Image and Word

There's a short, interesting commentary on Breakpoint's website here regarding CNN's recent choice to air footage of a terrorist sniper shooting an American soldier. (For those who don't know, Breakpoint is an organization formed by Chuck Colson, a conservative Christian author.) The author of the commentary takes issue with CNN's decision, comparing it to Rome's choice to publicly crucify more than 6,000 slaves who revolted in the first century B.C.E. While I think the comparison might be a little overblown, I agree that CNN's decision seems to be in extremely poor taste--they justified it with a claim of presenting the "unvarnished truth," but in an era where any form of controversy can generate attention, it is difficult not to see dollar signs behind the decision.

What caught my attention more than the issue with CNN is the author's claims regarding the use of images in general. He quotes from several Christian thinkers who are critical of the use of images--the following two quotes particularly caught my attention:

"Far from offering truth, [Francis Schaeffer] said, "every television minute has been edited. The viewer does not see the event. He sees . . . an edited image of that event.""

"And as Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis notes, with television, reality becomes the image, "whether or not that image corresponds to any objective state of affairs—and we are not challenged to engage in this analysis.""

These are strong statements regarding the use of images in general, and the medium of television in particular. Both Schaeffer and Groothuis, as far as I know, are extremely critical of television as a medium of communication--Groothuis seems to view it as a completely debased and useless form.

It is worth noting that these criticisms are valid. Television, as with any form of communication, has weaknesses, and it is good to point them out. One should always bear in mind that television is a highly edited medium, and Groothuis is at least correct that many people do not take the time to think about what they are watching. My difficulty, however, is that the implicit assumption behind these statements (and I believe Groothuis' writings confirm this interpretation) is that image is somehow inferior to word. That is, textually based information is viewed as having a greater claim to truth, or at least a much greater ability to communicate truth.

However, I'm just not sure that this is true--that image is inferior to word when it comes to communicating truth. Different, certainly, but inferior? Part of the problem is that it seems to be barely acknowledged (if at all) that texts suffer from the exact same limitations noted above regarding the use of images. All textually based material is necessarily edited by its author, and is written with an agenda in mind. Word/text is always produced for a reason--everything is subjective, and any claims to complete objectivity are automatically suspect. I believe this is part of the human condition--while we may legitimately try to limit the extent to which our own experiences, ideas, and agendas influence what we produce (be it image or word), true objectivity will always elude us.

Accordingly, while the above criticism of images, and of television in particular, is certainly valid, it seems inappropriate for it to be used to privilege word over image. God himself seems to value both--while the Bible is the Word, isn't Jesus the ultimate Image?

Recent Movies: The Prestige

Cari and I had been looking forward to seeing this movie for the past few months - the previews looked great, and its hard to turn down a movie starring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Scarlett Johansson, and Michael Caine, and directed by Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins).

The movie centers around two dueling magicians in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I don't want to reveal any more of the plot because much of the enjoyment of watching the film comes from trying to navigate the different twists and turns of the story (in the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that Cari figured out the big "secret" before it was revealed--I did not). The movie is well worth seeing--I found the characters to be well developed (particularly Bale and Jackman's characters) and the plot twists did not feel as contrived as they did when we saw Martin Scorcese's The Departed a few weeks ago (Scorcese's movie is also worth seeing, but I enjoyed The Prestige more).

Republicans and Democrats Can Work Together? Who Knew?

My friend Carl pointed out this interesting story on GetReligion.org, a blog which is run by several journalists and is devoted to discussions regarding the media's coverage of religion. The post is about the Joshua Green's cover article "Take Two" in the November issue of the Atlantic, which deals with Hilary Clinton's attempts to turn herself into "the consummate Washington player." According to Green's story, the primary catalyst for Hilary's "transformation" has been her involvement in a prayer group on Capitol Hill.

Apparently there are a number of these prayer groups where lawmakers gather together for some form of private worship. Most of these groups are affiliated with a secretive organization known as the Fellowship--according to Green, the Fellowship was:

established in the 1930s by a Methodist evangelist named Abraham Vereide, whose great hope was to preach the word of Jesus to political and business leaders throughout the world. Vereide believed that the best way to change the powerful was through discreet personal ministry, and over his lifetime he succeeded to a remarkable degree. The first Senate prayer group met over breakfast in 1943; a decade later one of its members, Senator Frank Carlson, persuaded Dwight Eisenhower to host a Presidential Prayer Breakfast, which has become a tradition.

While the existence of such groups is interesting in and of itself, what is particularly interesting is what occurred through Hilary Clinton's involvement in one of these prayer groups. These groups are primarily attended by conservative congressmen and women, and Hilary was in a group with Senator Sam Brownback, a well known and influential conservative from Kansas. Here is how Green describes what happened in the group:

One spring Wednesday, a few months into the term, Senator Sam Brownback’s turn came to lead the group, and he rose intending to talk about a recent cancer scare. But as he stood before his colleagues Brownback spotted Clinton, and was overcome with the impulse to change the subject of his testimony. “I came here today prepared to share about this experience in my life that has caused great suffering, the result of which has deepened my faith,” Brownback said, according to someone who watched the scene unfold. “But I’m overcome now with only one thought.” He confessed to having hated Clinton and having said derogatory things about her. Through God, he now recognized his sin. Then he turned to her and asked, “Mrs. Clinton, will you forgive me?” Clinton replied that she would, and that she appreciated the apology.

Green goes on to explain that as a result, Clinton and Brownback have worked together on two separate initiatives--one to protect refugees fleeing sexual abuse, and another to study the effects that violent video games and television shows have upon children.

There are two things that are significant to me about this story. First, it is refreshing to see two politicians who could not be on more opposite sides of the political spectrum working together. One could hope (probably futile, but lets pretend it is not) that such activity could become the rule, rather than the exception. Second, it is interesting that this bipartisan cooperation came about as a result of a regular prayer group. Green notes that these groups may be one of the last venues in which politicians feel free to share their faith and thoughts in a private setting--a place in which they can truly be themselves with one another. I find it fitting that this venue would be a prayer group, because it is exactly how the church should function--bringing together people from diverse backgrounds on the basis of their shared belief.

Of course, everything states in this story could be political rhetoric--certainly Hilary could benefit politically from being viewed as more moderate. While the cynic and realist in me thinks this is probably the case, the idealist in me hopes that maybe, just maybe, this story is an example of politicians doing something right.