Pastor Scott's Thoughts

My Top 10 "Friend of the Show" Guests on the Last Episode of the Colbert Report

Last night was the last episode of The Colbert Report. I will admit to being a huge fan and diligent viewer of the show. Because Stephen played a caricature of a conservative pundit he could poke fun at - while at the same time exposing - the silliness and the "truthiness" of what today often passes for television "news". (I think Neil Postman would have adored Colbert).

I am a little bit sad that the show is over. If you caught the last episode you know that it ended with an ever increasing ensemble of guests joining Stephen, Jon Stewart and Randy Newman singing "We'll Meet Again." As Noah and I were watching the show, and more people were added to the song, we were pushing the pause button and  trying to name all of the celebrities we could while also laughing about their connection over the last nine years to Colbert.

Many who were in the studio for the last show are huge celebrity figures. But here are my ten favorite cameo guests from the last episode of The Report...

10. Trevor Potter: Colbert had an amazing ability to find powerful people and make them famous. Trevor Potter served as the show's attorney - in particular during the 2012 election cycle, Potter helped Colbert set up a 501(4)(c) SuperPac – called "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow." Potter would make somewhat regular appearances to  describe all of the ways a SuperPac - and  Stephen's in particular - could operate to shape an election with little or no regulation.

A study done by Pew Research at the time revealed that regular viewers of Colbert were better educated about the campaign finance law and the implications of the "Citizens United" U.S. Supreme Court ruling (allowing the formation of SuperPacs) than the viewers of more traditional news outlets.

It was Colbert's ability to blur the lines between comedy and reality while at the same time educating and revealing the inner-workings of government (especially for my kids generation) that was genious.

9. Nate Silver - perhaps the world's most well-known statistician appeared on the show three times. Nate was launched into notoriety for predicting almost precisely the 2012 presidential election results. But what I love about his relationship to Colbert is (a) he illustrates the way the "Colbert Bump" could make household names out of nerds and (b) although Colbert's character lauded "truthiness" and trusting his gut over his head - the frequent appearance of nerdy intellectuals like Nate Silver demonstrates how much the show actually wrestled with facts.

8. Toby Keith - Colbert was amazing at pointing out the way faith and nationalism get merged into an often unholy relationship in America. He could especially point to the frequent siliness of the rhetoric involved in the "culture wars."  Every year he would rant about the "War on Christmas." But probably the most over-the-top moment was in the Colbert Christmas Special when Toby Keith - in the style of his famous Statue of Liberty shaking her fist after 9/11 song - sang about the War on Christmas. Here are some of the lyrics:

Oh say can you see this Christmas - Baby Jesus, 'tis of thee - I'm placing 50 shining stars atop - The Statue of LiberTree - Then I'll go and jingle the Liberty Bell - Host Old Glory with an elf - If you say I can't deck my halls - Then I'll deck you myself!

Well, there's a War on Christmas - It's under attack - But this year old St. Nicholas is taking it back - He's firing guns from his reindeer -Dropping bombs from his sled...

Like a song from a Christopher Guest "mockumentary" Keith's song about the war on Christmas is just bad enough to be ridiculous and yet just real enough to sound like some of your friend's Facebook posts. For most of us it was funny and cringe-worthy at the same time.

7. Emily Bazelon - another example of a very thoughtful, articulate, (real) journalist whose work was elevated because of the "Colbert Bump." One of the things that I will most about the Report is the way it introduced thoughtful people into important cultural dialogue. Cable news tends to invite people at the extremes of an issue to appear because that generates conflict and ratings. But rather than insight, the folks at the margins just create noise.

My fear is that on CBS Colbert's new show will mostly be another show that parades beautiful celebrities who are in promotion mode. It was the introduction to America of people like Emily (and others on this list) that will be an unfortunate consequence of the show being done.

6. Neil deGrasse Tyson - I apologize for being a broken record... but only Colbert could turn a pysicist and cosmologist into a star (pun intended). Dr. Tyson made eight appearances on the Report which made him the second most frequent "friend of the show." 

Atlhough Tyson is openly atheistic (he is sometimes described as an apathetic rather as an aggressive athiest), I loved to hear him come on to describe the complexity and beauty of the universe and to get to sit in while he and Colbert debated how the work of science relates to Colbert's Catholic faith.

5. Bryan Cranston - one of the most memorable Colbert moments was when the group Daft Punk was not allowed to appear on the show because they were making a later appearance on the MTV Awards. It was clear if you saw that particular episode that Colbert was not happy that his StePhest Colbchella '13 Song of the Summer was not going to happen.

Instead he put together a music video of the Daft Punk song with all kinds of people - including Henry Kissinger (who also made an appearance on the last show - he was my #11). But the highlight of the video was Stephen and Bryan Cranston roller disco dancing. It was the perfect contrast to Cranston's Walter White alter-ego and just a very funny moment.

4. Peter Jackson and Smaug - any Colbert fan knows that Stephen is perhaps the world's most formidable JRR Tolkein expert. His Lord of the Rings knowledge is so vast that Jackson gave him a cameo role in one of the Hobbit movies. On one of the last episodes Stephen had the dragon Smaug on as a guest.

I think this is one of the things that endeared nerds - like me - to Colbert. You had this sense that his quick wittedness largely came from the fact that he had spent much of his childhood and young adulthood as a literature geek. In recent months his battle with Amazon.com trying to protect new authors pointed to his love of literature. Even if his character on the show frequently talked about how much he didn't believe in books, you knew it was one aspect of the fake Stephen that was a polar opposite of the real Stephen.

3. Francis Collins - if you caught the final episode, Francis Collins was in one of the first groups to join the closing song. He was also one of the most passionate singers. He was really into it.

I find it funny that when I looked at many of the print and on-line lists of the final episode guests, Dr. Collins is left out of almost every one of them. I guess few people recognize the physicist who led the human genome project.

I not only love that Colbert would have a scientist like Collins on the show. But I appreciate that Colbert recognizes that Collins (also) is a person of devout Christian faith.

2. James Martin - if you know Colbert at all, you know he is Catholic. He regularly would talk about teaching Sunday School. He could quote the creeds - and often did - by memory. Perhaps the most popular moment in the nine year history of the Report was Stephen's tribute to his mother after she died. (Look it up on YouTube and good luck not crying). In his eulogy to his mother he referenced with adoration the way that she prayed for her children.

Often when faith issues came up he would have his friend and priest, Jim Martin, on the program. Father Martin is the author of The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything. When he was on the show, rather than being defensive of faith he could smile and talk thoughtfully about the Pope, about social issues, about the changing nature of the church, and about the significance of Jesus.

1. Doris Kearns Goodwin - far and away my favorite guest was the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. You could tell that Stephen looked forward to talking with her about the significance of Lincoln or the Roosevelts. She is so cute and so sharp - she could always hold her own with Stephen. Frequently her name would come up in jokes or bits as a "love" or an "affair" reference that on the one hand would be hysterical in its oddness, but on the other hand would point to his genuine affection (and ours) for her.

We are used to seeing people like Dr. Kearns Goodwin make appearances on CSPAN and Meet the Press. It was wonderful and unusual to see genuinely thoughtful, delightful, and meaningful people pulled into the heart of everyday issues - even if it took a fake newsman to pull them into it.

I will miss the Colbert Report, but I will also miss the people it introduced into the American conversation. 

The Peril and Promise of Images: Reflecting on History Channel's The Bible Miniseries - Part 1

If Twitter is any indication, like many of the faithful I stayed up late and watched the first installment of The Bible Ministeries produced by Roma Downey and Mark Burnett which began airing last night on the History Channel. In case you missed it, part one began with Noah and the flood and ended with Joshua preparing to take Jericho. I was aware that the series was coming out, but having not seen any of it I have been apprehensive about recommending it. On the whole I thought it was very well done. I'm hooked enough to be committed for the entire 66 book - or 10 hour - ride.

This is obviously not the first visual take on this material. The stories in the Scripture have been inspiring artists of all varieties for two-thousand years. But it is always interesting to observe the artist's interpretation on the Word.

One problem of course is that there is no way to tell all of the biblical stories in 10 hours (probably 7 if you take the commercials out). Because the video version of the Bible can't help but becomin a "Canon within the Canon," I'm always interested then in what gets left in and what gets taken out. Those who know of my fascination with tohu bohu (chaos) and water in the creation story will understand how cool I thought it was that they started with Noah battling the chaos of the waters while retelling his children the creation story and the story of Cain's violence against Abel. 

The story of Abraham was clearly the centerpiece. I thought it was an astute decision to not add God's voice into the production. I thought it helped those watching have to wrestle with the reality that Abraham was making life and death decisions based upon a voice that only he heard. 

My sons were watching it with me and they latched on to the three visitors who came to tell Abraham and Sarah that they would have Isaac. They caught immediately the intended connections to the Trinity. 

It is unfortunate that the narrative skipped from Genesis 22 to the opening of Exodus. There is obviously much that Jacob and Joseph add to the trajectory of the narrative of promise, but if you only have ten hours... somebody gets left on the cutting room floor.

I would really have liked the burning bush to have included God giving to Moses his sacred name YHWH. It seems theologically critical to me that God names himself as the one who hears the cries of his people. But overall, for a story that has been produced in big budget live action and animated movies, I thought the Exodus was well imagined.

There are a lot of things to nitpick. Why do all biblical movies have stars with British accents? How in the world did those ancient people find such good dentists? Did one of the messengers - especially since they seemed to infer that he was one of the Trinity - have to be such a ninja? (Especially given that he was the one who looked to be of asian descent). Don't some of those weapons not come in until the iron age? I know the Bible is violent, but with only 10 hours of film do we have to have every battle scene?

My favorite part was that I was able to watch it with my sons and that it forced us to talk about the Bible, how we see and interpret it, and what we think is most important.

My main critique, however, is one that I picked up from reading Jacques Ellul - in particular his great work The Humiliation of the Word. Ellul probably overdoes it, but he argues that the reason God gave us his revelation primarily in words and not images is because literacy forces us to make abstractions. In other words, when we hear the stories of the Scripture, we have to imagine them. We have to work at interpreting them. We have to make them our own.

Once the story is formed in images it is more fixed in our imaginations that it was before. It's no longer the story as I see it or imagine it. It is the story as the film has formed me to see it. For example, how many of us as we read the Gospels see in our mind Robert Powell's mystic, blue-eyed Jesus from 1977 mini-series Jesus of Nazareth. Or more recent generations can't help but see Jim Caviezel's bloody and beaten Jesus from The Passion of the Christ. Now that I've seen this mini-series when I read Genesis 22 I will see that Abraham on that mountain sacrificing that Isaac (with that Sarah running to try and stop them).

For Ellul this is the catch-22 of images. The "word" invites us to have to abstract the setting, to make it our own, and to continually wrestle with the "word" in sermons, conversations, and lessons. But once the word becomes image it loses some of that abstraction.

Nevertheless, it was fun to watch. As long as we keep remembering that even The Bible in images has an interpreter behind it.

The Olympics, Politics, and Postman

As someone who is a bit sports obsessed, I am going to miss the Olympics. Thanks to DVR I stayed up late nearly every night for the last two weeks watching even sports that most people only care about every four years. My new favorite athlete is Missy Franklin. Not to sound too unpatriotic, but my favorite Olympic moment was Mexico winning the gold medal in men's soccer. People in Mexico will remember their win over futbol-super-power Brazil the way Americans remember Lake Placid's "Miracle on Ice."

For some reason, watching the olympics made me think a lot about the late Neil Postman. I met Neil almost 20 years ago at a retreat on technology and faith when I was working on my dissertation. Neil taught for many years at NYU in an area he liked to refer to as "Media Ecology." He's probably most famous for his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business which lamented what he saw as the dumbing down of Western culture as it transitioned out of the literate age and into the video/technological age.

At the retreat he read the amazing introduction to the book he was working on at the time (and my favorite book of his) called The End of Education. (I love Amusing Ourselves... but the lesser-known The End of Education and a book entitled The Disappearance of Childhood are my favorites). We ended up in a small group together over the weekend, and for some reason he kind of liked me and so we ate a few meals together over the weekend and corresponed a few times in the years that followed. Neil was a crusty, sometimes crass, stereo-typical New Yorker, but I really liked him personally.

I thought about him during the olympics because of what he would so often say about the nature of television. Borrowing the famous line by Marshall McLuhan, Neil would often lament that when it comes to TV "the medium is the message." Television by nature is good at some things but not so good at others. In particular Neil thought sports made for great television. Sports are usually fast-paced, filled with drama, often has unexpected endings (just ask McKayla Maroney), and is completely unscripted. In other words, its primarily entertaining and relatively unimportant.

And there is no question that the London olympics made for great television. Even when I knew the outcome ahead of time (thanks a lot espn.com and yahoo.com!!), I still found myself jumping off the couch with excitement.

But then I would see the political ads that frequently ran inbetween the events and I'd be reminded of what Neil feared about television - it's effect on social discourse. Politics, Neil believed, made for terrible TV. Not because it couldn't be exciting, but because television, by nature, has to be entertaining to be good. Because that is the case, he knew that careful, thoughtful social discourse would make for horrible television (just try watching CSPAN). Therefore, Postman beleived that politics in a technological age would increasingly be about sound-bites, personal appearance, and the manipulation of the truth in easy ways. In other words, the most important social conversations a culture can have - because they have to make for good TV - would inevitably become trivial. The medium is the message.

In Amusing, Neil compares the careful, thoughful, WRITTEN debates between Lincoln and Douglas from the print dominated 19th century, to the short, sound-bite, talking-points oriented political debates that will fill our television screens for the next several months here in the twenty-first. He didn't like the comparison:

If politics is like show business, then the idea is not to prusue excellence, clarity or honesty but to appear as if you are, which is another matter altogether. And what the other matter is can be expressed in one word: advertising... The point is that television does not reveal who the best man is. In fact, television makes impossible the determination of who is better than whom, if we mean by "better" such things as more capable in negotiation, more imaginative in executive skill, more knowledgeable aabout international affairs, more understanding of the interrelations of economic systems, and so on. The reason has, almost entirely, to do with "image"... For on television the politician does not so much offer the audience and image of himself, as offer himself as an image of the audience. And therein lies one of the most powerful influences fo the television commerical on political discourse. - Amusing Ourselves to Death (p. 126,133-134).

So I'm sorry to see one set of games come to an end. But let the other (and unfortunately much more serious) games begin!