Reverse Culture Shock, The Black Panthers, and Kroger

For the first time in two weeks (although it seems much longer), it’s quiet. I’m sitting at home, alone, after returning from Burundi last night. Bonnie and Liz are at the store. There are no street noises, no children playing, no loud music, just blissful quiet.

Whenever I return from a missions trip overseas, I experience a certain degree of reverse culture shock. This trip it started on the bus ride from the airport to the parking lot where our car (and home) awaited. I don’t remember who was the first to make a remark, but soon all three of us were joining in. We noticed that the windshield of the bus didn’t have a hole and wasn’t cracked. Another noticed that there were actual lanes on the road that people seemed to respect. The third observed the lack of motorbikes whizzing in and out of traffic and the lack of bicycle taxis and pedestrians. In the video I posted above, you’ll spot all of these things in abundance. By the way, this video in no way communicates the sheer terror of a local African taxi ride. In case you’re wondering, closing your eyes doesn’t help much.

But the real shock came, as it always does, when we arrived home. Oh it doesn’t hit at once, but sometime within the first 24 hours I realize that, while by American standards our modest home may not seem like much, but the standards of the majority of the rest of the world, we are part of the über-wealthy. Most people reading that last sentence roll their eyes and go, “Yeah, yeah, I know.” But they don’t know. No one knows until they experience the crushing poverty of much of the rest of the world for themselves.

But this year my reverse culture shock took a slightly different form. The first night at home, all of us were completely exhausted. We had been awake for over 40 hours with only slight cat-naps on the plane for rest. I had the most energy of the lot of us (which wasn’t saying very much) so I went to the local Kroger for some frozen pizza. It was there that I thought, just for a moment, I was back in Africa.

I noticed in the store two extremely well-dressed black men in suits. That’s not all that unusual in North America. What struck my eye was the other black man in urban fatigues with an army insignia on his color (O-2), bolstering a sidearm. You see this in Africa on occasion, but I confess that I’ve never seen it in my local Kroger before.

Now, before I tell you what happened next, you really, really need to remember that I was sleep deprived. Liz tells me regularly that I’ll speak to anyone. That’s true. But this is a little over the top even for me. But I was tired. I wasn’t thinking straight. Seriously.

Well, in my sleep deprived brain, I associated the men in the suits with the body guard with Africa. So, being generally fearless and exhibting my usual lack of good judgment, I approached the one that looked like the leader and said, “Samahani Bwana, wewe onasema kswahili?”, which being translated is, “Excuse me Sir, do you speak Swahili?” The man looked at me with surprise and said, “Excuse me?” The bodyguard looked confused and squared his shoulders to me. I don’t think anyone felt threatened. I looked like I had just crawled out from under a rock. I felt like it too. I imagine they thought I was crazy. But…well…did I mention that I really really tired?

In my sleep-deprived state I was genuniely surprised by his answer and said, “Sorry sir, but usually you see an armed guard with two well-dressed men in Africa. Since I just returned from there about an hour ago, I thought you might be visitors.” It was only then that I saw the patch on the guard’s shirt. It had a panther’s head in a circle. A black panther’s head.

For the record, the man I approached was the perfect gentleman. He stuck out his hand and introduced himself. I don’t remember the first name, but the last name was “x.” I appologized again and wished him a pleasent day. Then I headed for the frozen pizza.

Another man saw our exchange of pleasentries and greeted me as I walked by. He was also an African American but, while he flashed me a huge grin, he was less than complimentary to the New Black Panthers he kept watching closely. I don’t remember exactly what he said (I was really tired), but it was clear he knew the men involved by reputation and didn’t approve. He even knew Mr. “X’s” name.

When I checked out, the young man ringing up the ticket also commented on our (what was rapidly becoming famous) exchange. He didn’t have much to say about the black panthers, but was amazed that a white man like myself would even talk to them, let alone initiate a conversation.

To be candid, if I realized they were New Black Panthers, I probably would have avoided them. I would have refused eye contact and walked different aisles. But, and this should be no surprise, the reality was different than the reputation.

I’m still working through what conclusions to draw from this little encounter. I confess I don’t understand why someone requires an armed guard in a suburban Kroger unless it is part of a mystique they are trying to maintain. What I do know is this: I’m thankful to live in the United States, where personal armed guards are primarily for appearances, not protection.

Fundamentalist Cultural Assumptions

Kevin T. Bauder is the president of Central Baptist Seminary just outside of Minneapolis. I highly recommend his weekly newsletter In The Nick of Time. In it he regularly raises questions about the believer’s relationship with the culture that surrounds him, a subject near and dear to my heart. As important as this is, however, it is his regular critique of Fundamentalism as a movement that is so enlightening and leaves me hungry for more. 

I have come to grips with the fact that I am a Fundamentalist. I say “come to grips” because this isn’t a title that I would chose for myself. Much of fundamentalism I find repugnant. This is especially true of the cultural assumptions of fundamentalism, or at least the fundamentalism that I experienced early in life. Likewise, when I say I’m a Fundamentalist, most simply assume that I’m a member of the Flat Earth Society, a self-appointed constable intent on taking harmless pleasures and declaring them sinful, or a brutal, dictatorial leader intent on self-aggrandizement and power. All of these assumptions are without merit or evidence, but they remain nevertheless.

Thus I read with interest the latest newsletter entitled Conundrum. I encourage you to read the whole article. Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:

For instance, one of my earliest written pieces was a response to someone who was trying to impose the “no pants on women” theory on our church. I regarded Fundamentalist speculations about music as simply pathetic. In fact, the typical answers to the whole orbit of “cultural taboos” (as they were sometimes called) struck me as vacuous. The case that some Fundamentalists made for their version of separation was utterly unimpressive.

 …

I have been surprised to discover a widespread assumption that to be a Fundamentalist leader is ipso facto to be authoritarian and abusive. This means that I am often assumed to be, and occasionally accused of being, the very things that I most despise. For some people, there seems to be no possible evidence that would contradict this assumption.

 …

There is another side to my conundrum. By the mid-1980s, the weakness of fundamentalist argumentation had convinced me that certain “cultural taboos” were trivial. In some cases they really were. My subsequent study and thinking, however, has led me to believe that all cultural activities are far more freighted with meaning than Fundamentalists (or most other evangelicals) have realized. We cannot insist with Kuyper that Christ claims every area as His own, but then treat certain areas as if they are unimportant.
            
In other words, many of the things that I once considered trivial, I now see as greatly significant. But when I try to explain my conclusions, many people seem to assume that I am just repeating the same, old Fundamentalist presentation that I rejected twenty-five years ago. In a way, I can understand. Some of my present positions do bear similarities to practices that some Fundamentalists have advocated. In most cases, however, my reasons diverge, and in all cases the process of reaching my conclusions has been entirely different.

The conundrum is this: how do you speak to people who are already convinced that they know what you think, and who have already rejected your conclusions because they do not accept arguments that you never intended to use anyway? Furthermore, how do you explain conclusions to people who lack even the categories to frame the questions?

I encourage you to subscribe to his excellent newsletter. Also, thank you Dr. Bauder for having the courage of your convictions and the fortitude to brave the slings and arrows of fundamentalism while remaining fundamental yourself.

Avatar the Movie: A Review

The Movie Itself

I went with a friend to see the new movie Avatar over the weekend. Unbeknownst to us, there was a 3D version (which we were expecting) and a regular version. By mistake, we meandered into the regular version.

Still, even without the 3D special affects, the movie itself was visually breathtaking. The constant use of luminescence in the forest, the mythical animals, the indigenous population all were the result of a highly talented and imaginative mind. In fact, the graphics were so good that it carried the rather weak storyline.

This isn’t to say that the story wasn’t interesting. The tale is told in such a way that it made me care about the characters. My daughter and son-in-law recently showed me two DVD’s that featured characters that were so one-dimensional that I really didn’t care if they lived or died. Therefore, the parts that were supposed to be scary, weren’t.

In contrast, the characters in this narrative are more than mere paper cut-outs. All but one (the single minded military commander whose every line and action is painfully predictable) have enough significant conflicts as to make them interesting. 

The plot itself, on the other hand, was completely foreseeable. Merely viewing the trailer tells you everything you need to know to write the storyline before actually seeing the film.

Nevertheless, the strength of the special effects and the general character development caused the film to remain interesting, sometimes even moving, and broadly entertaining.

The Messiah as Plot Device 

Avatar’s story is solely supported by what might be called the Messiah Plot Device. Common in all sorts of stories and film, the Messiah Plot Device is taken (in very general terms) from the common (mis)understanding of the life and ministry of Jesus. Always painted in broad strokes, I’ve listed some of the common elements to this theme. While seldom are all the elements present, there are usually several from this list that make identification fairly obvious.

1. The Messiah figure either possesses or develops in the course of events a unique gift that profoundly impacts the lives of others.
2. This gift is often the result of an unspoken providence, sometimes the fulfillment of a prophecy or an uncanny likeness to a former hero. Special points are given when the protagonist is given a name like “The One” or “The Chosen One.”
3. He  is often encouraged by an older wiser figure to guide him in “the path.”
4. The Messianic character either has always acted or makes a decision to act outside the boundaries of accepted social behavior. This makes him at once a hated and beloved figure.
5. He is often forced to become an outcast by his own people and /or the people he is trying to save. Rejection by his own people causes him to be hunted. Rejection by the people he is trying to save is based upon misunderstanding and/or tradition.
6. Catastrophe awaits the weak if the Messiah doesn’t act.
7. The weak are presented as worthy of being saved, often because of their deep connection to “the land.” This connection can be either ecological or historical.
8. The action necessary to save requires either the laying down of his life or, at a minimum, risking his life in a hopeless quest. The unspoken, but nevertheless obvious acts of providence is often required to ensure the success of this quest.
9. In the process of procuring salvation, the character grows wiser, is bound by principles rather than societal rules or mere tradition, overcomes his fears, and grows spiritually, mentally, and emotionally.
10. Whether or not he survives the quest, the weak are saved from certain destruction and he leaves a deeply emotional and spiritual legacy for others to follow.

As one reviews this list, it is easy to spot both literary and theatrical figures that fit this model. Here are just a couple out of dozens of examples that could be mentioned:

Neo in The Matrix is “The One” who fulfills prophecy, bends the computer reality to his will, is loved by some and hated by others (who do nothing it seems but hunt him), is the ultimate non-conformist who must save the helpless ones that don’t even know that they need saving.

Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings trilogy all exhibit, in one fashion or another, the mixture or prophecy, special giftedness, providential care or purpose, and a quest to save those connected to the Land (in this case the Shire).

Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace is told by his mother that he had no father (alluding to a virgin birth) while Qui Gon believes that the one who will “bring balance to the force” is the young Anakin.

Even in the arena of politics, this Messiah theme can be seen. Some think that Oprah Winfrey’s introduction of Barack Obama as “The One” is the best example of this trend. But it certainly isn’t the first. Consider the Messianic tone of this political commercial from 1968. The implication is that certain destruction awaits if you don’t vote for Lyndon Johnson or even if you do nothing at all.

Avatar makes generous use of this Messianic Plot Device. Jake, a paraplegic war veteran, is given a body to control in order to interact with the Na’vi, a humanoid race with their own language and culture, which, as far as I can tell at least, was modeled after Hollywood’s conception of Native American cultures. They are in danger of destruction from the greedy mining company. Jake learns their ways, falls in love, and…well…you can pretty much guess the rest.

The Problem of Application

Because of the general nature of the plot, different interpretations as to the meaning of the film are already being bandied about. It appears the two most common are 1) this is the story of the Native Americans as they were pushed onto the reservations, and 2) this is the story of the Iraqi people, being exploited for their oil.

There is one major problem with either interpretation. In fact, it’s a problem with applying this film to any historical situation. While I understand that the Na’vi are a different species, the application of their society to human history requires us to transfer human characteristics to them as well. In fact, the movie portrays them as human in everything but form. And therein lies the problem.  

This movie presents the oppressed Na’vi as an ideal society. They are in touch with nature, have a culture composed of order and justice, and use violence only to protect and eat. Even then, they feel incredibly guilty about the taking of life. The problem, therefore, is that this is a fiction; this type of society has never existed, for the issue of sin is absent.

No society without Christ has been or ever will be righteous and just. Because sin is a universal experience, all the injustices, violence, cruelties, greed, hatred, corruption, betrayal, and any other sin that could be mentioned, will be present at every level of society. From the bottom rungs to the seats of power, the ravages of sin will be evident. The lack of such evidence makes any application of this fictional society to the real world a mere caricature of what has actually occurred.

Consider the conquest of the West. There were no good guys and bad guys. Depending on the situation, both sides acted nobly and both sides acted savagely. In fact, the latter was far more prevalent than the former. In this clash of civilizations, it’s far easier to recognize the winner than it is to identify who was morally superior. Just like the rest of the world through history, the nations were taking their stand together against the LORD and his Anointed One. 

This isn’t to say that in the history of the world there haven’t been incredibly violent and cruel regimes bent on conquest and destruction. The evidence supporting that claim is overwhelming. This fact isn’t being challenged.

What is being challenged is the idea of a totally innocent society which is just and righteous without Christ. There has never been an example of this and there never will be. Even those societies that take the name “Christian” don’t measure up to that standard. Every society has been a mixture of order and chaos, of justice and injustice, of law and lawlessness. And in fairness, there has been far more chaos, injustice, and lawlessness than anything resembling righteousness.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as a just war. That some nations are more evil than others. But none are righteous. And that makes the application of this film a fool’s errand.

Conclusion

If your looking for a good story, you will be mildly disappointed. If you’re interested in a thoughtful critique of the human condition and the wars in which nations engage, you will walk away empty. But if you’re looking for mindless entertainment and great special effects, you will be satisfied. And to be honest, looking for anything else in a Hollywood production is a mere exercise in futility.