If I'd been more on top of things, I would have set up a Religious Controversy Countdown clock the second Lady Gaga announced that her new single was called "Judas." Of course, we wouldn't have been counting down to a real religious controversy, the kind where people are thrown into crises of faith and forced to look at their own beliefs. No, the countdown clock would be ticking down the hours until some media outlet made up a story about how Lady Gaga was making religious groups angry. And by "religious groups," I mean Bill Donahue, the guy who calls himself The Catholic League.
Rather than waiting for an actual controversy to brew, HR took advantage of a statement Bill Donahue conveniently released to the media one week before the single dropped. Does that mean Donahue was reacting to a song he hadn't even heard yet? Yes. Yes it does.
So here's Donahue's statement, made on behalf of his official-sounding one-man crusade, The Catholic League: I find Gaga to be increasingly irrelevant. She thinks she is going to be groundbreaking. She is trying to ripoff Christian idolatry to shore up her talentless, mundane and boring performances. Another ex-Catholic whose head is turned around. This is a stunt. People have real talent, and then there is Lady Gaga. Is this the only way to jet up her performance? This isn’t random, we are getting closer to Holy Week and Easter.
He's right about one thing: the release of "Judas" right before Holy Week is no accident. It is a stunt, and it's a good one, because Lady Gaga excels at getting attention. I'm going to keep saying it: religion is the new sex. If a pop star wants to make headlines right now, talking about Jesus is the fastest route.
The thing that separates Lady Gaga, though, is that she's actually interested in religion. Her use of Christian imagery in "Judas" is very deliberate, and while it doesn't always make sense, it feeds into her message of cultural change through art -- which, of late, has included a lot of talk about reforming religion. The way she's going, it's entirely possible that Lady Gaga could spark some genuine religious controversy. But we'll never know, unless the media learns to tune out Bill Donahue's ranting and actually pay attention.
The New Yorker's recent essay on Scientology by Lawrence Wright is getting a lot of attention, and with good reason: it's well-researched, uses solid insider sources, and has some bombshell revelations. (Although if you've been following Scientology reporting for any length of time, it's the same sort of shocking stuff you already know.) But J.C. Hallman, who has also written extensively about Scientology, has an eye-opening criticism of the piece on Killing the Buddha. Specifically, he believes that Wright's journalistic objectivity gets in the way of portraying Scientology for the truly scary thing it is. Here's the kicker:
The funny thing is, "The Apostate" is exactly the kind of article that might get someone interested in Scientology. There’s just enough doubt thrown in, just enough caveats and deniability and dropped threads, and just enough intrigue to make it all seem like a grand adventure. If you’re frail and needy, and if you’re a seeker, then you’re not going to listen for what Wright is suggesting between the lines of this piece, when he appears to be writing not for readers but for a judge and jury. Instead, you’ll listen to the quiet evangelism that Scientology knows creeps through all accounts like this, and is the only reason they’re willing to sit down with The New Yorker.
So Doritos has decided not to air this Super Bowl ad, in which a desperate priest revives his congregation by adding trans fats and artificial coloring to Holy Communion. Here's the commercial:
I doubt that Doritos ever seriously intended to air this (it's among a number of potential ads they placed on their website and rejected, including 2 gay-themed ones), but it's still a piece of work. First off, notice the ways in which the filmmakers took care to cover their asses: they never say the priest's denomination. They never say they're serving Holy Communion, despite the recognizable aspects of the ritual. They know that most audiences will assume that the troubled church is Catholic, and that they're swapping out the wafers and wine during the service.
And part of me admires the sheer gall of that. But obviously, this commercial is incredibly problematic for anybody who respects religion. Let's look at a couple of the not-so-funny things that are being mocked here:
- Lack of church attendance. This is a major issue in many Christian churches throughout the country, especially when we're talking about mainstream Catholics and Protestants. (The mega-churches are doing just fine.) In terms of the Catholic church, the problem of shuttering churches is directly tied to a drop in faith and funds after the molestation scandal. Ha...ha?
- Holy Communion = Dullsville. See, here the thing -- Holy Communion is a ritual. It's not supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be contemplative. The whole reason that Catholics use those wafers in the first place is to emphasize that Holy Communion is not about food, but about something greater. It's also a sacrament, based directly on Jesus's last act before he was tortured to death for humanity's sins. Go on, laugh.
The group that created this ad doesn't think they're making fun of churchgoers, but they are. I'm all for finding humor in religion, but not for mocking a two thousand year old ritual that harms no one, has given great comfort to many, and encourages deep spiritual contemplation. American culture, as a rule, does not encourage spiritual contemplation. That is part of the reason that more people don't go to church, and part of the reason why more people should. (Side note: for a contemporary look at Holy Communion, Take This Bread: A Radical Conversion by Sara Miles is an incredible meditation on the subject by an atheist-turned-Christian.)
Incidentally, here's another rejected Christianity-themed ad, this by a guy named Richard Belfry who sells shirts that say "Jesus Hates Obama." Yep, that's his whole business: selling shirts that say "Jesus Hates Obama." Why does Jesus hate Obama? His website doesn't say. In fact, Belfry has been making the press rounds, saying that of course Jesus doesn't really hate Obama. Lighten up, people! It's a joke! It's funny because Jesus obviously has the same political beliefs as you! And if Jesus was here today, he wouldn't be healing the sick and lame -- he'd be protesting Obamacare!
Sigh. I just want to be the funny blogger, guys. Why are you making this so hard?
This Christmas, God Spam is taking a Rashomon-like approach to the Nativity story (but without the rape and murder and creepy fortune teller). Here are four different videos describing the birth of Jesus, as told by...
...Social networking:
...Sincerely adorable New Zealand children:
...Lovably inaccurate American kids:
... And tongue-in-cheek Christian cartoonists:
The Christmas story comes out of years of church tradition and theological controversy, but you can get a nice run-down of what the Bible actually says here. In the words of writer Phyllis Tickle: "The Virgin Birth is so beautiful that it has to be true, whether it happened or not."
"Gays didn't need to ask if they were gay. God told them. And if God told them, that's all you need to know, 'cause He's God and He wouldn't have made people gay unless He thought it was right. How do I know this? Because He's God and He's smarter than you. And if you don't like what I just said, tough. That's the God I believe in and that's the way He thinks. Maybe your God will have some thoughts someday."
— FromI'm Dreaming of a Black Christmas, in which comedian Lewis Black expresses a message of divine love and acceptance in the most ornery way possible. Crankiness notwithstanding, the book actually has a lot to say about the ways in which our culture celebrates and interprets the Christmas season. (And if you're interested, here's an interview I did with Lewis Black when the book hit shelves in November.)
I've mentioned Jay before on God Spam -- he's the founder and New York City pastor of Revolution, a church that seeks to embrace individuals (mainly the young, liberal, counter-cultural variety) who feel rejected by traditional Christianity. Here's how writer Alex Morris sums up Bakker's unexpected ministry:
But as I’m sitting there, close to the back and beer in hand [note: Revolution NYC meets at a bar], it occurs to me that maybe the opposite of faith isn’t doubt. Maybe the opposite of faith is certainty, a comforting belief in your own rightness. To a greater degree than most Evangelicals may care to admit, Jay Bakker’s open-armed ministry is an extension of what his parents created. Jim and Tammy Faye were much more tolerant than other televangelists; in 1986, Tammy Faye famously interviewed a gay minister who had been diagnosed with AIDS. But theirs was a theology of aspiration—believing is easy, and believing leads to success—and it didn’t encourage its followers to doubt their faith or themselves. This, it seems to me, is what Jay is offering: a Christianity that allows for, and is even sustained by, failure.
I'm going to repeat that last line, because I love it: "A Christianity that allows for, and is even sustained by, failure."
Promotional image from Revolution NYC
An interesting detail: Morris refers to Bakker as part of the Emergent movement. I'm not surprised that he says Bakker won't use the term himself; among Evangelicals (of whom Jay, however liberal, is one), "emergent" is considered a sort of half-boast, half-pejorative, like "hipster."* Be that as it may, this is the first time I've seen the emerging church given attention in a major New York City-based publication. I've been wondering when the Emergent movement would start making its way over to the East Coast, and this could be the first harbinger.
* I don't know why this is, exactly, although there's a certain teen-like brattiness that can come with the rejection of the mainstream church. For example, Emergent Church icon Tony Jones once told me in so many words that my lovely Brooklyn church is doomed, because we follow the Presbyterian bylaws and meet in a historic church building.
** And yes, if were wondering, "liberal media" in the headline is indeed supposed to be tongue-in-cheek; I have two (non-religion-related) articles in the same issue of the magazine.
Posts
