An article that made me cringe

I am a big video game fan. There is something magical about entering a world and being able to be apart of a story. Over the years I have rescued princesses, stopped the world from being destroyed, defeated evil doctors, explored vast lands, and even raced a few cars at breakneck speeds. Through it all I have noticed how a game effects me. I wanted to deny this when I was in high school. "There is no way the game changes who I am or how I act!" I would retort.

It became obvious to me that this was not the truth. After racing games I would drive faster on the roads and take corners harder. After Grand Theft Auto I kept looking at cars as something take (press X) and even made a goal of learning how to hot wire a car. After shooting games my anxiety went through the roof and I became irritable and agitated towards minor transgressions of others. As psychological studies and tests have shown, I was changed by what I played.

It is with this maturity and understanding that I worry about small children playing Mature games. Every church I have been to elementary age children talk about how they have killed others, seen the blood, caused the damage. I pray that their parents rethink the choice of allowing Mature games in their house. I pray that we find other ways to have fun, especially at such an impressionable age. Then I read this article: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1104146p1.html

IGN is one of my regular reads. I love the site and the information I get about upcoming games and movies. I find myself at odds with the game community every now and then when a "government wants to make it harder to get M games" article gets posted. This article goes beyond and calls for complete immersion into the emotional side of killing within games. It is already dangerous that we have desensitized ourselves to death so much in games and society.

The writer goes into detail of how he killed a chicken. As he describes this I wondered "Do I really think this would be a good thing to expose children to hundreds or thousands of times?" Here are his words and maybe you can tell me:

"I was wracked with predictable doubts of the justness of taking the life of an animal when there were other foods easily available. These doubts are irresolvable and they either prevent you from acting, or must be forced away into a drawer of silence."

To kill this chicken, he had to learn to force away his doubts and fears to do something unnecessary. I hope when it comes to violence among children, youth and adults, we never ever learn to force away doubts into a drawer of silence.

Reading Scripture as an Art

I just started reading a book borrowed from a friend called "The Art of Reading Scripture". As I go into graduate school this book is how many of the professors address scripture. I have finished the intro and there are a few things that concerned me.

So far, and this most likely will change as I get deeper into the book, the premise of the book is how we need to have our scripture reading/studying be an art form. It is not just right or wrong, but as an art form can bring about something beautiful. The judgment of readings then becomes the same as are - the standard of beauty. This allows us to be in touch with the imaginative power of God. This is a simplification, but still holds the main thesis as presented so far.

It took me about an hour of rambling with my wife to finally figure out why this bothered me. When I read scripture I am not reading it as a self help book, as the book prods at, nor as a though I am an artist. When, I read the Word of God, I read it to commune with God. While I see my self as a co-creator with God, I do not see myself as creating in interpreting the Bible.

I guess the best way I can put my hesitancy with this concept is that I see God as the artist, and if I am lucky then I am the paint brush. I can possibly serve God in bringing out beauty, but it is not of me and my skill. It is by humbly putting myself in God's hands that I can become a avenue for God's beauty to come forth. None of it is from my hand, but only by the grace of God.

Another piece of the intro stuck with me as a splinter in my side. The author concludes that because reading scripture is an art we must learn this through apprenticeship at the feet of masters. This sounds great, but two logistical problems come forth. Who decides are masters?

By learning how to read scripture from a master we will inherently limit our view of scripture. Teachers, myself included, all have limited view points. We have our own biases and this will come down into the student. For example, if I asked a Presbyterian who a master artist of reading scripture was, they would have a vastly different view than a Catholic. So much so that they may claim that the others' recommendation is not a master at all.

While we may not be able to agree on a current day master, maybe we could agree on a historical one, like Thomas Aquinas. This is where the second logistical problem comes into play. If the master has passed then how can I ask them questions? How can we really learn from them at their feet. All I would be doing is interpreting their interpretations. I maybe able to learn from looking at Da Vinci's works, but that can not teach me how to mix paints properly, or I can not ask him how he achieved this or that in his paintings. It can be very helpful, even crucial, but it can not replace a live, present master/mentor.

I am excited to continue reading this book and see how my understanding grows of how to read scripture as an art. Maybe my opinion will change and I will fully grasp the benefits and embrace this different way. If not, at least it got me to better understand why I believe the things I do.