Media Friday - An American Idol Disgrace

Yes, I know it isn't Friday, but seeing as it is the long weekend, I hope you'll forgive my tardiness this week. This season of American Idol has probably been my favourite, and the final three contestants are terrific singers and seem like genuinely good people. This past week also marked my favourite episode of the year, the Homecoming. While I think it's a bit insane that so many people turn out to see these young performers, its always a treat to watch their responses, especially with their respective families.

A few notes about last week's shows. First, the GOOD:

Homecoming: Very moving watching Chris interact with his family, especially his dad. I've been impressed by Chris this year, more his humility than his talent. Here's hoping he remembers that even as his adoring young fans propel him to stardom. It was interesting watching Danny's homecoming, and as he said later, it was bittersweet. (Remember, he lost his wife just last year.) More on danny a bit later. As for Adam, it was weird, because the family homecoming wasn't really there. Adam's been performing for years, and there seemed to be a disconnect between his homecoming and the other ones. I went online to try and find some answers, and all i could gather was that somehow his sexuality seems to be involved. (Would American Idol show him going home to his boyfriend on homecoming day? No, I don't think so either.) Still, that bit with him and the kids at the MET seemed like it meant quite a bit to him.

Results: I think the results were about right. Danny's a brilliant vocalist, but Chris's rendition of Heartless was just too good, along with his "cute/humble" attraction. Adam is a star. Period.

Tears: I have to admit my eyes started clogging up as Danny sang for the last time. I was sitting with Bethany, wondering what would be going through my head if I lost her, knowing that the amazing journey propelled by my wife was coming to an end. Touching moment that should make all of us appreciate our loved ones.

The BAD:

Anyone who follows this blog knows that my fiance, Bethany, grew up in Africa, so I usually turn to her when it comes to things like having that Rwandan teenager perform for Idol Gives Back. Let's be straight, that was a total disgrace. It was racist, plain and simple. "Everyone text five dollars. See, we have a monkey to perform for you." (Racism intended.) I get tired of hearing people say that Africans need the money, so what diffference does it make. Those of you who say that are acting like nobility does towards peasants.

First of all, Africa is not a country! And American Idol, a billion dollar behemoth, is not simply being generous. They use the "good will" to further their own reputation. People say that I am cynical. Really? What on the show IS NOT A COMMERCIAL? The whole show is a commercial. Yes, it's well done, and yes, I enjoy it, but don't be blind to the advertising dollars it gets even from programs such as "Idol Gives Back". This idea that we have more money and they need it doesn't wash with human dignity. If you wanted someone to perform from Rwanda, then get a seasoned performer who is actually good. That would show respect, instead of just getting some kid to bounce around with twenty back up singers. It amazes me how we think we are so superior simply because we have money. That was perhaps the worst moment in American Idol history, made more so because most people (all of whom will be white) will shrug their shoulders and say things like, "Well, we're giving them money, what's the big deal."

"Great. Thanks 'mas'ser. Drop a quarter in my hat, won't you? Maybe one day I'll be rich and noble like you. Oh wait, that probably won't happen, since Western Europe raped our continent. Guess we'll just have to eke out a living on the "Dark Continent" and pray for you Americans to save us, espcially since we can't seem to stop having sex with everyone and spreading AIDS."

-Sorry. Just threw up in my mouth.

Other Media:

Still haven't seen the latest Star Trek. Wedding plans have picked up, but next week I promise I'll review at least one movie.

-Steve

No More 'Christian' Organizations, Please

I wonder what it was like the first time someone called the early Christians a 'Christos'?(Greek word for 'Christian') What was it like to have the people of Antioch suddenly remind you, as a new member of this growing religious sect, that the person you worshiped was nothing more than a meddling rabble-rouser who had been crucified fifteen years earlier? Only the infinitely stupid would follow someone like that. Yeshua was not a distinguished Rabbi, but a poor carpenter who became an overnight sensation with his populist, ambiguous moral pap. (Your neighbour is a Samaritan? Women support your ministry? We are all sinners?) At least the Zealots made sense. At least they stood for something. Following a mob leader was one thing, but following a crucified criminal and passing it off as serious religion -- AND claiming he was God -- was disgusting.

It's hard to imagine, of course, because the word 'Christian' has been sullied and dirtied through the past two thousand years to mean something far different from what those first followers of Jesus experienced. From about the time of the church's marriage to Rome, through a thousand years of Christendom and even through the Reformation, being called a Christian, or naming oneself as a Christian, has meant something altogether different.

Today, the word has different implications in different cultures. There are still countries where Christians get a taste of what the early followers experienced, places where the word implies shame, and sometimes, danger. In those places, the word is sacrosanct, as it should be, and it carries both meaning and depth. To be a Christian, to identify oneself as a follower of Jesus, can be a matter of life or death. For most of the world, however, the word is associated with 'white' and 'colonization' and 'prejudiced.' In fact, the word has been so bastardized it is no longer a noun, but also an adjective. Here in North America, we are especially guilty. We have changed the word, and in so doing, changed the nature of how we approach both the world around us and our own faith.

This is not a happy story.

In Roman times, Antioch was a unique place. The Roman emperors favoured the city from the first, seeing it as a more suitable capital for the eastern part of the empire than Alexandria could be, because of the isolated position of Egypt. To a certain extent they tried to make it an eastern Rome. Antioch was the chief center for early Christianity due to its large Jewish population, and so was a chief target for early missionaries, including the Apostle Peter and later Paul and Timothy. Despite its Jewish influence, Antioch was a learned and educated city, know for its styles and fashions and hedonism, comparable to today's Hollywood in its influence and culture.

When it was first used around 47 A.D., being called a Christian was derogatory, especially since many of the Romans did not understand the nature of certain terms that these people used in their Jewish sect, like breaking the "body and blood of Christ". That said, it wasn't dangerous to be a Jesus follower until Caligula came to power in 54 A.D. (And would later become a terrifying decision under the emperors Nero and Domitian.)

It is difficult to find evidence when Christians first started to refer to themselves by the very name used against them, but it makes one wonder what an early believer would think of the word's use today, in how we have 'Christian' organizations and 'Christian' music and 'Christian' books.

This is all ridiculous, of course, because it is impossible for an organization to be Christian. An organization cannot follow Christ. Last I checked, organizations can't have relationships with the family dog, let alone a supernatural God. Strangely, whenever this is brought up in discussion, it is often waved away. "You know what I mean, Steve, we stand for Christian things. Christian ideals."

Unfortunately, what is missed is that there is both an exclusivity and buffer for people who work for these so-called Christian organizations. There is an implication that the organization is especially 'blessed' or made 'holy' because of their associations. If an organization is holy, people don't have to be. Why do you think some of the nastiest Christians in the world are the ones who go to hyper conservative churches or work in 'Christian' companies? People become excused from their behaviour with the outside world, and within the 'Christian' organization, which is inherently self-ruling, it becomes a place of both piety and hypocrisy. The greatest example of this is a Bible College or an organization like World Vision, who recently took down their 'Christian' label. (And rightly so. World Vision is a political organization and does far more harm than good in Africa. Don't believe the infomercials.)

'Christian' organizations exist only to preserve their own hegemony, so convinced are they of their God given right to rule. As well they should be. If you believe your organization is in place as a direct result of its relationship to God, then you will work to preserve it, regardless of culture or human concerns, because your organization has been touched by the divine. For example, examine the many missionary organizations that still operate under white control in Africa. Why are they there? To help? Haven't we done enough through hundreds of years of pillaging and raping the continent? In most 'Christian' organizations, especially missionary ones, there are a number of rules that reflect profound class-ism and racism, not to mention misogyny. There are strict rules about inter-cultural marriage. There are rules about white control that reverberate through the suburban churches in North America. "We can do it better. We'll give the money, but we need one of 'us' putting in our plan of action."

To be part of a 'Christian organization' is to be different. Better. Oh, that won't be said, but if you listen closely, you can hear it in the tones of many of its adherents. In essence, it is Christendom all over again. Except this time, the marriage is to companies and corporations, not the crown. Ironically, the Protestant reformation was started by a monk who felt there was too close a connection between dollars (indulgences) and the church. How is it that we now use the word 'Christian' to squeeze the pockets so we can build our own utopias?

Isn't it about time we went back to the origin of the word? Isn't it time Christians stopped pilfering money from other Christians to build bigger barns with the word Jesus painted on the side, and give it to those who truly need it? To be a 'Christian' is to follow Jesus. It is to follow a populist Rabbi crucified as a common criminal. And its time we stopped using the word to spice up our next commercial, capital venture or campaign stop, and remember who we are and where we come from.

-Steve

Authour's Note: (This is a systemic issue, not an individual one. There are a number of wonderful people who work in these organizations and have done so from the heart.)