I love Kurt Vonnegut. Even though material in his books oftentimes soars over my head, I usually catch insights from him that just floor me. His writing style is one that presents certain truths in a way that is fresh, strange, and undeniable. For instance, In his book Breakfast of Champions, his main character, science fiction writer Kilgore Trout, writes a book about an Earthling who visits another planet dominated by another humanoid species. Once he gains their trust, they decide to let him see their hardcore pornography. Excited and a little nervous about the experience, the man is surprised to find that this particular brand of pornography consists of men and women getting together and eating food. That’s it. The camera hones in on the juicy mouths and expressions of ecstasy as the humanoids consume fruits, desserts, etc., and the viewers go crazy. Trout reveals how people can take a normal human behavior and turn it into something unusual and distorted. You know, kinda like what we do with sex. This episode comes off as ridiculous, that we would make a fetish out of a common, non-sexual, everyday experience. After contemplating what we have done to sex by our own pornographic films, we begin to see how weird we humans are as well.
Weirder still, perhaps, is how this passage from Vonnegut came to mind while I’ve recently been dwelling on the state of contemporary Christian music (CCM), and worship music.
What is pornography? Typically, we’ve understood it to be any graphic depiction of gratuitous sex. Pornography takes that which is an everyday occurrence in human life (sex), and turns it into something unusual. I would call this process “fetishizing.” Pornography “fetishizes” sex, in the same way that Trout’s otherworldly humanoids fetishize eating. It turns a social (“social” meaning “interpersonal”) behavior into an individualistic mythology, thereby distorting its initial intent. What was once a fully human interaction now becomes an exercise in self-gratification. Trout’s aliens begin to see the eating of food the same way we begin to see having sex: as a selfish indulgence of our skewed desires. In the end, the act of sex, or the exposed human body, becomes a bundle of our personal wishes and aspirations, not a natural human interaction or real person. We have fetishized the body, and therefore cannot see it in its entirety.
So, the question still remains: why does this make me think of Christian music?
I’ve attended enough chapels at the Christian college I attended, participated in plenty youth conferences as a teen, and rehearsed in countless youth group praise band practices to know that the goal of the praise and worship section of a service is to get the audience to see themselves, for the next hour or so, as being alone in a garden somewhere with Jesus. We want you to forget everyone around you, put your hands in the air, close your eyes, and make everything in the world disappear, except for you and Jesus. I remember seriously losing count of how many times I played “In The Secret” as a teen praise band member, and how many times I heard it requested. We like to be alone with Jesus.
The problem with this situation is that we take a faith like Christianity, that good old faith which embraces love, anger, joy, doubt, fear, and hope, and we turn it into an individualistic ego-heal. The people around us, their hurts, their pains, their hopes and dreams, are ignored as we convene with the Almighty in that secret, quiet place. We begin to think that this is what it’s all about, and we look for churches that will leave us alone and let us have our me-and-Jesus time. We begin to look eerily similar to the old hippies with their spirit searches, only updated with Blackberries and iPods.
But the problem goes deeper: when we reduce Christianity to this individualistic spiritualism we are mimicking the effects of pornography we so often decry: we fetishize our faith. Nearly the whole experience of the faith is ignored for the individualistic pleasures of our one-on-one time, in which (surprisingly?) Jesus tells us what we really want to hear. It becomes a form of pseudo-therapy, or self-help.
One would only need to turn to Christian radio to get a sense of this phenomenon. CCM radio consists of song after song of the me-and-Jesus lyricism. Most of these songs lack in any difficult and real human emotion, but rather are exercises in adapting worn-out cliches to the latest musical styles from “secular” radio. They claim that the Christian life is simply getting things right with Jesus in your heart, when really such a suggestion moves us further away from recognizing the mystery and awe that is the experience of following God. God is mysterious, but when we offer up these tasteless, nearly un-human tunes, we are reducing God from an ancient, mysterious, relational Being to the sum of our distorted desires. When we see the gratuitous sexual act in pornographic material, we fetishize it, and distort it from a simple and loving human act to a selfish quest for gratification; when we praise the monotonous, predictable God of CCM and worship music, we fetishize him by turning an unpredictable though persistent Deity into a Santa Claus that reflects back to us what we want to believe.
That is why I am calling, along with anyone who will join me, for a XXX label to be placed on most Christian music titles. Until they are done fetishizing the Christian faith and begin to reflect the experience of the very human journey that is called faith, we should consider them to be purveying “gratuitous spiritual self-help.” Notice that I merely said “most,” and not “all” CCM and worship music. That is because there is a slowly growing trend in some circles to speak of real things in music (see, for instance, Jars of Clay’s Good Monsters, Carolyn Arends’ Pollyanna’s Attic, or Sara Groves’ Add to the Beauty, all of which explore, each to different extents, faith in the midst of unglossed-over fear, pain, obsession, and death). But unfortunately that trend is slow indeed. We should celebrate it where it arrives, and encourage it’s authors. For now, let’s clean up Christian music’s act, ’cause it’s getting pretty dirty these days.
Do I hear an idea for super-cool parental advisory sticker, anyone?
Please, leave comments if you agree or disagree.
15 Comments
March 5, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Wow. This was very deep. It’s a shame no one else has commented yet. I’m not sure what to make of this, but you have a very interesting point. Keep posting.
Sorry, no ideas for the parental advisory sticker.
March 5, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Awesome post. Never thought of it in those terms before.
March 5, 2007 at 11:52 pm
I’m reminded of our countless conversations together over lunch, often on the state of contemporary christian music. I think you did a really good job of putting down what we often “joked” about with crude extended metaphors into an honest down-to-earth lament. I’m still thinking of an advisory sticker though. I’ll get back to you.
March 6, 2007 at 4:17 am
I like your use of the term “fetish” and feel like that disconnection of what should be a relational experience into a self-focused “orgasmic” experience is certainly apt. It is great to see all our conversations played out again in such a thoughtful way here…you’ve really begun to flesh them out.
If music is a “practice” that shapes our theology and our faith, is it any wonder that the current state of evangelicalism in the U.S. is so hollow? We are what we sing! That should frighten us and should open space for us to be singing songs like “Casimir Pulaski Day” (you know I am sucker for that song) or “Trouble” in church. To be authentically human means to feel all emotions, but you wouldn’t know that from our songs. We need to recover an understanding that grief and lamentation is a way to articulate a relationship and to call upon God to be true to His promises.
March 6, 2007 at 6:34 am
I think your post has given me something else to think about in terms of why i love early american blues music so much. it’s got something to do with the honest relational quality for sure. I remember hearing my first real blues song… i mean the first one i really sat down and confronted. It was “Death letter blues” by Son House. I mean, its not just “based on a true story” or anything, its the man actually telling us about his life and his utter feeling of helplessness. He talks about going to the funeral of his wife, and how the grief didn’t hit him until he was back at home in bed alone. I cried so hard when i first heard that song simply because i had never had a relationship with something so artistic and yet so brutally honest. I grew up on contemporary christian music, and had never fathomed that something could be so real. Your post and ron’s comment really inspire me to develop that connection.
March 6, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Hmm.
March 7, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I couldn’t agree more that songs like “Trouble” and “Casimir Pulaski Day” should be played in church. At the least, we need to find people who will write these songs for our churches.
http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/2005/06/an_open_letter_to_songwriters_265.html
Here’s Brian MacLare’s call to Church songwriters, asking for songs that do a better job of spanning the whole of the human experience of being Christian.
Ron, I love your point about using lamentation in order to articulate a relationship. Indeed, no real intimate relationship (no, not even mine and Renee’s) occurs without sad, angry, frustrated, joyous and loving words being passed back and forth. So, why do we force the joy in Christianity? Why do we, when we feel bad, force ourselves to feel happy? This seems to feed into neurosis. And therefore, we come off as inauthentic at best, dishonest at worst.
I’m glad you guys have liked the posts so far, because there was a certain to-remain-nameless somebody (namely, Carlo) who threatened the life of my weiner dog if the quality of the posts declined. He is apparently unaware that such terrible comments sadden God, because He is then forced to end the life of an innocent kitten somewhere. Well, Maggie is doing fine. And this has so far been a great conversation, all around.
Hey Ron (I’ll admit, still a little weird for me – even via Internet), what’s the email you’re using these days? Let me know.
March 8, 2007 at 2:45 am
I’m not sure there is such a thing as an “innocent” kitten, so let God go to work! You can still reach me at ron.wright@mvnu.edu.
Two other quick notes:
1. The movie Little Children is right there with Magnolia for me…go see it, I found it unbelievably good!
2. Arcade Fire has a new album out called Neon Bible…yep, you guessed the theme….enjoy!
March 8, 2007 at 11:25 pm
at the risk of bucking the trend in these comments, i have to admit i’m a bit torn.
OK, some CCM stuff isn’t very good. or very deep. and the same songs are played ad infinitum. i’ll agree with that. i don’t think that’s news to anyone. the same can be said of Christian music of any time.
but can’t we admit that CCM connects with some people and let bi gones be bi gones?
i don’t care for r & b, but i’m not trying to push most of it out of the mainstream.
March 9, 2007 at 6:54 pm
While I’m with you regarding the current state of praise and worship music, let’s get something straight about fetishes.
There’s nothing wrong with fetishing your faith. The strict psychological definition of a fetish is any inherently non-sexual object that elicits a sexual desire or is necessary for sexual gratification. I doubt you’re implying that about CCM.
The traditional definition of a fetish is any object that is believed to have magical power, or is held with extravagantly high trust and reverence. So what would it mean if Christian music actually did entice us to fetishize our faith? It would mean that CCM aids us in holding a extravagantly high reverence for God’s magical powers. God’s work is magic- not magic as in Copperfield doing his thing on a stage, but magic in the sense of using supernatural powers to control and order the natural world. What’s wrong with a faith fetish if it helps us maintain our reverence for the Lord’s magic? I’d say, “Bring it on”.
Where today’s praise and worship music gets it wrong is encouraging people to keep that magic to themselves, as you get at. I’ve rarely heard a p&w song tell people to take their spiritual awareness and share it with someone who is poor, or in jail, or a coworker. I’ve rarely heard a p&w song ask people to love peace, remove envy from their hearts, or help those in need. P&W today feels more like it’s trying to settle people from whatever stress they’ve encountered that morning.
CCM is getting there. Look at the #1 song on the charts today, Casting Crown’s “Does Anybody See Her”. The song talks about a girl who screws up, reaches out for help and understanding, and the song questions whether a typical church would take her in. That’s good stuff. Jeremy Camp, a perennial chart-topper, writes songs about his deep personal struggles with faith, and spends time at most concerts sharing his message. Mark Schultz writes extremely interesting stories in his songs, and is a chart favorite as well. You’ll always have your Philips/Craig/Dean, Michael W Smith, and other types who personify feel-good CCM, but the trend is in the right direction.
Fetish on bro.
March 10, 2007 at 3:23 am
This is a great discussion and I appreciate John and Joel’s comments on it! What I am wondering about Joel’s comments about the traditional definition of a fetish is twofold: 1) What is the object P & W music believes holds the magic? Is it God or the feelings that are created while singing? Sometimes in church or chapel services I am not sure which it really is. 2) I would disagree the notion that even if P & W or CCM does help to fetishize God that it is a good thing. I understand and appreciate your point about about having reverence for the manner in which everything relies on God. But I think inherent in the way you define a fetish is the very problem you lament about people’s lack of participation with the poor, prison, peace, etc. Whenever we make something a fetish we expect that object to magically transform us, we become passive and disconnected from the world around us.
So I’m not sure I want to “fetish on” because I think that creates the very problems we are seeing. God is not an “object” to be treated as magical, God is three persons (I am using this in the Trintarian formula and not suggesting some type of tri-theism) who we are to enter into relationship with and who has entered, already, into relationship with us. I think we can appreciate the sacredness of a relationship and the manner in which it is has a spiritual/supernatural quality without turning the “Other” into a fetish and therefore an object. Persons I relate to, objects I manipulate (or attempt to manipulate) and that is the problem with a fetish (IMHO).
I, too, have seen some positive things in CCM (Clint points this out too) and I hope there is a trend (I’m not sure the little I have seen is enough to be a trend). I think it all starts with the Church, though, we need to realize and ask for songs that encompass all of human experience rather than just the narrow lens that is typically sung in churches (at least the one’s that I attend). Perhaps this begins with realizing that something is branded as Christian doesn’t necessarily make it so.
March 10, 2007 at 10:03 am
Concerning the rightness or wrongness of fetishizing our faith: I agree with Ron about the question of what it is that we are fetishizing first and foremost, and would therefore say that P&W music fetishizes not God (leaving aside for the moment the deabte about whether fetishes are even good or bad), or even really our faith. Rather, I get the sense from a lot of P&W music that what we are fetishizing is our own individualistic experience of Christianity. We are not fetishizing our faith; we are fetishizing one piece of the faith, and a questionable piece at that.
And as for the debate about the values of a fetish, I would argue that it is not properly defined without noting its psychologically negative characteristics. Taking something social, and turning it into an intensely personal experience, is not what I would call giving that object “high trust or reverence.” Rather, it is twisting that object into something different than what it should be. Why is that? Well, I would say for the reasons Ron points out: that God cannot be treated as an object, but rather as a real “other” entity with whom we engage in relationship.
To say that we fetishize sex in any of the various ways that pornography allows us to would not be, I think, considered by others our merely holding sex or certain sexual practices in high trust or reverence. Actually, in the way that fetish would work out in a real living sexual relationship, it would lead to objectification of that other person. I believe that that analogy adequately describes the phenomenon taking place in P&W music, however crude it may sound. For that reason, bro-mo, I would replace “fetish on, bro,” with what you know I always say: “de-objectify on, bro.”
To John, I appreciate your comments, and your willingness to step out on a limb to buck the trend. We need that, so thank you. What is interesting about your comment, “Can’t we admit that CCM connects with some people and let bi-gones be bi-gones?” is that I often have a hard time arguing with that sentiment. Indeed, I see a lot of people who always feel a lot better after listening to it, and seem to gain a great deal of meaning from it. I guesss the reason why I can’t just let it go is that I think, as being one who used to inhabit that world and since has abandoned most of it, I see a case there to be made that it perhaps does not connect most people as closely to that thing called the Christian faith as they might think, and as closely as I used to think it did. Any more thoughts on the issue, please, keep them coming. I like your site, by the way. It’s now on my blogroll, and I look forward to many more conversations about faith and culture.
March 10, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I’m joining late, but I like the discussion.
I think contemporary Christian music also sounds more like a love song about and to a physical person, not about a love greater than we understand.
gotta go for now…
March 11, 2007 at 12:12 am
To further clarify the meaning of fetish, it is either using a non-sexual object as a means to sexual gratification, or giving any object extravagantly high trust or reverence and attributing magical powers to it. It’s not both- ie, holding any particular sexual practices in high reverence.
In a human sexual relationship, the sex partner by definition cannot be the fetish, as fetishes are inherently non-sexual objects that have no rational connection to the real sexual relationship. I’m just thinking that, by understanding the fundamental definition of a fetish, the analogy may be confusing, and unintended hyperbole.
Keep posting my man
March 12, 2007 at 9:20 am
i think it is a little harsh, but something to think about. i’ve been taking a break from ccm for a while b/c it does seem self-centered. i’m also listening to to regular radio and trying to find some things there.
as far as someone else to add to your “real things is music” is Leslie Phillips, also know as Sam Phillips.