Halo and church

Father Jonathan Morris had an excellent commentary on this today on Fox News.

I'm a nonbeliever and this story makes me shake my head.

I don't think I'd agree that Halo 3 is among the "worst excesses of popular culture." What bothers me is the naked pandering that's going on. It just reeks of desperation.

Rod,

I think that this statement of yours - "Show me a church that uses Halo as a recruiting tool, and I'll show you a church that almost certainly has nothing useful to say about the road to salvation." - may very well be your greatest overreaction on the potential spiritual harm of pop culture entertainment I've read on your site.

What's wrong with making reference to popular recreation when speaking about the faith with youth? How many homilies have you heard - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant - that have made reference to football or a movie or a pop music lyric in helping explain the Gospel, or talking about how to work out one's salvation on a day-to-day basis? Why on earth is this any different?

Shock of shocks, when I was a teenager the youth group at my best friend's church would have movie night get-togethers where we'd sometimes watch stupid teen horror movies. No, it wasn't exactly edifying, but it did add another strand to the weaving of us together as friends, as a community.

My son and I both completed the new Halo game this week, and had a long talk about it on the way to church on Sunday morning. Two thoughts prevailed. First, that the theme of personal sacrifice in service of ones brothers and sisters was as powerfully presented as in any other contemporary storytelling form, on par with the Star Wars or the LOTR movies or Harry Potter in evoking in the person experiencing the story the visceral sense of the magnitude of voluntary suffering in the name of love. And second, that the sheer quality of the game - the use of this modern creative medium - brought a little more truth, goodness and beauty in to the world.

So, I tip my hat to the hundreds of craftsmen and women who brought this experiential story in to being, and if a couple of pastors across the country want to use Halo as a way of growing their youth fellowships, then more power to them. And to the extent that I used the Halo story as a kind of "recruiting tool" in attempting to deepen my son's bond to the Church, I'd hardly say that somehow shows that Holy Trinity Orthodox Church of Santa Fe has nothing useful to say about the road to salvation.

Christ Bless,
Doug

They could at least have picked a game with a little longevity like Counter Strike.

Zach touched on a cogent point, using "cool" things to attract youth. The "cool," long a staple of the youth culture, is the opposite of what a Christian is supposed to be. To be cool is to put up a false front, to not show the vulnerabilities that you have. You try to appear completely with it. When you're cool, you don't love your neighbor, you try to make it appear you are better than him/her.
Using this "cool" game isn't appropriate either (especially one that uses killing.) Our youth are going to be exposed to this, no doubt. But, we shouldn't be involved in it. We aren't "cool" as Christians. We are supposed to be set apart from the culture, and suffer for that separation.
Youth ministry is tough these days. Churches want to do it, but they don't seem willing to make the commitment to hard work that youth ministry requires. Too often they wind up with what has been called here, "holding pens with pizza." That's not going to advance the kingdom, and neither is Halo 3.

Well, I can see clearly now! St. Stephen's martyrdom was just a divine ploy to reel Saul into the Church.

The ends justify the means! Praise Jesus!

Good God.

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2750

Great post on this topic over at the Get Religion blog.

"I think if the NYT did a little research it would find that violence and the big screen have gone hand in hand with many evangelical Protestant church groups. And the justifications are the same for churches showing films like Braveheart and Gladiator (feel free to help fill in this list for me, readers). Church leaders want to attract young men, the films portray good versus evil in a way that we like and, hey, what’s wrong with a little violence anyway?"

Bless,
Doug

Douglas Cramer, I think what's troubling, at least to me, is the underlying reality that the church is attempting to tie itself into the culture of entertainment, as if that's what churches were for. (The separate question of whether ultra-violent video games are appropriate for Christian children is also very interesting, but to me it's not necessarily the most problematic element of this story.)

In the discussion a few weeks ago on this blog about liturgical music, there was a persistent refrain that what really matters is whether the music appeals to individual churchgoers, not whether it is appropriate in any larger aesthetic sense for the act of worship. By that criteria, the more hip, relevant, and culturally connected the music, the better.

What the article mentions is linked to that attitude: the notion that what matters is getting the "youth" in the door, and if we have to provide them access to movies their parents didn't approve of (in my day) or violent video games (today) in order to do that, then that's what we'll do--because it's all about being relevant.

Ultimately, the focus is on entertainment; it's as if the church is looking at the wider culture and saying, "We can do this, too." But church isn't about entertainment, and all too often these efforts to make faith relevant or appealing to "today's young people" are sadly misguided at best; at their worst, they betray a cynical disbelief in the power of the transforming message of faith in Christ on the part of those most responsible for offering that message.

Mr. Dreher,
If God can use a pederast Orthodox priest with a fraudulent weeping icon to accomplish his purposes, why can't he use a video game?

Will: "I agree that "beer and porno" are not what all teen boys are looking for. But to describe this violent video game as mere "popular recreation" puts it on the same level as yo-yos and climbing trees. It's not. There's a growing body of evidence on the connection between violent video games and sociopathic behavior."

I've read a fair share of the research, and there's no proof of any kind of a causal relationship. There's merely a connection - like the connection between pit bulls and baggy pants and cars with spinning hub caps, and violence. Or basketball. Remember the Chicago riots after the Bulls won the championship a few years ago?

Will: "If your church really needs "popular recreation" to draw teens into the church, couldn't you find something just a tad more wholesome? How about teaching kids to build houses, or fix cars, bicycles, heck, grow vegetables, teach them to fix computers, anything USEFUL, sustaining, and that has some tiny degree of aerobic benefit. We already have an obesity problem. Do we really need to give kids a place to sit for hours and suck down high fructose corn syrup?"

Again, why does it have to be either/or? Where in the Scriptures does it say that every thing a group of people of common faith do together has to be "useful"? What's wrong with something done simply because it is fun, as long as no one is harmed? And it's not like these kids would be out building homes for avalanche victims if they weren't playing games at the church hall. They'd be home watching TV, or playing video games, most likely. So why not encourage them to do what they'd do anyway alone together in fellowship with other folks from the church?

Will: "Today's teenagers are going to inherit a very scrwed up country, and most of them are ill-prepared to deal with it. I hear all sorts of justications for video games, like Steven Berlin Johnson's "Everything Bad is Good for You." But this is nonsense. Teaching kids to use video games prepares them to play more video games, and that's all. That, and violence."

Nonsense. That's like saying that all chess prepares you to do is play chess. Video games are no different than any other form of "thinking entertainment" throughout history. They are a stress relief, and they teach all sorts of problem solving and logic skills. There's been studies supporting this as well.

And again, context matters. Lumping all "violent video games" together in a basket that includes Grand Theft Auto and Halo is liking lumping all "violent movies" together in a basket that includes Nightmare on Elm Street and Saving Private Ryan.

Bless,
Doug

BTW, if anyone unfamiliar with the Halo series is interested in getting a taste for the overall tone of the story, these short live-action promo segments are really great. The actors convey a sense for the "sci fi pathos" that is the game's stock-in-trade:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/h/halo3/believe/

Bless,
Doug

For the record, I'm not advocating the video's use. I'm inquiring about the applied consistency of the mystery of grace.

It's unfortunate that churches feel the need to attract youth by such akward means, but, the reward of missions work will only appeal to the best among them. It definately won't appeal to the unchurched.

Giving the churches the benefit of the doubt, isn't is possible that they're using the game as a way to get the unchurched through the front door, with the ultimate goal, evangelization?

What's wrong with something done simply because it is fun, as long as no one is harmed?

Well, you got me there.

Douglas Cramer said, "This is more akin to, say, a local Orthodox parish having a Greek Festival with lots of baklava and ethnic dancing."

(Well, not unless the Orthodox festival is the backdrop against which a new first-person shooter game is set.)

Doug, the problem I have with this is that churches tend to use these things as ways to attract non-members--but then what?

Do they say, "Hey, not only will we let you play games your parents don't approve of, but we also have worship services!"?

It's a mixed message, to say the least; and kids who are attracted by Halo aren't likely to stay for Praise and Worship.

To be honest, there's more coherence in presenting baklava as an introduction to worship, as one can hardly fail to be moved to something akin to prayer when eating such an incredibly rich and graceful dessert (especially if it is accompanied by really good coffee). But violent games? Do they really move the average teen to contemplate eternal verities?

I am interested in the concept of “fun” as displayed in Halo and other violent games. There are quite a few things that people like but don’t do as much as they wish, because of the potentially harmful consequences. Like the things mentioned as alternatives to playing video games: drinking, drugs, and sex. Everybody knows why those things are “fun.” They feel good.

Games are fun because competition and excitement are enjoyable. Also, in a simulated reality game, you can pretend you’re lots of things that you aren’t in real life--bigger, stronger, faster, more effective and powerful. I get that this is fun, too.

I can see why it would be fun to do things that in real life would be bad--driving like a maniac and running everybody else off the road, stealing things and getting away with it, etc. You can excuse your enjoyment of these things because, in reality, nobody is getting hurt. There’s no real life owner of the car you just hijacked, so no one’s suffering. It seems a bit problematic, though, because you’re teaching yourself to think that doing bad things would be really fun if only you could get away with it. Practicing this thought over and over seems to me like a bad idea, but there aren’t any conclusive studies to prove that it is.

The most interesting question to me is, what is the nature of the kind of “fun” that you get from pretending to kill people? You haven’t hurt anyone, so you haven’t done anything wrong. But if pretending to kill people is fun, doesn’t that imply that really killing people would be fun, if only you could get away with it? If the fun of stealing a car in Grand Theft Auto is 1) imagining you are tricky and powerful enough to get the car, and 2) it would be really awesome to get a cool, fast car without having to pay anything--well, being tricky and powerful and getting a free car are both things that are good in themselves, if only they were not attended with bad consequences. So, if killing an opponent is fun in virtual reality, does that imply that killing people really is fun--if only you could escape the consequences? And if the game doesn’t imply that killing is fun and good in reality, then where is the fun?

I’d like to hear Richard Weaver’s take on this . . . .

I guess as a gamer I find sigaliris worries kinda paranoid. On the one hand I know games have not made me go out and kill people but then different people react differently to stimuli so who really knows.

I have never hunted , do people who take their kids hunting worry that they will end up hunting people?

My comment hadn't risen to the level of "worry," Peter. It was an inquiry rather than a statement. I know lots of gamers, and I don't see them as more inclined to murder than the rest of the population--probably less so, since they spend a lot of time indoors staring at the screen, where opportunities for murder seldom arise. I'm certainly not one of the people who believed that playing D&D would turn you into a Satanic ritual killer.

It was a philosophical inquiry more than a practical one. And although gamers may not consider philosophical issues very often, churches do. I'd be interested in your take on the question. Assuming you find pretending to kill people, in the game, to be fun, what is it about that process that is fun? Why is it fun?

Thanks for the reply, Peter. It sounds to me as if you're saying that "killing" in a game doesn't really equate to killing in real life. It's more like shooting someone in a paintball game, where you enjoy the teamwork and competition, but you don't fantasize that you are actually slaughtering a fellow human. Did I get that right?

I'm remembering back to my childhood, when my brother and I constantly played war games with our friends. We shot each other with machine guns and arrows and spears, blew each other up, and died dramatically sprawled on the grass. We had many arguments about who was dead and who wasn't--"You're dead! I shot you!"/"No, I'm not! I shot you first! YOU'RE dead!" I'm not sure why this was so involving at the time. I think it may have had something to do with trying to master the concept of death by rehearsing it, and so depriving it of some of the fear. We also liked feeling bigger than life--not just kids, but fighting heroes whose actions had consequences. I'm glad my own children didn't have this obsession, though. I would have found it disturbing if they'd killed each other and died quite so many times. Even my parents were slightly disturbed when they found my brother and me building Aztec temples and performing human sacrifices. What can I say--we read about it in National Geographic. (For once I'm not taking a position here--I'm just meditating on the idea of "pretend killing" and whether it's appropriate for church groups.)

I've had the "video games" argument several times now, and I'm always struck by the fact the nominal conservatives are just as eager to play and defend video games as the secular, liberal types. Librarians in particular are almost always the first to say "anything to get the kids in the door." (This is on the front page of today's DMN)

The late Neil Postman had this to say about television in his most famous work Amusing Ourselves to Death:

"Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision ... people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance."

This is what I see happening with television and video games - with video content offered to kids (and adults) at every opportunity, church, school, restaurants, public libraries, cell phones, etc. we are indeed drowning in a sea of tawdry, vulgar irrelevance.

In the documentary "Raising Cain," Michael Thompson points out that we lose credibility with boys when we act like they can't tell fantasy from reality and when we suppress their natural aggression and competitiveness. Is our ambivalence about Halo sexist? Is a knitting circle more "Christian" than a video game group?

Men tend to avoid church in greater numbers than women. I think the church's hand-wringing about Halo is one symptom of why they do. I'm not arguing that we have to have Halo to let men be men and boys be boys. But doing guy things with guys allows opportunities for mentoring and emotion-coaching that you're not going to get by sitting around talking about your feelings about scripture - which is the model of most church ministry.