It's All Academic? | Religion + Media

Last month, I attended a UEA debate between academics and students about the relationship between religion and the media. I wrote an article about it for Network Norwich. As mentioned in it, there were controversial comments made, particularly by Dr Lee Marsden that, regrettably, went unchallenged by myself or anyone else. Of course, with my article being objective journalism, I couldn’t offer my opinions on what was said there, either but I will do so here.

Firstly, the word ‘media’ was bandied about with great abandon, usually in reference to the press or the news, i.e. how they represent religion, regardless of all the different biases that the various channels and publications have, although mention was made of the futility of seeking accurate journalism in redtop tabloids like The Sun. According to my Media (Intermediate) GNVQ, the eleven forms of mass media, which are - as I remember them – television, print, radio, cinema, internet, music, video (DVD and Blu-Ray, now) advertising, live music and...well, the other two slip my mind. Video games? Answers in the comments section, please. Fair enough, it’s hard to cover all of those in a two-hour discussion but, whilst comedy got a broad mention (with little detail) we failed to cover how much positive representation religion, particularly Christianity (the only one I can confidently talk about) gets on TV, for example. How much has the media itself,  particularly TV, cinema and video games, become a many-headed god, with people worshipping at its altar through a multitude of devices?

BBC One's Are You Having A Laugh? – Comedy And Christianity featured Ann Widdecombe, a Catholic Christian, exploring the treatment her faith gets in comedy. OK, the choice of her as presenter may have caused further ridicule by those ready to mock Christianity but clips of her larking about in panto and on Strictly Come Dancing crucially showed she was up for a laugh (or having descended to self-parody to stay in the public eye after the end of her political career). A lot of focus was given to one sketch in particular - a banned one from Goodness Gracious Me that showed an Asian couple attempting to fit in to their local community by taking communion at church but mistake a communion wafer for a delicacy and dip it in chutney before eating it. Ann admitted to feeling ‘wounded’ by the sketch, that it attacked the very core of her faith – the body and blood of Jesus Christ. As a Catholic, she believes in the idea of Transubstantiation, i.e. the wafer and wine literally transform into Christ’s body and blood during the ceremony. Other churches see the communion as metaphorical, so, for them, the sketch could potentially be offensive in its mockery of Christian imagery, as opposed to insulting Christ’s actual physicality.

Nevertheless, her show was a serious and interesting look at comedy’s current approach to Christianity that demonstrated the BBC’s own objective stance on religious programming. Rev, a believable, sympathetic series charting the life of a London vicar, has also been a roaring success. Songs of Praise, although hardly cool and relevant (two very relative words, depending on the audience), is still going. Christianity is a thriving subgenre in various media, there are films, bands and whole channels dedicated to spreading the gospel but, I for one would rather watch BBC One than God TV.

The website Ship Of Fools pokes fun at a lot of things within the worldwide Church but is run by Christians. However, most of that is aimed at followers of Christ, so why would anyone else pay attention? Not enough of them to warrant such sites' exposure on a wider scale. So the church may often suffer a negative portrayal in the press and, as Widdy’s documentary showed, in comedy, too but it doesn’t in all forms of media. On balance, for every story about paedophile priests, there’s one about a new church leader being installed, such as Pope Francis and the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby (ABC) gaining widespread coverage for their recent inductions. 

However, the atheists still have the upper hand and religion, as Widdy’s programme showed, is perhaps an easier target for mockery and criticism than ever, with God-knocking figures like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Ricky Gervais having gained great popularity, although perhaps not on the global level of the Pope or ABC who have greater positions of influence and will always be reported on, whether positively or negatively. To what extent can they communicate their gospel message through the media without it being edited or spun in some way? Lesser ‘celebrities’ within Christian media, such as US preachers like Mark Driscoll or Rob Bell for example, or authors who directly respond to atheist critiques, like Alistair McGrath and his Dawkins Delusion, would be unlikely to gain the same level of exposure and recognition as Dawkins, et al because general consumers might feel Bible-bashed if their views reached a more secular audience, or they just don’t want to know and ignore it. Dawkins has for some years led the New Atheist charge in dismantling religion from a scientific approach and science is more popular on TV now than ever. 

In the UEA debate, it was suggested that the Church needed to engage people in the media from a more scientific standpoint, perhaps with a sexy 'actor' (Dr Marsden’s esoteric word for a spokesperson) in the vein of Professor Brian Cox, who I believe is agnostic, if not atheist. Who could be a Christian version of him? All the scientists that also happen to be Christians that I’m aware of are pretty old and could possibly rival Sir Patrick Moore (RIP) or Sir David Attenborough but not Cox in terms of sprightly jois de vivre. Actually, the idea of creating a sexier, trendier image for the Church in media is still pandering to people’s tastes and offering up a 'Christian' version of something secular is just a case of the church riding on the coat-tails of culture.

Obviously, the church needs people to stay alive but I think that the more mainstream ones – Anglican, Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical alike - try too hard to be more seeker sensitive, attempting to draw people in through modern trappings like coffee shops, room hire and the adoption of a casual, ‘hey kids, you’re wicked, yeah?’ worship presentation style that can jar with some of the centuries-old, certainly uncool beliefs professed during worship. It’s as if the actual faith aspect is like a Kinder Egg surprise beyond the attractive surface. It’s a tender balance between possible exclusion through archaic, irrelevant imagery and worship and Bible-bashing non-believers, or trying too hard to pander to them. The worst example of this is those dodgy posters on church notice boards that try to tempt in passers-by with bad pun slogans or pastiches of well-known secular commercial brands. It's the dear old church trying to lure people in using imagery they recognise, when it can have the opposite effect and non-believers see right through it.

Christian theologian Dr Robert Beckford has put together several C4 documentaries that present but also challenge traditional Christian beliefs, such as those regarding the end of the world. Whilst not a scientist, he is still a relatively young, cool academic who happens to be a Christian. The thing is that not many science shows (which are many – Wonders Of Life, Bang Goes The Theory, Stargazing Live, etc) mention religion, so should there be a Christian science show that aims to present science from a biblical standpoint, when this does not necessarily contradict secular views or offer anything new? It would be interesting to have a scientist-who-happens-to-be-a-Christian (as opposed to a Christian Scientist, whose beliefs are somewhat different) explaining how evolution and God can coexist. Such views are available in books and websites if one knows where to look but not so much on the BBC. It seems that Songs Of Praise and comedy (if one cares to make a distinction) are the main representations of Christianity on TV, currently, apart from news stories.

Returning to the comedy theme, what might really catch people’s eye is a subversive Christian comedy show like Brass Eye that mocks the media’s representation of religion, as well as aspects of secular society in the way that that show did in the late 1990’s. Not wanting to compare Chris Morris to the Messiah but Jesus’ approach to authority and society was similarly iconoclastic, although, of course, he took it a lot further than most would ever consider. I think it could wake people up to see that there's more to Christianity than singing for the camera and being the butt of the joke.

Whilst concise and engaging, Dr Marsden sometimes used pretentiously ‘academic’ terms to describe things where the normal words such things would have sufficed, e.g. he kept saying ‘actors’ instead of ‘spokespeople’ and ‘fundamentalist’ to mean the evangelical or charismatic church. I had to ask him after the debate to clarify his meanings. With the first example, he presumably drew a connection between the two in that they both communicate a prepared message (e.g. a script, press release or party line) to an audience. To me, calling media representatives of whatever religion ‘actors’ implies that they are performing or, basically, ‘lying’ in the sense that acting is deceit intended to communicate a dramatic truth.

When we see the Archbishop of Canterbury give his opinion on something or a statement to the media, is he acting? Are we meant to read between the lines of his words to find the true meaning? There is an element of performance in any medium. An interview, or even a church service, is not a spontaneous situation but an organised one, a ‘scene’, even, with lights, mics, clothing, liturgy or questions, etc prepared in advance and the subject, religious or otherwise, speaks in a way that they would not with a friend or congregation member in general conversation. Therefore, they are performing for people, in a sense, in an artificial situation. They are, hopefully, still being natural and not playing a character in the way we pay to watch a dramatic or comedic actor do, or even an actor being interviewed as an established character, e.g. Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat, or even Rowan Atkinson as a fictional ABC during the latest Comic Relief, or "Children's Nose Day", as he put it.

Using 'Fundamentalist' as an umbrella term for "Evangelical" or "Charismatic" is more problematic and possibly dangerous. The three words mean very different things (at least to Christians like me, if not to secular academics like Marsden). ‘Fundamentalist’ has the most negative connotations of the three, as it’s most readily associated with religious fanaticism in any faith. Marsden says that “Fundamentalist churches are the only ones worth paying attention to, the more traditional ones are irrelevant...if you want to see growth and impact on people’s lives, look at the fundamentalists, not the Church of England.” This is completely inaccurate, implying that it’s the nutters who gain the most followers. That wasn’t what he meant but could be construed that way. Of course, there’s a larger difference between Muslim and Christian Fundies but the difference between Christian Fundies and Christian Evangelicals or Charismatics is still there. Local vicars are often asked for a quote in a news story regarding their community. How often is that the case with an evangelical pastor?

"Fundamentalist" implies someone with radically black and white views that are out of step with those of the majority of society and even with other sections or denominations of their faith, e.g. Abu Hamza and other Muslim clerics. They are worth keeping an eye on, at least. They certainly do get a lot of media coverage, which, in turn, can create an unfairly negative portrayal of the whole faith as a result. In terms of Christianity, it’s usually the Fundamentalist groups like Westboro Baptist Church that interested Louis Theroux, for example but these aren’t the people with the heaving congregations that Marsden talks of.

It may be that, as Dr Marsden says, the media sometimes focuses on Fundies for their extreme views but, in using that word to really imply mostly harmless Evangelicals and Charismatics it lazily and inaccurately lumps them all in the same boat – the former focusing on modern worship styles and community outreach, the latter being more about gifts of the spirit and more experiential, emotional worship. Evangelical and Charismatic are interchangeable terms to an extent in that they both share a similar approach and outlook. Both kinds of church can become fundamentalist in their beliefs if pushed in that direction by leadership but 'fundamentalist' does not have to mean 'evangelical' or 'charismatic'. If we take Marsden’s above quote and swap ‘Fundamentalist’ for ‘Evangelical’ or ‘Charismatic’, then that makes more sense in my understanding, because I have seen bigger numbers in Evangelical services than Anglican ones.

This is not to agree with the good Doctor that the C of E is irrelevant and boring. He’s obviously not aware of how broad it is as a denomination – it’ll take anyone in! There are evangelical-styled Anglican services, with modern worship mixed in with liturgy; the vicar in a suit and dog collar, rather than robes, with a worship band in place of a choir and organ. Stretching things further, there’s ‘Fresh Expressions’ – the Anglican Church’s initiative to explore new worship forms. The Greenbelt festival has led the way here, featuring many alternative worship sessions each year. The groups that create them are usually extensions of existing Anglican churches across the UK, among them, Grace, based at St Mary’s, South Ealing and Norwich Cathedral's Soul Circus.

So, perhaps Dr Marsden in not quite the ‘expert’ he is proclaimed to be on the UEA website. In contrast to mainstream churches of whichever domination, though, these alternative worship groups, whilst open to all, are formed by existing believers for existing believers, many of whom prefer to stick with what they know in the usual Sunday services. Perhaps the alt-worship lot need to better promote themselves outside of believing circles? They all have websites but, having been to a few services, I’m not aware of them attracting the masses that the happy-clappy evangelicals do, or that this is even a bad thing, since it isn’t all about numbers.

In the case of a lot of cathedrals, much of their appeal lies in their history and, of course, they need to keep the money rolling in to maintain the ancient buildings but there’s a difference between drawing in the punters and the worship-hunters (worshippers?) Tangentially, St Paul’s Cathedral took a media beating when it was made the villain for its treatment of Occupy London in 2011. Dr Giles Fraser, as supporter of the Occupy movement, resigned over the situation, due to his concerns over St Paul’s taking legal action over the protesters. The overall message of The Big Bad Church attacking the poor minority (or the self-appointed representatives of the 99%) is an example of why some Christians, perhaps rightly, feel somewhat persecuted by the press.

Dr Marsden said he was ‘tired of British Christians bleating about their portrayal in the media’ because of Christ-mocking shows like Jerry Springer - The Opera, since 'our whole calendar and country are based on Christianity...Christians are killed for their faith in other countries!’ Well, yes but why should that make the Church, her leaders and followers easy targets? OK, the press and comedians have a go at other things but its shaky logic to basically say that Christians need to grin and bear it just because everyone gets two holidays a year that they might not have had if Christianity had never come to our fair isle. Alright, Christmas and Easter were originally Pagan festivals, so perhaps we would still have had them as holidays but what I mean is, I’m not sure Christians do ‘bleat’ about their treatment by the press as much as Marsden thinks. Perhaps any sort of media backlash against the church is kicking back against how much Christianity has affected our culture over the centuries but now there's a new god in town and its name is Media. The TV, laptop and cinema screens are our altars, the actors, presenters and reporters our new priests and mediums linking us to realms unseen. God is dead. Long live god. 

Not that Christians’ media image is so bad. It certainly improves around Christmas and Easter, with new dramatizations of the Nativity and Passion narratives in recent years, as well as versions set to modern music, e.g. The Liverpool Nativity. Their varying quality notwithstanding, they’re still there to be seen. Is Christianity's general impact on culture reduced to quaint customs like two holidays a year that are now dominated by commercialism?

‘If you want to get noticed.’ Marsden said of the Church, ‘do something newsworthy, or sink into obscurity.’ Thanks, Lee, yeah, I think the Church – in the broadest possible sense you refer to it here – has been doing pretty well in being newsworthy, if only mainly the Anglicans and Catholics and not always for positive reasons. An example of a positive and generally Christian news story is the whole ‘Pray 4 Muamba’ campaign that began when footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsed from a heart attack early in 2012. Whatever one thinks about prayer, the reaction to the footie player’s family plea for prayer was overwhelmingly positive, rather than critical of prayer’s effectiveness.

Update - #Pray4Paris 2015. Hebdo artist's comments.

The UEA debate was merely ‘academic’ in that it was all theoretical rhetoric and opinion (dare I say hot air?) from 'actors' in a contrived situation of debate. What difference will it make? It remains to be seen whether Christians in the media will use their skills and influence to perhaps improve the perception of our faith from within the secular media.

The Wrath Of Spock | Star Trek Into Darkness - Review

The biggest mystery about Star Trek Into Darkness, JJ Abrams’ follow-up to his 2009 franchise reboot, Star Trek, was whom the new villain would turn out to be. Played by Benedict Cumberbatch, promotional material promised an intense, sinister and creepy performance redolent of many a Brit villain in a Hollywood film. Even just within the Trek franchise, we've had Malcolm McDowell in Star Trek Generations and Cumberbatch’s Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy castmate Tom Hardy in Star Trek Nemesis. Hardly genre defining baddies but examples of English ones, nonetheless.

STID’s nemesis was ostensibly called ‘Captain John Harrison’ and shots of Cumberbatch in a Starfleet top evidenced the official line that he was some sort of embittered former Federation officer out for revenge against his previous employers. Internet rumours abounded, however, that our Benedict was in fact playing a new version of one Star Trek’s best known villains, none other than Khan Noonien Singh, immortalized by the late Ricardo Montalban in the Space Seed episode of the 1960’s Star Trek TV series, as well as possibly the best film featuring the original cast, 1982’s Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan.

Various clues seemed to point to the possibility of Cumberbatch being a new reincarnation of everyone’s favourite revenge-fuelled, genetically enhanced ‘superman’, despite the filmmakers’ denials. His developed physique, the vengeful trailer dialogue and his costume on the poster reminiscent of Montalban’s in TWOK, Also, this was the second film of the new series; so, mirroring the old Star Trek II with the new one (albeit with only a subtle ‘to’ in the title ‘InTO Darkness) seemed like the perfect opportunity to reimagine Khan.

Rather than maintain the mystique for cinemagoers unable to see the film over its opening weekend, the Internet Movie Database confirmed Benedict Cumberbatch’s casting as Khan on their STID page as soon as the film came out, allowing anyone silly enough to go on there expecting the site to keep up their no-spoilers policy to find out this crucial detail. Including me. Damn.

Still, the clues were there all along and we don’t discover ‘Harrison’s’ true identity in the film right away. By which time we have been drawn in with stunning visuals, a blistering opening scene, the return of Michael Giacchino’s distinctive main theme and a plot that beams you up and warps you along before you can say, ‘why, apart from sheer spectacle, did the Enterprise need to hide in an ocean to escape notice by primitive natives?’ Or, ‘Wasn’t Khan more, um, ethnic-looking before?’

The natives in question look a bit like the Engineers in Prometheus, with their white skin and black eyes, although they are far less developed intellectually, still using spears and worshipping a scroll rather than experimenting with genetics and being objects of deification themselves. That film’s co-writer, Damon Lindelof, also co-wrote STID, which may have something to do with it. Thankfully, he shares his credit with Star Trek scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, whose names appear above Lindelof’s and who, presumably, made sure that their last film’s good storytelling, character development and sense of fun –mostly missing from Prometheus – continue in this one. There were further shades of Prometheus in the beginning, where the primitives draw a picture of an advanced races’ visit to their planet as the Enterprise ascends to the sky. This follows their salvation from the impending doom of an angry volcano by Science Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto), who undertakes some Vulcanology before setting off his lava-freezing gizmo. Are the writers making a case of Science versus Religion? Maybe, but it’s over so soon it hardly matters.

In such scenes, the action is amazing – a starship battle at warp speed being a particular later highlight (and possibly a Trek first) - but it’s a lot of the close quarter combat that’s hard to follow, due to choppy editing and dim lighting. The violence stretches the 12 certificate to its limits, with Kirk and Spock both engaging in fistfights with the all-round superior Khan, whose advanced strength and agility make him almost impossible to defeat to an almost ridiculous degree. The level of pummeling Khan can endure stretches credibility, even for a sci-fi film. Needless to say, our heroes usually come off worse. 

Shatner’s Kirk went toe-to-toe with the Montalban version in Space Seed but stayed at a safer distance in TWOK, where, had the two met face to face, The Shat would surely have had his toupee knocked off and worse. Even in his Chris Pine-shaped prime here, Kirk is no physical match for Khan and, in one of the film’s best scenes (an homage to the end of TWOK ) even gives his life to save his crew from Khan’s onslaught. Unlike in TWOK, however, Khan works alone but is still more than a match for the Enterprise. Yet, we know Kirk cannot stay dead, not least because we’ve already seen Khan’s blood heal a dying girl, plus, when Spock died in TWOK, he still resurrected in the next film. This doesn’t stop Kirk’s death being a genuine, sad surprise, though, capped off by the glorious thrill of Spock bellowing out the villain’s name, Shatner-style.

Thankfully, STID isn’t a remake of TWOK and, whilst the story is hardly original, it still presents an engrossing plot. Relationships deepen, particularly Spock and Uhura, as well as, more importantly, Spock and Kirk, their mutual appreciation and trust is tested and strengthened here. There are further surprises, such as with Chekov (Anton Yelchin), who is temporarily promoted to Acting Engineer, meaning he has to wear a red shirt, which traditionally spelt doom for certain such crewmembers in the Original Series and who finds himself slipping towards oblivion at one point.  As well as referencing TWOK, moments from the last film are redone, perhaps cynically. Toward the end, the Enterprise once again rises heroically through a cloud to the strains of Giacchino’s grand main theme - a little overused this time, with not much variation in the music elsewhere.

STID continues the shiny, lens-flared look of the 2009 film to great effect and does not need 3D to add to its beauty, although it was distracting to see a white and red scanner of the sort one finds in a shop on top of a starship desk in one scene. Pretty sure it wasn’t the Enterprise’s duty-free store.

No complaints about the revamp of the old 1960’s TV theme, though, now with Kirk narrating as the Enterprise gears up for her new five-year mission, finally ‘to boldly go...’