Categories
Opinions

Memes: Nonsense is Nothing New

In the future when people cast their gaze back in time to analyze our generation, memes will undoubtedly be one of the flagship artifacts of our culture. First of all, what is a meme? Of course, most of us will just know. We’ve seen them, we’ve shared them, we’ve created them – new relationships exist because of them. However, despite their prolificacy, coming up with a way to define a meme is actually quite difficult.

Most results from a quick search roughly explain memes as pieces of media that spread for humorous or political/social commentary purposes via the internet. Different sources cite different “pieces of media” among the first memes, including Pepe the Frog (2005), the Hampster Dance Song (1998), or the Dancing Baby (1996). Some people claim a meme has to send a message, but if so, what message is communicated by the Hampster Dance Song? Or Johnny Johnny memes? Certainly some memes send clear messages, especially those featuring the classic bold white text, but clearly some of them do not – at least not in any easily recognizable way. I was amused to find that the Wikipedia page on memes includes a subsection on “dank” memes, which describes them as pieces of media that are “so nonsensical that they are hilarious.” And what about “meta” memes – yet another subgenre of memes that are in some way self-aware and self-referential. It was when I was introduced to this baffling subgenre of memes and tried to make sense of what was happening before my eyes that I first started thinking about some of the striking similarities between our culture’s memes and the artistic/communicative expressions of other eras.

Unsurprisingly, our generation is not the first to enjoy ironic, nonsensical humor and self-referential forms of expression. During the interwar period of the early 20th century a new movement in art and philosophy called Dadaism emerged as a kind of artistic anarchy or anti-art. Where previous art movements sought to create beauty, the Dadaists created aesthetically offensive images. Where others wanted their art to have a great purpose, the Dadaists pushed the boundaries of what was required to be meaningful. Where others looked at Dada creations and cringed, asking, why? the Dadaists responded with an avant garde, why the heck not?

Most famous and perhaps most representative of the Dada movement is a, uh, “readymade” sculpture by Michael Duchamp, created by turning a urinal on its side, and entitled “Fountain.” Other Dada works include collages of magazine and newspaper clippings, industrial scrap twisted into semi-human figures, and, also by Duchamp, a parody of the Mona Lisa where the famous woman is featured with a mustache and goatee. Classy. I dare you to look up this “painting.” It gets even better. But this was exactly the kind of nonsensical twisting of traditional values that the anti-bourgeois, anti-institutional, anti-art Dada movement was aiming for. Although, like memes, some Dada art was decidedly more serious, aiming for a sarcastic commentary against the war, a different strain of the same social/political angst also led to the subgenre of art whose only message, if it contained any at all, was directed at the medium itself. Why make a urinal into a sculpture? Precisely because it doesn’t make sense. The audience wouldn’t know what to do with it, but ultimately, that is the very reason they would love it

So are memes the same as dada art? No, there are several important differences. We do not have a manifesto or great studios, and I doubt any of us are intentionally anti-establishment when we share memes. Dadaism was a movement (ironically) of an artistic, intellectual elite, while the sharing of memes today is a ubiquitous part of popular culture.

However, I am suspicious that there are a few significant similarities between us and the Dadaists, despite the one hundred years between us and the revolutionary advent of the internet. In the same way that avant-garde Dadaist conceptual art pushed the boundaries of beauty and meaning, our own forms of expression leave some people confused. It is ridiculous. We love the nonsensical. We love expressions that don’t take themselves too seriously. We love badly animated videos of semi-human creatures doing ridiculous things. We love memes. They don’t have to be meaningful. Part of us loves them even more if they are not. Like sideways urinals self-referentially commenting on the power of art, if memes like the Dancing Baby and Johnny Johnny have any meaning at all, it is to comment on the power of the medium: the internet itself.

So if you like dank memes, maybe you will like some Dadaism as well. And, as a side note, while you’re in the art gallery, perhaps you can take a quick gander at other kinds of art. Don’t be surprised if you see other sides of ourselves reflected in parts of the past.

Gabi is a senior majoring in intercultural studies and English.

Categories
Opinions

Our God Is Not A Man

As an English major with a particular penchant for poetry, I am a sucker for a good metaphor. I’ll take “silvery dimpled glass” over a simple “surface of a lake” any day. Of course I know that water isn’t really glass, but thinking about it in these terms helps me to better understand the real way that it reflects the sun and city lights with sparkling intensity. Imagine never being able to see or experience this lake scene and having to rely on metaphors to visualize it. Metaphors enliven our experiences and help us more effectively communicate those experiences to others.

It is hard enough to wrap our minds around a lake that we have never seen – imagine what it must have been like for the Hebrews experiencing YHWH for the first time. It is no surprise that the language used to describe God in the Bible relies heavily on a rich variety of metaphors and other figurative expressions. It was not merely given the task of describing something specific in nature, but of showing something above nature, something infinite and above human understanding, in finite and understandable terms.

Unfortunately, for centuries the Church has predominantly relied on a select few biblical metaphors to describe God—and predominantly masculine ones, at that. We know God as Father or the Good Shepherd, a Biblically masculine role. More daring Christians use the word Abba, a more intimate word for ‘father.’ Perhaps when you picture God you imagine a wise-eyed old man with robes, flowing white hair, and a beard to match. I challenge you to think of any other way we could talk about God from the pulpit or depict God in nursery school classrooms without producing some level of discomfort or even inciting protest.

Most people don’t know that in the Bible feminine imagery is also used to describe God. Birthing imagery can be found in Job 38:8-9 and 29, Deut. 32:18, Isaiah 42:14, and Isaiah 46:3-4. Isaiah 49:15 and 66:12-13, and Hosea 11:3-4 present images of nurturing and nursing. God becomes a mother bear in Hosea 13:8. Feminine metaphors and imagery can also be found in the New Testament. In Luke 15:8-10, God is a woman looking for a lost coin, and in Luke 13:20-21 and Matt. 13:33, God is a woman working yeast into dough. Jesus becomes a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings in Luke 13:34. Even as God incarnate in a male form, Jesus was comfortable using feminine metaphors for God and for himself.

Ignoring these parts of scripture and limiting our understanding of God with masculine language can be incredibly damaging for two reasons. Firstly, we risk sexualizing God in a way that biblical writers tried to avoid from the beginning. The deities of surrounding societies were always either male or female and often interacted with each other in sexual ways. YHWH was clearly understood to be above their understanding of gender. By describing God with both masculine and feminine imagery, they defended the uniqueness of their monotheistic beliefs.

Secondly, limiting ourselves to masculine imagery severely limits the ways we allow people to express their experience of God. By using a variety of metaphors, the writers of scripture made God understandable to more people. For example, someone who has seen or experienced the awesome power of a mother bear and her ferocity in protecting her cubs would resonate with the image of God provided in Hosea 13:8. Whereas someone who has never seen a bear, but has experienced great hunger and thirst for much of their life, would really resonate in a unique way with Jesus’ messages about being the bread and water of life. The image of a mother bear communicates God’s power and care for the people of God, while the images of bread and water communicate God’s complete provision and ability to infinitely satisfy our needs. The same is true of metaphors and images with gendered language. God is a father, but God is also a mother who painfully, lovingly gives birth. Both masculine and feminine metaphors are necessary to more fully capture our experience of what God is like, as well as to help every person connect with God in unique ways.

As with anything described with metaphorical language, it is important to remember that God is not literally a bear, a mountain, bread, water, the foundation of a house, a woman, or a man. All of these metaphors simply help us to understand God better. However, the metaphors that we choose are very important. In a world that intentionally and unintentionally continues to privilege men, it helps to be reminded that my God can also be addressed as Mother.

Gabi is a junior majoring in intercultural studies and English.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views // On New Vision Week – Gabi Sheeley

Whether you’ve always dreamt of being a missionary or never even considered the thought, New Vision Week can be a pretty high intensity week. Personally, I loved New Vision Week, but I know there are lots of people who probably had the opposite reaction. I totally understand where you’re coming from. The history of missions leaves much to be cynical about, no matter how you feel about contemporary approaches. However, I think much of what people dislike about missions today comes from a few unfortunate misconceptions of what “missions” really means.

When you think of missions, you might think of a young person or family uprooting and relocating to live in a hut in Africa. Although the world’s most unreached people groups will most likely be found in countries other than the United States, there is still plenty of Kingdom work to be done right here. When Jesus said to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19), surely he didn’t mean to imply “except your own.” You may even have family members or close friends who have rejected the gospel. I know I do. For the past two summers I worked with A Christian Ministry in the National Parks (ACMNP), which sends teams to serve and minister to the people they encounter while living and working in national parks around the country. Just think of all the other church plants, discipleship programs, and everyday interactions that are happening around the country, or even in your own neighborhood in order to bring people closer to God. There are mission fields across oceans and across borders, but we shouldn’t forget that our mission field may be just across the dinner table.

This doesn’t mean that the non-Christians in our lives are to be viewed as our personal projects. It is extremely detrimental to reduce a person to any one aspect of their identity, such as race or sexual orientation, and the same goes for religion. When we form friendships with people, we do so because we love them as complete people, not because their religious identity is “interesting” or because we hope to “fix” them. Meaningful relationships are at the foundation of everything that missionaries do, so the same concept still applies.

If spiritual conversion was the only goal of our interactions, not only would it reduce a person’s identity, it would reduce God’s identity. Missiologists have a lot of different ideas about how God works in the lives of non-Christians, but one thing is clear: missionaries don’t grant salvation. To use some common metaphors, a missionary might be responsible for “planting the seed,” “watering the soil,” or “bringing in the harvest” of a person’s faith, but ultimately the power of granting salvation rests with God, and with God alone. There is no way we can know all of the people or experiences God might use to draw someone closer to Himself. The best a missionary can do is work to represent Christ to the people around them.

Lastly, this doesn’t to mean that missionaries don’t have anything to learn. When people think of missions, they might think of well-meaning people who really just want to share everything they know with others, without any interest in letting others share with them. However, we all know those kind of one-sided relationships are not sustainable. Missions requires a strong heart to teach and to serve, as well as a heart to be taught and be served by others. Whether they are in a completely new culture or in their hometown, missionaries are constantly learning from the people that they minister to. When I was working in the parks, I met so many complicated, beautiful people with a wide variety of religious identities. I learned so much from them, not only because of the challenging questions they asked me about my faith, but because of the knowledge, ideas, and passions they shared with me from their own life experiences. Some of them even taught me how to be more like Christ.

Of course, these misconceptions about missions survive because there are people in the field who perpetrate them, and there are certainly more I could’ve highlighted. Our approach to missions has never been perfect. Even when we are doing a good job, some adjustments need to be made in how the Church presents the idea of missions to people. Ultimately, I believe missions is about learning to love the people around us, no matter how different they are or where they come from, with the hope that God will work in them when and how He wills. It’s been said before, but I’ll say it again: the calling to missions is for all Christians. By shedding some light on these common misconceptions, I hope we all can more fully embrace this calling.

Gabi is a junior majoring in English and intercultural studies.

Categories
Opinions

The Responsibility of Free Speech

Despite the overwhelming negativity many people have expressed towards the United States in the past few months, however justified or unjustified, we remain an extremely blessed country. One of those blessings is the right to freedom of speech. It is this right which has given us the freedom to be negative or express dissent in the first place. However, if we are to call ourselves Christians we must realize this right is superseded by the responsibility of free speech.

There have been many exceptions to our American right throughout history, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts at the turn of the 18th century, part of which was later revised and codified as justification for Japanese and German internment camps during World War I. The 20th century also saw heavy use of the Espionage Act against dissenters of war and other acts of foreign policy. People were prosecuted and convicted on the grounds of posing a “clear and present danger” for as little as throwing antiwar pamphlets out a window. Americans are just as bold, if not even bolder in expressing their opinions today, especially with the outlet of social media. If such laws were enforced as widely today as they were then, the majority of Americans would most likely be considered criminals.

In recent decades, discussion surrounding free speech has turned to international agreements and legislation prohibiting ‘hate speech,’ which is defined as “any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Despite these regulations and the success of domestic laws in other countries, the stance of the United States appears to be against such laws because of its understanding of freedom of speech. For better or for worse, the constitutionality and real-life effectiveness of hate speech laws is still up for debate.

No matter where one falls in this debate, surely something must exist to uphold any personal convictions to treat each other with dignity across boundaries of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender, and to allow us to hold each other accountable for the things we say. Such a law does exist, but not in the realm of politics. It exists in the law of Christ. The whole biblical story is one of inclusion and defense of human dignity, and we should not forget that as gentiles, we all would be lost if it wasn’t. The Bible also specifically addresses how we should speak. For example, Ephesians 4:29 says “Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.” Striving to follow Christ means that our words should come from a place of love and should be used to build up each other and the Kingdom.

Perhaps we need to rethink our understanding of the phrase “free speech.” Even though it places limitations on what we can say, the Bible is all about free speech, but in the sense that words have the power to set people free. Romans 8:1-2 says “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.” When people cry out to the Lord, he frees them from fear, guilt, oppression, prejudice, and hate. With one word he frees them from physical and spiritual disability and tells them to get up and walk. With the Spirit of Christ in us, we have the power to do the same. Instead of being inebriated with our right to freedom of speech, we should be honored by our responsibility to speech of freedom.

Does this mean that we forgo some of our American rights as Christians? I think it does. And I think freedom of speech is only one example. But if we consider ourselves blessed by our freedoms in the United States, how much more will we be blessed by acting for the Kingdom of God? I know that in my own life, my allegiance falls to the Kingdom first.

But I cannot speak for all Christians, and Christians certainly cannot speak for everyone in this country. Therefore, we should do our best to defend freedom of speech. Clearly there are many dangers if we don’t keep a watchful eye on its protection, and we have a lot to learn by listening to different opinions. However, we must also be careful that in defending someone’s right to freedom of speech we are not also defending hatred, discrimination, or messages that are damaging to anyone’s freedoms as a child of God.