Amen for Happy Endings

by Ben Howard

Over the last two years, I've become a big fan of the ABC sitcom Happy Endings. The basic aspects of the show are a lot like Friends or something else of that ilk. Its a comedy based around six people in their late twenties living in a major American city (Chicago) and trying to make their way through this wacky thing we call life. 

It seems like a simple, and to be fair, rather vanilla premise, but the show has grown into one of the funnier half hours on TV due to the witty banter and the general likability of the cast. This is the kind of show where you just like hanging out with the people for thirty minutes at a time.

With all that said, this does not seem like a show that is trying to make profound statements about life, or society, or justice, or identity, but when I reflect on the show a little more seriously, when I look at the ideas behind the jokes, this show has some subtle yet profound messages.

I especially like the way the show deals with the relationship of Brad and Jane, an interracial couple played by Damon Wayans Jr. and Eliza Coupe, and the sexual orientation of Max played by Adam Pally.


Regarding Brad and Jane, the show does not ignore the issue of race because it is a real issue and in fact bases at least one episode on Brad's racial identity ("Blax, Snake, Home").  However, more often than not the issue of race is entirely disregarded as an identifying characteristic. Yes, Brad is black and Jane is white, but that racial identity does not define the characters. It is a part of their characters, but it is contained within the context of who they are as a couple and as individuals.

The character of Max is an even more obvious example of the show's desire to define it's characters as people instead of symbols or caricatures. Max is a gay man, but rarely fits the stereotypical mold of what society considers to be a gay archetype. Max is slovenly and uncultured. He hates being in a relationship and has very little fashion sense, often wearing old, fading clothing. Max is essentially the definition of a twenty-something slacker, including his persistent unemployment.

Max is gay, but Max is not the "Gay Character" on the show. His sexuality is part of his personality, but once again it is not the trait that defines him. Like Brad, Max is defined by who he is and not what makes him supposedly different from the rest of the cast.

I think this is what the church is called to when Paul says that, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." He isn't saying that you no longer have any identity as a Jew or Gentile or as male and female, but that your identity is no longer defined by the exterior traits. You are defined by the thing that encapsulates your very being, that being your role as a child of God and a part of his creation. 

You are not first and foremost your religious affiliation, your socioeconomic status, your gender, your sexual orientation, or any number of other self-identifiers that make you into someone's stereotype. You are a human, made in the image of God and redeemed by his Son.

Amen for Happy Endings.

Peace,
Ben

When he talking about the TV sitcoms like they're totally serious, Ben often spends his time simply watching them and laughing, you know, like a normal person does. You can follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com

Marriage and Chick-Fil-A

by Ben Howard

The following thoughts are still in progress.

Last week in an interview with Baptist Press Chick-Fil-A COO Dan Cathy confirmed that the company, based in the Southern Baptist roots of S. Truett Cathy, is “supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.” This set off a firestorm of reports from major media outlets construing the statement as an attack on gay marriage.

Chick-Fil-A tried to respond by saying they have no policy regarding gay marriage and that "going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena," and that its tradition is, "to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Here's the rub. Neither side is spinning the truth. Dan Cathy was not making a statement opposing gay marriage, but also, he was. The problem, the real problem at the root of the gay marriage debate, the one that makes people on both sides feel slighted, abused, and insulted, has to do with the great unasked and unanswered question of the debate. What is marriage?

Is it a symbol? A sacrament? A contract? A societal construct? Does it mean anything at all?

I think at its core, at its richest, its all of these things. It's a creation of society to help us get along. It's a contract that means one stands beside the other through anything. It's a sacrament that helps us share, just a little bit, in the divine community of God's self. And it's a symbol, a symbol of love and devotion, and a symbol that creation is good, and that world should go on being good.

This is bigger than a rights issue. Marriage at its fullest is a grace and it's not something we can demand, its simply a gift we are given. It isn't something government's can hand down or make laws about or rule on or permit or prevent people from doing. Laws are flawed and staid and cannot encapsulate what “marriage” is even if they use the word.

On the other hand, while I feel marriage is a religious issue, I also believe the conservative understanding of marriage is weak. In a social and religious context where it has become increasingly difficult to explain the importance of symbols and ritual, the refuge of choice has been the literalization and legalization of the Bible. As a result, a once rich full view of marriage has been reduced to a cultural expectation and a legalization of sex.

The more I consider the issue, the more I belief that the conservative response to gay marriage is one of fear more than one of hate. With such a thin view of marriage it becomes increasingly difficult to articulate the value of such a commitment and in lieu of deconstructing this view in order to build a healthier richer understanding, the response has been to go on the defensive and to define marriage as its borders.

Eventually, this conversation will end with the government allowing same-sex marriage. It's a matter of time. This is the way history works. I hope that both sides can learn to talk to each other and understand each other, and hopefully this conversation will not be for nothing. I hope that out of this conversation we get a more vibrant, deeper view of marriage and the commitment it entails. Then again, that is not how history works.

Peace,

Ben

You can follow me on Twitter @BenHoward87 or leave a comment if you would like to contact me.