Wickedly Modern

My wife and I have been married nearly two and half years.  October 18th is the day that we remember the covenant we made and celebrate it.  My wife, being a big fan of theatre "happened" to observe and "hint" that the musical Wicked was showing in Denver near our anniversary.  My parents were going to be in town around then and my mom loves the theatre too.  Their anniversary was coming soon so we decided to make it a double date. To prepare me for the show the CD was purchased and listened to often.

Watching the show that evening I have to say, I really enjoyed it! I thought the story, the music, and the acting was amazing.  I was completely engaged by the tale of Elphaba and Gilinda, I liked the spin, and the alternative perspective to the traditional Wizard of OZ story.  To be honest after the show I could not stop thinking about it and unashamedly singing the songs.  Now I am a little more cautious.

As I thought about the original story of the Wizard of OZ (the movie that is) and processed through the liberties Wicked, which is based on the book Wicked by Gergory Maguire, took the original idea, it seemed vary plausible.  What if the Wicked Witch of the West was not wicked as the the original story intended, but actually just misunderstood as the musical suggests.  Makes for a great story, but I think taking these liberties, is not without consequence.  I think it is a great example in pop-culture of Deconstructionism.  Deconstructionism, in very basic terms is that thought that there is no one way of applying interpretation or criticism to a text, interpretation is up to the reader.  This school of thought was made famous by French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Wicked I would contend, is a deconstruction of The Wizard of Oz. The original author (L. Frank Baum) intended the Wicked Witch of the West to be just as her names describes her, wicked, not misunderstood.  This is not me discrediting the musical Wicked, as I said I enjoyed it and still do.  It is a production that is exceptionally well done in all areas.  I am simply pointing out deconstructionism within pop-culture.

The problem deconstructionism presents is to the way people interpret the Bible and/or other sources of literature.  If deconstructionism is true, then meaning in literature is relative to the person reading, not the authors intent.  Even this post's interpretation is up to you, the reader.  Many in our culture, Christians alike, apply this deconstructionist thought to the study of literature.  I want to focus on the the dangers of deconstructionism  in studying scripture.  In many bible studies a question that is often asked is "What does this mean to you?"  With the response "Oh, I never thought of that, good insight, to me it means..."   It seems in many ways, deconstructionism has made its way into the church.  Meaning is interpreted by the reader, not the text's actual meaning.  This can be very dangerous because we can misapply texts thinking they are Biblical truth, and then live our lives in a way that could be opposite of God's intending meaning.  We tend to forget the more important questions "What does this text mean?" or "What is/was the authors intent?"  We do not look at historical context, author, date, preceding text's context, genre, other theologians,  and other important hermeneutical principles. I would contend there is one meaning to a particular text, whether we know what the meaning is, is where the conversations/debates happen.  Though Wicked is entertaining, I think it is a good example of deconstructionism within pop-culture and how ideas can effect our view of literature and more importantly Scripture.

All or Nothing...Or Something

I am an "all-or-nothing" type of person.  I remember in undergrad having to give speech before the student body (1,600 students) for a student government position I was running for.  I was going back-in-forth about whether or not I should open up with a corny joke.  I asked various students within the residence hall where I was living what there thoughts were.  It seemed to be split 50-50 on whether I should or shouldn't.   Later in the evening when had just about exhausted all my residential resources, a freshman said "Go big or go home".  Me, a junior, thought I cannot let this freshman give me that challenge and not tell the joke...I told it, and it worked, I had them laughing.  The strategy of "Go big or go home" or it could be said "all-or-nothing" was successful.    


This mentality of all-or-nothing is infused in my approach to how to bring about change in culture.  I recently I read two different articles in World magazine from two separate issues.  Each presenting the idea of taking little steps towards change, is better than nothing at all.  The first was an interview conducted with a Pro-Life attorney Clark Forsythe.  Clark Forsythe being interviewed draws a connection between Wilberforce's anti-slavery movement in England and the Pro-Life movement in America.  Wilberforce did not end slavery in one day, but years of taking something, little battles won in parliament which lead to the complete abolishment of slavery in England.   "Prudence says we should be accepting an all-or-something approach rather than an all-or-nothing approach. When you strike for the moral perfect, you often come up with nothing, because like it or not, we live in a democracy and public opinion matters."  


In the very next issue of World, I was reading their book reviews.  Marvin Olasky wrote a review on a biography of Booker T. Washington written by Robert J. Norell.  The book is titled Up from History: The Life of Booker T. Washington.  Olasky outlines the books purpose in explaining Washington's differences with W.E.B DeBois.  De Bois was in the North and wanted complete and total equality in a post Civil war era for African Americans.  Washington, living in Alabama saw this as near impossible at that time, but he could make little steps towards equality (Tuskegee Institute).   " In essence, they (De Bois and other prominent African Americans in the North) adopted an all-or-nothing stradegy that demanded political, economic, and cultural equality, and they called Washington a coward because he wanted all but would take something."


These are just two examples of I am sure many.  Though I am passionate and want to to see injustice righted, I need to show prudence (Prudence is the characteristic of exercising sound judgment in practical affairs).  The Christian life is a marathon, not a sprint.  All-or-nothing would be great, but I need to realize rarely does it work like that.  Taking something however little it may appear to be at the time, is something!

Commercials and my Soul

The going price for a thirty second Super Bowl commercial this year was $3,000,000.00.   I wonder how many of those commercials could be argued as edifying to Christians?  After last years sexual Go Daddy commercials, I decided to abstain from this years ads altogether.  This was done by changing the channel during each break.  Thankfully, Toy Story 2 was on ABC Family and better yet, ESPN was showing a 30-for-30 episode on the Red Sox 2004 ALCS victory over the Evil Empire (Yankees).  I must admit I was slightly more interested in the 30-for-30 than the Super Bowl.  I've noticed that most items being sold or pushed in commercials are wants, and not needs.  Below is a Chase commercial with Queen's "I want it All" in the background.  A very telling commercial about our culture.

Not watching the Super Bowl ads, got me thinking about commercials in general.  Are they beneficial for me to watch and put into my mind?  TV itself is a different story, my wife's blog communicates our thoughts on TV usage Using the "D" word: Turning off the Tube.  But, commercials, I would say are not great, good, or even profitable as a whole.   Our home should be a place of where I can find rest from the world.  Why would I willingly allow my mind to battle the wars that commercials can instigate?  It is with that resolve, when we do watch TV,  commercials will not be included, in the hopes of protecting our hearts and minds from their often negative influence.