saturated world. Now it's becoming harder still. I, like many young men, have the attention span of a 5-year-old. This is especially true when it comes to watching TV, walking through the movie section at Target, or looking something up on the Internet. Here's another example: Click over to AOL and try to search for something. Their Web page is filled with so much distracting, albeit amusing, fodder that you'll forget what you ever wanted to search for in the first place. I say all of this because I find it ironic, and a bit frightening, that I can't read an entire article without clicking on at least one or two links within that article before I'm finished. I get back to the first article and think, "What was this about again?"

This is the new norm. This is how Web sites track what your interests are and sell you stuff. This is how Facebook displays ads that interest you and Netflix knows just what movies and shows to recommend to you. Kind of feels like 1984, doesn't it? I'm not necessarily criticizing what bloggers and news sites are doing by embedding links to related topics. I'm just finding myself slowing down to analyze whether this is a good and helpful trend, rather than simply accepting it. As a society, we should continually slow down and analyze whether or not a new trend is useful, helpful, and, most importantly, good for us.

Let's face it...the digital revolution is altering us. It's changing the way we communicate (or the lack thereof), and it's changing the way we absorb information. So enjoy the technology, for sure. Just be sure to stop every now and then and think about what the technology is doing to you.

For My Own Curiosity  
Did you make it to the end of this blog without clicking any of the links above? Was it hard to come back to this blog after reading those others?

Christopher Hitchens's Death And The Evangelical Fail

This past week renowned author and atheist Christopher Hitchens passed away of esophageal cancer. Hitchens is author of the bestselling book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Christians around the world have used his death as an opportunity to throw a final posthumous punch. Maybe you won't interpret it this way, but let's look at some quotes to be sure. Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA, tweeted, "My friend Christopher Hitchens has died. I loved & prayed for him constantly & grieve his loss. He knows the Truth now." Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, also went to Twitter to drive his point home. He said Hitchens's death "is an excruciating reminder of the consequences of unbelief. We can only pray others will believe."

Let's be honest. These are not evangelical Christians showing a deep, sincere love for the loss of one of the world's great minds. No, this is simply the abuse of an opportunity. This opportunity allowed them to make an arrogant show of themselves on the world's leading asinine-soapbox, Twitter. This is not love. I'll say it again...this is not love. We're called to love one another, regardless of beliefs. And our love is also to be sincere. So it really frustrates me that so many prominent evangelical leaders used Hitchens's death as an opportunity to score a point for the God team.

If you still don't think that these little tweets are unfair and unloving, consider again Warren's statement: "My friend Christopher Hitchens has died. I loved & prayed for him constantly & grieve his loss. He knows the Truth now." Don't you think he could have left off the "He knows the Truth now" part? Wouldn't that have sounded so much more gracious? When I read these online postings, what I see is this: "You didn't believe in God, you got cancer, and now you're dead. Well, that's what you get for not believing in God." So to all the arrogant evangelicals out there, remember this: The same grace that saves you, regardless of anything you've done (and all the stupid tweets you've posted), is the same grace that comes to Christopher Hitchens. Don't act like you know God's ways...and remember the humble prayer of the tax collector in Luke 18.

In God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens says that organized religion is "hostile to free inquiry." These evangelical 'tweeters' are doing an excellent job to affirm Hitchens's statement. We should embrace differing views, rather than argue against them. I think it's easy to read certain passages of the Bible and conclude that we need to oppose those who oppose God. This is one of the main irritants that fuels my love/hate relationship with the Bible. Still, the Bible should never be cherry-picked. Love for those with differing views is the main, undergirding theme of the book. We too often forget that.