Category: Christianity

Godly music v ungodly music…

It’s important to know the difference. Apparently. Saxophone jazz is out. Saxophone muzak is in. Because it’s important that church sounds like an elevator.

You know the song “Heart and Soul” that every kid plays on the piano – it’s out. It’s a “Boogie-woogie” song, and thus unsuitable for gospel/worship music. Because it makes the body want to dance.

The Nu-Thang man: Horrible Christian rap and a nice follow up

You know how sometimes I’m forced to post speculative questions like “what were the parents of this kid thinking when they let him make a fool of himself in front of a camera”…

Well. In this case. I don’t have to. Because the guy behind this video has come forward. He’s now a 29 year old lawyer. And he responds to his viral infamy with grace and class.

“In retrospect, I think the performance shows a green-eared, gutsy attempt to passionately perform something I believed in. Does it look a little cheesy 19 years later? Sure. Are my clothes outdated even for 1992? Probably. Did I need an inhaler? A little oxygen would have helped!”

“I don’t think the purpose of the video was to convert people in the first place. Think about it. It’s a Christian TV show being watched by other Christian children…some of whom grew up and are now laughing at themselves for wearing flowery pirate pants.”

Why correct attribution of quotes matters (and why I don’t often quote people)

I’m not normally a pedant. I hope. But I found myself informing many of my friends that the Martin Luther King Jr quote they posted on Facebook was bogus. Why? After a bit of a heated discussion with a friend – now redacted and consigned to the nether regions of my email inbox and wherever Facebook’s super-spy-computer keeps them so they can serve me better ads – I decided that I think attribution of ideas is important. It might not matter quite as much if the person being quoted is dead, as is the case here, because it’s not doing real damage to somebody the way wrongly attributing a quote can. It’s not because I want to protect Martin Luther King’s legacy that I think this is bad, but because I think truth is important. Much more important than correct punctuation, and possibly important enough to risk offense over.

I pretty much entirely agree with the sentiment of Martin Luther King Jr’s actual quote.

“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

And I want people to care. I want people to value life and to see how similar the response to Osama’s death has been to the response in the Arab world to the September 11 attacks, where some sectors of the community danced and chanted in front of TVs.

I’d love people to stop and think before rushing outside chanting, celebrating, and raising the stars and stripes – or worse, copying this guy…

Via 22 Words

But say you disagree with the quote. Say you’re with motorbike man in the video above. Say you think Osama deserved to get it in the neck. Deserved much worse (which he did – if we’re working on some sort of economy of scale). Say you think this is an event worthy of celebration. And say you read that quote, and then check out its authenticity, and find that its a half truth. Are you then going to feel convicted by such a quote? I’d say there are many in that boat who aren’t. People who will dismiss the quote as though the well has been thoroughly poisoned.

The way we present a message matters almost as much as the message itself. The boundaries between medium and message matter. People are cynical. Snopes.com exists. Credibility is important – and correct attribution isn’t just part of being credible, but part of being truthful. And as a Christian, a Christian who wants people to listen when I talk about the incredible gospel of the resurrected Jesus, I can’t afford to be sloppy with the truth on small stuff. Because I want people to believe big stuff.
I agree with the quote. And yet. I haven’t posted it on my wall.

Partly this is because I haven’t read it in context. I have no idea what point MLK was actually making. Which I think is fundamentally important. Attributing the correct words to somebody without context is dangerous – it is, I think, one of the biggest hurdles to Christian mission. Years of poor proof texting, stripping verses of context is one massive factor preventing people engaging with and understanding the Bible.

I’d also much rather put the sentiment in my own words than have it come from somebody famous, as if the sentiment is only true because somebody famous said it was true. That’s a bizarre and dangerous argument from authority – and for Christians it runs the risk of creating some sort of super apostle where an idea is only worthy if it comes from someone with a special annointing.

Feel free to quote this post on Facebook. Attributed to me. But I’d prefer you to say something similar in your own words if you agree with me, while the viral spread of an idea is powerful, I have a hunch that the organic spread of an idea is longer lasting. I think that was probably the essence of Martin Luther King’s mission – while lots of us remember his “I have a dream” speech – many more people, people who have no idea who MLK was, have been influenced by the idea that all humans are created equal because people took the essence of that speech and ran with it.

That’s why I’ll be a pedant on stuff like this, and not on stuff that doesn’t matter quite so much (like your spelling, or your grammar, or your font – though those things are also part of how we package our message). That’s why I’m more likely to join a discussion involving an incorrect attribution or factual error in public, while I’d just privately tell you you’ve spelled a word wrong… because it’s important that the people who’ve read what you’ve said know that it’s not true too. I’ll try to be loving in the way I tell you you’re wrong though. Because that’s also part of the “medium” and the “message”…

Arguing with Strawmen: Literally, not figuratively

I am aware of the danger of arguing with strawmen. But these guys have silly noses, and the idea that you get sick if you don’t pray enough is so stupid that they’ve earned their place in the St. Eutychus hall of YouTube Shame.

Via Jesus Needs New PR

The origins of a fake Martin Luther King Quote

One day post the demise of OBL and the social media streams are still flooding with reactions. It’s pretty amazing to sit back and watch. My own contributions to the discussion was to question the merits of the “burial at sea” and to suggest that I would be using the responses of my friends to place them on some sort of political spectrum.

Oh. And. I posted this clip from Four Lions.

 

The “Christian” response to the death of the globe’s most infamous terrorist has been pretty startling and interesting, and probably more to do with one’s political persuasions than convictions about human life. A concern for human life, and its dignity, is what drives the fight against terrorism (or the “war against an abstract noun”) – so it is not necessarily anti-life to celebrate the demise of one committed to ending other lives.

I’ve enjoyed some of the more moderate responses too – Kevin De Young and Doug Wilson’s in particular…

I do sometimes yearn for more crazy friends with crazy conspiracy theories. I have a couple. Hey guys. Thanks. If you’re reading. But on the whole my newsfeed was leaning conservative on Facebook and lefty on Twitter. Odd. There’s not a huge overlap between who I follow on each. Anyway. One of the quotes that started springing up from my less gung-ho friends was this quote attributed to Martin Luther King.

“”I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.” – Martin Luther King, Jr”

That’s the abridged version. The full version is here…

“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

Now, the excerpt is completely bogus. It’s not anything MLK ever said. See this story from The Atlantic. The second half is legit. It’s an actual quote. So how did the first bit get tacked on? It seems it was a case of Facebook Whispers. Here is the thread that apparently started the viral ball going (according to Reddit).

Here’s the legit bit:

“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that” – MLK Jr, Where Do We Go from Here : Chaos or Community?

Somebody missed the quotation marks in the middle when transmitting the quote, and the rest, as they say, is fake history.

“The problem with quotes on the internet is that you never know if they’re attributed correctly.” – Abraham Lincoln

Let the social media fun continue, slightly abated…

“Yoof” Videos that don’t suck

I just spent the weekend at Y-Net – a great camp for Queensland Christians interested and involved in youth and children’s ministry. It reminded me (when I wasn’t cooking or making coffee) that finding good videos on YouTube is probably just as important as finding the dross I normally dig up.

I quite enjoyed this one – though I’m not sure how well it translates to the Australian market.

Also good, and powerfully compelling, is this Brian Head Welch testimony, he’s the ex-guitarist of the band Korn.

We need more grungy Australian Christians with sordid pasts.

Anybody got a good video I should add to my collection of good videos? Snakes in the bathtub and Friday parodies won’t cut it this time… (though if you have something like that, send it to me…)

The Dr Seuss Gospel

There’s some space in this concept for this to actually be quite clever. I can’t tell if it’s made by an irreverent Christian or some comedy show.

The Back from the Dead Intruder

One can only hope this was produced for some sort of “make a parody of a YouTube hit with a Christian message” competition. And not because these people thought “hey, you know what the world needs – a Christian version of the Bed Intruder song”…

That’s the danger of parodies. It’s really hard to interpret them in context if none is provided. But enough people thought this was a good idea that they volunteered to be part of it…

Via Scotteriology.

Thou shalt not listen to rock’n’roll

It’s almost a year since I discovered the wonders of Jacob Aranza’s Backwards Masking Unmasked. If you’ve missed the anti-rock paranoia of those heady days, here’s a “sermon” for you.

It’s Good Friday, Good Friday, kicken back on Good Friday

I may or may not have internet access between now and Sunday. So in the meantime. Enjoy Easter. Send me chocolate.

An Easter stunt I won’t be pulling tomorrow…

Ahh. Good Friday. The day, unlike all the other days of the Christian life, where we pay attention to the death of Jesus. Oh. Wait.

I am preaching. Preaching on the cross is interesting, because finding a new angle is hard.

This guy, in his pre-Easter sermon, decided to have a rant about how people who visit church just at Easter time dress. And then he decided to climb in a baby pool to keep preaching.

Skip through to 4 minutes 40 for the pool bit. He stays there for the rest of his sermon.

For more interesting reasons, from the Greek, that this guy is an idiot. Read this Scotteriology post.

Why are Christian movies rubbish?

There are three certainties in this life. Death. Taxes. And horrible Christian art. And for some reason, thanks to evangelical superheroes like Stephen Baldwin and Kirk Cameron, Christian crossover movies are going to keep happening. So strap yourselves in for the ride…

Salon ponders just why they’re so bad. In response to the release of a Christian movie you may not have heard of called “Soul Surfer”…

“But do Christian-themed movies really have to be so bad? I won’t even pretend that “Soul Surfer” is the worst film I’ll see this month, since it lacks the overarching, high-concept horribleness of something like “Your Highness.” But it’s a trite, sentimental puddle of sub-Hollywood mush, with mediocre photography, weak special effects and an utterly formulaic script that somehow required seven (!) credited writers. Believe me, I have learned, over and over again, that ordinary moviegoers, a lot of the time, want to see a story that’s positive, predictable and not all that challenging, but even measured on that yardstick this one is pretty awful.”

He makes an interesting assumption about the motives behind the Christian movie industry, essentially that they’re preaching to the choir – trying to reflect Christian values to a Christian audience. Which is doubtless part of the problem.

If evangelical Christians want to see their life and faith and values reflected on-screen, I guess that’s understandable. But movies are not mirrors, and the mass audiences that went to see “The King’s Speech” or “Black Swan” or “The Social Network” didn’t necessarily identify with the characters or their lifestyles.

But that’s not really it. I don’t think. I don’t think Christian movies are preaching to the choir, I think they’re trying to preach to the outsider as well. Which is great – especially if you’re a quality, C.S Lewis style, engager with culture. But typical Christian movies are using the tools of a culture they despise to present a message and a world view. And they do it with no subtlety. Just with a blunt instrument and lots of force. There’s none of the subtlety or nuance that makes cinema compelling.

A letter writer to Salon agrees.

Christian films suck because by and large, the evangelical audience doesn’t want challenging, complex characters or art. They want the same pabulum spoon-fed to them over and over: God has a plan, accept Jesus and be saved, secularists bad, blah blah blah. There’s no shading or nuance or dark ambiguity in Christian cinema; just God and Satan duking it out. That’s why the films are as thudding, leaden and dull as those tracts the Jehovah’s Witnesses try to shove in your face every weekend while you’re trying to watch what you Tivo’d Friday night.

TV Tropes has an article dedicated to the “moral” response to new art forms. Readers of my series of posts on Backwards Masking Unmasked will recognise the work of the “Moral Guardians” and the eventual development of the Contemporary Christian Music industry.

“Sometimes even Moral Guardians have to accept that The New Rock And Roll isn’t going away. They can’t stop people from watching/reading/playing/listening to it, and even if they succeed in instituting a Censorship Bureau, it’s still not up to their standards.

Well, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. If those works aren’t up to their standards, they will make works that are. And they can even throw in a message about their beliefs and views in these works. Thus they make The Moral Substitute.

Most of the time, this runs into the same problem as a Clueless Aesop. The creators put so much emphasis on the moral message that they forget what actually made the movie, book, music, or game good. Things like quality writing, acting, plot, directing, production values, design, gameplay, and quality control are, at best, a distant second. Expect in most cases (both in fictional depictions and, often, in Truth in Television) the resulting product to be a bland imitation infused with an overwhelming sense of smug, Holier Than Thou self-righteousness and / or a moralistic determination to Anviliciously beat you over the head with whatever message they’re trying to get you to conform to.”

Findo posted this quote from a HuffPo interview with Christian musician Derek Webb that explains much of what is wrong with contemporary Christian art.

“the job of any artist is to look at the world and tell you what they see. Every artist, whether they acknowledge it or know it, has a grid through which they view the world and make sense of what they see. Even if it’s a grid of unbelief — that you don’t think there is anything orchestrating the world and that everything is completely random — that is a grid through which you make sense of the world.

A lot of “Christian art” is about the lens they’re looking through, rather than the world they see through it. I’m not going to criticize anybody for doing that, but I would rather look at the world through the grid of following Jesus and tell you what I see. But that doesn’t presume that all the art I’m going to make will be about following Jesus.”

This is why Christian art that is designed as either a cultural apologetic for the Christian life, or a sales pitch, is bad, well, one of the reasons. We’re not just making art that responds to the world as we see it – like Bach did – we’re making art that reflects how we want other people to see the world. Without subtlety, nuance, or appeal. It’s bad art. And it’s a bad sales pitch. And I hate it.

That is all.

Sam Glenn, Christianity’s Jim Carrey, will motivate you and change your life

This, friends, from what I can gather, is a young Sam Glenn, author of such works as Butt Prints in the Sand. No. I’m serious.

It’s some sort of comedic take on the footprint poem.

This is some sort of comedic take on Jim Carrey’s back catalogue of facial expressions.

You can book Sam Glenn as a motivational preacher. His repertoire has since expanded to include chalk art.

And the book “Stop Living Like a Constipated Christian“.

Welcome to the Golden Star Palace

The Golden Star Palace sounds like a Chinese restaurant. But it’s not. It’s much worse.

Raising Righteous and Rowdy Girls – The Video Promo

I mentioned this book a while back. Watch the video. It hasn’t changed my opinion at all.

My favourite quote – “There’s great guys out there, most of them are raised with southern bap- ahh values…”