Recently in *cino Category

well, the August publishing break for catapult is nearly over, which means I'm getting back into the rhythm of soliciting articles, reviews, interviews and artwork for the magazine. there's one week left before the deadline for "Storytelling" (deadline: 8/31, publishing: 9/7). below are the questions I sent out to our writer's list related to that issue. I have a couple of articles committed, but could use more. I could use reviews and artwork (poetry, paintings, photos, etc.) also.

and looking ahead, the issue after "Storytelling" will be "Let's Get Together 5" (deadline: 9/14, publishing: 9/21). each September, we celebrate our publishing anniversary with an issue on community, in the broad sense of the term. this year--I can hardly believe it--we celebrate FIVE years of bi-weekly publishing. here are links to the previous issues, just to give you an idea of what we've done in the past and to get your mind turning on submissions for the upcoming installation:

2002

2003

2005

2006

let me know if you have any questions or suggestions (kirstinvgr [at] cultureisnotoptional [dot] com). you can also join the writer's e-mail list (and more) here.

• what is the role of storytelling in your immediate family? what do you hope to teach your kids about storytelling?
• are you good at making up stories? why or why not?
• think of some of the stories you've heard your parents or grandparents tell over and over again--why those particular stories? what are some of your favorites? what have they taught you about who they are and what they love?
• is there a story from your life that you wish had turned out differently? re-tell the story however you like.
• what are some of your favorite short stories or novels? what is your response to people who gravitate toward reading non-fiction because they want to 'learn something' when they read?
• how do we learn how to tell stories?
• what is your experience with unique ethnic qualities of storytelling? what cultures are you fascinated by in this respect?
• whom do you think of as being a particularly good storyteller?
• what has been your experiences with radio shows like This American Life? Vinyl Cafe? Prairie Home Companion? others?
• documentary films seem to be becoming more popular--why? what is the value of these films compared to fiction films?
• what is the value of 'true' stories compared to 'created' stories?

Well, another issue of catapult is online, this one focusing on various issues and images related to summer--vacationing, outdoor activities, body image, the beach and so on.

The next issue of catapult is called "Getting Even" (7/27), which will be the last one before our August publishing break. "Getting Even" will focus on revenge and forgiveness. Here are some questions I sent out to our writer's e-mail list:

• Who in your life models forgiveness to you? Who models an inability to forgive?


• What makes revenge intuitive and satisfying? What makes it unsatisfying?


• When have you experience forgiveness in a memorable way, either as an individual or as part of a community?


• What aspects of our culture and systems encourage vengeance over forgiveness?


• South Africa has provided a model for communal reconciliation. What are your thoughts on this model? What other models have you observed, whether on micro or macro scales?


• When has it been difficult for you to forgive? When has it been difficult to be forgiven?


• Do revenge fantasies serve any kind of redemptive purpose?

If you might be interested in submitting something, send me an e-mail: kirstinvgr [at] cultureisnotoptional [dot] com. Please feel free to consider all kinds of formats--articles, interviews, 'conversations', annotated bibliographies, reviews, artwork, poetry, etc. And let me know if you want some feedback on an idea. The deadline for this issue is Friday, July 20.

If you would like to join the writer's e-mail list to get regular updates on publishing dates, deadlines and topics, you can do so here. Don't worry--it's easy to unsubscribe if the list isn't what you thought it would be.

About once a week or so, I send an e-mail to a list of people who have expressed interest at some point in writing for catapult magazine, the online publication for which I'm the editor. The e-mails let people on the list know what our upcoming topics and deadlines are. Also, I send out at least one e-mail per issue with questions related to the issue topic. The following questions went out for the upcoming issue, "[Deleted for Inappropriate Subject Matter]":

• What subjects were taboo in your family as you were growing up? How did these taboos affect you? Do you now avoid those topics yourself, have a strong desire to talk about them or something in between?
• When have you felt 'censored', either by yourself or by others?
• The description for this issue references the 'girl crush'. What is your experience with this subject? Or if you're male, is there such a thing as a 'man crush'? Should we be talking about these issues and if so, how? What would be the benefit?
• When is it appropriate NOT to talk about something? When do we talk too much?
• How should parents decide what their kids are ready to see, hear and discuss? Should kids be 'sheltered'?
• How do we set our own boundaries for what we are able to see, hear and discuss?
• How does the church (universal and/or particular) hurt itself and its members by staying away from certain subjects?
• When have you experienced comfort, revelation, etc. because someone (or a community) was willing to talk about something you'd been keeping to yourself?
• How does the issue of 'inappropriate subject matter' relate to art? For example, what is the line between pornography and erotica? The line between horror and 'torture porn'?

If you have any ideas you'd like to contribute to this issue, let me know. The deadline is Monday, June 11 and the issue will go up on Friday, June 15. Since this topic could delve into potentially very sensitive subject matter, please let me know if it would be helpful for you to publish something anonymously. I'm looking for both personal stories and cultural analysis for this issue. I'm going to try to post calls for articles on our blog more regularly, but if you'd like to join the writer's e-mail list, you can do so here.

I was just checking *cino web log statistics, as I am wont to do on occasion, and discovered that *culture is not optional sites surpassed 40,000 "unique visitors" in the month of February. The "unique visitor" stat is based on people who view more than one page during a visit, with less than 30 minutes between click-throughs to various pages within the site. So, for example, people who have catapult set as their home page (like me) aren't counted unless they click to another page within the catapultmagazine.com domain. Interestingly, because catapult is spread across two domains (catapultmagazine.com and cultureisnotoptional.com), these stats are a little more impressive than they might otherwise be. Why? Well, if someone were to visit catapult's homepage and, seeing an updated discussion topic, click over to the discussion board (hosted at cultureisnotoptional.com), they wouldn't be counted as a unique visitor on either site because they would have only visited one page on each domain. Hadn't thought of that before ...

While these kinds of statistics are obviously a little hazy, it's still encouraging to think that so many people have been finding their way to this part of the internet. Thanks!

This will only make sense to two people, but it's our last ditch effort to fix a mistake ...

Last week, you contacted us through the contact form on the *cino site. Unfortunately, due to a technical glitch, we didn't get the e-mail addresses you submitted. If you happen to see this, could you re-submit your information? We'd really like to get back in touch with both of you!

As promised, here are some final additional thoughts on the Messiah College Faith & Popular Culture Conference.

• Over Thai food at dinner one night, someone asked about the place of evil in the discussions at these conferences. There's a lot of talk about "good" art and looking for truth, but what about evil and sin? One of the examples he raised as an example of extreme evil was rape. What does "discernment" look like in the face of so great an evil? In this particular example, I think discernment involves realizing that the action is a distortion of human sexuality, which God created good. But in the context of the general question, I wondered what the role of confession might be at a conference like this. Certainly, some art has a confessional quality to it, but the content of that art is not the content of the conference. Also, I wondered about the role of suffering. If Jesus is God, who becomes human to show us the way through suffering to eternal life, how does suffering relate to the discussion of discerning "popular culture"? Is suffering, in the context of the conference, just an abstract concept represented in art to be deemed true or untrue by us detached discerners or does suffering have implications for the conference itself? It seems like attentiveness to suffering as its manifested in our own lives is essential for understanding sin and evil as artists represent it in their work.
• There seemed to be a very vague understanding of what makes culture "popular," meaning "popular" culture mostly ended up being "things we like" or "things we're currently into." With the exception of U2, there was little discussion of other art that could be considered statistically popular. So what do we mean when we hold a conference on faith and "popular culture"? Should we be talking about Ashley Simpson and The Wedding Crashers? Who decides what work has value for these discussions? I'm not saying that the conference would look any different if we discussed these questions--perhaps popularity and value are assigned by the informal participation of the conference community--but I do think we need to go a step further in defining "popular" and articulating the process of selection.
• Another question that came to mind as we progressed through the weekend was: where are the women? Two out of perhaps 10 speakers were women and 1 out of 6 performers. Not that I care to start bean-counting when it comes to gender, but the situation was noticeable--also in the lack of women participating in the comment times and mentioned as examples of artists who are "getting it." What is it about the nature of this topic that's more appealing as a participatory experience to men? Is there still a tendency to hold women to a higher standard in their scholarship, hence they're less likely to be invited or participate? Is the communication style of women ill-suited to the topic? Is there a perception that a female will have fewer compelling ideas or ideas that will be received with greater skepticism by both male and female listeners? Is there some power element to cultural engagement that makes it more appealing to men as a concept and a practice? I'm not sure what to make of this, but it would be worth discussing I think. In talking about it with someone, he suggested that I host a separate gathering just for women at the next conference. Definitely not a long-term solution, but it's worth thinking about, especially as there are some aspects of being a woman that bear discussing in the context of faithful engagement.
• The unique nature of a conference struck me at this event, particularly in contrast to the sort of 24/7 online work that *cino is doing. There is value in creating a resource that is available whenever, wherever, but there is also unique value to an event that spans an identifiable period of time. A conference is more likely to be remembered as a crucial turning point than a visit to a web site. Also, there is no substitute for cultivating face-to-face relationships. These thoughts convinced me that *cino needs to get back in the gathering business. Thankfully, one of our friends who just moved to a farm in Ontario contacted me the day after we arrived home from the conference with a desire to co-sponsor and plan an event next summer. So watch for more details, if you're into that sort of thing: outdoor experiences, late night discussions, connecting with kindred spirits, story telling and hearing, etc.

I think that's all for now. Thanks to those of you who have slogged through these notes and had enought energy left at the end to comment!

Rob and I had a wonderful opportunity to spend some time this weekend with David Dark, author of Everyday Apocalypse: The Sacred Revealed in Radiohead, The Simpsons and Other Pop Culture Icons and The Gospel According to America: A Meditation on a God-Blessed, Christ-Haunted Idea.

The title of Dark's session was "Jesus Thrown Everything Off Balance," which is an allusion to a line from Flannery O'Connor's story, "A Good Man is Hard to Find." There was so much goodness in this session that I'm going to revert to point form so I don't miss anything.

• Dark identifies a Christian artist with a bit longer name: an artist who aspires to be in continuity with the (biblical witness of the) Kingdom of God. "Christian" is a word that shouldn't be self-applied. Others should put the pieces together and call you a Christian, as was the case in the early church.


• Jesus as a "personal savior" or as a password into heaven belittles the historic, redemptive significance of Christ. As Bruce Cockburn says, "Redemption rips through the surface of time in the cry of a tiny babe."


• The life, death and resurrection of Jesus represent a "de-mythologizing" virus. That is, the Gospel breaks down the myths of human culture (that power is permanent, that life is expendable, etc.). The Gospel is Good News for the whole world, except those whose power it interrupts--though the Good News is for them, too, if they repent.


• The key statement coming out of Everyday Apocalypse is that "there isn't a secular molecule in the universe," having all been made by God. Madeleine L'Engle, when asked how one recognizes Christian art, responds, "If it's good, it's Christian." These ideas are based on the conviction that all good comes from God.


• We don't need to qualify truth with "spiritual," which is an over-used word. What is "spiritual" truth? Truth is its own credential and it can exist anywhere--in the Koran, The Simpsons, The Prayer of Jabez, etc.--and wherever it is found, it should be affirmed. Justin the Martyr said that whatever is true among the pagans is the property of us.


• "Interpretation" is different from picking a message--the Bible doesn't even have a clear, singular message.


• Jesus isn't "spiritual." We don't repent "spiritually," but with our bodies, our minds, with who we are.


• We need to be in dialogue with people and with art, rather than always moving toward a final decision: approved or disapproved. To worry about whether something is art, is literature, is objectionable, etc. is like arguing with the word choice of someone who's telling you your house is on fire. They're peripheral questions. Our questions should be, "What is the artist doing? Why?" rather than, "Is this good or bad?"


• We can't experience art without prejudice, but we can experience art with generosity.


• Apocalyptic art reveals the world not as we want it to be, but as it is.


• We are learners of the good, not knowers of the good.

That's all I had for David Dark. He is amazingly intelligent and well-read. Listening to him speak makes me want to immerse myself in the Bible, experience all of the art I can and then write books about what I'm learning. That's a pretty good influence, hm? Gives me something to work toward. If only I had such a cool name...

The first seminar session I went to was led by Andy Whitman, who is, among other things, a reviewer for Paste Magazine.

The title of Andy's talk was "Beyond the Aesthetic Grid: How to Engage Your Heart Without Turning Off Your Brain." He began by talking about Francis Shaeffer, who emphasized the value of art in his writings and created a grid for analyzing art.

The implication is that music that fits into the top right quadrant is to be desired, while music in the bottom left is to be avoided and music in the other two treated with caution. Some problems that Whitman identified with the grid include:

• It proposed that music can be "safe," when good music is rarely safe.


• The message of a song is rarely either good or bad.


• The problem of subjectivity: What is "good" art or a "good" message?

Whitman then proposed a new paradigm that he called "Signs of Life," which is characterized by:

• A commitment to the quality of artistry over the quantity of hype.


• Commiment to substance over image and depth over trendiness.


• Commitment to songcraft over style, meaning that there are no "holy" genres.


• Music that is transformation, that changes us.

Whitman's main point was that a model for discerning music must leave space for joy and emotional experience, which is difficult in an analytical grid. This did come with a warning that we shouldn't idolize emotional experience to the point that we enshrine the music of our youth, like Baby Boomers tend to do with the art of the 60s and 70s.

Whitman concluded with a list of guidelines for approaching art:

• Art is a sovereign sphere. (Been hanging around with neo-Calvinists, Andy? :)


• Art doesn't have to agree with a Christian worldview to be good.


• Christians should keep their convictions when doing work.


• Good art doesn't have to be beautiful (ex. Apocalypse Now).


• There are no exact criteria for judging good art, but there are criteria.


• Good art can be representative, abstract and symbolic.


• We must distinguish between sacred and secular art.


• Enjoy art without guilt as a gift from God.

As you can imagine, I and others took issue with that second to last one. Whitman wanted to justify it by the fact that, even though some of the praise music used in his church is sub-par art, God still works through it to affect his heart. Yes, but...I don't think the ability of the Almighty to work through poorly done art justifies the creation or selection of it in the first place and I don't think we ought to be using different quality criteria for the church than we do for our own CD collections. If there's any value or truth in this guideline, it's for those who cringe at some of their church's music but can't, for whatever reason, play a role in its creation and selection. If worship is central to the life of the Christian community--and I believe it is--shouldn't we desire to offer the best that we, as a broken community, can manage?

As with Turner, this one point didn't detract from what was otherwise a very interesting and well-done presentation. According to David Dark in a later session, there was apparently a gem in the Q&A time that I missed: that art is people. A human being is never entirely objectionable; to believe otherwise is dangerous. If art represents people who are inevitably a mixture of good and bad by virtue of being fallen creatures made in the image of the Creator, a work of art that represents people's ideas and opinions and stories cannot be called wholly objectionable. An interesting thought...more in the next post on Dark's session.

I guess I don't have much to post on the second Steve Turner address. He talked about how he had had an influence on the lyrical content of U2's songs through a friendship with Bono and by sending literature periodically that he thought would interest the band. He played some songs and explained the stories and meanings behind the lyrics. Probably the most interesting thing I learned during this session was that U2 had a vision from the beginning to be a superstar rock band and felt specifically called by God to follow the path that they have.

The question that came up at the bar the night prior to this session was, "Who will fill the space of U2 for subsequent generations?" Sufjan Stevens was suggested, but I guess there are many ways of approaching that question. Would Stevens' brand of folk have the same widespread appeal as U2's music? Is widespread appeal an essential part of the formula? Is U2's social justice work an essential part of the formula? Who is serving this function in other arts and other areas of life?

This past weekend, Rob and I attended a conference at Messiah College titled "Faith & Popular Culture: Reconciling with the Popular Arts." I'm going to post notes from the sessions I attended, followed by some more general comments.

The keynote address on Friday night was given by Steve Turner: poet, rock journalist and biographer. Here are some points from his very good talk:

• We live "culture". We cannot avoid it. The question is not whether we should be involved, but how to be involved as Christians.


• There is a tendency among Christians to denigrate culture and attempt to "separate." Perceptions of culture include that it's worldly, represents idleness, distracts from God, leads to a "slippery slope," represents a source of sin.


• Christians know a lot about redemption, but very little about creation.


• The highest form of life is perceived to be separation from the world through "worship." "The things of earth will grow strangely dim" for Christians who are focused on Jesus.


• J.I. Packer notes that, historically, we are human before we are Christian. We are Christian because of sin and Jesus restores us to full humanity.


• God is a creator who creates us as creators. Therefore, even in avoiding culture, we create culture.


• Christians do harm when they block out culture with messages they don't agree with, because culture is useful for conversation. Philippians 4:8 is used to set artificial limits in denial of the inevitable mix of good and bad, but we can see and make judgments without "thinking on" something.


• We do need to say "no" sometimes to things that are not beneficial. However, too much resistance, as in exercise, leads to a tear in the muscle. But we do need to be aware that we're always confronting an argument (contrary to the "it's just entertainment" argument).


• T.S. Eliot said that the literature we read with the least effort can have the greatest influence (referred to "harmless" television shows like Friends).


• So how do we engage culture?




1. Take it seriously by understanding the meanings of culture around us.


2. Immerse ourselves in the Bible to develop a thoroughly Christian worldview.


3. Visibly confront culture through interviews, reviews, attending lectures, etc. Hold creative people to account and get them to justify their reasoning.


4. Create culture, but love the medium. Don't just "use" culture as a tool for evangelism.




• We share a common humanity with all people and we can celebrate that fact in the creation of culture. Our experiences are shared, but the perspective may be different (gratitude to God, for example). God's world is one (uses the example of Sufjan Stevens, who can make back-to-back songs about fishing, his girlfriend, the transfiguration, etc. flow seamlessly). We should not be afraid of either similarities to or differences from non-Christians.

Turner started with what I thought was a good definition of culture, but seemed to slowly drift toward culture=the arts. Culture is the creative act of the artist, but it is also the creative act of the everyday person, creating their narrative as they construct a life that reflects their deepest values. He used the example of a poem about taking a bath to illustrate the last point about a common humanity, seeming to indicate that the poem was the "culture" in the example. I would argue however that the taking of the bath also fits the definition of culture. He challenged people to get involved, but said that "maybe some of you will" be involved in the cultural transformation of your generation. My impression is that all of us, if we indeed "live" culture even in trying to avoid it, will be involved in that transformation, for better or worse.

When the question and answer time came, I questioned him on whether his definition was not expansive enough. I don't like challenging speakers in front of an audience, but I felt like his limited definition was key misinformation, with very real implications for how we make decision in everyday life. He seemed to mock the idea of taking a Christian bath or boiling an egg Christianly or fixing the plumbing Christianly. however, while we can state the engagement of such mundane things in a silly way, I think it's dangerous to dismiss their weight in the context of a life of faith. I can think of hundreds of questions the discerning Christian might ask as she takes a bath, boils and egg for breakfast and then heads out for the day on plumbing house calls. We run into a dangerous sacred/secular distinction when we declare some things, by our definitions, outside of consideration in a life of faith.

My modifications to the definition shouldn't detract, however, from the very true and excellent points that Turner made. His points were just more broadly applicable--in a good way--than he intended.