The title of this post is a little misleading because music is only representative of the bigger issue at hand--culture.
C. Michael Patton wrote a blog post a few days ago on why he doesn't like Christian music (I really recommend reading it and the comments that follow - see here). His basic premise is that Christians shouldn't feel the pressure to leave the culture and create distinctively Christian sub-cultures in order to feel that they are honoring God. He made a few interesting points and I'll leave it to the reader to develop their own opinions on his comments.
But in reading the comments left by others in response to this blog and C. Michael Patton's responses to them I began to see some grave inconsistencies. For example, one commenter said that they liked Christian music because they could play it around their children and not have to worry about hearing profanity in the lyrics. Patton's response was:
Taffy, I don’t think that people should listen to the music with all the profanity either. I f that is the impression that I have given, I am sorry. Most of that type of Rap does not represent the real world but is a sub-culture in its self.
This is a very disappointing response for a number of reasons:
1. He doesn't tell us exactly what the 'real world' is and how he has come to the conclusion of what is 'real' and what is not. From the statement that a sub-culture is not representative of the 'real world' one could infer that he's suggesting some sort of universal culture that really represents the 'real world' but if so, what is this culture? Does it even exist? Can it even exist?
2. Why shouldn't people listen to music with profanity and for that matter, why shouldn't musicians who receive Jesus stop using profanity? A large part of his position is that he doesn't feel people should change the way they look, talk, and act just because they become Christians. He comments a number of times saying that the Church is NOT a sub-culture. OK, but why then would we think that people shouldn't listen to profane music and by extension perform songs with (mild or excessive) profanity in them? Why should they have to change that aspect but not another? Aren't we in danger of creating a sub-culture that excludes profanity which is a very real part of the human experience and even when used gratuitously has meaning and effect?
3. The automatic assumption that Taffy was speaking about Rap music is disheartening and dare I say prejudicial. There are any number of musical genres that are just as profane in their lyrical content yet these were not even considered--it was automatically to a specific type of Rap. Why?
4. Also disappointing because of its inconsistency was the claim that this type of Rap doesn't represent the real world but is a sub-culture in itself. One has to ask then what is 'real music'? What represents the 'real world'? Are we to believe that Mr. Patton's list of 10 Rock groups from the 90's represents the 'real world' because they are on his MP3 player? What makes these bands any less of a sub-culture and any more real than Gangsta Rappers or Death Metal musicians?
If we wanted to press the sub-culture issue then we could classify everything as a sub-culture from ethnicity to occupation, from religion to sexual preference, from political affiliation to music, etc... What makes U2 'real' and not a part of a sub-culture? U2 are part of a socio-political sub-cuture of rock music that certainly not all of his top 10 from the 90's fall into. But that begs the question, does such a socio-political ideology represent the 'real world'? I would say no (at least not generally speaking) and I'm quite sure that a multitude of others would agree.
Mr. Patton's classification system seems rather subjective and arbitray at best. I can appreciate his not liking Christian music because there is some that I'd never listen to, but not because it's Christian music--I'd not listen to it because it's simply not good music. As far as the sub-culture thing is concerned, everything is a sub-culture of sorts. We can all be categorized one way or another and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Believe it or not the Church IS a sub-culture by virtue of what the Church is. As the ekklēsia we have been 'called out' from amongst a larger group. We are believers in distinction from unbelievers, Christians in distinction from Pagans, saints in distinction from sinners (and I know it is all too common for saints to continue to call themselves sinners but that's another post)--the point being that YES!!! There's a sub-culture of Christianity that is supposed to speak differently, look differently, and act differently! If not then what were we saved from and what were we saved for?
