It was such a fun and enjoyable event.  But during the course of DragonCon I couldn’t help but reflect on the reasons why an event like this is so compelling to so many people?  And why do these sci-fi/fantasy, superhero genres fascinate so many people?  Here are just a couple of my thoughts on why that might be:

We Want to Belong.

Throughout the entire event the fans and the stars talked about the wonderful community of DragonCon.  An eclectic bunch of people, from all over the country and from all ages and walks of life, connected at DragonCon over their shared passions and interest in sci-fi/fantasy, anime, comics or gaming.  What knit everyone together was a shared experience and a sense of mutual acceptance.  I believe people fulfill a need at these conferences (or any group, club or organization) to connect with others who have shared interests, loves and passions.  It is important for us to be and feel affirmed.  We want to know that we are not strange or weird just because we like fantasy and sci-fi.  There is power when like minded people come together. We all have the need to belong, somewhere and with others.  A conference, like DragonCon, helps people fulfill that need to belong.

We Love to Imagine a Better World.

Several times during the convention I heard mentioned that this show or that show imagined a world the way it was “meant to be”.  I believe that there is a sense in each of us that knows that this world is broken and that there awaits us something much more.  Deep in our soul, we yearn for that. Sci-fi/fantasy attempts to imagine and picture how the world was “meant to be” and attempts to imagine a pathway towards that end.  Often this genre desires and hopes for a better and brighter future (there are exceptions to that rule).  I believe that there is an “eschatological hope” in the human soul that this genre is attempting to address.  None of the conclusions that artists and authors imagine of the future even come close to the real hope and future that resides with the Kingdom of God.  They picture and imagine but mere shadows of what the world will be when it is fully restored and put to rights under the reign and rule of Jesus, our King.

The Power of Story.

All the great sci-fi/fantasy had one great thing in common - it was built around a great and compelling story.  The reason people love this genre is that most of the time the stories are compelling and they reflect the human drama that we all face.  One fan discussion on Battlestar Galactica revolved around what is morality and what it means to be human.  The stories from these sci-fi/fantasy shows were driving these incredibly thoughtful questions forward.  Fundamentally, as humans, we love story.  The reason for this is that are lives consist of story.  We are a people with our own individual story or narrative, and we live within the framework of a larger story or meta-narrative.  That larger story binds us all together.  It is God’s story.  It is a story of our Creation to our Fall to God’s Pursuit of Us that moved to Reconciliation through the Cross and is moving toward the time when all of creation will be Restored.

I will always be a fan of great sci-fi/fantasy not only because it provokes and is fun to read and watch - but also because it resonates with the human experience.  I will probably go back next year to DragonCon.  And who knows, maybe I’ll be brave enough next year to suit up in my own costume.

• CGI Storytelling: Why WALL-E Works and Kung Fu Panda Doesn’t
• The Chronicles of Narnia… Read First!
• Netflix on your Xbox 360: New ways to watch

The most recent show I watched followed one man’s journey as he encountered and “adopted” a Tiger Shark (an animal known as the “man eater”).  In this show the man was amazed at how shy, gentle, and “friendly” the shark was to him. He was traveling in uncharted waters, so to speak, with this encounter.

The whole scenario, however, reminded me of the sad and tragic death of The Crocodile Hunter. Here was a man who had spent his life working with deadly animals only to find himself the victim of a rare and surprising death of the animal kingdom! It is a reminder to me that we do not yet live in the New Kingdom where man has dominion over the animal kingdom. Certainly this is the way God had set it up originally, but sin entered the picture and corrupted even the animals as well as their relationships to humans.

Shark Week stands out to me as a reminder that no matter how safe man may feel, no matter how “controlled” the experiment is, in this sinful world that we live in man is not yet in dominion over the earth, and animals are not yet in submission to him. The time will come, as sure as Christ’s return, when man will have power over even sharks… but the time is not yet!

• Sea-World’s Sentimental Secret
• In “The Savages,” Death is Savage
• Do Hard Things…Like Read a Book!

The book was later made into a movie, and then into a TV show.  Here, I want to examine some of the positives and negatives of the TV show.

Aesthetically, FNL is excellent.  They take a unique approach to filming, in that the actors are given almost wholesale freedom to interpret their characters as they see fit.  Cameramen are instructed to follow the actors wherever they choose to go in a scene, rather than the actors being instructed where to stand.  So long as the actor manages to get their lines mostly right, hit the key story points, and make the scene believable, the first take is usually the only take.   Because of the spontaneity, lighting is often awkward or imperfect, which again makes it all the more believable.

This format, combined with excellent and realistic writing, makes the show impressively easy to identify with.  Conversations make sense, and the way actors respond to each other is believable; there is a certain discomfort and tension that is much more “lifelike” than canned dialogue.

What really drives the show, though, is the characters’ attempts to make daily life choices.  Their ability to discern right from wrong, to weigh options, and to decide whom to trust or not is constantly brought to the fore.  In the course of a single show, you see how fathers and mothers, teens and adults, football players and geeks try to live their lives as best they can.  Some make good choices; some make poor ones.  By the next week, though, the roles might be reversed and the same person who was so wise before chooses something selfish and petty.  It is this dynamic that makes the show so believable and relatable.

For example, one of the main characters is the young quarterback, Matt Saracen.  Thrust into the spotlight after the starting quarterback is injured, he struggles to deal with new-found fame and scrutiny.  In one show, he shows maturity and sacrifice to love and protect his girlfriend.  In another, he allows pressure from his team to keep him from doing the right thing.  In a third, he acts petulant and immature in dealing with a reduced role in the team offense.  In a fourth, he shows depth and maturity taking care of his grandmother.  They are all situations any high school kid might have to face - and that is what makes it dramatic.

It’s here that the show is at its best.  Racism, recruiting, marriage, teen angst, fights, reconciliations, high school and yes, even football are all themes that drive the story.  However, these things keep coming back to individuals trying to make good decisions about their lives.  Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they do not, but the key is that the show rightly focuses on individual choice as the key dramatic event in life stories.

Is Friday Night Lights a show worth watching?  Here are some points to consider.

The Good

1. Friday Night Lights is well made. Its themes and tensions are all the more powerful because you are swept up by the story and almost never distracted by poor (or overdone) cinematography.

2. FNL is well-written. Most people will find something to relate to.  Season Two includes a storyline in which the football coach and his wife are coping with the pressures and struggles of a new baby- and my wife and I were shocked at how closely some of their conversations mirrored conversations we’ve had in regards to our new little one.  The whole show is like this.  Almost every line, conversation and decision is believable, and it is rare for the story to be driven by a series of impossible misunderstandings like so many TV shows.

3. FNL deals with great moral problems. I would even go so far as to say I have never seen a show that so honestly and accurately addresses moral problems as FNL.  Further, it tends to keep its focus on small things like mother-child relationships or the impact of spur-of-the-moment decisions.  This makes it easier for the viewer to be immersed in the story.

4. FNL affirms the importance of daily life. It is not in any way escapist- it deals clearly and honestly with real life issues, and does not allow romance to trump problems like peer pressure, selfishness or paying the mortgage.

The Bad

1. FNL portrays Christianity as a shallow crutch for the weak and purposeless. The Christian faith shows up all over the place in the show, but it is consistently weak, shallow, and limiting.  Often it is heartlessly legalistic.  On the one hand this is helpful, because I think it is an accurate portrayal of the way the church is seen (and practiced) by many.  However, because it is never shown as anything but shallow, legalistic and cheesy, it allows the church to become a caricature, rather than dealing with the honest problem of real vs. nominal Christianity.

2. FNL does not offer alternatives to moralistic, therapeutic deism as a decision-making prism. Every character (even the “Christian” ones) consistently resorts to preference and undefined morality when making choices (which, as mentioned, are central to the show).  Again, I feel this is generally true of the American character, but the lack of an alternative subtly suggests that there IS no alternative.  This, I think, is a mistake.

3. There is a lot of immorality. It’s good to accurately portray the fact that people give in to bad decisions, especially in the area of sex outside of marriage.  However, the show has a tendency to go over the top.  One character, for example, is apparently irresistible to women.  In the course of less than one and a half school years, he sleeps with his girlfriend, his best friend’s girlfriend, cheerleaders, and a 33 year-old mother.  He also flirts incessantly with plenty of other women, ranging in age from 16 to late 30’s.

On the whole, FNL is an excellent show.  I highly recommend that Christians watch it to see a helpful portrayal of the things people face in dealing with life and various relationships.  That said, be aware that it will not always teach the right answers to hard questions. More importantly, it never portrays a God-honoring way of handling those decisions in the first place.

• Podcast #9: Football - America’s Gladitorial Spectal?
• You Gotta Have Faith
• Podcast #8: 3:10 to Yuma - A Flawed Hero

Marriage as described in Ephesians 5 is certainly a beautiful picture. The respectful wife, the sacrificial husband, and the picture of the gospel displayed to the world. Yet the reality of the marital relationship between a husband and wife in this sin-filled world is messy, sometimes boring, and often requires excessive amounts of hard-work. I can’t help but wonder if this makes for good television.

Marriage on television is often depicted, yes with silliness, but that silliness is often an overly dramatic representation of the average marriage these days (marriages filled with selfish men striving to love their wives, nagging wives striving to please their husbands, and sinful couples wishing they had a better marriage). Think of couples like Tim and Jill Taylor, Doug and Carrie Hefernon, Homer and Marge Simpson, Jim and Cheryl (According to Jim). As I think about these shows I must confess they don’t often represent boredom, even if some of them do represent cheesy writing and poor plot development. So why is it that inevitably Jim and Pam’s marriage will be the end of The Office?

I suppose it has something to do with the culture we live in: marriage just isn’t as popular, or interesting to the larger public who sees co-habitation and promiscuity as the essence of fun and freedom. But perhaps a more reasonable answer has to do with the thrill of the chase. We love watching a man pursue a woman, a woman turn him down, and then the switch, a woman pursuing a man who has moved on, etc. There’s something exciting about the tension and the twists. And while I certainly think marriage is as equally, if not more exciting, I don’t imagine that I would find the marriages of everyone else as exciting as mine! Nor, do I imagine, you will find my marriage very exciting to you.

So while marriage itself, as God ordained it, is very exciting, perhaps the marriage of Jim and Pam just won’t make for good television. It’s just not as exciting as watching their relationship go through massive ups and downs. Until that wedding day happens though, I’ll be glued to NBC every Thursday night watching the excitement of the chase! But if Jim and Pam do marry, I guess that will free up thirty minutes more for me to enjoy the excitement of my own marriage, and that won’t be so bad.

• Sin and the City
• In Praise of Television
• The War of the Words

My kids and wife were excited.  They shouted, “Way to go!”  Perhaps I am just the old man in the room, but my response was a bit more crusty and cynical.  I wasn’t impressed.

Why? Because I want my kids to not measure their faith on whether or not a pop star affirms their faith on national t.v.  I have seen too many teenage, bubble gum pop stars turn into “bad girls” over night.

I am not the only one noticing how teenage pop icons are turning into “bad girls” in Hollywood. South Park picked up on this theme during one of this season’s episodes. The South Park episode had Brittany Spears being hunted and killed by the townspeople.  The townspeople, acting like sadistic zombies, made it clear toward the end of the episode that their intent was to build up the latest Hollywood pop star, only then to sacrifice them on the alter of media scrutiny and fame. The most chilling part of this episode, after they had killed Brittany Spears, was that their next target for sacrifice was foreshadowed: Miley Cyrus.

Of course our culture doesn’t telegraph their intent by saying explicitly, “We are building you up before we tear you down.”  But that is exactly what they do.

South Park’s episode was eerily prophetic in light of the Vanity Fair incident a couple of months later.  The Vanity Fair controversy surrounded Miley Cyrus having posed for what some considered very provocative photographs.

So what’s the point of my cynicism and concern toward Miley’s remarks during that silly awards show?  Firstly, I am concerned not because I doubt the sincerity or genuineness of her faith.  I have no reason to doubt or even judge her faith in Christ.  And secondly, my response was cynical not because I have any reason to believe that she is going to fall from grace and destroy her testimony.  In fact, I am very optimistic that she can succeed in living out her faith in Hollywood, mostly because she has the support of a functionally healthy and intact family.

But even with all that said, there was room for concern and a basis for my cynicism.  Miley Cyrus’ remarks brought several lessons to the forefront that night.  These were lessons that I attempted to share with my daughters.

1. Christianity can’t be embodied in one person - including Miley Cyrus. Adults make this mistake all the time.  We put so much stock in latest “charismatic” pastor or leader, only then to become crushed when it becomes revealed that the paragon of virtue was a person who had feet of clay.   My daughter’s faith can not be tied to whether or not Miley Cyrus lives out her faith or not.  Their faith isn’t linked to the latest pop icon, but must be linked instead to Jesus.

2. Miley Cyrus, even as a Christian, is going to fail. It doesn’t mean that she is going to fail big, but she is a person, and she will fail. While most of our small failures won’t be fatal, as a public figure Miley’s failures are going to be even more magnified.  My daughters know that people fail and disappoint them.  They have lived with me as their father for over a decade.  And even though I am their hero/father, I have failed and disappointed them numerous times.  They have seen me fail. Their future spouse is going to fail them. Teachers are going to fail them. They need to be careful not to idolize Miley Cyrus but instead to understand and remember her humanity and her need for God’s grace and strength.

3. Miley Cyrus’ faith isn’t the only message she is communicating. I don’t want my daughters to think that just because she communicates her faith that everything she embodies is worth emulating.  From the interviews I have seen with Miley Cyrus, I suspect that as Hollywood standards go her private life is fairly grounded.  She seems to have the same fears, struggles and joys of a normal teenager.  But too often the public persona that gets communicated is the biggest caution to my daughters.  Her public persona isn’t reality.  It is a fantasy world of fame, fun and glamor. I don’t want my girls to buy into that whole package.  Value isn’t found in the clothes you wear, your hair or the stuff you have.  This isn’t just a battle against Miley Cyrus. This is a battle against culture as a whole.  Too often the image of Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana doesn’t square with reality.  I need to help my daughters look behind the glitz and hype and know what is real and what has real value.

Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana taught us something that night.  I am certain that she didn’t intend to do.  My challenge though, as a father of two teenage girls, is to continue to use those ordinary moments as opportunities to create conversations that will shape and shepherd their hearts and lives.

• For Jesus
• Podcast #14: Dumbledore’s Coming Out Party
• Podcast #7: One Incredibly Long and Boring Night

A short, sweet article by Frank Bures in Poets & Writers (Way, Way Too Much Information) makes the case that problems with creativity, at least in the field of writing, may have something to do with the constant flow of information we face.  Often we have multiple e-mail accounts, dozens of websites we check constantly for updates, cell phones and pagers, news tickers, television (sometimes with multiple information flows happening at one time), newspapers and magazines, radio, snail mail, and advertising that manages to fill nearly every corner of our daily existence.  Oh, right… we have to deal with the real world, too.

I recognized my personal struggles with this problem just the other day.  After working through a, “stack,” of e-mails and clicking through a dozen websites, I attempted to read some poetry.  I found myself impatiently skimming entire lines, checking the clock, and skipping ahead to find out what happens in the poem.  Just for your benefit, I’ll let you in on a secret- that is NOT a helpful way to study poetry.

As Bures points out, using plenty of helpful testimonials from other writers, all of that information can easily waste our time, reduce our memory, and even temporarily decrease our IQ.  Even worse, though (he says), it crowds out some of the most important characteristics of creative thought.  He describes two of the key places where creativity is born; First, time spent doing absolutely nothing, and second, the mental state of forgetting the world around you, which writers call flow.

The article is excellent and I urge you to read it.  The challenge for us as Christians, I think , is that we are generally no better at carving out or prioritizing time for unbroken reverie and creative thought.  We allow our world to become so furiously full that we lose our ability to generate creative articulations of our physical and spiritual lives.  When was the last time your church community worked together to do less of something?  The nearest example I can think of is young couples babysitting kids for a, “parents night out,” but that time is usually spent (rightly!) on relationships rather than writing.

If we desire the Christian community to increase its depth and spirituality, we must begin thinking strategically about how to promote time for reverie, quietness, and unbroken thought.  It’s nice to think of quiet times that way, but too often we only use that time to cram in Bible reading, active prayer, and a book chapter.  If we want Christian art rather than culture-copying swill, we may need some systematic changes in how we disciple church members in the wisdom of building time away from the information flow.  (And frankly, by that I mean systematic changes that go beyond a single Sunday school lesson on how to solve the problem by yourself.  Our individualism is getting out of hand, and it isn’t solving problems.)

But even if we do set aside whether churches should be approaching this systematically (or, as is likely, if your church is not interested in addressing something like this), it’s good to consider how we can implement more time for creative thought and reverie into our lives.  You may think that you don’t need it or that you are more productive without it, but there is a simple test for that- try it!

As I mentioned, I struggle with this issue a lot.  In fact, one of my odd-but-explainable habits is that when I’m trying to solve a problem in my head, I go take a shower.  This gets strange when I might take three showers a day while doing a paper for class, but perhaps I just have not bothered to discover any other place where my thoughts can simply run.  So, I intend to work on carving out some time for reverie in the coming weeks- time uninterrupted by television, e-mail, cell phone, or even (gasp!) books.

My problem is that I let information overwhelm my ability to think creatively about the world God has placed me in.  Is it also a problem for the church?  Is it also a problem for you?

• Submit!
• Why Should The Church Care About Your Art?
• Enjoying Culture without Being Consumed, Part 2

In short, I got really involved.

It’s not that I’ve ever been opposed to watching American Idol, but I tend to like musicians who are skilled in a particular genre, rather than being “all things to all people,” as any AI winner pretty much has to be. But the lure of Andrew Lloyd Webber this week—not to mention Christ and Pop Culture’s announced theme week—drew me in. Say what you like about Lord Lloyd Webber (or, as he was dubbed on another reality competition, the “World Wide Webber”), but he does write music that takes some focused skill to perform.

If you watched the show Tuesday and Wednesday, you already know who sang what and who got booted off. I have to admit that I was shocked. I really expected Jason (he who, after meeting with Lord ALW for a master class on “Memory,” exclaimed, “I never knew that song was sung by a cat!” Um, seriously? It is from a musical called Cats, you know.) and Brooke (who, I admit, I had begun calling “Bambi,” perhaps unfairly) to be in the bottom two. I did not expect Syesha or Carly, who gave probably the best performances of Tuesday evening, to land there.

Insert rant about voters’ lack of taste here.

What I forgot, however, is that large contingents of people vote for their favorites, regardless of how well they perform. I may not have watched American Idol before, but I have heard of Sanjaya. This realization led me to some disdainful thoughts about teenage girls and how “they’re spoiling it for the rest of us” by voting for Jason. Yes, us. I momentarily forgot that they have as much right (if not more) to influence the show as I, the first-time viewer, do.

Then I got a little cynical and started to wonder about the effect of votefortheworst.com on Wednesday’s results. (In case you don’t know, votefortheworst.com is a site that encourages viewers to, well, vote for the worst American Idol contestant, in order to keep him or her on the show.) I went and checked it out. Yup, they were advocating for Brooke, which could at least be part of why she made it to the safe couch. It could also be due to efforts on the part of strategic voters, those who don’t think that Brooke is the best contestant but who vote for her anyway, either because they think she needs the most help or because they want to provide their true favorites with weak competition.

So it may be a little naïve of me to only just now realize that American Idol isn’t always about talent, but thinking about viewers’ voting patterns has raised some interesting questions for me. First of all, if I think that American Idol promotes bad taste and I want to subvert it, is it ethical for me, as a Christian, to vote for the contestant that votefortheworst.com has nominated? (Just to be clear, I have no plans to do so—I’m simply raising a hypothetical question.)

Votefortheworst.com claims to be helping American Idol fulfill its “true” goal of entertainment, rather than its stated goal of discovering talent. The site’s “About Us” page declares, “We think that the less-loved contestants are more entertaining than the producer favorites, and we want to acknowledge this fact by encouraging people to help vote for the amusing antagonists that annoy the judges. VFTW sees keeping these contestants around as a golden opportunity to make a more entertaining show.”

Fair enough. The only problem is that entertainment, according to this definition, consists of listening to bad performances and of watching judges get frustrated by bad performances. I, for one, don’t find that very entertaining. I also don’t find it honorable, just, excellent, praiseworthy, or any other adjective from Philippians 4:8. Like CAPC’s own David Dunham, I appreciate Simon Cowell’s acerbity in assessing the contestants’ performances; that acerbity loses its freshness, however, if Cowell is forced into a situation where he’s responding more out of “you again?” than out of a desire to tell it like it is to people who need to hear the truth. After watching AI this week, I found that I don’t want to subvert the judges—I thought their assessment was right on. I do, however, want to subvert the other voters.

That leads me to my second question. If I don’t believe that the voting results reflect true talent, then what should I do about it? I can cast my own vote, sure, but that doesn’t do much to change the big picture. If I’m so irritated by the unfairness of the results that I begin to judge other viewers harshly, have I stepped too far outside the bounds of Christian charity? Should I stop watching? Should I seek out some sort of proactive solution, rather than just complaining about it? If so, what?

If Christians are to be “wise as serpents, innocent as doves,” are there ways for us to participate in American Idol subversively and yet truthfully?

• What Do We Truly Like About American Idol?
• A Jew on Jesus on AI
• Podcast #25: Should Christians Cast Down their (American) Idols?

But as far as I can tell, enjoyment of American Idol tends to stem from four basic categories.  These are 1) an appreciation for musical talent, 2) enjoyment of hopeful people being put in their place, 3) a fascination with celebrity lives and personalities, and 4) the competition and exaltation of personal opinion.  For Christians, these categories should raise some basic questions about what it is that we actually love.

1) Appreciation for Musical Talent
There’s nothing wrong with appreciating a good singing voice.  But ask yourself; do you show this same appreciation for music in other contexts?  My fear is that the enjoyment of music becomes an excuse to indulge our enjoyment of other aspects of the show.  If American Idol were merely a talent show that did not include the judges, the initial rounds, or voting, would you be just as interested?  Can you truly avoid taking pleasure in some parts of the show that may be challenging to your faith?

2) Enjoyment of Hopeful People Being Put In Their Place
Do you take pleasure in people being cut down?  David made an excellent argument for the importance of enforcing objective standards.  But is it the standards you appreciate, or the witty comments?  Are you happy that a person has received helpful feedback on their talents (or lack thereof), or that they were embarrassed on national television?  Is it possible that you like feeling better or smarter than other people?  What value does seeing people torn down have in your spiritual life?  After a contestant leaves the stage, are you more likely to say, “I’m glad that person finally received some helpful teaching in the area of objective standards,” or are you more likely to say, “What in the world?!  If you stink that badly at singing, why would you go on the show?  What an idiot!  He/she got what they deserved.  I would never be that dumb.”

3) A Fascination with Celebrity Lives and Personalities
I never cease to be amazed at how much people know about their heroes (myself included).  How much interest do you have in the details of a person’s upbringing and background, challenges and qualities?  How much does that influence your evaluation of their talent?  Is your interest any different than the strong interest in celebrity that drives the paparazzi industry?  How articulate are you about their personal qualities and character traits?  Most importantly, is there a possibility that this fascination is the same as Idol worship?  After all, is there ANY aspect of the show that does NOT promote Idol worship?

4) The Competition and Exaltation of Personal Opinion
How important is it to you that your voice be heard (votes, water-cooler conversations, etc.)?  Do you find yourself caring deeply about sharing your thoughts as widely as possible?  Do you become emotionally invested in convincing people of your point of view?  Are you happy when your dislike of a particular contestant is vindicated?  How many times do you vote?  Are you unhappy with those people who vote for a candidate you dislike, or don’t show enough support for the one you do like?  What effect does it have on you when expert judges appreciate a different candidate than the one you most enjoy?  After all, how can a person say they appreciate Simon’s enforcement of objective standards, but then vote against those whom Simon seems to be most impressed by?

My personal tendency is to be attracted to the contestants’ personal qualities.  I become fascinated by what makes them tick, and what drives their hunt for glory.  Perhaps that is why I liked Katherine McPhee- she seemed to want to break into the music industry because she loved music rather than fame.  However, I found that this mild interest quickly became over-appreciation, as I argued for my perspective in every conversation about the show at work, school, or even church.  The slide from enjoyment to sin is a powerfully simple one in the American Idol world.

I realize all this is less than concrete.  That, I suppose, is the nature of dealing with a multifaceted national phenomenon.  My central point, though, is that the show is obviously built on playing to certain passions and interests that we have as humans.  Christians need to thoughtfully and introspectively ask why the show appeals to them personally, and then challenge those attractions in light of Scripture.

What do you think?  Are those four categories helpful?  What do YOU like or struggle with on American Idol?  Am I being too hard or not hard enough on the show?

Oh, and one last thing.  In the spirit of fairness, I have to admit that if you changed the category of “Musical Talent,” to, “Athletic Talent,” many of these same questions and arguments would apply to the professional sports industry (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.)!  Those of us who skip American Idol but watch 6 hours per week of baseball, football, hockey, basketball, or other sports should be extremely careful before we condemn a show that’s on for a mere hour per week.

• The Case for Simon Cowell
• A Jew on Jesus on AI
• Confessions of a First-Time American Idol Viewer

Click here to listen!

Click here to listen!

About three weeks ago, Ben and I sat down and discussed American Idol, including the morality of American Idol’s infamous audition episodes, whether or not Christians should embrace and support Idol Gives Back, and more. Also, we give out our Christ and Pop Culture Awards for Voting Shows.

We love feedback. If you’d like to respond you can comment on the website, send an email to christandpopculture@gmail.com or best yet you can leave a voice-mail at 206-888-2471. We would love to respond to feedback on the show, so do it now!

Subscribe to us in iTunes by clicking here. While you’re at it, give us some good iTunes feedback! We’ll love you forever!

The music in this episode is by SoberMinded and awesome rap duo featuring our own writer and co-founder, Alan Noble. Check them out!

• Podcast #26: I Am [Not Using That Stupid] Iron Man [Cliche]
• Podcast #25: Speaking of Narnia…
• Podcast #24: Pop Culture’s Startling Lack of Restraint - Sexuality and Nudity

“That sounded like a cat being set on fire and run through a car wash for extinguishing. It was the most awful sound I have ever had the displeasure of hearing.”

Those words, while a bit exaggerated, are all too often the types of expressions that come from the mouth of American Idol judge Simon Cowell. Known as the “bad-boy” of the panel of judges for the pop-music competition show, Cowell is not afraid to tell it “like it is.” His honesty, while being a bit harsh and over the top itself, is a breath of fresh air in a culture of political correctness.

One need only contrast two of the judges to see how vastly different Cowell is from the reigning culture. Paula Abdul consistently offers feedback to the singers which is meaningless, often indiscernible, and half the time in contradiction to claims she has made previously. The motive behind Abdul’s asinine comments is politeness. She is wary of offending singers, or making them feel bad. Conversely, Simon Cowell doesn’t hesitate to announce that a performer sounded like cheesy karaoke from hell, even as the audience roars with “boo” from behind him. And it is this forthright honesty and grip on quality standards that makes me appreciate American Idol.

We live in a culture that is constantly asserting three major ideas: (1) People Have A Right Not To Be Offended; (2) Truth is Subjective; and (3) There Are No Standards For Good Art. In our culture it is often asserted that people have no right to say anything that another person might disagree with. Whole law suits are acted out on the basis of this right to never be offended. We hear this type of idea expressed often in the early editions of AI, where spurned idol wannabes recite their offendedness to the camera. Usually it goes something like, “Who does Simon think he is, saying that about me! I know I can sing and he’s just a jerk!” In response to this ideology, however, AI offers up a dose of reality to what are often some of the worst singers in the history of existence. Those who have been told all their life that they are really great singers receive a wake up call: “You really are that bad!”

Postmodernism, as a movement, developed the already rising idea of subjective truth , which says that no one has a right to say what is right or wrong,  true or false, etc. The fact that the three judges of AI can evaluate a person as either good or bad flies in the face of this philosophy. They suggest that there is indeed such a thing as good singing and that certain people’s performances don’t fit within those standards. Those who would contend that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” (which may to some degree be true) are forced here to wrestle with the notion that there are some artistic expressions that simply aren’t that good by any reasonable standards. Being a Pop-Vocalist requires certain hallmarks, and has a certain standard. All those auditioning for AI, and striving to be The American Idol must abide by those standards, and Simon Cowell will do his best to see that they do.

Of course, American Idol isn’t a Christian television program (no matter how many times they sing “Shout to the Lord”), but it does reflect some principles that Christians can and should appreciate: Honesty, objectivity, and reality. Of course the derision and humiliation of individuals on the show can be perceived as a negative by Christians, and I suppose some believers will want to accuse Simon Cowell of being the anti-Christ. But I am actually inclined to disagree. If Simon Cowell is helping people to stop taking themselves so seriously then maybe the culture will start taking God more seriously. I won’t hold my breath. But in the meantime I think I’ll enjoy the occasional episode of American Idol and remind myself that some people really do sound like screeching chalk when they sing, even when its not politically correct to tell them so.

• What Do We Truly Like About American Idol?
• A Jew on Jesus on AI
• Podcast #25: Should Christians Cast Down their (American) Idols?