Tag Archives: media

Into Culture: Cultural Fasting

This month, I preached a sermon about storms—the relentless, exhausting experience of being tossed about, crying out, and wondering when it will end. To introduce this theme, I shared a personal story about Billy the Goat, a small stuffed animal my son has adopted, but which was originally given to me as a reminder of a prophetic word spoken over me during a particularly difficult season of my life. A minister had prayed for me and saw a mountain goat perched high on a craggy landscape, while sheep grazed below in the lush valleys. The words he spoke to me were:

You were built for the crags.

It wasn’t the encouragement I wanted at the time, but over the years, I’ve come to recognise its truth. Maybe some of us are made to endure the harsh terrains of life, drawing sustenance from the challenges that others may not survive.

In my pastoral context, I rarely meet anyone who isn’t facing some storm—whether personal, political, or social. We are living in a moment marked by crisis, social upheaval, and overwhelming pressure. It’s exhausting. As I preached on the storm narrative from Luke 8:22-25, I was struck by the overwhelming question: When will it end? But I wonder: Is this the right question to ask?

In a culture increasingly driven by crisis—a culture obsessed with urgency, drama, and overstimulation—I’m beginning to suspect that the question we should ask is: What if we’re being trained to drown?

What if, instead of asking when the storm will cease, we asked how we can learn to navigate it? And so, this Lent, I’m contemplating a different kind of fast—not one from food, but from the culture that seems to be constantly generating storms. It’s not that I’m retreating from the world, but I want to explore what it would look like to fast from the ceaseless consumption of media and social distraction. To pause, take a step back, and learn to engage with life’s challenges in a deeper, more intentional way.


As we grapple with the constant storms in our lives, I’m reminded of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, specifically his famous soliloquy:

To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?

In these words, Hamlet wonders how one can endure the myriad injustices that shape life—from the most intimate betrayals to the systemic failures of society. His personal suffering is set against a backdrop of broader societal corruption. Hamlet asks whether he should passively endure these injustices or actively fight against them, though he seems uncertain about his ability to do either. The question he poses is not just philosophical, but existential; essentially asking, “Am I a passive victim, or do I have the agency to change my fate?”

This question resonates with our contemporary experience of crisis. We, too, live in a world that often feels overwhelming and out of control. The media thrives on urgency. Everything is unprecedented. Everything is a crisis. The sheer volume of information we consume is exhausting, pulling us from one catastrophe to the next, leaving us, like Hamlet, to ask:

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?

The weight of crisis after crisis dulls our resistance, saps our strength, and leaves us in a state of near paralysis. It’s as if the constant bombardment of noise is designed to make us surrender, to give up on clarity, to numb us into compliance. The media, politics, and even the systems of power rely on this sensory overload. They know that when we are too tired to think clearly, too overstimulated to resist, we become easier to control. I see it in my newborn son. When he fights sleep, I sometimes flood him with sensation—rocking, shushing, bouncing—until he can’t resist any longer. The world does the same to us. It doesn’t want us awake; it wants us numb, exhausted, compliant.

We experience ‘the slings and arrows of life’ in various forms—personal struggles, societal injustices, and the constant barrage of media and political crises. In the face of this, it’s easy to feel powerless, overwhelmed, or even paralysed. Just as Hamlet contemplates his own powerlessness, we may wonder: Do we have agency to change our circumstances, or are we merely at the mercy of forces beyond our control?

This is where cultural fasting comes in—not as an avoidance, but as an intentional act of reclaiming agency. Hamlet’s existential crisis is a reminder that we must face our pain and our circumstances with clarity and resolve. In much the same way, we must reclaim agency in our response to the crises of today. This doesn’t mean we ignore the storm; it means we learn to act within it, with purpose and intention.

The storms of life may not subside anytime soon. The crises—personal, social, and political—will continue. But the question for us is whether we will let ourselves be overwhelmed by them or whether we can find ways to act meaningfully within them.

In Luke’s gospel, the disciples cry out in the storm:

Master, Master, we are perishing! (Luke 8:24)

They don’t ask for the storm to stop. They just cry out. And Jesus responds—not by explaining, not by offering an action plan, but by being present.

We often pray for circumstances to change, for the storm to end. But Jesus calls us to ask for the Holy Spirit—not escape, but presence.

Hamlet, caught in his own storm, wrestles with the temptation to escape:

To die—to sleep, No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to…

But the answer isn’t withdrawal or surrender. The answer is to learn to stand firm. To discern when and how to engage. To root ourselves in something deeper than the chaos of the moment.

Lent is often framed as a time of deprivation, of discipline. But I prefer to engage with the season as a time of reorientation. What if fasting from media and cultural noise isn’t about retreat, but about finding nourishment in the crags of that landscape; learning to be present in the storm rather than demanding it cease?

Again, this is where I believe cultural fasting can help us reclaim our agency. By stepping back from the noise, we could create space to think, to discern, and to act with purpose. We can choose how and when we consume information, and we can choose to engage with cultural texts and crises in a more reflective and meaningful way.

This could look like:

  • Setting specific times for news consumption and intentionally stepping away afterward to process it.
  • Practicing a form of lectio divina with cultural texts (films, books, articles) and news items instead of passively consuming them.

Instead of being bombarded by culture, this is about making room to see it more clearly. So:

  • Choosing one meaningful cultural artefact each week (a book, a play, a work of art) and intentionally engaging deeply with it rather than superficially.
  • Committing to discuss what’s encountered culturally with others rather than just absorbing it alone.
  • Reading against the grain—approaching media with discernment, asking: What is this shaping in me?

The storm is not going to end. But we are not powerless in the face of it. The armour of God, as described in Ephesians 6, is not just a metaphor; it’s a practical guide for standing firm in the face of life’s challenges. Truth, righteousness, faith—these are not abstract virtues but practical tools for resilience in the storms of life.

So, this Lent, I invite you to join me in fasting from the constant churn of cultural crisis. Rather than passively consuming media and information, let us actively choose how we engage with the world around us. Let us reclaim our agency by stepping back from the noise, reflecting on what truly matters, and choosing to act with purpose in the face of the storms.

The Lord is with us, even in the crags. And there is nourishment—if we know where and how to look.

What is Love?

Originally written for The Big Bible Project as part of their focus on Song of Solomon (published on October 28th 2014)

I’ve been reflecting on our culture’s view of ‘love’ recently. Love is used all over the media; from its use in marketing to advice columns, to status updates and in tabloid headlines. It is used in popular culture as a generally accepted, shared point of reference when it comes to social cohesion: we all think ‘love’ is a good thing.

But what do we mean? How do we love?

‘To love our neighbours as ourselves’ has been replaced by the seemingly synonymous concept of ‘treating others as you would like to be treated.’ No one questions someone’s ‘love’ for something or someone; who’d dare do that, for no one knows someone else feelings and cannot judge the truth in their experience. This is where I become uncomfortable.

Our culture has allowed ‘love’ to be singularly an individual experience with little to no relation to others. The important thing, for our culture, is that you ‘love’; no one can stop that ‘love’. We talk about ‘love at first sight’ as if ‘love’ cannot be judged or fully grasped and therefore fully shared. Romance, sentimentality, poetic emotions that overwhelms us and we cannot voice or articulate them; these are now what ‘love’ is about. It is interesting that ‘romantcism’, as a movement, is defined as,

a movement in the arts and literature which originated in the late 18th century, emphasizing inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual.

The central tenants of this understanding of ‘love’ has redefined and shaped our culture so that ‘love’ is now a subjective and individual experience.

The Song of Solomon is a passionate exploration of ‘love’ but about whom is it written? Is it about God and his people? Or is it about two humans, passionate about each other and desiring a deeply sexual union? Many have argued both sides and I find that interesting; for no other reason than we find it difficult to define different ideas of ‘love’. We talk about ‘love’ a lot but if we took more time thinking and defining what we mean, I think we’d realise how little we really want to know about it.

There is a real problem with having just one word for this complex experience, we call ‘love’. We ‘love’ pizza and we ‘love’ our friends and we may even ‘love’ another person to commit our lives to them. The issue arises when we cannot be specific about what we mean by ‘love’. Take this disturbing video from the USA about a man who is dating his car!

(Please be warned: some may find this video disturbing)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/my-strange-addiction-cars_n_1268798.html

It was CS Lewis, in his book ‘The Four Loves’, which highlighted the Greek’s use of four separate words for ‘love’: storge, philia, eros and agape. Eros is the sexual love which often gets mixed up with our concept of pure love (this is probably why sex sells!) This is the most powerful and the most all-consuming of the ‘love’ experiences but it is, as Lewis puts it, the ultimate in ‘need-love’ where there is a sense of possession; either to possess another or to be possessed by another. This need, even to be possessed, is a dark temptation which can hide itself behind a false sense that it is sacrificing itself to the other when actually it is striving to have itself justified by the other.

It is ‘agape/love’ which the Bible calls us to and is in fact a much rarer experience than most of think. We have softened ‘agape/love’ to be synonymous with our more frequent experience of storge, philia and eros so that it fits in with our post-romanticism culture. This is seen most in our reading of 1 Corinthians 13 (the famous ‘wedding reading’),

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. (1 Corinthians 13:4-8, NIV)

We so often feel like we can divide this ‘agape/love’ into components and we say to ourselves,

Well, if I show patience, then I’m being loving.

or,

I managed to not shout at them for hurting me; so I showed them love.

Whereas, I suspect, this passage is actually describing this ‘agape/love’ as a complete thing. In order for something to be ‘agape/love’ it needs to be all of these things or it is not ‘agape/love’.

With the rise of the romantic movement which came out of the Enlightenment, we have developed, as a culture, into a highly individualised society and this has eroded most understandings of communal relationships. We have allowed the concept of ‘love’ to become primarily about gaining an experience for ourself rather than relationship with others.

Online relationships can easily be romanticised with our popular culture, media and even shared social narratives shaping our concept of love. We read the Bible through the lens of post-romantic Western culture and abuse the revolutionary and divine experience of ‘agape/love’ which is totally other focussed. This ‘agape/love’ has been perfectly revealed in Jesus and we must allow his love to challenge our understanding of what love is and to shape us to be transformed by it.

Jesus never commanded us to ‘love ourselves’ because he knows how easy that is to blind us to the real love of God and the love of others. The command to ‘love our neighbours as ourselves’ assumes we love ourselves and never commands us to do it. To love ourself doesn’t mean we have positive emotional thoughts about ourself but is about where our focus is. Due to our cultural bias to individualism and subjectivity this means we’re all obsessed, both positively and negatively, with ourselves unable to enter into true, healthy relationships with others. What God is calling us to, is not healthy opinions about ourselves but about a life focussed on him and other people. It is not about having a positive self image, it is about not having a self image at all so we can love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, uncontaminated with a sense of ‘me’ or ‘I’.

MediaLit (part I)

Fear.

As I sit in MediaLit Conference this week I’m becoming acutely aware of the many fears that impact all of our responses to new ideas, new people, new aspect of people, the list goes on. Some are implicit whilst others are explicit. For all the new information, tools and concepts that are being introduced the moments of real revelation have been, for me, the times of acknowledgement of fear.

I can’t speak for the other delegates present but I’m happy to say, “I’m afraid.”

Christ proclaims, “Do not be afraid!” and I want to not fear but I do, at times. It’s good to acknowledge my restricted view of life and the fear that surrounds my thoughts, actions and words. So there are two questions; “What am I afraid of?” and “What am I afraid for?” I am afraid of facing upto my finiteness. I am afraid of being found out as a fraud, a liar, a selection of contradictory images that don’t hold together. I am afraid that I may be actually be the fool that I desire to be. I am afraid that my prayers and desires are actually being answered and I may actually have to face the pain of transformation.
What am I afraid for? Here’s the difficult question. Fear is a defence mechanism to protect us from harm. At times this may be irrational or even unfounded but the consume us. Should we rush into all that is fearful? Many radicals would say “yes.” I’m inclined, as a wannabe radical to agree with them but I have caution in saying so (another fear!)

I think that I am afraid in order that I acknowledge God and my doubts of Him. The fear of God is my greatest fear. I am, above all, afraid that God may in fact be real and He is in control and I’m not. God may actually have His way which so often contradicts mine. I am afraid in order that He reveals Himself. So why does He repeatedly proclaim “Do not be afraid.”?

God commands this after His revelation. one could suggest that thing that we should not be afraid of is God Himself. This, therefore, suggests that it is possible to fear God and that it is after God is revealed and acknowledged that God settles those fears.

What am I afraid for? To have God revealed as that which is to be feared above all things in order that I can acknowledge and relate with Him and then He will settle my fears.