I've spent a good portion of the past few months trying to pretend that Pat Robertson and the rest of his flying monkeys don't exist. I'd grown tired of their sanctimonious grandstanding and rhetorical bombast, and instead of getting all bent out of shape about it like I always do, I chose to ignore it. Through a mixture of willful ignorance and an honest effort to place my attention elsewhere, Pat Robertson didn't inhabit my mental landscape for a long while.
But how can I keep pretending that he doesn't exist when every media outlet in this country is slathering airwaves and hyperspace with the latest salvo to escape from the vacuity that is Robertson's skull?
I still find myself wanting to just pretend that this whole affair didn't take place, but here I am, in front of my computer screen, pecking at my keyboard. I'm sure that there are many folks out there who can condemn Robertson's statement in a much more eloquent fashion than I could muster. I'll leave it to the Jim Wallis types to give Robertson his due on behalf of those who know that Pat's brand of Christianity is little more than the idolatrous concoction American exceptionalism, heterosexism and late capitalism. The village atheists can have their say, too, as I'm sure they will, proffering the tiresome pedantries about how this country is going to hell (though they don't believe such a place exists) because of the actions of religious people (who, in their myopic viewpoint, are exemplified by Mr. Robertson).
So, briefly, it's my contention that Pat Robertson is essentially a piece of evidence supporting the idea that ours is a culture that would rather cast its eye upon people who are known for being vapidly provocative and ostentatious than those folks who would edify us.
In my estimation, Pat Robertson is just the "tails" side of a coin whose "head" is the portrait of a Paris Hilton. They are essentially similar pieces of cultural effluvia: both are famous, but no one can really concieve the reason why, both demand an undue amount of cognitive energy because of their ubiquitous cultural presence, both have achieved notoriety via visual media (Robertson through the mingy set design and furrowed, praying brows of "The 700 Club," and Hilton, swathed in the emerald night vision of a camcorder used to document a sex-romp with some wealthy gadabout). Both also seem to espouse their own peculiar and bat-shit insane brand of morality - morality that few among us can identify with, but nevertheless seem enamoured by it all.
That said, how, then, should we deal with Robertson (or Hilton, for that matter)?
The Reformed Christian in me still wants to engage such cultural texts as if there may be something in them that bears redemptive value. But I think the time comes when we need to quit speaking of wheat and tares, and just admit that the situation at hand is one of just tares and nothing else. Call it what you want: disengagement, willful ignorance or whatever, I think that at this time it might be for the best if we do our damndest to ignore these odious cultural trends and artifacts.
I know, I know, someone has gotta say something about the Parises and Pats, because we can't just let them get away with what they're doing. Perhaps, but I think there's much more productive things we can do instead of banging our heads against a wall of cultural stupidity: we can strengthen our communities, encourage the growth of virtue in our neighbors and in ourselves (we certainly don't need examples of not-virtue to know what virtue looks like), and direct our cognitive energy towards more magnanimous pursuits. I think that's what we can do now, and I think we'll all be better for it.
But how can I keep pretending that he doesn't exist when every media outlet in this country is slathering airwaves and hyperspace with the latest salvo to escape from the vacuity that is Robertson's skull?
I still find myself wanting to just pretend that this whole affair didn't take place, but here I am, in front of my computer screen, pecking at my keyboard. I'm sure that there are many folks out there who can condemn Robertson's statement in a much more eloquent fashion than I could muster. I'll leave it to the Jim Wallis types to give Robertson his due on behalf of those who know that Pat's brand of Christianity is little more than the idolatrous concoction American exceptionalism, heterosexism and late capitalism. The village atheists can have their say, too, as I'm sure they will, proffering the tiresome pedantries about how this country is going to hell (though they don't believe such a place exists) because of the actions of religious people (who, in their myopic viewpoint, are exemplified by Mr. Robertson).
So, briefly, it's my contention that Pat Robertson is essentially a piece of evidence supporting the idea that ours is a culture that would rather cast its eye upon people who are known for being vapidly provocative and ostentatious than those folks who would edify us.
In my estimation, Pat Robertson is just the "tails" side of a coin whose "head" is the portrait of a Paris Hilton. They are essentially similar pieces of cultural effluvia: both are famous, but no one can really concieve the reason why, both demand an undue amount of cognitive energy because of their ubiquitous cultural presence, both have achieved notoriety via visual media (Robertson through the mingy set design and furrowed, praying brows of "The 700 Club," and Hilton, swathed in the emerald night vision of a camcorder used to document a sex-romp with some wealthy gadabout). Both also seem to espouse their own peculiar and bat-shit insane brand of morality - morality that few among us can identify with, but nevertheless seem enamoured by it all.
That said, how, then, should we deal with Robertson (or Hilton, for that matter)?
The Reformed Christian in me still wants to engage such cultural texts as if there may be something in them that bears redemptive value. But I think the time comes when we need to quit speaking of wheat and tares, and just admit that the situation at hand is one of just tares and nothing else. Call it what you want: disengagement, willful ignorance or whatever, I think that at this time it might be for the best if we do our damndest to ignore these odious cultural trends and artifacts.
I know, I know, someone has gotta say something about the Parises and Pats, because we can't just let them get away with what they're doing. Perhaps, but I think there's much more productive things we can do instead of banging our heads against a wall of cultural stupidity: we can strengthen our communities, encourage the growth of virtue in our neighbors and in ourselves (we certainly don't need examples of not-virtue to know what virtue looks like), and direct our cognitive energy towards more magnanimous pursuits. I think that's what we can do now, and I think we'll all be better for it.
you completely stated my thoughts, here. i quit watching the news b/c i am tired of seeing the 'non-news' of people like robertson and the hilton sisters- so i read the news instead, but even then i couldn't avoid having to read about robertson! i heaved a big deep sigh... this is why my Christianity comes with a disclaimer!
thanks for your writings
Posted by
Kate McDonald |
9:19 AM
COME ON PEOPLE! Don't you watch the Church channel for fun like me? Living in Grand Rapids without cable offers little entertainment. So I watch Pat Robertson prophetically proclaim that there will be a huge uprising of gay militia that will subjugate this once righteous Christian Nation, placing all Godly heteros into prison camps. Yeah OK I am exaggerating. But I still find it funny.
Oh my favorite is Jack Van Impe! I love how he claims Pope John Paul II was a Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist and how he predicted the next pope would be the Anti-Christ. Or better yet, that mainstream Protestant Churches are heretical because they are amillennialist!
If it is not TBN (the church channel), I tend to spend the majority of my couch potato time watching the soap PASSIONS. I love that hour of the day watching the lives of people shattered by deep dark secrets (like a drunken night with a pet donkey) and surviving two earthquakes and a tsunami in one night. That is entertainment!
Posted by
Carlos |
10:40 AM
P. S. Seriously, I think the leaders of the Church from different the denominations should gather together and admonish what Pat Robertson said.
Posted by
Carlos |
10:41 AM
I stopped listening to people like Pat when I was six, and my Sunday school teacher, Miss Jeannie Rogers (who later became a featured singer on the 700 Club and other fundy religious shows -- she actually has a wonderful voice) told me I was going to Hell because I liked the Beach Boys. After being reassured by my mom that I wasn't, in fact, doomed forever because I liked "Little Deuce Coupe." She explained to me that people who would condemn a little girl like that never say anything worth listening to. Luckily, Miss Jeannie soon left my church to go be famous on TV, and I got a way nicer Sunday school teacher who also liked the Beatles.
Posted by
Meredith |
11:54 AM
What was that about Paris Hilton's "tail"? Just kidding; well said. I agree; see this. See if you like the title of my post.
Posted by
Nathan |
1:28 PM
Brian,
Kudos. Well said. Especially the Hilton/Robertson connection. Only a brilliant yet twisted mind could come up with that. . .
My solitary moment of glee in all this was watching the news last night when the reporter said, "Hugo Chavez told the media he has no idea who 'Pat Robertson' is."
Posted by
Reverend Irreverent |
11:00 PM
>Perhaps, but I think there's much >more productive things we can do >instead of banging our heads
>against a wall of cultural >stupidity: we can strengthen our >communities, encourage the growth
>of virtue in our neighbors and in
*GASP* Why, that's Sectarianism! You've been reading a little too much Hauerwas, my friend. Don't you know we have to redeem all of culture, even the stupidest parts?
Just kidding. Actually, I don't think I've ever agreed more with anything I've read on a blog. When people start talking about the latest celebrity gossip, I've always felt this kind of frustration--"People, show yourselves a little respect. You've got more important things to talk about." Increasingly, as every political conversation I have seems to run along the lines of "George W. Bush is so terrible! I just can't believe it!", I'm beginning to feel the same way about these conversations.
Folks, we've all got more important things to do.
(And judging by Meg's comment, it sounds like Hugo Chavez takes the same attitude. God bless him; he's a better man than Pat Robertson.)
Posted by
Phil |
9:21 AM
Hmmm.... I wonder if Pat will say the hurricane I just survived was because we are ungodly here? I bet he will say that God is punishing us for disagreeing with his murderous idea.
Posted by
Carlos |
11:49 PM
Maybe Pat thought he was a modern day Bonhoefer? Even though Bonhoefer was invovled in a plot to assasinate Hitler, I can't see how Chavez can be compared to Hitler.
Posted by
Carlos |
12:26 AM
This was truly unique and creative. Thanks for giving me somewhat of a schema for this one. I think that this gets to the true problem with evangelical Christians who condemn "materialism" out of one side of their mouth and praise "capitilism" out of the other.
Posted by
lucretius |
5:11 PM
Like many, I really loved the Robertson/Hilton comparison. Often many of the over the top evangelical Christian people tend to forget that they too are guilty of using the same methods of constructing meaning as those they deem their adversaries.
I was a heavy metal kid in the eighties, and the youth groups in numerous churches we tried out would hit me with the "devil's music" accusations...as if that was a way to my heart. These youth group ministers did as much if anything else to drive me away from organized religion.
There is one key difference between the Hiltons and the Robertsons of the world. I have no way of proving this, but I doubt that Robertson is really aware of his image manipulation...or if he is, he thinks that he's just being an amplified version of himself. The Hilton-esque celebs (and I'm probably thinking most clearly about Brittany Spears here) are both fully conscious of their image/outrageousness selling and at least have a sense that the image they are selling is a construction. I dunno, maybe Hilton really is an airhead, but she at least knows that by showing her airheadedness and sculpting how that airheadedness comes across, she's maximizing her publicity.
Sorry this is not as coherent as it could be, but I have a head cold that's making me feel stoned.
Posted by
themikedubose |
1:22 PM