Eminem and Johnny Cash. They are it. They are originals. Both played large roles in defining their respective generations. I respect them both. If one could categorize individuals these two would be two peas in an iPod.
They are completely different – they are the same:
They rebel
They are bigger than their musical genre
They don’t want to be famous
They came from nothing
They both seemed reluctant to take a stand
Yet they both stand for those who cannot
They are musical outlaw’s – they are subversive…
Eminem is probably seen as much more vulgar than Johnny Cash, but anyone singing back in the late 50′s with lyrics like “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die” or ”I took a shot of cocaine and shot my woman down” was not okay.*
So why do people listen to them? More specifically why do Christians listen to them? I think it is because like the apostle Paul (as far as I know the Apostle Paul was not known for his musical styling’s) they challenge this world’s status quo; sometimes for better, maybe more often not.
Yet like Paul, they don’t buy the “this world is great” line. They defy the “I’m okay – you’re okay” wisdom of the day. Modernity’s promise of progress hasn’t seemed to reach their ears. They sing for the broken. They seem to shout that they are broken.
And once we see that the world is broken we are drawn to others who see it too, even if they disagree on what it takes to fix it (or whether it can be fixed at all).
Right or wrong, many of my mature Christian friends watch shows like Family Guy, The Daily Show, etc. because these shows are among a rare breed that admit that America is not Camelot. When so few Christians are willing to say the Emperor has no clothes we have to hear it from someone.
That is why I was pleasantly surprised when Catalyst Conference (a Christian conference) opened up their 2010 Atlanta Set with a cover/altered take of “Not Afraid” by Eminem. Not only did they do the song justice. They brought in a voice that although different will stand at the edge of the Empire and shout that “Caesar is not Lord!” I am not a “mushy-feelings” guy, but I had goose-bumps all over and tears in my eyes. I praised our Father in Heaven who hears truth wherever it is brave enough to be uttered.
It has been beautiful to see Christians over the past decade start to again borrow from the philosophers of our day (Just as Paul did in his day – and yes Eminem fits in the category of philosopher) to remind others that we aren’t the only ones watching…wanting change…wanting more…willing to fight…
And I do hope we fight a good fight, fight only worthy battles and have the strength to keep straight the victims from the enemy.
It’s not subversive to bash the outlaws; all of civilized society does that. Subversive is hearing the outlaw’s cries and seeing how civilized society isn’t.
*Most of us think of Johnny Cash and country music as safe, but back then he was not. Leading the charge of “Outlaw Country” Johnny loved America (as do I), but tested her greatly. Sadly many people think of the Apostle Paul and the early church in the same way, but like an outlaw he confronted Rome and fair-weather Christians. He was subversive before you got popular just by being so.
Disclaimer: Johnny Cash had both June and Jesus, which I believe gave him more hope than Eminem, but I don’t blame Eminem for a lack of hope, because without Jesus my hope would be forlorn too. Also, I focused this post more on Eminem, because most Christian’s now readily accept Johnny Cash. All those appearances with Billy Graham must have made him an acceptable modern day Prophet. Or it may be because he is a Prophet of the most appealing kind, a dead one.
PS. If you want to censor them, because you disagree with their message you will only attract more to them. Instead make beautifully subversive music.
Can Christians incorporate truths from people with completely different agendas? What does it say when some Christian’s identify more with people outside the church than those inside?
I think that it all depends on your notion of revelation. If you think that the Bible is the revelation and that’s it, then there are no truths to add (and depending on who you talk to there aren’t any new ones no matter how you look at it). If you think that revelation can come from philosphers, poets and scientists, then Christianity can certainly include these truths and probably should. Personally, I don’t think that EMINEM and Cash had anything profound to add to life. Johnny, in a weird way and unintentionally, glamorized a way of life that had already existed for decades before him. Leadbelly and Guthrie were on the folk circuit doing similar stuff long before him, but there was no such thing as popular music then so noone really cared.
There should be no “inside the church” and “outside the church” mentality. People should relate to people equally well. I think some Christians avoid relationships with other Christians because they are afraid that they will have to change certain matters of propriety in order to maintain them. For instance, if you are a Family Guy watcher, you aren’t going to invite everyone from your small group over to watch Family Guy each week. You may not even let anyone know you watch it until someone else makes a quote from a recent episode or mimics the voice of Peter when they are talking to their wife. Then its on and you can relax. If that moment never happens, then you are stuck thinking you are the only Family Guy watcher and probably the only progressive thinker in the body.
The same is true for things like smoking and drinking. The church is full of closet drinkers and smokers. They feel comfortable at the bar where everyone is doing what they themselves love to do and uncomfortable in the pew where everyone wishes they were somewhere else.
EMINEM is not a philosopher.
Matt-
I am open to the stance that Eminem and JR Cash didn’t offer anything profound to life. I disagree, but I get it. It is not so much that they are original in using music in subversive ways. Surely that has been done since the beginning of time. In the Christian heritage we have poems and songs like Colossians 1:15-20, which claimed that Christ is the center -not Caesar. I think of the Negro Spirituals which offered hope not only for the next life but this life.
Some good thoughts even if you are a cold, calculating scientist.
My argument for Eminem and Cash is not that they are as grand subversives as those throughout history, but that they are able to buck pop culture while being a part of pop culture. In that, they are two (of a handful) who truly do stand out.
I do disagree with your thoughts that “there should be no ‘inside the church’ and ‘outside the church’ mentality”. All main social scientists believe that there should be (and always are) boundaries (who is in -who is out), these create identity markers and a world-view by which to grow. The danger is not in the boundaries, but in keeping them too rigidly or by not being willing to move them or allow others (in a healthy manner) in and out.
I am with you on how sad it is that often those “inside the church” find more peace and connection outside of it. This is truly distressing. In Christian community we should feel most at home to be whom we are no matter how “ugly” we are.
Lastly, I disagree about Eminem, I do believe he is a philosopher as he is willing to engage in what is truth, what we should live for, and what values we should hold (even if I disagree on his outcomes). Maybe a philosopher with a little “p”, but one nonetheless.
D
On the first point, I would argue that those individuals didn’t stand out because they bucked pop culture while being a part of pop culture. Em stands out as a well-versed caucasian rapper in a style that is predominately African American. He is then recognized for saying lots of crazy stuff and not caring what others think. But you are right, he’s basically been able to use these catchy qualities to do what underground rappers have done for decades. Johnny Cash is the same. His dark persona and constant problems with drugs won him a reputation and that is what caught pop culture’s eye. The other progressive things he did weren’t novel at all, and noone would have cared about the important stuff he did if he didn’t have the oddball features. Johnny was more of a prophet than EMINEM.
I don’t agree with social scientists who think that there must be an in and must be an out. Its similar the reality of species in the natural world. Suppose you had three populations of salamanders and their ranges overlapped such that only two populations were in direct contact with each other. Now, suppose that each population can interbreed with its neighbor (thus meeting one criterion for a true “species”) but cannot interbreed with its neighbor’s neighbor (thus not meeting the criterion). Then, do you call each group its own species or are they all members of the same species? In terms of social science, if you could compile all of the characteristics of the group, then you would find that you have to do the same thing: you either have to make each individual group (conservative christian, liberal christian, non-christian) its own group or you end up having to lump then into one large group (i.e. Christian vs. non-Christian). I’m not saying there is a solution, but in my opinion the labels don’t reflect reality and are superficial. In both examples, the notion of only three populations is condensed in itself. In reality there could potentially be (and are) tens or hundreds of tiny populations.
Matt-
I think you are not really giving Eminem and Johnny their due, but that is fine. At the end of the day, the divide between you and I with them is probably that I like their music and you don’t. It may just be a matter of taste, which is fine.
And your argument of in and out breaks down once you talk about multiple populations. Just the fact that you define them as differently subtly does imply that in some ways there are always boundaries of who is in and who is out. You are right to say that it is less black and white and there are many subgroups, but the many subgroups of Christians , Non-Christians (and the mixing of the two) does not disqualify the two larger groups it actually reinforces their existence. But this is fun…lets keep going. It will look like I get a lot of comments!!!!
Johnny and Eminem- I never said that I don’t like their music. I think both those guys make good music. Our disagreement is over their contribution to society. All I am saying is that Ferdinand Magellan gets the credit for being the first to circumnavigate the earth. But we all know he died in the Philippines and that in the end only 18 of his crew actually completed the journey. So why don’t we say that Antonio Pigafetta was the first to circumnavigate the world? Because there was no glam to his life. He was an ordinary dude. A scholar. His account is pretty much THE reliable source for the voyage, but noone cares.
Population differences-I don’t disagree that boundaries exist. In terms of biological populations, I think species, and more importantly sub species, are very real. If you were to look at two individuals, the differences are very obvious. Its when we lump several species into a genus and then when we lump genera into families and orders that the lines become fuzzier because then you have things that look nothing alike eventually being lumped together. Two populations might differ in one character, but move five populations in two directions, each differing in only one character from its neighbor, and you have a separation of 10 characters or more between the ends if you allow for combinations of characters to emerge as new single characters as well. So then the question is how many subtle differences does it take to be able to distinguish two species? How can you distinguish those from inside the group from outside when the intermediates exist? I would argue that using those single traits to distinguish two populations is easier and more real than using the accumulation of traits to distinguish two superpopulations (or whatever you wan to call the lumping of populations). Inside the church/Outside the church is a very big distinction, and I’d like to know what the suite of characters is that would allow you to make the distinction. I can’t figure it out truthfully. In fact, make it its own separate blog post with the following idea: you discover a new population of humans and you want to decide whether they are Inside the Church or Outside? How would you go about doing it? If you make the groups very small, then you are left with basing the differences on a single or at least a set of very few characters. If it is large (like if all Christians are “Inside the Church”) then you have your hands full. But I would like to know. And it would be fun to talk more about.
(By the way, this has been on my mind a lot lately so I am really glad I can virtually talk about it. If you follow Christ are you a Christian? Can you follow him and not believe that he is God? Can you follow him and not believe in God?). Anyhow, thanks for entertaining.
Matt-
I think for anyone looking at this from the outside we look like the two grumpy old men on The Muppet’s, or worse. I know you and I enjoy this type of thing so we can keep the conversation going, but let’s do it e-mail or at lunch. We can disagree as much as we want over some yummy Mexican food
. I look forward to discussing these thoughts further. -D