Would Jesus Mosh?
http://www.ransomfellowship.org/articledetail.asp?AID=249&B=David%20John%20Seel,%20Jr.&TID=4
A few quick responses off the top of my head (I'll write something a bit more substantive later)...
Mostly the arguments seem to be as follows:
1.The music itself is considered to be “Christian” – this is an incorrect argument often used. The music is not an attempt to praise God (like Church songs) – instead a “Christian” band is usually just that – a band made up of Christians. The reason why people listen is because they can listen to the music that they like without being exposed to the swearing and other bad themes that come out of mainstream bands (in many other genres of music)
2. “The musical emphasis is on volume, power, and intensity. Melody and harmony are virtually absent. It’s a cacophony of rhythm, screaming electric guitars and angry voices. Vulgarity is made public and is celebrated. It is a defiant rejection of all moral demands.” Huh? Wasn’t this said about The Beatles 40 years ago? There is plenty of both melody and harmony in heavy metal. Sure some bands use it to reject authority and push their own world view – just as Janis Joplin used the blues genre (is that considered evil as well?)
3. Moshing is bad – I’m not sure where this comes from. According to his arguments, “Raw physicality and self-inflicted pain are dominate themes. The testosterone level is palpable… Bruised and bloodied bodies leave concerts high on animal carnality and social disregard.” The same argument could be used to say that rugby would make Jesus cry.
By the way - the guitarist from Korn is now a Christian, and no longer with the group.
posted by Taz @ 2:51 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
You seem very defensive in this post... It's tempting to fob him off because he's so out of touch with the culture.
Would Jesus mosh is pretty much irrelevant. The question that's being grappled with, I think, is where that line is drawn. And it may be verging on legalism. Maybe.
The question I would tend to ask is, can anything be neutral?
It comes back to that cultural question of relativity/post modernity - relative to me, that's bad; relative to you, that's good; relative to somebody else, it makes no difference at all.
We stand high and mighty on our pillars of objectivity, when, in fact, those pillars are created by man, for man. They try to cast such a wide perimeter about sin so that nobody might fall in, but inevitably, it's too far away from the sin, so people forget that the sin's there and so they remove the fence and waltz on in without any guidance, restrictions or barriers.
It doesn't work too well, methinks, to lay an argument down that is so heavily based on a once dominant culture, when there is another that has come up to rival it.
But we are right to be scared of the products of rock, rugby and rabies (couldn't think of any better r)... they have proven track records of leaving people with cooked minds from the drugs associated, crook bodies from the impact, cured livers from the alcohol that is drunk by association, then there's all the anti-social behaviour...
Essentially, this is associated with that, and that with this, and some of it is good, some is bad, some is talented, some is vulgar, some is beautiful, some is juvenile.
Is education the solution? Maybe. I'm not convinced. Is banning the solution? No. These are, as was rightly pointed out in the article, issues of personal world view. To impinge on such a thing verges on mind control. Whether that is wrong is based predominantly on human cultural conclusions.
Phil, I don't know if it was brough out so much in the article, but the problem of volume and intensity, even if (particularly if) a Christian message is being presented in song, then the message is being drowned out by the noise. But really, better to listen to something with more wholesome lyrics that you can't understand than less wholesome lyrics that you can understand.
I think my main observation from the whole shemozzle is that post modernism is merely the recognition that what we thought was objective truth, is based merely on subjective, cultural opinion.
Gee, this post is getting a lot of comments...
Wow! Four comments. This post's a winner.
Hi Crom,
I'll attempt to answer all of your concerns...
Neutrality is not, I don't think, so much the issue. There is no doubt that music is not neutral when it comes to emotions, feelings, and raw spirituality. Music has the power to make us happy, sad, angry, excited, energetic, etc.
I agree that it is difficult to argue against something based on the culture surrounding it. You could do the same with some Old Testament laws. You could do the same about blues music (also having a history steeped in drugs and alcohol).
In terms of a Christian message, I touched on the fact that the music is not about praise of a specific message - many Christian bands are bands that are made up of Christian musicians. It's a way that people can listen to metal without having to be exposed to the swearing and "bad themes" that may or may not come out of non-Christian groups.
Post a Comment
<< Home