Harrison, first of all, I want to acknowledge that I’m an outsider in this discussion. I grew up in a fairly isolated, very white community, and never really had to wrestle with ideas of racism. As you’ll note, the story I told was second-hand, indicating that I don’t even have tons of experience with inter-racial interaction to draw upon. You, on the other hand, have clearly spent much of your life considering this topic. So I apologize if I my musings ever step into the territory of ignorance.

Back to your response. You’re right, the notion of “colour blindness” is kind of ridiculous. We’re colored people and we live in a tainted place, right? I guess colour blindness is a bit of a misnomer. I’m not calling for all white folks to shyly pretend that they didn’t notice that the African family in the restaurant was so dark. That would be awkward and silly. Perhaps a stronger vision metaphor would be depth perception: being able to see the colour in the forgeound, but also see the person’s identity behind it.

I think we’re both actually saying the same thing: colour shouldn’t be the most unique thing about you. People should be interpreted as people. I like to think of it as “RSS for personalities.”

You probably already know all this, but I’ll explain anyway. RSS is a web term that’s short for “Really Simple Syndication,” and it’s what lets website owners publish their site’s content as a “feed.” If a website has been developed using proper standards, readers can subscribe to the content in an external reader, kind of like Outlook. They can read the words written by the website author, separate from the context of the actual website.

Imagine RSS for people? It would be like interpreting their souls without the context of their bodies. It’s too metaphysical to really occur in a physical world, but it’s kind of what true friendship is: knowledge of a person that transcends context. If you can learn and befriend and understand the essence of a person, it eventually becomes such that their colour is nothing but decoration.

That was my main point. Not to ignore a person’s colour, but to integrate their skin with their whole identity. It’s not hiding one’s head in the sand…it’s more like deciding to stop commenting on how beige-ish the sand is, and to start digging to see what is underneath. The posture is similar, though.

You said:

”I was made black for a reason. It’s unique to me. It’s a part of who I am. However, the North American solution to people who would hate me for it is to tell people not to notice it.”

That’s not really what I was saying. People should notice your blackness, but they should also be able to look past it. Just like the movie Crash so laboriously and unsubtly explains, it’s important to see past colour, race, class and status to see that people are all individuals. By constantly drawing attention to your race, it keeps people staring at the surface instead of going more in depth.

Harrison, you’re one of the smartest and most clever people I know, and also one of my best friends. You’re also one of my only black friends, and I totally dig that about you. Sometimes for kicks, I introduce you as “my black friend Harrison,” as an awkward and obvious joke. That statement is “funny” (but not really) because it pokes fun at the sensation that the black person is a startling anomaly to be gawked at. But come on, I’m pretty sure if I referred to you as “my black friend” ALL the time, you’d probably kick me in the junk. It’s stupid and kind of racist in its own way. You’re my friend first, and a black guy, like, fourth or something.

In my original comment, I asked if “discussions about race” amplify the problem of racism. I agree with you: no, discussions about race are really quite healthy. It’s when race is talked about for no other reason but to point out its existence that it gets mildly unproductive.

Like you noted about my story, X was to blame for W’s problems. Not because he was racist, but because he was just making far too big a deal about W’s blackness, and it eventually came to define her. Similarly, you know that your colour sets you apart, especially in a town like Abbotsford. Your colour is a very important thing, but to let your identity rest on it is to ignore the rest of you. Your skin envelopes you, but it shouldn’t consume you.

• The bizarre religion of Vancouver’s free dailies
• Modern Cinema and the Christian Convention
• Rock, Records and Redemption

Modern Cinema and the Christian Convention

written in April 2006
by Kevan Gilbert

THE ROCKS CRY OUT

Christianity and modern culture have always had a hard time co-existing, but these days, a number of trends have been appearing on the radar that suggest that changes are afoot. Donald Miller, Brian McLaren, Relevant Magazine, the hip resurgence of philosophers like Kierkegaard, and the Emergent Church movement (among others) are all far-reaching testaments that the rocks are crying out: Christians need to engage culture in a more relevant and meaningful way. No longer can we exist in a bubble that rejects the artists, the music and the films – yes, the artifacts that comprise the very culture in which we dwell. And so, the winds of change have been blowing across Christendom: stop judging, start engaging.

But now we’re facing a new problem that’s presenting some difficulty: nobody’s meeting us halfway. The post-modern believer is in transit, yearning for a re-connection to its birth culture, some middle ground between the Creator and the created that doesn’t require a monastic divorce. But the culture we’re reaching out to has its hands outstretched in “stop” gestures. While it’s true that Christians have done poorly at engaging culture, I would like to argue that culture – namely, films and filmmakers – have done a poor job engaging Christians.

What does this mean? Well, the biggest thing the modern Christian has been learning – the theme echoed across Miller, McLaren, and Relevant Magazine – is the idea that the dichotomy between the sacred and the secular is merely a construction. That indeed, there is good and evil inside the Christian and pagan alike, that mankind is fallen, and the best way to be a Christian is to accept one’s humanity, and strive for authenticity before God. The result of this is not necessarily holiness, but wholeness. The simplest truth in this is that a Christian is a human, a complicated being with multiple motives and superfluous struggles, and not merely a pigeonholed salt and light sculpture.

And that’s where it becomes unfair: Christians are thawing out, but culture is freezing up. It has been my observation that modern cinema regularly fails to recognize and portray the complexity and authenticity inherent in Christians, and has instead consistently opted for portraying a tired stereotype of the Christian; a Christian stock character, a caricature, a cliché, a foil, a mere cinematic convention that ignores the true depth and humanity of Christians.

THE CONVENIENCE OF CONVENTIONS

When our coursepack readings brought us to Jacques Ellul’s musings on ends and means, I couldn’t see an immediate application. “Today everything has become ‘means,’” Elull says. “There is no longer an ‘end’; we do not know whither we are going.” (Ellul, 87) His writings are dark and rich, filled with abstract ideas that delve deeply into the major dysfunctions of society, but all I could pull from it was that something was wrong. It wasn’t until I connected the dots between Ellul, modern cinema and the Christian convention that I found the application I was looking for.

In his book Film as Social Practice, Graeme Turner describes the role of conventions in movies. “Popular films need their shorthand,” he says, “Their accustomed routes, to operate effectively.” (Turner, 95) And indeed, without an agreed-upon understanding of how people, places and ideas will be represented, it would become impossible to condense a story into a movie-length narrative. But I worry that this shorthand is parallel to Ellul’s “means” – means that have becomes ends in themselves. It has become outmoded to present assumptions in a new light.

Ellul describes this phenomenon: “…As means increase, and as ends are relegated to the abstract, they become implicit and are no longer questioned.” (Ellul, 99) Later, Ellul outlines how “gradually, technical means became more important than the search for Truth.” (Ellul, 88) It was determined in class that Ellul’s use of the term “technics” most closely resembles the English word “technique.” In our case, this allows us to consider the “techniques” of film-making: the convention. Instead of seeking to discover and portray the true state of a “real-life” Christian, filmmakers have relied on stock characters to propel plot lines.

This is a weakening and unfortunate act. Films do have the power to change culture – Raymond Haberski recognizes this in his book, “It’s Only A Movie!”, acknowledging that films have “the potential to shape mass consciousness.” (Haberski, 79) One way in which they can do this startlingly well is by revealing new dimensions to people and places not previously understood by the viewer. However, Christians are regularly under- or mis-represented in the film industry by a constant dependence on the convenient convention.

But imagine a movie that doesn’t do this, and how powerful it would be. Why did Crash win Best Picture this year? Why did Brokeback Mountain win so many awards? Crash, because it was a “gritty race drama” that showed both the good and bad sides of both the victims and the perpetrators. Brokeback Mountain because it did the same. Both movies do what C.S. Lewis praises about Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings: the breaking down of the “rigid demarcation of black and white,” where “motives, even in the right side, are mixed.” (Lewis, 126) This is by no means suggesting that Crash and Brokeback Mountain are on the same level as Lord of the Rings, but all have one thing in common: a remarkable resonance amongst its viewers and readers. It is clear that people are impacted when shown a new side of things, when conventions are broken.

“Within popular film,” writes Turner. “It is never easy to challenge or disregard existing conventions.” (Turner, 95) He continues: “Such images will continue to be produced until the convention itself is overturned.” (Turner, 93)

But before we can overturn it, we must first encounter and explore it.

THE CHRISTIAN CONVENTION

What do Mandy Moore, Ned Flanders and I Heart Huckabees have in common? All of them have manifestly represented the typical Christian convention on which filmmakers tend to rely.

Mandy Moore is the manipulative co-star of the movie Saved!, part of which (incidentally) was filmed right here in Walnut Grove. A summary: Christian high school with over-the-top youth-groupy zeal for God finds everybody name-dropping Jesus but nobody acting out his commands. There’s plenty of prayer and praise-singing, but not a lot of honesty. Then a girl named Mary finds out her boyfriend is gay, and tries to “save him” by giving up her virginity to him in an attempt to make him like girls, and then accidentally gets pregnant. The people around her recoil and mistreat her when they find out she’s pregnant – Mandy Moore’s character leads this witch-hunt. The only people who stay by her side are mostly non-Christians, or else her lefty hipster “fringe” Christian friends. In sum: Saved! is a parody of religious culture that highlights the ironic and often hypocritical behaviour of many Evangelical Christians.

It’s also nothing new. Yes, Saved! is funny, snarky and true. The journey of Mary mirrors the expected journey of the viewer, too: the process of “snapping out of it,” of growing disillusioned with the way crowds of Christians operate. However, does it point a way forward? Does it give us a suggestion for how to do things better? Not really. It’s like we discussed in class, this is the same problem that many academic writers encounter: the problems are easy to diagnose, but hard to prescribe. In Saved!’s case, the conventions are easy to poke fun of, but hard to say anything interesting about.

The Christian convention as modeled by Saved!’s cast is best described by this collection of adjectives: self-righteous, Bible-quoting, sheltered, fundamentalist, shallow, God-obsessed and trite.

It’s a common theme across many cinematic and television productions. In The Simpsons, the age-old character of Ned Flanders represents what many people think of Christians: naïve, friendly, and morally strict simpletons. Because of the duration and popularity of The Simpsons, Flanders has become almost iconic in nature, creating a bizarre and contorted understanding of the Christian faith within culture. Although it’s true that Flanders is granted his beautiful and authentic moments, for the most part, he remains the archetypical Christian convention displayed throughout the media.

One last example of this convention is found in the movie I Heart Huckabees. In a scene from this film, a suburban Christian family is confronted by a pair of rabble-rousing existential nihilists who question them on every aspect of their lifestyle, from their vehicle and meal choices to their motives for adopting their Sudanese son. Throughout it, the family is poignantly (and hilariously) portrayed as a collection of cliquey, stubborn, hypocritical and narrow-minded fools.

I cringe at what it all does for Christ’s message. The image impedes and distorts. It hurts and embarrasses. It makes me want to disown these people, disown this religion, and set up camp in some remote hillside and come back when everything has blown over. But the truth is, it is within these very conventions that we find the path. It is not by disowning our stereotypes, but by embracing them, that we can become whole. Authenticity means embracing the bad along with the good. The entire point of Christianity is that Christ’s love and grace extends to all who seek Him, from those who actually fall into these categorical conventions, to those who perpetrate them in film portrayals, to those who are actively trying to break the stereotypes and create a “new kind of Christian.”

A NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN

It’s not like there are no movies that are sympathetic to the Christian cause. In fact, there are countless movies that put forward powerful Christological metaphors and feature overt Christ figures: Babette’s Feast and Les Miserables, even Braveheart,The Matrix and Gladiator, just to name a few. They do great jobs of using metaphor and analogy to show us what Christ has done. There are plenty of Jesus films, too. In his book Jesus at the Movies, W. Barnes Tatum chronicles over 18 films that have been made over the past hundred years that deal specifically with the life of Jesus (Tatum, 13), and that doesn’t even include The Passion of the Christ. But we’ve read the gospels before, we’ve seen the ubiquitous Jesus film, and it still seems like something is missing. I think many of us know “WWJD”, and a lot of us are wondering: what should we do?

One movie that starts to show us how to represent Christians in the movies is called The Big Kahuna. This is a character-based, dialogue-driven film that approaches a number of different major life issues through the interactions of three characters, within the time-span of one day, within the confines of one hospitality suite. The three characters in this film are salesmen who work for an industrial lubricant company called Lodestar Laboratories. They’re stationed at a sales convention in a hotel in Wichita, Kansas, hoping to score a big-time contract with big-time lubricant hotshot, Dick Fuller – a.k.a., “the big kahuna”. Each of the characters are at three different stages in their lives and careers: Phil Cooper (Danny Devito) is a worn-out, old-time, middle-aged salesman on the brink of a divorce and on the edge of his career; Larry Mann (Kevin Spacey) is a sarcastic, articulate, fast-talking sales king at the peak of his profession; and Bob Walker (Peter Facinelli) is a naïve young Baptist rookie from Research.

Bob the Baptist, again, is the same caricatured Christian convention who possesses that naïve and dogmatic worldview. It is Phil and Larry who show Bob how to be a more sincere, more loving, and more authentic human being. In doing so, the two characters show filmmakers and viewer alike how to represent Christians in the movies.

Larry and Phil, the seasoned salesmen, are broken characters. They’re dirty and they’re flawed. However, they model a sincere love for one another, an earnest respect of the rules of their trade, and a clear understanding of their place in the world. Bob, on the other hand, is a polished would-be evangelist who needs to grow up a little.

Although he is on a business trip, conducting business with business partners, Bob has a hard time actually doing business. Instead, he is compelled to “talk religion”, because he feels it is more important than industrial lubricants. It is commendable that Bob would think like that – indeed, God is more important than industrial lubricants – but unfortunately, Bob misses the bigger picture. When Bob blows the final big deal with the big kahuna by talking religion instead of business, his partner Larry confronts him.

“You’re part of the company,” Larry explains to Bob. “You’re like the hand, and the hand can’t just go ‘Oh, I’m just gonna go over here and do my own little thing.” Rather than listening, Bob only quotes scripture back at him. Soon after that, Larry explodes: “I’m talking about something bigger than God!” Bob can’t understand this – to him, there is nothing bigger than God. But Larry’s point is not that the sales of industrial lubricants is more important than God, it is that Bob’s concept of “God” is so underdeveloped that it cannot recognize that God’s jurisdiction and presence encompasses the whole realm of life, including one’s vocation, which includes the sale of industrial lubricants.

Consider the metaphor, applied to film instead of industrial lubricants. There is no such sharp dichotomy, where Christians and culture separate. Bob, like many Christians, and like most filmmakers would be greatly helped if they could realize that God, culture, faith and life are all present in the same, unified world. Imagine making films that represent this.

That’s my vision for Christians being portrayed in films. That they would be a little more like Larry and a little less like Bob: fleshed-out, real and honest. Embracing culture, not stepping away from it, more than just stock characters. In real life, there are things going on under the surface, there are real flaws, there is subtlety and complexity and beauty and imperfections. Perhaps the breaking of the Christian convention could incite a turnaround in modern cinema that begins to make the message of Jesus a little more accessible, acceptable and authentic.

Bibliography

1. Ellul, Jaques. The Presence of the Kingdom. New York: Seabury Press, 1967. Comm 411 Course Pack, Spring 2006; Kevin Schut ed.
2. Haberski, Raymond J. It’s Only a Movie. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2001
3. Lewis, Clive Staples. “Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.” C.S. Lewis Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces. London: HarperCollins, 2000. Comm 411 Course Pack Spring 2006; Kevin Schut, ed.
4. Tatum, W. Barnes. Jesus at the Movies. Santa Rose: Polebridge,1997.
5. Turner, Graeme. Film As Social Practice. New York: Routledge, 2001

Notes

Donald Miller is the author of Blue Like Jazz and Searching for God Knows What, two books which have caused a major buzz throughout many Christian communities. In these books, Miller’s poetic prose attempts to restore a sense of “narrative” to the Christian story, infusing an earthier spirituality into what he perceives to be a mistakenly formulaic understanding of Christ’s original message.

Brian McLaren is the author of (most notably) A New Kind of Christian and A Generous Orthodoxy. His books are of a slightly more academic nature than Miller’s, but they address a similar theme: something has to change in the way we do Christianity, something that is a little less secluded and a little more accepting.

Relevant Magazine‘s tagline is “God. Life. Progressive Culture.” It is focused on finding truth and beauty in pop culture; discerningly digesting media and presenting it with wisdom and hipness. It is the first magazine of its kind: an openly Christian magazine that interacts with openly “secular” culture.

• Rock, Records and Redemption
• The bizarre religion of Vancouver’s free dailies

Rock, Records and Redemption

Essay written April 8, 2005
by Kevan Gilbert

Christianity has always had a hard time understanding and rubber-stamping most music outside the confines of the “praise and worship” genre. For generations, Christians have stumbled clumsily through different fads and phases, trying to discover the truth about the relationship between music and faith. Over the years, there have been three main stances. For some staunch traditionalists, there is no relationship between music and faith: they believe that all modern music is evil, whether labeled “secular” or “Christian.” Others hold the view that only secular music is evil, while Christian Contemporary Music (or “CCM”) offers a safe alternative to the unhealthy values of mainstream rock. A third view promotes the idea that artists with Christian faith can make a difference in the mainstream without having to label themselves as a “Christian band.” This paper will take a critical look at all three of these approaches, and instead suggest a fourth way: learning to recognize the beauty, truth and spiritual elements of all music, developing what Charlie Peacock calls a “comprehensive view of the role of music in the church
and in culture.”

Ever since Elvis started gyrating and the Beatles starting tripping in the 60s, Christians have found one reason or another to label music as evil and destructive. Some of these reasons have been remarkably valid. In their book “Truth About Rock,” Steve Peters and Mark Littleton provide numerous stories of suicides, beatings and murders committed by individuals that were heavily influenced by the explicit music they consumed. “The thoughts and the ideas we program into our brain have an effect on us,” the authors say. “They influence and produce who we truly become as people. If we listen to, meditate upon, and repeat words that are evil, our thoughts will become evil…For this reason, lyrics are extremely important.”

Likewise, the lifestyles of musicians can often influence listeners negatively – many musicians do not seem to connect their prominence on the world stage with a need to act as positive role models for young listeners. Extensive documentation of the wild concerts, shady dealings, bad decisions and morally lewd behaviours of musicians is offered up and criticized in countless books.

Despite the validity of the concerns regarding the destructive effects of the lifestyle and lyrics of secular music, those who criticize it often take their condemnation much too far. Instead of promoting the use of discretion and good taste when choosing music, this crowd would rather write off the whole idea of music if it means their piety is preserved. In his book “Satan’s Music Exposed,” Salem Kirban makes this bold declaration: “No matter how doctrinally sound the words are, rock, by its nature, can never be used to communicate spiritual truth. Not hard rock. Not soft rock. Not any kind of rock. Rock music and godly things just don’t go together.” Further down the same page, Kirban asks and answers his own question on behalf of paranoid Christians everywhere: “Is rock evil? Yes.”

As a response to this, opponents of progressive music and culture advocate a mass exodus out of the rock scene and into the church sanctuaries. At the back of Bob Larson’s book “Rock & Roll: The Devil’s Diversion,” one can sign and mail in “The Anti-Rock Pledge,” in which one pledges to not only abstain from voluntarily listening to rock music, but also to “destroy all rock records and tapes in [one's] possession.” Instead, Christian music lovers are requested to make an about-turn and “be free of the bondage of the rock music culture.”

“A good alternative to secular rock music is contemporary Christian music,” offer the authors of Truth About Rock. “If you gave Christian music a chance, you may be surprised at the excellence and illumination that comes from listening to it.” Peters and Littleton (and others) heartily extol the virtues of CCM. “These musicians are committed to exalting Jesus in their music. Their concerts are more like rousing worship services. The riffs, melodies and lyrics they bring to the stage lift the heart and move us to love the Lord, love one another and love the lost.” CCM is described as a “unique musical phenomenon in that it is a content-based format that encompasses all musical styles, sounds and flavors.”

And indeed, the Christian music industry is “a vibrant and multifaceted one,” one that “continues to gain the attention of consumers and marketers worldwide through various avenues of exposure.” According to the Recording Industry Association of
America, “gospel music accounts for almost 1 billion dollars annually in US sales alone.” Testimonies to the attachment people have to the industry can be found in virtually any Christian-music-related internet community. Listeners like “cloud9surfer” from the CCM Magazine online forum testify, “I love Christian music. I would never recommend anything secular over something Christian.”

And why would he have to? For every secular band making a certain type of music, there exists its “Christian” counterpart. This means that a person who enjoys the music of say, Slipknot or Pantera, but disapproves of their message, can listen to the Christian version of it: Demon Hunter. Secular-to-Christian comparison charts abound, aiming to guide youth into a safer way to appreciate music; charts like Group Magazine’s Contemporary Christian Music Chart, who organize their chart by genre for greater navigational ease.

However, not all people hold the Christian music industry in high regard. One outspoken opponent of this industry is the proprietor of a website called Corrupt Christianity. The unnamed man behind this website offers a highly antagonistic, sanctimonious critique of CCM. With this website, the author aims to open people’s eyes to the “true condition of the Christian industry”, and does so by ruthlessly deconstructing the background, character and associations of many of Christianity’s top artists and spokespeople. For example, he accuses Michael W. Smith of “leading impressionable minds into deception through his compromised word and hypocritical example.” The author also calls U2 “an immoral band who…mock godliness, proclaims their love for wickedness, and speaks every foul, detestable word.”

The writer of CorruptChristianity.com displays a remarkable lack of grace, openness or sensitivity towards the way God has worked and is working through the artists he so zealously tears down. The Christian music industry has its share of problems, but it would be foolish to pretend it has no redeeming qualities. Strangely, despite all the problems that this writer points out, most of them are merely absurd trivialities, and never once does he hit any of the valid concerns that are actually facing the industry. Rather than an irrational attack on the CCM community, what would actually be helpful is a gentle, intelligent and supportive critique of the industry.

We can find that voice in the writings of Charlie Peacock. Peacock is a CCM veteran; one of Christian music’s most respected members. He has had extensive experience as a producer, performer, songwriter and record label manager. His 1999 book called “At the Crossroads – An Insider’s Look at the Past, Present and Future of Contemporary Christian Music” is a careful, thoughtful and forward-looking critique of the Christian music industry. He does not seek to slander or malign specific artists, but rather, points out many problems that are affecting the industry.

Peacock brings several accusations against the industry. “CCM promotes conformity,” he writes. He explains that some of this conformity is positive, as it produces an “ordered and stable environment where good can flourish.” However, he says that CCM also possesses the type of conformity that produces “legalism, performance-based acceptability, and stunted, uninspired imaginations…apathy and complacency.” Amongst other criticisms, he suggests that CCM inhibits music that is “diverse, faithful and imaginative,” and that it exhibits an “arrogant disrespect for diversity.”

Another voice challenging Christian artists to greater depth is Jeremy Begbie. In his book “Music in God’s Purposes,” he says “Much Christian music has degenerated into a nice, inoffensive, superficial kitsch which seems blind to the pain of the world.” He continues, “I would make a plea that Christian musicians learn more about what it means to transform their culture. Christian musicians cannot afford to retreat into a ghetto of the like-minded. Perhaps more than ever before, we need people with a vision to venture out, learn the musical styles of our modern culture, and remould them into something richer.”

As a challenge to the Christian music industry, Charlie Peacock gives a couple powerful suggestions. First, he pleads that Christian music be allowed to “range over the entire length and breadth of human emotion experience.” Next, he issues this challenge to Christian artists: “Raise the bar. Anyone can put the name of Jesus in a song. Only a Christian can think, imagine, and create music and lyric in a way which faithfully represents Christ and his kingdom.”

Now, based on the challenges of people like Peacock and Begbie, it seems that yet another shift is occurring. Previously, many Christians criticized and abandoned mainstream music and instead opted for the safe, exclusive Christian industry. Now, many are feeling frustrated with the shortcomings and limitations of the Christian music industry, and are seeking to reenter the popular music culture, “not as ‘Christian artists’ playing ‘Christian music’, but as Christian men and women deeply committed to that faith, but who avoid those stigmatizing labels even as they infuse their music with their faith.”

The trend of Christian artists crossing over into the mainstream is a growing one. Bands like P.O.D., Switchfoot and MxPx have all seen considerable success in the mainstream markets without compromising their faith. Many artists of faith are desperately trying to have their work viewed in a way that transcends the old extremes, “which saw art as either a tool to convert the masses, or as simply a form of art to be enjoyed without regard for the profound life-changing effects it was capable of inspiring.”

In some ways, crossing over into the mainstream seems like the only viable option. There is no other real way for Christians to have their music heard by secular listeners – which, arguably, should be the “point” of Christian music. In an interview with Sufjan Stevens at respected online independent music magazine PitchforkMedia.com, Amanda Petrusich says “Christian rock is almost unilaterally vilified…there’s a big fear of Christian music out there.”

The crossover trend has a produced a great number of positive outcomes. For many, it has proven that the Christian message can be taken seriously. It has also provided a lot of hope and light to the often-desolate mainstream music community. Additionally, youth can hear life-affirming messages through music they enjoy, without feeling as though they’re being preached to. Of all the Christian approaches to music we’ve looked at so far, this is one of the more commendable movements. Mark Joseph has written two books which very successfully articulate the ideas, attempts and successes of crossover groups – “The Rock & Roll Rebellion”, and “Faith, God & Rock and Roll” – and I recommend these to anyone wishing to explore the topic further. I have no intentions of criticizing the music or decisions of these crossover artists, as I support them fully, but I feel like the idea of exclusively supporting “Christians in the mainstream” is still a very limited view of what music can be. Could this just another way for Christians to feel good about themselves? I imagine a smug Christian music fan turning to his mainstream music fan friend and saying “See? Christians can be cool, too. Look, you like Pedro the Lion, and they’re Christian.” I believe Christians are still missing something vital in their understanding of music.

Once, the question being asked was “Should Christians have anything to do with rock?” and the answer was no. Then, the question was “Is it okay if Christians make their own rock music?” and the answer was yes – with restrictions. Then the question became “Do Christian musicians have to limit themselves to churches and Christian bookstores, or can they make music that other people want to listen to, too?” and the answer was also a reluctant yes. But now, there is a new question we have to answer: “Is it possible that we can see and learn about God, truth, beauty, meaning, life, humanity and love in all types of music, regardless of the artist’s faith?”

This will perhaps be the most difficult hurdle to overcome in our journey through music. There is a great deal of opposition to the idea that God can speak through non- Christians to bring about positive results. For example, the writer of CorruptChristianity.com declares, “Secular musicians live apart from God, therefore their music is birthed apart from God.” He goes on to announce that “secular, worldly, ungodly music does not and could never bring any spiritual, moral, or virtue in anyone’s lives” (emphasis his). I would like to present the argument that the complete opposite is true. I believe that passionate, artfully executed music can reveal God’s glory in extraordinarily powerful ways, no matter what the faith origins of its performers; that music produced by secular musicians holds incredible value for humanity, and should not be dismissed.

First of all, as Franky Schaeffer says in his classic book “Addicted to Mediocrity”, “…there is no secular or Christian world. There is only one world, the whole world as God has made it…the terms ‘secular’ and ‘Christian’ are only words. Reality cannot be compartmentalized.” Given this, we have to confess that sometimes, God can still use people or organizations or artists who are not specifically “believers” to further His will, to reveal His glory, and to speak His truth. Even the authors of “Truth About Rock” concede this point. “Sometimes, [God] may even use rock music,” they admit. “In the end, all truth is God’s truth.”

Secondly, by limiting our musical experience of God to music generated exclusively by Christians, we are hampering our abilities to distinguish this aforementioned truth, to identify and acknowledge true beauty, and even recognize God in unfamiliar settings. As David Dark says in his book “Everyday Apocalypse,” “One peculiarity of the present age is that, in some cases, our powers of application are so compromised that we’re incapable of recognizing as morally edifying anything that doesn’t advertise itself as such.”

Thirdly, by denying the power of non-religious art and music, we weaken the power of Scripture, and of God. As Charlie Peacock points out, the Bible demonstrates that “everything under God’s dominion is worthy subject matter for songwriting…The subject matter [of the Scriptures] is all of life, both the hellish and the heavenly.” Franky Schaeffer insists, “There is no Christian or unchristian subject matter (except in the area of art work or expression that would deliberately have as its primary purpose to lead people away from the truth).”

“Either God is the Creator of the whole man, the whole universe, and all of reality and existence, or he is the Creator of none of it,” Schaffer continues. “If God is only the Creator of some divided platonic existence which leads to a tension between the body and the soul, the real world and the spiritual world, if God is only the Creator of some spiritual little experiential ‘praise-the-Lord’ reality, then he is not much of a God.” By refusing to accept God’s presence in all his Creation, we alienate ourselves from a large part of our humanity, and limit the reach of God’s power.

Music can serve a multitude of purposes that are glorifying to God. In his book “Theology, Music and Time”, Jeremy Begbie says “music can serve to enrich and advance theology, extending our wisdom about God, God’s relation to us and to the world at large.” Later in the book, he says “music has the capacity to play a unique and positive role in the formation of Christian identity.” Music can also express honest and authentic emotion, capturing the essence of what it means to be human. Music can proclaim the beauty of God’s creation, it can express sorrow, it can announce joy, and it can act as a vehicle for wrestling with dark emotions and situations. Music is also a testament to God by its very nature, in its employment of the God-given gifts of talent, creativity and imagination. Music which is created and approached in a truthful, artful, creative and intentional manner has the power to turn our attention towards God, awakening our souls, minds and bodies to his glory in a way no other medium can.

It’s still very important to use discretion when choosing what music and art to ingest. Not all music and lyrics are healthy for a person – in fact, popular culture tends to feed on a steady diet of music and media that is self-centered, demeaning, ignorant, profit-driven and/or profane. David Dark explains: “As it aspires to no deeper vocation than enthralling the viewer [or listener] long enough to sell something, the media culture ‘is crippling people’s souls, setting up barriers between man and the crucial questions of his existence, his consciousness of himself as a spiritual being.’”

In our attempts to identify truth and beauty outside of Christian bookstores, it is guaranteed that we will uncover a lot of darkness. However, there is still hope. Plenty of “secular” artists continue to make music full of integrity, ingenuity, truth, beauty and honesty. Artists such as Radiohead, Beck and Tom Waits (to name only three) are shining examples of the “apocalyptic” vision outlined by David Dark in Everyday Apocalypse.

“I’m grateful for and in dire need of whatever art can keep me awake and alive to the mystery,” says Dark, “whatever keeps me paying attention, whatever reminds me that none of us (and no ideology) are possessors of the final say. Art that doesn’t bear witness to the opaque, the mysterious, or even allow any ambiguity is propaganda at best, at worst, a ministry of death, an exercise in sentimentalizing, self-congratulatory delusion.”

In the artist biography section of their website, the lead singer of worship band Something Like Silas tells that “the most worshipful experience [he's] ever been a part of” was a Sigur Rós concert in Los Angeles. Sigur Rós is a Reykjavík-based noise quartet, whose music is described as “a fairy-tale explosion of unhinged elemental majesty”. The only words in the music of Sigur Rós are in a language they invented themselves.

Admitting that Christians are allowed to play rock music is a great start. Realizing that Christians can perform relevant, honest, creative, high-quality music is a huge step forward. Imagine what it would be like to admit that one can find God even where His name is not mentioned.

Works Cited

“Ágætis Byrjun.” Online editorial album review. 22 May 2001. Amazon.com. 6 April 2005.

Begbie, Jeremy. Music in God’s Purposes. Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1989.

Begbie, Jeremy. Theology, Music and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002.

Begbie, Jeremy. Voicing Creation’s Praise: Towards a Theology of the Arts. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

Cloud9Surfer. “My 2 cents regarding Christian music.” Online posting. 12 Jan 2005. CCM Magazine Forums. 3 April 2005.

Dark, David. Everyday Apocalypse. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2002.

Joseph, Mark. Faith, God, and Rock & Roll. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Kirban, Salem. Satan’s Music Exposed. Chattanooga: AMG, 1981.

Larson, Bob. Rock & Roll – The Devil’s Diversion. McCook: Nebraska, 1979.

“Michael W. Smith” Online article. 13 September 2004. Corrupt Christianity. 26 Mar 2005.

Owyoung, Eric Michael. “Band.” 2004. Something Like Silas Official Website. 5 April 2005.

Peacock, Charlie. At the Crossroads – An Insider’s Look at the Past, Present and Future of Contemporary Christian Music. Nashville: Broadman, 1999.

Peters, Steve and Mark Littleton. Truth About Rock. Minneapolis: Bethany Press, 1998.

Petrusich, Amanda. Online interview. July 2004. Pitchfork Media. 3 April 2005.

Schaeffer, Franky. Addicted to Mediocrity: 20th Century Christians and the Arts. Westchester: Crossway Books, 1981.

“The Influence Effect.” 13 Sept. 2004. Corrupt Christianity. 3 April 2005.

“Today’s Gospel Sound: Moving Millions – Industry Overview 2004.” Gospel Music Association, April 2004. Accessed 2 April 2005.

“U2” Online article. 13 September 2004. Corrupt Christianity. 26 Mar 2005.

• Modern Cinema and the Christian Convention

So who else just loooves their morning celebrity gossip and condensed stolen news briefs? Apparently somebody up there thinks we do.

Ever since I began skytraining it into to downtown Van last week, I’ve noticed the regular assault of paperboys and hawkers shoving copies of Metro and 24 Hours into my reluctant hands. The apron-clad peddlers distribute these dailies with aggressive religious fervor, passionately sending up media alter calls with all the dedication of devout evangelists. Or maybe more accurately…devout Jehovah Witnesses.

I’d been thinking about the JW comparison for a few days, when TODAY, I spotted a little old lady positioned quietly behind the green Metro Man, handing out copies of “Awake!” It didn’t click until I walked past – so I doubled back through the spawning salmon school of morning commuters and took my very own copy of the J-Ho mag.

My first question when I see Metro and 24 is: WHY? I want to know who’s giving me this, and why they think I want it. With Awake!, it’s easy. The people handing them out believe wholeheartedly in the cause. And there IS a cause: spreading and encouraging belief in Jehovah. The catch isn’t hidden, it’s right there on page 4: “This magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure no world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things.”

Metro and 24, however, are far more enigmatic about their existence. The publishers are a cagey bunch, hiding under countless pseudonyms in order to successfully perpetrate the front of being a friendly local daily.

Friendly local daily my yass. I’ve been maneuvering through the cobwebs of the internet today, and I’ve discovered that these ambitious rags are the offspring of an enormously inbred extended family of media despots.

24 hours a daily

Following the chain of ownership of 24 Hours leads to a massive company called Quebecor Media Inc. 

Quebecor Media. Inc is only one branch of Quebecor Inc., which also owns Quebecor World, which is “one of the world’s largest print media services companies, with plants in 17 countries in North America, Europe, Latin America and Asia.” But according to the Corprorate Citizenship write-up on their website, “We aren’t just a big media conglomerate.”

Pshaw. The Message from the President  reads like a speech from a General prepping his troops for the start of Armageddon: “Quebecor has now assembled all the pieces it needs to become a printing and communications powerhouse,” says Mr. Péladeau (or “Moniseur P,” as he was affectionately referred to back in the day).

Quebecor also owns Sun Media Corporation

According to Quebecor’s website, Sun is the largest chain of tabloids and community newspapers in Canada. The group publishes 8 metropolitan dailies, covering most of the country’s major urban markets. In addition, Sun Media Corporation publishes nine local dailies and nearly 200 weeklies, buyers’ guides and other specialty publications in communities across Canada. The combined weekly circulation of Sun Media Corporation’s newspapers is more than 12 million copies.

It is Sun Media that also publishes “24 Hours”.

The Story of Metro

Metro is a different story entirely. It just appeared in Vancouver in 2005, and now Metro hawkers are now stationed at almost every Skytrain station in the city. But don’t be fooled: Metro is by no means local.

Metro’s been pumping out the borrowed news stories since 1995. It was launched in Stockholm, and since then has grown to encompass 93 major cities in 21 countries in 18 languages across Europe, North & South America and Asia. According to its website, “Metro is the largest international newspaper in the world.” It’s not just Metro: It’s “Metro International.”

But even Metro International isn’t that simple. The ownership of Metro is convoluted and spooky. I don’t quite follow it, but there’s a company called “Modern Times Group,”  which “demerged” and created Metro International. But Metro and MTG seem to be only two of SEVEN different publicly traded company owned by a Swedish investment company called “Industriforvaltnings AB Kinnevik.”

Ah, and it gets even deeper. The Vancouver operations of Metro are joint ventures with Torstar Corporation and CanWest Global Communications Corp (each holding a 33.3% interest). Torstar, as you know, owns the Toronto Star, as well as 95 community newspapers called “Metroland,” 32 newspapers under “CityMedia Group,” and workopolis.com and toronto.com, AND Metro Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa.

And CanWest Global? Good grief, I won’t even bother listing everything owned by them. Try and wade through it all yourself. 

Don’t lose me yet. Here is a document produced by the Observatory on Media and Public Policy at McGill, which tries very hard to track the Ownership of Canadian Newspapers. 

As you can see, right now, every single newspaper in Canada is owned by either CanWest Global or Quebecor Media Inc.

So what?

Now, I don’t know much about the politics of this all. I know I should pay more attention to those stories about Conrad Black and Hollinger Inc. and monopolies and such, but I haven’t been, so my perspective, unfortunately, isn’t as informed as it could be. But from researching all this, here is what I can see: Two giant companies are aggressively seeking to get you to read exclusively their publications.

When I encountered that Jehovah’s Witness lady today, I understood her motives for handing me a copy of their free publication. Her directives are from her church, and they believe that this aggressive door-to-door evangelism is a directive straight from the Creator. I guess it make me wonder: Who are the media gods that are directing the worldwide delivery of these newspapers?

You don’t expect an unbiased opinion from a JW at your doorstep. Why would you expect one from a nameless holding group? Do we really trust two giant companies (eventually, it will just be one) to be the sole dispensers of information regarding the events of the world  - a world we rarely see with our own eyes? 

After all this, I guess I can only say one thing: be careful of what you believe.

• Modern Cinema and the Christian Convention
• Rock, Records and Redemption
• Re: Colour Blindness