Framing - The Religious Way?

It's not a new surprise in politics (or cognitive science) that the way that something is phrased affects the way it is understood. Put more simply, the language affects the meaning. I'm sure couples all over are nodding empahtically. I mean, who hasn't said, "That's not what I meant" after a terrible misunderstanding? Politicians have known this for ages. Phrase an idea, or a bill, in an emotive, easy to remember way, and you will incite debate, riot, and ultimately control the nature of politics. George Lakoff, linguist turned political advisor, wrote a book called Don't Think of an Elephant about political framing.

I'm going to turn this idea diagonally (and diametrically, I suppose) into a discussion about framing in prayer. I know, it sounds weird, but trust me. The way you pray makes a big difference, not to God, mind you, but to yourself. Let me make this abundantly clear: I believe that God knows our hearts and it doesn't matter what words we use when we pray. If we use words at all. I know for a fact (for the Bible tells me so) that anguished groaning will suffice in a pinch. However, how we pray (and what we focus on) says a lot about what matters to us. What are the usual suspects in prayer? First and foremost, necessities: Things like personal pain, family, finances, jobs, earthly things. Secondly, one's spiritual wellbeing: mercy, forgiveness, emotions, pride, etc. And finally, if we get around to it, worship. Not that there is anything wrong wtih praying for our own wellbeing and earthly things. God says ask and it shall be given. But the Bible also says that worship of God should come first, above all else.

So, let's do a little prayer experiment this week. Let's stop focusing on the negative things in our life that we'd like God to change, and start our prayers with worship. Then maybe move on to thanksgiving for all the things in our lives that we do have. And maybe end the prayer with praise that God is who He is, that He made us in His image, and that He is willing to forgive us. Let's see how our perception of life changes once we focus on what truly matters.

Confession 2.0 and Digital Forgiveness

I saw an article today on cnn.com about the rise of online confession sites where people can anonymously post their sins. Many of these sites are run by large churches, but often have no clergy or counselor staff, or even have any way to reply to the confessions. It makes me rather sad, actually.

I understand that in the Catholic church, attendance for confession is down to an all-time low, around 25%. I think, however, this seems like simply patching the leak, rather then addressing the problem. What's wrong with the online confessionals? Many things. Firstly, it encourages a sense of voyeurism and exhibitionism. Who needs to read the deeply personal confessions of others? The majority of them are sexual in nature, but they run the gamut of human depravity. Extra-marital affairs, drugs, self-harm, theft, and even murder. On ivescrewedup.com, one widely quoted confession talks about killing 4 people, one of them a 17 year old boy who died for his country (most people believe it was a soldier confessing).

I think I'm with the Catholic church on this one. These confessional sites are too voyeuristic and impersonal to be true to the sense of penitence that the office was designed for. The point of confession is that we make our sins known to God. For Catholics, this entails Confession. For other Christians, this involves prayer, and maybe accountability partners. Internet confession seems like a way to avoid prayer and simply be a one-stop shop to unload guilt and avoid taking responsibility. There is no shepherding, no counseling, no pastoring at these sites. And that is exactly what the confessors need.

he problem with online confessionals is the lack of human contact. In a Catholic church, the priest asks the confessor questions, offers suggestions for reparations and absolution. The internet can do none of those things. The root of the problem is the personal disconnect that the internet brings. While it is a useful tool and, honestly, I couldn't survive without it, there is not a relational aspect of the internet. Even so-called chat rooms, and forums lack true personal relations. There is something to be said for the cartharsis of face to face conversation. Or face to the disembodied voice in the confessional, at least. As I am not Catholic, I have never been to a formal confessional, so there may be much that I don't know about the practice and Doctrine of Reconciliation. What I do know is that human beings need human interaction. In Christianity, this becomes especially pertinent as we try to show Christ to the world.

Spitzer and the New Reality

I'm going to talk today about the trust between generations, and what youths need. Teens are looking for authenticity. They want adults (and a religion) that are real, honest, and down to earth. Tough order to fill? Yeahsureyoubetchya. Granted, television tried to become more authentic with reality shows, prime time game shows, and talk shows. Those worked pretty well, until they too became scripted and hackneyed. And the teens often don't feel they can turn to Christianity, for they've all seen the televangelists and the warped christian viewpoints that the media airs. Example: Yesterday CBS aired a segment on global warming and the evangelical response. On the one hand, they showed a young, twenty something who wrote a referendum about being environmentally conscious that he got signed by all the bigwigs in the Southern Baptist Conference. On the other hand, they showed a middle aged pastor (denomination unknown) saying that by responding to global warming, we're pandering to abortion and gay-right, because everybody knows that they want us to think it's just a population issue. Not exactly a rousing promo for Christianity. Or intellectuals, for that matter.

Where else can teens look for authenticity? Leaders? Politics? The Spitzer debacle proves undeniably that even so-called "moral crusaders" can be inauthentic and hypocritical. What else is left? Our teens are media saturated skeptics, used to looking for the hidden message and the underlying motivation. They see someone and automatically think: I hear what you're saying, but what do you really want from me?

So what can we, as adults and Christians, do to rectify what the world, the media, and what we have done to break the trust of our youth? There is no simple solution. The obvious place to start is to become real to your teens. Be honest. If you screw up, apologize and let them know. Be there for them, not because you want something, but because you want to. As Christians, it is important that we have moral and religious guidelines, but don't forget to have grace and mercy. It is easy to get caught up in the political stances of Christianity, but if we do that, we cannot forget to have more grace than we have judgement: Else we fall into the Spitzer trap and lose the respect of our teens. I'll come back to this idea of grace in a later post.

For now, remember that our teens aren't looking to us for perfection. They're looking for authenticity, stability, and certitude. They need to know that whatever might happen in their life, we will not forsake them. And if they know that we will not forsake them, how much more so then will they know that God will not forsake them. And that is the crux of the issue.

Censorship and Free Press

It's funny how almost all of our discussions in my Intro to Library Science class end up about censorship and the ethical responsibility that librarians have toward free access to information (in the American Library Association's Code of Ethics). It was brought to my attention again when I read about the muckraking website, WikiLeaks where people can post documents that reveal government / institutional corruption. Muckraking is certainly not a new vocation, in fact, muckraker were primarily the ones to get out the word about the deplorable conditions of slums, meatpacking plants, and factories in the early 1900s (i.e. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle). Anyway, a Bank in the Caymans sued the website, the domain was frozen, a horrible backlash occurred, and just this week, the bank withdrew their lawsuit. Score one for the Bill of Rights. However, censorship is still a hot button issue. Books are constantly being challenged and banned every year. The Illinois Library Association publishes a list of Banned Books, 2006-2007. They have lists for each year. Honestly, some of the challenges surprised me, and some I expected. For instance, the Harry Potter bannings didn't surprise me. The challenge to the new translation fo the Epic of Gilgamesh did, however. One of the oldest stories known (rivalling the Bible) was challenged for "sexual situation". Huh, go figure. To me, it shows that every book has something that is offensive to someone, and it makes it difficult for librarians, whose main goal is to provide free information. There is one distinction, though. I need to separate the Public Library and the School Library. The School Library is supposed to act in loco parentis (in place of the parents), so they do have a very real obligation to at least listen to the parents' objections to certain books. Public Librarians, however, are not acting in loco parentis, and therefore have less of an obligation to pander to any special interest groups, but owe their allegiance to globalization and the entire community in general. It is a difficult balancing act. So how does a Librarian balance this, with the censoring demands of a multi-cultural public on the one hand, and our obligation to provide free access to information? The situation becomes especially difficult when these censhorship attempts are entangled with the libary's funding. How much is information worth? It is certianly food for thought, and a heavy one at that. =>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=> And now for something completely different: Here is a clip of Judah laughing hilariously when Brandin was spinning a ball on the ground. It's the simple things in life. It was certainly a nice break when I was debating the merits (or de-merits) of censorship online with my class. If only we continued to laugh like this as adults, the world might be a very different place.