Avatar and Worldviews

First, a follow-up note on Haiti:

Well, the blogosphere's reaction to Pat Robertson's statements about Haiti seems to be fairly unified: how dare he?! Among the more creative reactions are a letter to Robertson from "the Devil" and this segment from John Stewart's Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Haiti Earthquake Reactions
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Just beautiful, really, Stewart's Bible-based rebuttal.

So consonant is the chorus of voices condemning Robertson (and Rush Limbaugh) that I feel safe in moving on to other things to discuss (though the Haitian crisis is ongoing--our prayers support ought not cease).

Anyone seen Avatar, James Cameron's latest mega-blockbuster? Silly question, really; it's been topping box office charts for the past month or so. I saw it with my father in 3-D. I found it entertaining enough at the time, but I wasn't blown away. Cameron dresses up a thin melodrama (aptly described as Pocahontas meets Ferngully) with $300 million (or is it $500 million?) in special effects animation. Half a billion dollars does buy some impressive images.

Wikipedia provides an adequate plot synopsis if you've missed it thus far. Basically: the capitalist military-industrial complex gets bested by we're-all-connected, back-to-nature primitivism. Jake, the disabled main character, finds new life by downloading his consciousness into an "avatar"--a genetically crafted hybrid of human and alien (i.e., the tall, blue natives of the planet being plundered by above-mentioned military-industrial complex).

Two reactions to this film have caught my interest. First, not surprisingly, some evangelicals take issue with the film's worldview. Alex McFarland, a Christian evangelist and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, has raised concerns about the film's pantheistic worldview and anti-capitalist critique.

Second, more surprising to me, is that some people are really, really, really, really into this film. The same escapist, back-to-nature pantheism that McFarland cautions against proves to many fans so enticing, so much better than drear reality, that the Avatar movie website's forums have a number of threads dedicated to dealing with the disappointment that Pandora doesn't actually exist (see here, for example). The posts on there range from the light (e.g., "gee, I wish I could hang out on Pandora") to the sad (e.g., "my life is so boring here. I wish I lived there on that world.") to the worrisome, as in people becoming clinically depressed after watching the film. This CNN article on Avatar blues quotes one forum poster:

"Ever since I went to see 'Avatar' I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na'vi made me want to be one of them. I can't stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it," Mike posted. "I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in 'Avatar.' "

Yeek.

What's odd is that I had nothing remotely like that reaction to the film. It was a movie with big, loud effects and big, loud dramaturgy (much like Cameron's Titanic, really). Something, however, clearly and strongly touched a great many people watching the film. I'm curious as to whether this something is similar to the elements that triggered McFarland's alarm bells...

I suspect that some of McFarland's unease has to do with Avatar's spirituality.

More tomorrow,

JF

Pat Robertson Embarrasses Christianity Yet Again

I fear I was a bit harsh on Fred Phelps in my posting a few days ago about Haiti. Reviewing some of the Christian responses to massive tragedies that I find problematic, I referenced briefly the "they had it coming" argument. X catastrophe happened because Y victim was either personally or corporately guilty of Z sin. I dismissed that whole argument as too obviously vile to address seriously, writing that only someone like the Rev. Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps would ever seriously advance it.

Then I hear about Pat Robertson's little theory. I quote from the Time story about Robertson, which relates this passage he offered up on an episode of his 700 Club (thanks to my father for the link):

"And you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon the Third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.' True story. And so the devil said, 'O.K., it's a deal.' "

Because of this, Robinson concludes, Haiti has ever since been awash in catastrophe (except, of course, the catastrophe of enslavement by French colonialism. That they got rid of pretty successfully).

Video of the segment can be found embedded with the Time story. The article explains that Robertson refers here to an apocryphal tale of Haitian Voodoo (aka Vodou) priest sacrificing a pig in 1791 to jump-start the Haitian revolution (not, of course against Napoleon the Third, who lived in the mid-to-late 1800s).

Sigh.

A statement from Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network insists that "Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath." It goes on to assert Robertson's humanitarian concern with Haiti's plight, citing the ministry's work in helping those afflicted.

OK, I grant that Robertson did not literally say that the earthquake was God's wrath against Haitians. . . . but exactly what other conclusion are we to draw? Haiti (in Robertson's historical view) made a covenant with the devil (it's worth mentioning, of course, that the Christian devil plays no role in Vodou theology). Now they suffer disaster after disaster.

Why even try to spin that? After all Robertson has hardly been shy in the past about pinning blame for tragedies like Hurricane Katrina, 9-11, and the AIDS epidemic on specific groups of sinners (mainly gays and feminists). His belief in natural disasters as God's Whupping Stick is well-established. Why deny it now?

I get that Robertson probably does sincerely and simultaneously believe that A) most victims of the earthquake need help, prayer, and care; and B) the earthquake and other Haitian misfortunes are the result of that ritual of 1791. Haitians--corporately if not personally--are victims of a curse they brought upon themselves (the history of enslavement, colonialism, and impoverishment was all incidental, apparently). As victims they should be cared for, but it's worth remembering (and reminding everyone about) the source of their victimhood--themselves.

That logic flabbergasts me, and I could rail against it, but whatever. Even if you believe that logic, though, here's the question I want answered: is bringing it up right now the Christian thing to do? Right now--as people are digging through rubble and rock with their bare hands to find their loved ones--this is the time to say, however sheepishly, I know you don't want to hear this, but this is what you get for making a deal with Satan over three centuries ago... Really?

As my counselor sister says, "What do you want me to do with this information?" Exactly what should the Haitians--many of whom are devout Christians themselves and none of whom sacrificed a pig to anything in 1791--exactly what should they do with Robertson's vicious little lagniappe? How does this help them? How does that so-very-sad-tongue-clucking demonstrate the love and solidarity of God With Us?

[Or, in a less generous reading, perhaps Robertson's audience wasn't the victims but those of us here in the US at a remove (not a big one, mind) from one of the poorest countries in the world, a country in whose history the West (and especially the US) has played a large role? What does Robertson's message say to us except "Not our responsibility. They brought it on themselves. We can help, but it's above-and-beyond for us, and it'll never do any real good in the long run anyway. The Haitians will always be Haitians..." Somehow a pig sacrifice historiographically eclipses centuries of slavery before it and centuries of exploitation and intervention after it, absolving non-Haitians of any and all responsibility for the country's economic difficulties.]

I get that Robertson's ministry is on the ground in Haiti helping people. Good for them. But you know what? So are dozens of other organizations, religious and secular, and somehow--somehow--they've managed to render assistance without assigning blame, however far removed historically, to the victims of plate tectonics.

And this is nothing new for Robertson! I mean, he's practically trademarked foot-in-mouth evangelicalism. Remember when he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez? Or when he intimated that Dover, PN would face destruction because of a court decision involving intelligent design? Or when he--well, heck, there's a whole Wikipedia entry about Robertson's controversies (including this one).

Inevitably, Robertson comes out expressing shock at the extremely negative reaction his comments caused--rarely if ever actually apologizing, mind you. Wait for it--he'll come out doddering about how shocked--shocked!--he is about how badly some people have misunderstood his remarks, doubtless because of the liberal media... Yet he continues to be respected as an authority for Christians. Never have I been a fan of Robertson or his organization, but really: how much longer can any Christian treat him seriously as a beneficial spokesperson for the faith? How many horrible, spiritually tone-deaf gaffes does he have to make before he's declared Unfit For Christian Representation?

I think a lot about evangelicals' concern about how Christianity is seen as mean-spirited, hypocritical, and judgmental by non-believers. So long as someone like Pat Robertson gets credit as a respected mouthpiece of the faith, we can hardly be surprised that this is so.

It's time he stepped away from the petty pulpit.

More tomorrow (and continue to give to/pray for Haitian relief!),

JF