I recognize that each generation will conceive of God and Jesus in ways that reflect their culture. That being said, I can’t help but think that the following magazine cover is somehow just wrong.
This “Jesus” reminds me of Billie Joe Armstrong, the lead singer for Green Day with a “six pack” (of abs, not beer). (HT postmodernbible)
Despite the fact that tonight’s Grammy Awards were too long, too glitzy, too excessive, and too self-absorbed (come on — it’s only music!), I was pleased to see Irish rock band U2 clean up with a total of five awards.
Their latest album, How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com) won for Album of the Year and Best Rock Album; “Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own” won Song of the Year and Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal; and “City of Blinding Lights” was named Best Rock Song. (Steve Lillywhite also picked up the Grammy for Producer of the Year, Non-Classical, in part for his work on How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb) U2 is Grammy’s most honored band.
In many ways U2 came full circle with How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. Like virtually all of U2’s albums, I love every song on this CD. I also think that it is among U2’s most explicitly spiritual albums. According to various interviews, the “bomb” in the name of the album refers to his father, Bob, and that the songs are mostly about Bono’s efforts to deal with his dad’s death to cancer in 2001. The award winning song “Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own” is a moving tribute to Bono’s father. In his acceptance speech tonight, Bono remarked, “People say this is an odd title for an album… I was talking about my father Bob. He was the atomic bomb in question and set off a chain reaction in me. I want to thank my father for giving me the voice and a bit of attitude to use it.” My own father died from cancer almost five years ago and I have found the song (and other U2 songs, such as “Walk On”) quite meaningful as I have dealt with my dad’s death.
U2’s previous Grammy Awards are as follows:
Welcome to the Second Annual Ralphies — First Annual Codex Edition. Following the example of Ed Cook, a number of bloggers, including Rick Brannan, Joe Cathey, and Loren Rosson, and “Targuman” (a new blog I found through Ed’s), have been compiling their favorite books and films of 2005.
What follows is my own list. While I have tried to honour Ed’s template, I find it difficult to narrow lists like these down to one top pick, so I have includes some runner-ups.
Best NONFICTION BOOK of the year: This is a tough one since I have read quite a few non-fiction books! For books published in 2005, here are my selections. My top choice is Vincent Miller, Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture (Continuum, 2004; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). This work is not in my primary field of research and that is one reason why it would be my top choice since many of the ideas within it were so new to me. I read it in preparation for my popular culture course and found it to be a compelling and convicting expose of the commodification of religion.
A very close runner up from within in one of my primary areas of research is Ulrich Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Fruehjudentum: Rekonstrucktion, Textbestand, Sturktur und Pragmatik der Psalmen Rolle 11QPsa aus Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 49; Leiden: Brill, 2003; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). This work is an impressive examination of the so-called Qumran Psalms scroll taking into consideration both literary and textual characteristics of the scroll. I highly recommend it!
Best FICTION BOOK of the year: I typically only read fiction when on holidays. Probably the best fiction work I read this year (but was published a while ago) is Susan Howatch, Scandalous Risks (Fawcett, 1991; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). This is the fourth of Howatch’s Church of England series. I enjoy the intellegent theological discussions in Howatch’s books, among other things.
Runner-ups would include J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Scholastic, 2005; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). I enjoy the Harry Potter books, though I am always left with a small sense of dissatisfaction after reading them — I’m not sure what it is, though I wonder if it is the fact that they are based on the school year and therefore like a TV show, you know they will be wrapping up loose ends as the school year nears its end. I also reread Chaim Potok, In the Beginning (Ballantine, 1997; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). I love all of Potok’s books (The Chosen, The Promise, My Name is Asher Lev, Davita’s Harp, etc.), but this one I especially appreciate because it narrates the story of David Lurie, a brilliant young Jewish boy who stuns his family and friends by laying aside his Orthodox upbringing and becoming a secular biblical scholar. I love the final exchange between David and his Rebbe (p. 435):
Brilliant!
Best MOVIE of the year: This is a tough one for me — especially since I taught a religion and popular culture class and consequently watched a few films over the course of the year! In terms of movies released in 2005, my vote for best movie of 2005 would be Hotel Rwanda (Terry George, 2004; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). While this film technically came out in 2004, I didn’t watch it until it was released on DVD in 2005. I found this to be a moving/disturbing film about the genocidal atrocities in Rwanda and how the colonial powers contributed to the problems. It is an excellent case study in situational ethics (what would you do if you were in that situation?). It should be seen in tandem with the Canadian documentary based on the autobiography of Romeo Dallaire, Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire (Peter Raymont, 2004; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com).
Honorable mention goes to Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan, 2005; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com) for a movie that ponders the notion of redemptive violence; Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Mike Newell, 2005; IMDB) for a good film adaptation; Crash (Paul Haggis, 2005; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com for a captivating movie about the ubiquitious nature of racism; Palindromes (Todd Solondz, 2004; IMDB; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com for a provcative use of eight different actors (playing the same character) in a thought-provoking examination of the moral complexities of abortion.
Finally, I have to give special mention to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Andrew Adamson, 2005; IMDB). I liked the film, though in order to really appreciate it I will have to see it again since I went with my kids and ended up spending most of my time answering questions from my four-and-a-half year old son! (Q; What is that? A: That’s a faun. Q: Why? A: Uh, because it is. Q: Why? A: Because C.S. Lewis drew upon classical mythology in his writings. Q: Is the faun a bad guy? A: Well, not really, he does bad stuff but then turns good. Q: So he’s a good guy? A: Yes. etc. ad naseum!)
Best CD of the year: This is a no-brainer! U2’s How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is the best CD of the year (Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com). I think that with this CD, U2 has returned to their roots (not that I didn’t like all of their music in between!). Sad to say that was the only CD that I purchased in 2005. I actually had my CD collection stolen from my office early in the year and I have been replacing what I lost by downloading them as mp3s since I tend to listen to music only when at my computer (and I can always burn a CD if I want one).
Song of the year: “Yahweh” from How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. This is a catchy and intriguing song. It’s a prayer for Yahweh to intervene, to transform the singer: “Take this shirt / Polyester white trash made in nowhere / take this shirt / and make it clean, clean. Take this soul / Stranded in some skin and bones / Take this soul / and make it sing…. Take this heart / And make it break.” But it’s also a lament, questioning why God is not acting: “Yahweh, tell me now / Why the dark before the dawn?” At any rate, I am impressed that U2 included a song called “Yahweh” on their CD.
A close runner up would be “Crumbs from your table.” When I first heard this song I loved it. But then I watched the DVD that came with the CD and listened to Larry Mullen note how he was so drunk when they wrote that song that he doesn’t even remember writing it! Talk about a downer! But then I read a great blog entry on this song from Spera In Deo where he relays an interview with Bono about the song that redeems the song in my eyes. Here is an excerpt:
About the Crumbs song, he [Bono] told the story of the Irish nun, Sister Ann, who’s story broke his heart. She lives and works near a sewer and brings in people who live in horrific conditions. When he visited her, he saw people who were sleeping “three to a bed.” I had previously thought the song was about Bush’s promised–then rescinded–offer of $15b in Africa aid. But it turns out it is really (also?) about this nun and how some people in the world await crumbs to fall from the feast table of American Christianity (You speak of signs and wonders / But I need something other / I would believe if I was able / But I’m waiting on the crumbs from your table).
Once again, brilliant! Well, that’s all she wrote, so I’ll see you at next year’s Ralphies!
David Buckna, a freelance writer who produces a regular column entitled The Pop Gospel, has put together a tough quiz on the Irish Rock Band U2 — a band that I have been known to listen to on occasion (on my final exam for my religion and popular culture class I had the following true/false question: “The instructor kind of likes the Irish rock band U2.” Most students circled false and wrote in “he LOVES U2” or the like).
This quiz is a tough one, however. I passed by the skin of my teeth! (16 out of 30!) I feel like my membership in the U2 fan club was just revoked!
If you think you know anything about U2, I challenege you to try it and post your results in the comments. (The following is reproduced from the ASSIST News Service.)
Here are answers, don’t cheat!
So how did you do? Let me know in the comments!
I’ve been asked by some readers “What is ‘Kitsch’?” In this post I will attempt to define it, or more accurately, I will show some ways that it has been used in the discussion of religion & popular culture. I should say at the onset that much of my thoughts on kitsch have been formed in part by the following books:
McDannell’s work is perhaps the classic work on the material culture of different religions from an outsider religious studies perspective, while Brown’s monograph focuses more on the aesthetics of taste. I have not had a chance to examine Spackerman’s work yet, though it looks intriguing. Miller’s absolutely excellent work is an analysis of the effect of advanced capitalism on religion, especially on the effects of the commodification of religion in our culture.
While I am primarily interested in “Christian” kitsch, all religions have their own material culture, and consequently their own kitsch. There are many examples of “Judaikitsch,” Islamic kitsch, and kitsch from eastern religions. Thus you can buy Mitsvah Bears, Krishnah action figures (as well as Shiva and Buddah), or “I Love Allah” rulers.
The term “kitsch” gained popularly by the 1930s when it was used to describe poor art. While the etymology of the word is unclear, many suggest the term was coined by German painters during the mid-1800s to deride the cheap “tourist art” bought in Munich (Kitschen with the sense “to make cheap”). Thus, the term “kitsch” is used by many to denote trivial literature, low quality materials, sentimental arts, or vulgar merchandise. Beyond this, McDannell finds that there are three distinct ways or approaches that scholars, artists, and cultural critics use the term “kitsch”: cultural, aesthetic, and ethical.
A Cultural Approach
Sociologists, anthropologists, and cultural studies specialists note that for many the term “kitsch” is pejorative and reflects a cultural bias. In contrast to this understanding of the term, proponents of this perspective understand kitsch as a reflection of educational and economic levels, among other things. Thus Bourdieu notes, “art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfill a social function of legitimating social differences.” One person’s art will be another person’s kitsch.
Every social group has its own artistic expression that include a system of aesthetics with its own internal logic and we should not judge one group’s material culture by the standard’s of another.
An Aesthetic Response
Artists and cultural critics are not as forgiving as social scientists, and some tend to see kitsch as mass produced and inferior art, a cheap imitation of good art.
This approach places kitsch as a subset of art — it tries to be art, but it ultimately fails. Some proponents of ths approach understand this low quality art as an attempt to identify with the “real art” of the upper classes. Thus, kitsch required the existence of a mature cultural tradition from which inferior copies could be made (Greenberg). Of course, this approach begs the question of who gets to decide what is real art and what is not!
An Ethical Response: Kitsch as Anti-art
A final approach to kitsch understands it as containing a negative moral dimension. It holds that art should reflect the true, the good, and the beautiful — and kitsch does not. “Art, then, is, in its own way — no less than theology — a revelation of the Divine” (Lindsay). If this is the case, then kitsch is “the element of evil in the value system of art” (Broch). For example, the ability of kitsch to “sentimentalize the infinite” has ethical connotations as it reduces something meaningful to a bauble and divorces it from its original meaning-providing context. I can’t help but think of all of the “Precious Moments” figurines that elicit an “aww… isn’t that cute” response.
The rise of Christian retailing in the 19th and 20th centuries added a new dimension to the whole kitsch debate. While “Jesus junk” has its origins in the 1800s, it exploded with the development of advanced capitalism in the late 1900s. In the 1990s the sales of Christian products exceeded 3 billion annually — and that’s just in the United States! Advanced capitalism, with its outsourcing, niche marketing, and new marketing and advertising techniques has clearly demonstrated that anything — absolutely anything — can become a commodity. This results in the reduction of beliefs, symbols, and religious practices into “free-floating signifiers” to be consumed like anything else. The result is the proliferation of what some would consider “kitsch.”
I have sympathies for all of the approaches to kitsch noted above. The more neutral social-scientific study of kitsch is crucial for understanding the material culture of different groups within Christianity. This I believe has to be the first step in any analysis of kitsch. In regards to the aesthetic approach, I think it is very difficult to maintain a rigid dualism between good art and kitsch — especially in the light of blurred distinctions between camp, pop art, hyper-realism, and even kitsch art.
But when I put on the hat of a theologian and take an “insider” perspective, I find it difficult to maintain neutrality. But rather than take an ethical stance based on some idea of aesthetics, I would base my ethical repsonse based on the affect of advanced capitalism on Christianity. In this sense, I am more concerned with the commodification that much of Christian kitsch represents, than with any evaluation of its artistic merit. I can’t help but think that much of what I would consider “kitsch” devalues and cheapens Christianity (or Judaism, Islam, Hinudism, or any religion) by taking it out of its faith context and reducing it to a product to be consumed like anything else. But then again, I could be wrong!