by Ben Howard
Time is, in a very real sense, a trap.
Contrary to constant proclamations and reminders about the need to stay “in the moment” or to “live in the present,” reality stubbornly presents us with no real alternative.
We are always here. We are always in the now and for good or ill there is no escape from this context.
In his book Eating the Dinosaur Chuck Klosterman includes an essay about time travel. As part of his exploration into this narrative conceit he discusses his own metaphor for the way time operates. He describes time as a train with one person hanging off the front and another hanging off the back. The person hanging off the front is constantly laying down the piece of track to be used in the next moment, while the person hanging off the back is picking up the track that's just been used.
Both past and future exist only as mental constructs. Presents gone and presents still to come.
And that constant movement, that constant shift from moment to moment, from now to now, it pulls a trick on us all.
If you ever want an object lesson on why predicting the future is a stupid endeavor just listen to political podcasts from two years ago. Or a year ago. Or even six months ago.
There is no hilarity like a full-throated and certain prediction of an impending Mitt Romney presidency. Nor is there anything as cringe-worthy as a haughty assurance that Congress would never force a government shutdown or hearing it described as almost inevitable that President Obama will pass gun control legislation, or at the very least, immigration reform.
Of course it's not the fault of the pundits. They are working on a deadline and they get neither the aid of hindsight or enough time for reflection before they're asked to explain what all this “means” and tell a waiting public how everything will work out. It is their job to know the future before it happens. And it's a job that's beyond us all.
It's not fair to judge the words of the past in the reality of the present. Time is a trap.
Last week World Vision USA announced it would hire employees in same-sex marriages. Support flooded the internet, but outrage flooded it even more. Eventually money spoke and the decision was reversed. The narrative has been repeated ad nauseum.
Many people have written about the reasons for these decisions and what symbolic meaning we can take both from the policy change and its subsequent reversal. You should read them, they are interesting and instructive. This essay is not about those decisions or that symbolic meaning.
This essay is about why you will forget it.
They say time heals all wounds. This is true. This is true, sort of.
As time moves on, our memories blur. Hurts become less painful and joys become less pleasurable. And while we can say that time is healing these hurts, these cuts and bumps and bruises, it's not entirely accurate. It's rather that we assimilate them. They become a part of us and change us ever so slightly. The jagged edge of immediacy is smoothed out and we are left with a new configuration of ourselves, but one we have already become familiarized with during the slow healing process. We change, but we do not realize we are changing.
In one month, two months, six months, a year, no one will recall the World Vision controversy into which we've invested so much over the last two weeks. It will be little more than an anecdote, a footnote to the debate over gay marriage and the culture war raging within Christianity.
It will have entirely lost its symbolic place as either the death knell of evangelicalism (or its resurgence depending on your perspective). I invite you to revisit these blogs and tweets and Facebook posts a year from now; they will seem myopic and over-blown. It will feel like they exist in a different world.
This is not to say that it meant nothing. The fights were real and so was the hurt. The betrayal was true. But in time the wounds will no longer be as fresh, they may even “heal,” but they will leave slightly different people in their wake.
And this is the real trauma. It's not the death of a movement or the mass exodus of millennials. It's only slightly about gay marriage and equal rights.
The real trauma is that this will exist as one more jagged little paper cut. One more scarred-over battle-wound leaving us increasingly desensitized, increasingly prepared for combat, increasingly on the lookout for enemies from without and within.
In time, this will be yet another moment that affects us and changes us ever so slightly. So slightly that we don't even realize it as we become hard and cynical, as we begin once again to view “other” as synonymous with “enemy.”
Look out, it's a trap.
Ben
Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual
living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop
Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can
follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87.
You might also like:
by Ben Howard
As the nation gathered for their respective family Christmas celebrations this week, conversations across the country turned to the outspoken comments of a reality television star. Though various family members inevitably took divergent views regarding this celebrity and his opinions, the nation was unanimous in its gratitude to the reality star for facilitating such rational, healthy conversation about a particularly thorny issue.
“Everyone was able to express their thoughts and beliefs maturely and openly,” said Milwaukee resident Ed Flowers, 56. “Just a few weeks ago, I was worried that the Christmas table would be free of nuanced discussions about difficult issues involving politics, religion, race, and sexual orientation, but thankfully a guy with a beard intervened so we could all share our views with each other.”
Sources report that the sheer outlandishness of the comments made by this reality star along with the continued coverage of the situation from both regular media outlets and through social media venues such as Facebook and Twitter, allowed the nation to take a good long look at the way it had been conducting itself at previous family gatherings.
“In the past when I’d gone to visit my family, I would try to hide my opinions and change the subject whenever the topic turned to something touchy,” recalled Julie Harmon, 27, the token liberal member of her conservative Macon, Georgia-based family. “But thankfully this year, I was able to talk about all of my political opinions with my relatives who disagree with me passionately.”
When asked if the constant conversation about controversial political topics detracted from the festive atmosphere, or whether the time would have been better spent strengthening familial bonds, the nation cocked its head to the side, narrowed its eyes, and said, “I don’t understand.”
Ed Flowers, for one, is looking forward to the next round. “I can’t wait for next year, I’m hoping a football player says something about Israel, or maybe a talk show host will talk about income inequality. It’ll be exciting, I’m sure.”
Ben
Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual
living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop
Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can
follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87.
You might also like:
 |
| Controversy! |
by Ben Howard
So you want to write a controversial blog post, well good for you. That will certainly achieve your twin goals of driving traffic to your site and developing your thriving internet fame.
But what's that you say, you don't have the time or the nuanced worldview to write an interesting, thought-provoking article about an important and often misunderstood aspect of daily human existence? Never fear! Just follow these five easy steps and your blog post will be a mild sub-culture based controversy in no time!
Step #1: Pick Your Controversial Topic
To get a real controversy brewing you'll want to make sure that your topic is a real doozy. There's a certain kind of art to picking a truly controversial blog topic.
First, you want to make sure that you pick a topic that appears to have two equal sides, but one of those sides, preferably the side you'll be arguing on behalf of, needs to be based on a fundamental logical fallacy. The appearance of fairness is an essential quality to a truly controversial post.
Second, you'll want to choose a topic that you're tangentially aware of, but not intimately associated with. If you're a man in your mid to late twenties, perhaps you should try your hand at an unnuanced critique of modern feminism. What if you're a white Christian who's never left the country? Try talking about the essence of Islam. Make sure it's something you can caricature without ever actually engaging.
Step #2: Write With Careless Condescension
Now we come to the content, the beating heart of your intentionally controversial post. Always remember that articulate, well-reasoned, and thoughtful content can quickly derail your search for controversy and could accidentally breed true dialogue.
In order to avoid such a disaster, be sure to write with an affected and careless condescension reminiscent of any number of 1950's sitcom fathers, ESPN analysts, or anyone who's appeared on Fox News, CNN or MSNBC within the last calendar year.
When writing, be sure to universalize your experience. You're the writer, you're the only person who's really important in this situation. Even though we both know you're searching out the largest readership possible, pretend that everyone who reads it will think it exactly like you. It might be enticing to include a dash of humility or grace, but try your best to avoid that dastardly urge.
 |
| Do not use! |
If you feel like your content is a little weaker than you would want or if the language isn't as inflammatory as you'd earlier hoped, try making an appeal to biblical authority by quoting a verse. To achieve optimal controversy, choose a verse that's both out of context and easy to misinterpret.
Pro Tip: Apply Greek or Hebrew transliteration to increase the assumed sincerity of your fallacious argument.
Step #3: Select a Provocative Title
A good title is the bait for your incendiary trap, and it can make or break your attempt to stir up a proper controversy. You want to settle on a title that teases the irrationally controversial content of your post, but doesn't go too far and drive away the masses too frustrated to even take a look at the mess you've created.
I suggest a title that subtly hints at a point opposite your thesis thus baiting people into a post they expect to like before bashing them over the head with incoherent and offensive logic contained within.
If you aren't the subtle type, and let's face it if you're following these instructions, you aren't, then you may want to try something more extreme and totalizing. Use words like "wrong" or "lie" in your title to entice people to read about why someone would be making such a "radical" claim.
Step #4: Passive-Aggressively Defend
Now that you've written and published your incendiary, condescending, "biblically based" blogging screed, it's time to stoke the flames of internet discontent.
If you've followed the first four steps, you should begin to receive angry comments and tweets in mere minutes. The internet simply cannot abide someone being as callously wrong as you currently are.
Be sure to respond to the reasonable disagreements of those in your comment section with scorn and mockery. Take their words out of context, allege persecution, and constantly refer to your personal experience as a trump card to their well-crafted arguments of logic and general decency.
Once you've got the comment section roiling jump on over to Twitter. Write passive-aggressive tweets about how you wish "people could learn to disagree" and constantly use the phrase "it's just my story." If you're feeling adventurous, continue to belittle those who present critiques or express concern about your ideas on Twitter.
Finally, maintain a public dialogue with friends who agree with your inane blog post so that the few people who still think you're actually open to a conversation can be cynically disabused of such a notion. Casually and unironically use the word "haters" in a number of tweets to personal friends.
 |
| You! |
Step #5: Profit
Note: This
step has been inserted in accordance with United States Statute 745.1G,
also known as the "List Adherence Act of 1993," which requires that all
lists "contain a vague reference to the value of capitalist intentions
belying the foundational element of content creation in the emerging
'Information Age.'"
I hope you've enjoyed writing this controversial blog post and
basking in the artificial internet infamy that such a post can create.
Who knows, if you keep following these simple instructions over and over
for decades on end, maybe all of the reasonable people will just stop
trying.
Peace,
Ben
Ben
Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual
living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop
Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can
follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87.
You might also like:
