The Danger of Comparing

Harder than I expected.

That is how I would describe the first half of this school year--year four of teaching. When I started the year, I was ready, physically and mentally, to hit the ground running, to have an extraordinary school year with my new group of extraordinary students. A good friend even told me that I sounded more passionate about teaching, and happier in my career, than I ever had before.

Instead, I found myself back at the drawing board, wondering what in the world I had learned in the past three years and why nothing seemed to be working this year.

Now in December, one week before we wrap of this semester and I head home for Christmas, I can look back and say that this is the nature of teaching. One moment I think I have everything figured out; the next moment I'm back at square one.

I've learned some lessons this year. The first is to ask more questions before saying yes. Last year, I agreed to attend a summer workshop. Little did I know that I was actually agreeing to help run a school-wide program. Yikes! The second lesson is that burnout is real. This fall was so busy that for the first two months of the school year, I completely neglected any kind of social life. Never before as a teacher have I been so irresponsible about taking care of myself.  It's as if I forgot I needed people around me, forgot I needed to pause and have fun--forgot that eating dinner in my car is never the best choice! I worked and worked and worked, until the month of November mercifully arrived and everything else was put on hold to celebrate three beautiful weddings.

Ironically, all of this extra work has not made me a better teacher. I have had more days than usual this year where I am just cranky (and unfortunately it's always the students who get the brunt of that). By the time I realized I was burning out, it was too late to recover in any way other than just stopping--letting the papers pile up and the to-call list lengthen. All I could do was grit my teeth and make it until Thanksgiving break.

Please don't misunderstand me. This school year has not been a total failure. The students are learning; many of them seem to enjoy coming to language arts class; I have a handful of them, as usual, who consistently brighten my day and remind me why I love this job. It's just been a harder road than I expected it to be when I set out with big dreams this August.

This past Friday afternoon as my third period class was "watching" Channel One News (but really whispering and passing notes behind my back as I erased the board), I thought about something I had not considered before, about a way that I could reframe this discouragement. Maybe instead of being upset that it's Christmas and I feel like my classes still haven't clicked into that place of learning community, I should be grateful that I can stand at the board and perceive exactly what is happening behind me. My past two school years--the standard against which this year is falling so miserably short--may be clouded in my memory. It is quite possible that last year and the year before were not as perfect as I seem to remember, and that a heightened awareness of the struggles of teaching doesn't necessarily mean I am slipping as a teacher. It may instead be a sign of growth. And isn't growth what I want?

Another lifetime, almost...!

My previous post was in 2009.  Two. thousand. NINE.  Happy 2013, everyone.

Since my last post, I have:

• Completed student teaching
• Earned my bachelor's degree
• Traveled for six weeks in Egypt
• Moved from Ohio to Texas
• Lived with extended family
• Moved into my first apartment
• Joined a Baptist church (I didn't see that one coming!)
• Survived three entire years of teaching 7th grade 
• Returned to Guatemala for another week of serving Colegio Juan Wesley
• Paid in full one of my student loans
• Successfully settled in a new city, with a thankful heart

                                         ...all while walking with a God who is SO incredibly faithful.

So, this blog is from another lifetime, really.

But I'm returning simply because of my students.  This past school year, I decided to try blogging with my smallest class.  After the standardized tests nearly sucked away all our energy, we devoted several class days to beginning our own blogs.  My students are thrilled any time we get to use computers, but it was the month of May, and as much as I hate to admit it, I wasn't expecting much from them.  Something happened, however, that was enough to sell me on blogging for the rest of my teaching career: In a computer lab full of twenty-some seventh graders, during the month of May, after the tests were over, with summer so tantalizingly close, all I could hear was the clack clack clack of keys--busy fingers, writing.

You have to understand--this was the class who whined when asked to write a paragraph.  They are bright, talented kids, but, for most of them, writing was just not their thing.  So even though their posts weren't necessarily mind-blowing, and even though we never really established the sense of blogging community I was hoping for, the silence in the computer lab those few days spoke volumes to me about the power of giving students the platform of a blog.

This coming school year, I want to start this from the beginning.  I want to teach my students how to add their voices to the global conversation.  So many of them do not know they have powerful voices.  

My return to this dusty old blog is my attempt to regain my own voice.

Greater things...

Earlier this summer, I had the opportunity to travel to San Cristobal Totonicapan, Guatemala with a group of fantastic people from Green, OH (and elsewhere!).  Below is a video slide show set to the song "God of this City" by Chris Tomlin.  Sometimes I feel like this song is overused, but I have yet to find another song with lyrics that so perfectly express both the reality of how God is working in the places we visited and the prayer of my heart for the people we met.  Greater things are still to be done in San Cristobal, in the surrounding communities, and among the Quiche people.  And these greater things will not be done by foreigners but by the native men and women working to keep schools and churches alive, by Quiche pastors currently being trained in their own language, and by students at Colegio Juan Wesley and other Christian schools as they grow in knowledge and in faith.  

Ohio Governor calls for a new focus on 21st Century skills in schools

This article, printed in the Herald-Dispatch on Feb. 23, describes a new approach to education proposed by Gov. Strickland. While Strickland's ideas certainly sound relevant, I am concerned this will not turn out to be the solution students need.

The problem, according to the article, is that American students are falling behind the rest of the world in problem solving skills. Here is one of my favorite parts of the news article:

"A growing body of research in cognitive psychology
suggests that minds learn best when memorization of facts is blended with
critical thinking exercises to use that knowledge..."

Really? Are we surprised by this? Anyways...

I agree that 21st Century skills are important for students. I agree that American schools do not focus nearly enough on problem solving skills. But will legislation fix that? The article concludes with this statement:

"Grading the new tests also introduces subjectivity into a realm
where uniformity and predictability are prized."

What should be cause for even more alarm is that legislating and standardizing methods for teaching problem solving introduces uniformity and predictability into a realm where subjectivity and flexibility are absolutely necessary.

Time To Resurrect the Blog

Originally, I told myself I would keep up with this blog once class was over. I didn't (obviously), but now I am in another class that requires a blog, so here we go...


My thoughts on the use of technology in the classroom...

As a student in middle and high school, I had experience with computers and smart boards, but these weren't used on a daily basis. We usually had technical difficulties with the laptops, and we were always having to reorient the smart board. These items were used as tools on occasion or as a way to project notes, but that was the extent of it. Aside from typing papers, we didn't do much with technology outside of the classroom.

Last semester, I was exposed for the first time to technology in the classroom from the teacher's perspective. The teacher I worked with once a week for my field experience used the smart board for every lesson. He also used a device with the students that let them log in and enter their answers to the daily focus questions. The students used the keypads at their desks, and the information they entered was calculated and displayed on the screen in the form of a graph so he could quickly see how many students answered each question correctly or how many students had done their homework the night before. In addition to using technology during class, he also utilized the internet as a tool for communication with parents. He had a website for students and parents with a homework calendar, information on class policies and events, and additional math challenge problems for families to work on together. He also communicated with parents primarily by email. He used the internet to his advantage in terms of professional development as well, and when I needed to search for lesson ideas, he introduced me to the members section of the NCTM website where I found valuable resources.

This experience gave me a taste of just how valuable technology in the classroom can be when it is used well. I believe technology should never be used for its own sake but only when it aids the sutdents in the learning process. It should be the mean by which student and teachers achieve their goals; it should never be the goal in and of itself.

i have blogger's block...

which is unfortunate, considering i have about an hour before the deadline.

Let's see...

I guess I'll write about the Film Festival--get my bonus points...

In the first film, Still Roommates, I noticed a few things that I would have missed, had I not taken this class. First of all, I noticed the use of the 180 degree plane in the dialogue between the two actors. The filmmaker also made good use of close up shots to emphasize the characters' feelings of disappointment, frustration, etc.

The film She is Sister also made use of close up shots. I think these shots had a different effect than the close ups in Still Roommates. Instead of revealing the emotion of the character, I think the close ups of Sister evoked emotion from the viewer. I'm not sure why, or what the difference was... hmm.

Also, on a more personal note, I noticed that I found more enjoyment in the films that were purely entertaining than I did in the ones that were trying to communicate some deeper message. I think that's partially due to a misconception I have that movies=entertainment. I don't explicitly believe this, but I think it is an underlying expectation that I have. When I sit down to watch a movie, I expect to enjoy it--not to be challenged by it. Not that I can't enjoy something AND be challenged by it. I don't know... I just found myself wondering if the films I liked more were actually better, or if they were just more entertaining. And of course, an important aspect of any film is that it captures the attention of the viewer. So maybe the films that I didn't enjoy as much were lacking in some way artistically, despite their good message?

wow. Did that make any sense? I'll stop rambling now.

One of the biggest things I've learned as a result of this course is that everything is so much more complex than I even realize!

The Holiday

The book Eyes Wide Open challenges us to respond as Christians to the popular art that forms our society. Last night, I watched the movie The Holiday. I thought it might be good to share my thoughts on this particular movie, as a Christian...

I'm really becoming a sucker for chick-flicks and sappy love stories. I used to watch and roll my eyes. Now I ooh and awe and giggle and cry (well, not quite!) like the girly-girl I am. It's disgusting. Anyways...

...that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was great--two feel-good love stories for the pirce of one! But--one of the things that bothered me was that one relationship started with friendship, the other one started with sex (literally--they knew each other for about 5 minutes first), and they all lived happily ever after regardless. God created sex for marriage, so it seems to me that there would be consequences when it's taken outside of the way it was created. While this movie makes their relationship look close to perfect, in the light of the way God wants us to live, I can see that this is not an honest picture of life.

Now, I'm NOT saying that they should change the storyline of the movie, or that Christians shouldn't watch this movie. That attitude is what Bill Romanowski is criticizing.

As a Christian, what I can take from this movie is the understanding that our culture views sex as a natural and acceptable part of any relationship, and that it expects people to act like they're married without actually getting married. This can point me to look at the bigger issues of our culture's idea of the value of marriage in general, the rising divorce rate, and the need that everyone has for love. Instead of watching a movie and saying, "That's bad--how can they do that?" I should try to understand the characters and see what their lives can tell me about the world I live in--the one I'm trying to be in and not of and point to Jesus all at the same time.

Contibuting to the Conversation

"We need to look as Christians at the stories that contemporary culture is telling by learning how to discern and evaluate perspectives in these representations of life in God's world. And as Christians we also need to create popular art that shows what it means to live everyday life in God's world, while others consume and eavesdrop on our contribution to the cultural conversation."
-Bill Romanowski, Eyes Wide Open, page 19

This quote presents a wonderful picture of how we're supposed to interact with the world around us. I love the idea of culture as a conversation. I think Christians can sometimes be like those people who butt into conversations with something totally irrelevant and off-the-wall. No one likes that! Especially when you're talking about something that's important to you.

We shouldn't be interrupting the "conversation" with nice, Christian-sounding cliches. We need to be contributing to the "conversation" with words that are meaningful and relevant to the world around us.

The only way to truly engage in a conversation is to listen first. That's why it's so important for us to pay attention to "the stories that contemporary culture is telling us." These stories are "representations of life in God's world." They may not show things the way God intended them to be, but the people who are telling the stories are telling them for a reason, and we need to listen. Then after we listen, we need to reply with our side of the story--not in a way that is condescending, but in a way that is honest and real.

Stars

I had forgotten that the constellations had stories behind them...

Cassiopeia, the Queen, is visible in the Northern Hemisphere all year long. Cassiopeia is bound to her chair and forever circles the pole with her head downward. A fitting punishment by the Nereids (Sea Nymphys) for her boast of being more beautiful than all the Nereids. Cassiopeia was the wife of Cepheus and mother of Andromeda.

and some of them are pretty elaborate and dramatic...

Perseus, the Rescuer of Andromeda, can be seen in late summer and autumn in the Northern Hemisphere.
His quest was to bring back the head of Medusa, not knowing her whereabouts he went to the three sisters of Polydectes, who were blind and shared a glass eye. They refused to help him until he stole the eye and would not return it until they told him where to find Medusa. Using a shield given to him by Minerva, he avoided looking directly at Medusa and beheaded her. Pegasus sprang out of the Medusa's blood and he rode him back to Artos, where he found Andromeda chained to the rocks as a sacrifice to Cetus, using the Gorgons head, Cetus turned to stone. Perseus and Andromeda fell in love, both were placed among the stars.

and touching...awe...

Coma Berenices, Bernice's Hair, is visible in the northern hemisphere in spring and summer and may be found between Virgo and Ursa Major.
Bernice's Hair, is the hair of Queen Berenice of Egypt, which became a constellation around 230 B.C.E. When her husband (and brother) Ptolemy Euergetes went off to war, she offered her hair as a sacrifice to the gods, if they would grant him a safe return. He did and she cut off her hair and placed it on the Altar in the temple of Venus. The locks were stolen and placed among the stars, some say Venus herself was the thief, while other think it was just an astronomer named Conon, who made up the whole story in order to comfort Berenice when she heard of the theft. Some other versions of the story said that the hair was turned into a hair-star, or comet.

and there were villians...

Scorpius the Scorpion, can be seen in summer from the Northern Hemisphere, but is best seen from the Southern Hemisphere or southern US. Scorpius is the slayer of Orion. Sent by a jealous Artemis, Orion was stung by the Scorpion and caused his death. Orion could not be saved even by Asclepius, the god of healing.
Scorpius was also responsible for the runaway horses of Phoebus Apollo when Phaethon tried to drive the Chariot of the Sun, he caused great havoc as he careened around the skies, drying up rivers and scorching the earth.

Society hasn't changed all that much... we still relate to each other through stories...we the only things that have changed are the meduims through which we tell those stories.

Content Creators

According to a study done by Amanda Lenhart and Mary Madden of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 57% of all online teens are "Content Creators." They say this percentage translates into 12 million teens who share their own personal artwork, photos, stories, music, or videos online, or who have made a webpage for someone else.

This statistic is not at all surprising to me--especially because even creating a blog counts as content creation--and i think i have three! New technologies make it so easy to create personal webpages, to share pictures, to "publish" poems, to post videos...and the list goes on.

I'm trying to figure out how this "low culture" expression is actually a threat to "high culture." If the Internet is opening up areas of self-expression that are more accessible to the common person, isn't that a good thing? I suppose this could be eroding standards of what is "good" art or "good" music...but is that really the case? Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit the Chicago Institute of Art. One of the pieces of "art" on display was a large, red-orange, 3-D rectangle propped vertically against the wall. With all due respect to the artist, if that can be considered art, what else can? We also saw a couple canvases with scribbles, stick figures, and doodles all over them--on display in a very "high culture" art museum! I don't understand how we decide what's "good" and what's not. Who makes the decision? What do they base it on? And how is the rise of self-expression on the Internet a problem for anyone?

If any of you have some answers/thoughts, please leave me some comments :0)

Trekkies

wow. I just don't understand the value of devoting so much of your life to something fictional. I have nothing against Star Trek--it's a good show (Data was always my favorite...and Geordie LaForge...LeVar Burton and that cool visor he wore...) I just don't understand the devotion...the obsession... As I was watching the video this morning, I was trying to decide if there was something in my life that fit into the same category--is there some media text that I'm devoted to that parallels the devotion of star trek fans? So far, I haven't been able to think of anything. the only thing I go to "conventions" for would be Jesus probably. Is Star Trek a religion to some people? I think it very well could be.

I don't like to judge, or write people off as crazy or silly...but wow. That's all I have to say.

What is a good society?

I'm so used to living in this society. The society we live in has a lot of good characteristics, but there also so many terrible things that go on. I think I've learned to take the good with the bad and to accept the bad as inevitable. For this reason (and also because I live a self-centered life), I've never considered what actually makes a good society. The stories I've heard or read about so-called utopias, both real and fictional, always seem to show these utopian societies as communites where individuality is repressed and the society cannot last. Because I know that a perfect society cannot exist on earth, I haven't ever thought to ask what makes a good society.

But it is worth asking. We have a responsibility to form the society we live in, and if we don't know what it is we're aiming for, I think it's possible that we'll end up creating (or at least continuing) a society that we don't want to live in.

So, what makes a good society?

In my naive, underdeveloped opinion, a society can be measured by what it values. Regardless of the style of government or leadership, there are certain things that I think every good society will value.

Life. A good society will value human life at every level. This goes beyond simply banning abortion. A good society views life as precious and rare, and will have compassion on the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the unborn. Under this category falls things like public health and safety.

Truth. A good society will not tolerate dishonesty. Its members will desire to know the truth, not just to hear what they want to hear.

Order. A good society will have established rules that are in place to benefit all its members, and these will be enforced so that the society remains a safe place to live.

Love. This might seem a little far-fetched, but I believe a good society will follow the command: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Family. A good society will value family over work or money.

Education. If you want to help someone escape the cycle of poverty, educate them. A good society will provide a basic education for all its members, and will value higher education as well by making it affordable and available to anyone who wants it.

I'm sure I'll think of more later...in fact I've probably forgotten some important ones...

What's the real issue?

We say that the media has too much control. We say that it tells us how to act and what to think--that the Big 6 or Big 8 or however many Bigs there are have far too much power over the public.

To me, these sound like excuses.

Saying that the media tells us what to think and leaving it at that is simply an excuse for us not to try to think. Even saying that the media is a negative influence on children is an excuse for the problems that we have allowed. I don't mean to say that the media doesn't tell us what to think or that it doesn't negatively affect kids. What I want to say is that we have a responsibility to own up to the problems in our society. Aren't we, as individuals and as American citizens, responsible for our own knowledge? Aren't we responsible for the well-being of younger generations? We can't blame everything on media. We create media, therefore the problems in the media are a reflection of the problems in us.

The media is not going to raise the standard. The government is not going to raise the standard. Deregulation of media conglomerates is not going to change anything. I'd like to borrow a quote that one of my friends has listed on her facebook site (I apologize, I don't know who to give the credit for this): "One of the greatest delusions is the hope that the evils in this world can be cured by legislation." Unless the individuals in a society want to see a change and are willing to work for it, new laws are not going to help.

We have to raise the standard. If we refused to watch and applaud programming with sick humor, if we responded to the nightly news with curiosity and a real desire for truth and put that desire into action by researching issues on our own, if we took responsibility for our choices and our actions and for the welfare of the people around us, would things change? I don't know. I'm just one person. You're just one person. But I believe it would be a good start.

Money Talks

One of the ideas discussed in Reading 6 (I can't remember the author's name) is the reality that the people supplying the money have a direct say in the content of the tv show, news program, magazine, newspaper, radio station, etc. Lately, I have been listening to a radio station that is primarily listener-supported. This week was their annual membership drive, and consequently, every twenty minutes or so they would take a break from their usual programming and ask for money. This is extemely annoying, BUT it's a good reminder that the aspects of this station that most of its listeners value (the wide variety of news stories and viewpoints, the style and quality of the music, etc.) are only on the air because the listeners support these things financially. If the listeners were not happy with the station, they would stop sending their money, and the station would need to change it's content, find a different source of income, or go off the air.

By the same token, if a big corporate sponsor is pouring money into a media venue, that sponsor is going to want content that attracts the most consumers and sells the most products. The station, newspaper, etc. has to work to please the sponsor in order to continue to recieve the funding it needs.

This may or may not be good for the consumer. One of the problems with media conglomerates is that, not only are the numbers of options of sponsors decreasing, but these major companies are growing in power. The media can no longer decide what to give the public based soley on what the public wants; they must make their decisions with much more concern for what the sponsors want. I suppose you could argue that the sponsors and the general public want the same things, but I don't think that is always the case. (If it is, we're in more trouble than I originally thought!)

Run, Forest, Run!

I watched Forest Gump for the first time the other night. (I loved it!) But, ever since we did that role-playing activity last week in class, when I watch movies, I find myself thinking about the movie before it was a movie... What did the story sound like when the idea was first presented to a director or producer? (*If you haven't seen this movie and you plan on seeing it, just go aheah and skip to the last paragraph*) The storyline of Forest's life is pretty ridiculous. I think if someone came to me and said, "We're going to tell the story of a man who has a severly low IQ, but is a super fast runner, plays college football, gets a degree (how?), fights in Vietnam, gets a medal of honor, becomes a world class ping-pong player, captains a shrimp boat and becomes a millionaire, runs nonstop for 3 years, and then marries his childhood sweetheart (who dies of aids) and has an adorable son (not exactly in that order)--and the entire story will be narrated by him, as he is sitting at a bus stop, talking to random strangers."

... I don't know, I just don't think I would go for it!

(Of course, that's not all the movie is about--it's about love and perserverance and other things like that--so I guess anyone trying to convince a producer to make this movie would probably not tell the story in the way I told it above!)

Now, despite the ridiculous plotline, Forest Gump is, in my humble opinion, a wonderful movie. So I find myself asking: What makes a good movie? How does one decide whether or not a story is worth telling? Does the storyline even matter, or is it the way a story is told that makes it a hit? It's fascinating to me to think about everything that comes together to make a movie--to think about the existence of the idea before anything was ever filmed, before the cast was chosen, before anyone knew whether or not this story or this idea would ever be tranferred to the big screen.

In class on Wednesday, I learned...

...that I should never ever be a producer. In fact, I don't think I even want to go to Hollywood!

I was half of "Sprocket Productions" (and not the better half, lol). We were a low-budget production company, which didn't bother me at first... Then I took a look at our list of expenses. At 9 in the morning, my mental math abilities are certainly not at their peak. As I tried to add in different items and figure out how much we could pay actors and actresses and writers, all I could think was, "Why did I get out of bed...?"

And then writers approached. We had to decide what stories we liked and who we wanted to make a deal with and whether or not we could get actors for the storyline and whether or not we would be able to pay those actors and what if one of the actors signed with another company too and ahhh!!! Of course, I was also worried about how other writers would feel when we turned them down, because that's just how I am--I'm always worried about hurting someone else's feelings, even in a situation like this where it clearly does not matter. I think that was the worst part for me--I wanted to say yes to everyone!

I would never ever ever make it as a producer. I hate making important decisions--especially decisions that involve large amounts of money. Come to think of it, I don't even like to spend large amounts of money. 40 million dollars?!?! And that's cosidered "low budget"? oy.

One question that I still have about this whole process... As producers, the writers and actors approached us. Is this how it works? Or were we supposed to be approaching them? Do the producers seek out writers who have ideas that they want to promote, or do the writers seek out producers who will support their ideas?

Bullhorn Guy part 1

(I realized that this blog exceded the 500 word limit by over 200 words, so i decided to break it up)

Last night at Campus Crusade (which meets at 7:30 in the library basement, for those of you who might be interested ;) ) we watched one of the nooma videos. Many of you have probably familiar with these videos and with Rob Bell. For those of you who aren't, nooma videos are like mini sermons, only the speaker (Rob Bell) is in a normal everyday setting, usually seated, wearing casual clothes, with all the usual background noise and activity appropriate to the particular setting going on around him. These videos are designed to make the viewer feel like they're sitting across from the speaker, having a casual conversation.

The one we watched last night was called The Bullhorn, and it was about sharing Christ by showing others His love rather than just preaching at them. In it, Bell described city evangelist who stood on the corner with a megaphone (or a bullhorn), shouting for people to be saved so they could go to heaven.

The video didn't start out with any kind of "establishing shot" to allow me to orient myself to the setting. Instead, it began with a combination of close up and medium shots of a man in an office using the copier. It then cut to a busy city street. These two seemingly unrelated scenes were confusing to me at first. I began to ask myself what was going on, who I was supposed to be paying attention to, and why. The fact that the camera gave me little or no initial clues was very effective, because this sparked my curiosity and attention and drew me in. I wanted to know more...

Eventually, I realized that the camera was very slowly zooming in on a man seated on a bench in front of a storefront along the street. He didn't look like anyone special--just some guy in a t-shirt and sweatpants, waiting for the bus--but as the camera continued to zoom in, i realized that this man was important--i was supposed to focus my attention on him. He started talking, and the more he talked, the closer the camera got to his face. He was pulling me into the conversation, and the camera mirrored that.

Bullhorn Guy part 2

Periodically, as Bell continued to talk, the camera would return to images of the man I had seen in the office at the beginning. I was still curious as to what he had to do with anything. Bell had been talking about Bullhorn Man, and I wondered if this might be him... At one moment, Bell addressed Bullhorn Man as if he was speaking directly to him, and at this particular instant, there was a shot of the man from the office in his car, turning his face away from the camera, as if looking out the window. This was a powerful shot that showed me that the man from the office was indeed Bullhorn Man, and that Bullhorn Man did not want to hear what Bell or anyone else had to say.

At the beginning of the video, after the camera had zoomed in on Bell, he had been slightly to the left of the center of the screen. As time went on, the camera moved slightly, and by the end, Bell was more to the right. Bullhorn Man was almost always on the left. I'm not sure if this is really significant or if I'm reading into something that's not there, but I think it's possible that the placement of these two people was intentional. Both Bell and Bullhorn Man are Christians, and any negative feelings that a person had towards what Bullhorn Man was doing would most likely be applied to Bell (guilty by association--they both serve the same God, right?) But, as Bell talked, he began to distance himself from Bullhorn Man with his attitude and words, so that by the end of the video, we know that the two men really don't have the same things in mind.

Nooma videos are interesting, because if you take away the pictures, what you have left is not much different than your typically Sunday night sermon. However, the makers of these videos employ different film techniques to get their points across in a way that I believe is much more effective than words alone would ever be.

I'm ready for my close-up...

Try to imagine American Idol without the close-up shot... It doesn't really work, does it? The close-up is used to show emotion, and the makers of American Idol take full advantage of this. For example, on last night's episode, they showed a young man whose parents had been ashamed of his singing talent. Earlier, when he made it "to Hollywood," he had called his mom to tell her. On this episode, he made it past the first audition, and naturally, the producers of the show wanted the viewers to witness his phone call to his mom. The camera zoomed in nice and close so that we could see the emotion brimming in his eyes--the look of relief on his face when his mom said she was proud of him. It was a scene designed to tug on the hearts of the viewers. I'm pretty sure the tugging on our heartstrings would've been significantly less forceful, had the shot not been so up close and personal. Also, at both the beginning and the end of the show, they used close-up shots to highlight the anxiety of the contestants. Actually, for most of the show, I found myself uncomfortable close to someone's face. They want the viewers to feel the sadness or frustation or disappointment, or joy that the participants feel, whether they move on or get cut.

Churchianity

offering
benediction
doxolgy
fellowship hall
narthex
coffee hour

As a regular chuch-goer, I am a part of a semiotic domain that employs its own symbols and its own codes. For me, following these symbols and codes is a natural thing (I have acheived "fluency"). For some, however, stepping into a church is extremely awkward simply because they are not familiar with the implicit and explicit codes that exist.

For example, in some churches the pastor says, "This is the Word of the Lord" and the congregation replies with "Thanks be to God." This is not written anywhere, not explained--unless someone is already familiar with the code, they wouldn't know to say it.

Which book is the hymnal? Why are there candles up front? How do you know when to sit and when to stand? What am I expected to do during communion? How does everyone know the words to this prayer?! And the list goes on...

I can understand why so many people feel like outsiders when they come to church. A congregation is an affinity group with certain rules and standards. Of course everyone is welcome (technically), but how is a person supposed to feel welcome when their lack of knowledge of the codes the church follows makes them feel like an outsider?

As a Christian who has grown up in the church, I believe it is so important to realize that, yes, Churchianity is it's own semiotic domain, and to be sensitive to the fact that this can be intimidating and confusing to those who have not attended church all their lives.