One of the most interesting parts of Conrad Ostwalt’s book, Secular Steeples, is his comparison of secular and sacred apocalyptic films. One of the characteristics of secular apocalyptic films is that humans must and do overcome the apocalyptic threat before them through world unity, technological advancements, military might, etc. Contrary to this, sacred apocalyptic films wait for God to act decisively while humans must endure the violence around them. Lately, I have observed a string of video games that mirror Ostwalt’s secular apocalyptic criteria. Games like Fallout 3 and Resistance 2 might just seem like re-hashed first person shooters, and while Mirror’s Edge abandons weapons for acrobatics, their worlds beg further analysis.

Amid all the election talk last Monday, NPR aired an interview with film critic/historian David Thomson. During the interview, he suggested that some of America’s best films were made during times of great national crisis, like The Great Depression for example. He claimed that during those times, people were starved for truth regarding and firm answers to the problems they faced. Filmmakers, in search of the same, responded with more honest films. Thomson expressed some measured excitement over and hope for the possibility of great filmmaking to emerge during the tough times that our nation currently faces.

I wonder if the same cannot be said of the video game industry. Will creators, faced with the same crises, respond as effectively and as imaginatively? In recent years, creators have focused more intensely on story, seeking out narratives that catch up to graphics in terms of beauty and intrigue. Are games like Fallout 3, Resistance 2, and Mirror’s Edge, all games with some virtual dystopic element, responses to the threat of real world dystopia.

Apocalyptic themes in video games are not unique to the twenty-first century. They can be found throughout the history of video games from the controversial Doom series to the various Terminator film video game remakes. So, in a way, the video games about which I write here are nothing revolutionary. Wikipedia offers a category of post-apocalyptic video games that includes well over 50 titles (and is in need of updating). In fact, the numbers attached to the end of the first two games discussed here should tell us something. Fallout 3 is the third installment in a series of popular apocalyptic video games on the PC. Resistance 2 is a follow up to the surprise success of Resistance: Fall of Man, a first-person shooter exclusively for the PS3.

Fallout 3 takes place in a post-apocalyptic Washington, D.C., and, as the main character, you are one of the survivors. Born in a large, sophisticated bomb shelter, you have never seen the outside world until now. As a young adult, you manage to escape and find the outside world ravaged by what was surely an atomic bomb. Survivors have huddled together in shanty towns (villages). The monuments of D.C. off in the horizon are ashen husks of their former glory. You are in search of your father and can find him by interacting with other survivors, helping them with various tasks in return for information. All the while, you have to battle fearsome mutants and gigantic cockroaches (they really do survive nuclear holocaust). Oh, and along the way, you will decide the fate of more than one city through your actions. In the vein of the Grand Theft Auto series, the world is very much open for exploration. You are free to explore as you please, although acquiring certain items, weapons, and skills will make further exploration much more manageable. (I paid dearly for crossing the river to check out the monuments straight out of the bomb shelter). The ways in which you interact with others affects your character’s attributes and just how trusting of you future acquaintances will be. Virtual karma.

In Resistance 2, the alien Chimera virus that plagued Europe in Resistance: Fall of Man has now spread to the United States. As the main character, Nathan Hale, you find yourself in the midst of the apocalyptic battle with the mutant invaders across the country. Far from waiting on some divine assistance, you arm yourself to the teeth with massively over-sized weapons, a la Gears of War, and meet the enemy head on. Apparently the game’s only shortcoming, according to critics, is its weak story line. The creators have downplayed narrative and clearly emphasized non-stop action with everything larger than life. This too is an apparent short-coming of it’s XBOX 360 counterpart, Gears of War. One of Resistance 2’s many strengths, however, is its massive online functionality which boasts competitive and cooperative modes that will keep players engaged well beyond the completion of the campaign mode.

Mirror’s Edge is simply unlike any other game out there. It takes place in a world that is much more beautiful and attractive, and much less explicitly violent, than Fallout 3 or Resistance 2. Set in the not-too-distant future, the game’s glossy, pristine city is a veneer for a much more disturbing reality. The government watches everyone and everything. Behave, and you are fine…step out of line, and you are finished. As the main character, Faith, you operate as a runner transmitting packages and information for your clients. With the police mildly interested in your work, at least enough to shoot at you or pursue you, you get the sense that you are not only serving criminals, but revolutionaries that would seek to overthrow a pseudo-fascist government. The game encourages non-lethal combat to disarm the police as the focus is on the completion of missions as fast as possible. (There will be online competitions and rankings to see who is the fastest at completing each level). Mirror’s Edge draws on the growing popularity of parkour and free running which see cities as giant playgrounds with limitless potential for injury (death?)-defying stunts and movement.

There is no one explanation for the release of these films and their use of (post) apocalyptic, dystopic worlds. Certainly money is an issue, especially where sequels are involved. In the case of Mirror’s Edge, we have a fresh idea and gameplay on our hands. But what of the audience reaction to these films? Their financial viability signals an enthusiastic, eager audience. Perhaps these games simply allow us the ability to literally play out these critical scenarios. Like watching horror films, we can live out, or play out, our fears, or at least these scenarios. Terror does play a crucial role in Fallout 3 and Resistance 2, while the adrenaline from being pursued or shot at in Mirror’s Edge boosts your character’s performance.

These games are violent to varying degrees, with Resistance 2’s blood-and-guts-shoot-em-up the most over-the-top of the three. You can minimize violent contact in Fallout 3, but if you do engage enemies, you can target heads and limbs for gruesomely explosive shots. In fact, the new combat system and visuals in the game heighten your actions and their consequences. So these games, despite their varying compelling story lines and settings, will still find themselves in the on-going discussion of video game violence and gamers’ obsession with violent product.

Yet these settings and their story lines are no doubt responsible for the overwhelmingly positive reviews that they have garnered thus far. Perhaps these stories and settings provide a welcome break from the World War II re-hashes that have made the Call of Duty war video game series so popular. In fact, this series has quickly and virtually responded to changes in real life warfare and how we fight terrorism. One of the most recent installments, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, has you playing as a team up of British and American special forces in a hunt from Baghdad to Russia for a terrorist mastermind. Perhaps the games discussed here are an extension of that transition and an expression not of how we fight, but of our fears of war and the results of it.

Ryan Parker is a Ph.D. student at the Graduate Theological Union and blogs at Pop Theology.

LOMA LINDA – A panel of distinguished Adventist professionals convened Saturday, November 9, at the Loma Linda University Church to discuss whether gay rights trump doctors’ religious liberties.

In a decision filed on August 18, 2008, the California Supreme Court decided that the rights of religious freedom and free speech do not exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation.

The Loma Linda University School of Religion Humanities Program hosted the Sabbath afternoon panel discussion featuring Alan Reinach, president of the North American Religious Liberty Association; Douglas Welebir, Redlands attorney; Danielle Sawyer, LLUMC OB/GYN; and David Larson, LLU ethics professor. Jim Walters, LLU professor of Christian Ethics moderated the discussion.

In the case under consideration, North Coast Women's Care Medical Group Inc. v. San Diego County, California justices unanimously sided with Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian. Benitez received over a year of treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome in order to become pregnant through artificial insemination. After completing treatment, Benitez was affronted by a physician who refused to assist with artificial insemination citing religious reasons.

Benitez’ primary physician, Dr. Christine Brody, went on vacation and referred Benitez to colleague Dr. Douglas Fenton. When Fenton refused to perform artificial insemination on religious grounds, Benitez sued for discrimination as outlined in the Unruh Civil Rights Act and ultimately won her case.

Listed among the attorneys for the appellant in North Coast v. San Diego as a friend of the court: Alan J. Reinach; Alan E. Brownstein; Bassi, Martini & Blum and Fred Blum for Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council.

Adventist panelists at the forum Saturday discussed the implications of the court’s decision against discrimination on religious grounds. Alan Reinach—who recently championed California Proposition 8, framing the measure as a protection of religious liberties—argued vigorously that the California court essentially nullified freedom of conscience, making homosexuals a protected class whose rights outweigh religious liberty and free exercise of religion.

Danielle Sawyer, a practicing gynecologist, worries that a series of small steps by courts may limit the rights of physicians like her to exercise their religious convictions with impunity. Sawyer said that she is not like a fast food chain or retail store to provide service for any who come to her. When the floor opened for audience interaction, LLU ethicist Mark Carr noted that because medicine today is also a business, in a sense physicians are like McDonalds with the obligation to serve all comers. Sawyer retorted that she was not trained in business; she was trained as a servant, though at times it seems as though she might become a slave.

David Larson discussed the ethical ramifications of providing health care. Professional, philosophical and Christian theological ethics all agree: to accept or reject patients solely on the basis of gender, race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation is patently wrong. When an audience member suggested that infertility differs in gravity from saving a human life, Larson thanked the commenter for the distinction while adding that the hottest topic in the guild is whether to classify infertility as a disease and treat it as such. Larson concluded his prepared remarks by saying, “I agree with the court, and Jesus does too.”

Amid several serious inquiries from audience members came a few moments of levity. One disgruntled, elderly gentleman complained at length that he was the victim of discrimination by his church, which had forbidden him from distributing religious tracts. Moderator Jim Walters managed to placate the man with an invitation to discuss his case with Mr. Reinach following the presentation.

The audience member who followed proved less comedic, saying that the church has a biblical mandate to oppose homosexuals, and if that means being barred from practicing medicine or another profession, so be it!

[Because I arrived late at the discussion, I did not hear Douglas Welebir’s opening statements. I hope that someone will be able to summarize his arguments for our benefit here.]

More on North Coast v. San Diego:

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4941377&page=1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-02-doctors-side_N.htm

Given my recent night and day consuming activities - teaching, blogging, electioneering - I haven't had a chance to step back and reflect on what the last couple of political months and emerging discourses might mean for America and the Adventists who live here.

Providing some religious perspective, John Schmalzbauer writes on the Social Science Research Council's Immanent Frame:

Americans have elected the most theologically astute president since Jimmy Carter. Like his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama is partial to the writings of Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr. Obama’s Facebook page (the first ever for a president-elect) lists Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead as a favorite novel.

Hidden from most of the electorate, Obama’s theological inclinations are well known to scholars of American religion. Heralding a “civil religious revival,” sociologist R. Stephen Warner cites Obama’s belief in the power of ideals to draw Americans “toward their better natures” and the “awesome God that he knows is worshiped in both blue and red states.”

I agree. But we're about to end our time with a president who many called their "Pastor in Chief." Do we really want another?

Or is there a difference in the theological foundations and implementation between 43 and 44 that gives religious libertarians, like me, hope? I first heard Barack Obama speak in person in June of 2006. At the time I wrote:

Today, the man President Bush calls "the pope" delivered an incisive speech articulating a principled way forward in the American debate over faith and public life. I sat four rows away, and it was good.

Speaking at the First National City Church, to a packed audience of mainline, evangelical, and Catholic progressive activists, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) began with a story familiar to many—having his religious bona fides questioned because he wasn’t conservative enough. Pushing past both the Right’s patently parochial rhetoric and the secular stammer of the left, the senator swung back with a vision for American values rooted in his hopeful prayer that “reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all."

But Obama's short record and today's speech reveals more than progressive ideals and sharp political timing. He also envisions a way forward that eschews the Right's solipsistic rhetorical grip on American values. He sees that the solutions to gun violence, poverty, war and failed immigration policy lie in our ability to turn personal ideals into broad movements for the common good.

Evoking Kierkegaard's and then moving beyond Fear and Trembling and its treatment of the subjectivity of faith, Obama concludes:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

It was this lack of non-sectarian reasoning that led Obama and significant numbers of Adventists to oppose the religious right's successful attack on marriage equality in California.

But perhaps there is a way forward. On The Immanent Frame, John Schmalzbauer, continues:

Before and after the election, the religious right has been unrelentingly hostile to an Obama candidacy. In particular, recent statements by Focus on the Family’s James Dobson reveal an unbridgeable chasm between Obama and some conservatives. In October 2008, Dobson released what he called a “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America.” A fictional letter from the future, it begins with the author lamenting the fact that he “can hardly sing ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ any more.” Downright apocalyptic, it warns that an Obama administration will result in the outlawing of campus ministries, a rise in pornography, the banning of evangelical books, and the outlawing of the Pledge of Allegiance. Along the same lines, Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery compares Barack Obama to “pagan rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus.”

And yet it appears that Obama knows exactly what he is up against. Consistent with his Niebuhrian sensibilities, he has not portrayed the quest for reconciliation as an easy journey. Like Martin Luther King, Jr., Obama believes that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that a new kind of politics requires us “to account for the darker aspects of our past.”

On Tuesday night, Obama looked back to a dark time in American history, quoting Abraham Lincoln’s words “to a nation far more divided than ours”: We are not enemies but friends.

That's pastoral. But the emphasis on what we have in common marks a strong difference from the triangulation and Rovian-Palin polemics of the past. As Fritz Guy or Alden Thompson might note: It's less apologetic and more theological.

If the Adventist church and our evangelistic leadership wish to reach more people for Christ, perhaps noting the post-election hunger for this sort of thoughtful commonality might make our church a more inviting refuge from dominant Christendom. That so many Adventist evangelists signed on with the religious right over Prop 8, while the majority of Californians under 30 voted 61% against Prop 8 and Obama doubled Kerry's vote among under 30 evangelicals, should give some pastors and administrators some pause.* Despite the recent promulgation of "hope" on evangelistic signage, are we still really communicating fear? Instead of the old papacy, is it now the gays and secularists?

One reason that Obama won was that throughout the campaign in word and deed, he employed on balance much more unifying rhetoric. One might disagree with his health care proposals, but that didn't make anyone less "real" of an American.

Are there less real Adventists? I conducted an experiment on the Spectrum Blog on the weekend before the election in which I invited folks to take a second from the heated debates and wish each other a Happy Sabbath. Many did, but conspicuously absent were some who are the most prolific on this site in defending Adventism against encroaching "liberalism." In defending truth, sometimes we need to stop and enjoy its presence and affirm the larger ties the bind.

I like a good fight, but there is a dangerous tendency, a sort of reactionary nihilism among some that see in minor changes The End. And they jump in to do a little shaking of their own. Change has been happening for thousands of years and yet, somehow, folks still find God and a common moral good. In fact, it's a fact that the more we focus on our shared meanings, the less threatening some of the other stuff becomes.

From noting the same God in Red and Blue States to encouraging non-sectarian reasoning, under a new President (perhaps a professor in chief?), it will be interesting to see if this emphasis on the common good continues. And more importantly for pastors, evangelists, professors and all Adventists, will we bend our aching discourse of community and moral goodness toward justice for all?

Adventist Gothic illustration by Adventist Caricaturist.

*Original wording mixed the young and evangelical stats.