You are witnesses at the new birth of Soul Device, mark two.
I hope you enjoy the new direction.
On keyboard: Douglas M. Beaumont.
He wrote this.
I received the following reply to my critical review of Blackaby’s Experiencing God on Amazon.com (my response follows below):
I would like to address your concerns regarding Jesus speaking today, individually to His followers.
Proper discernment of God’s Word vs. our experience or traditions or dogmas can only come through the gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Corithians 2:14).
Jesus is the way shower for every born-again Christian (1st John 2:6). Jesus told his disciples that He had many things to say to them, but they could not bear it at that time, but after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit would come to dwell within them, He said that He would teach them all things (Jn 14:25, 26). Jesus’s statement clearly implies that the Spirit would be SPEAKING all that Jesus was unable to speak to them while He was on earth. Still not convinced?
In John 16:13 Jesus said, “However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatever He hears, HE SHALL SPEAK. And He will announce to you THINGS TO COME. (MKJV)
Jesus said that His sheep (i.e. not just the apostles) HEAR His voice and no other will they follow (John 10:27). Jesus described the born-again experience as a wind that we don’t know where it comes from or where it is going (John 3:8). The Scripture further says that only those that are led by the Spirit are children of God (Romans 8:14).
Regarding prayer, our lives, according to be Scripture are to be lives of continual prayer (1st Thess 5:17), and the Spirit prays through us because we don’t know how to pray (Romans 8:16). Now I ask you, how can the Spirit pray through us if He is not speaking to us?
Jesus became like us (Philippians 2:7-8) and was tempted in all points as we are and yet never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). If Jesus did not become fully human than He could never say, “Follow me;” He would be able to say, “Admire me, worship me, obey me,” but not “Follow me.” 1st John 2:6 says, “He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk even as He walked.”
With this in mind, let us ask the question, how did Jesus walk (i.e. live)?
Jesus said, “I have many things to say and to judge of you, but He who sent Me is true, and I speak to the world those things what I heard of Him (John 8:26, MKJV),” and “I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you, then, do what you have seen with your father. (John 8:38, MKJV).”
From the two verses quoted above is it not clear that Jesus lived as a man in CONSTANT two-way communication with the Father? Why do you think it should be any different for those that have Jesus living within them through the Holy Spirit (John 17:20-21, 23, 26, Colossians 1:27)?
I encourage you consider the Scriptures I have shared with you and to pray by faith for the Holy Spirit to help lead you further in the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
My reply:
Thank you for offering a thoughtful response to my review. Note that I do have a robust presentation on this topic (a week-long course, actually), but I did not exactly have enough space for that. 
Here are some initial responses:
- 1 Corinthians 2:14 does not teach that “proper discernment of God’s Word vs. our experience or traditions or dogmas can only come through the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Rather, it teaches that men will not accept the truths of revelation without the Holy Spirit. In any case, this is not an argument for ongoing specific guidance from God.
- 1st John 2:6 and Jn 14:25, 26 say that the Spirit would be SPEAKING all that Jesus was unable to speak to them while He was on earth. This was fulfilled with the disciples (to whom Jesus was speaking) – this is no promise to us.
- John 16:13 does not say the Holy Spirit will teach US all things (has He done so for any believer since the apostles???).
- John 10:27 has to do with faith, not ongoing specific guidance from God.
- John 3:8 has to do with faith, not ongoing specific guidance from God.
- Romans 8:14 has to do with acting according to the flesh (i.e., sin) – not ongoing specific guidance from God.
- Neither 1st Thess 5:17 nor Romans 8:16 say that the Spirit prays through us, much less speaks to us.
- 1st John 2:6 cannot be used to justify just anything that Jesus ever did. Clearly Jesus is a unique case! You need to show that a given thing that Jesus did was part of the example for us – not just ask rhetorical questions. But even so, how many times does the Scripture actually teach that He received Blackaby-style ongoing specific guidance from God? Remaining in God’s will is possible without it. 1 Tim. 3:16 says we have all we need for a life of godliness in the Scriptures, so do we need more or not?
I encourage you to read the Scriptures in context and try to understand them sans your presuppositions of ongoing specific guidance from God. It was eye-opening for me after a decade immersed in the popular view.
This video (HERE) from Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty” has made quite a splash online. It is a video showing the evolution of a model from her entrance into the studio (sans makeup/hairdo) up to the digitally manipulated photo taken of her for a billboard. The idea seems to be “See how much work it took to fake how beautiful this girl is? So don’t feel bad about how you look!” This is perhaps a good point, but the overall presentation does not make this clear.
The tagline of the video is “No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted.” I am not sure this is true, nor does it flow from the content of the video. The video does make a point about how much manipulation is often required to attain a certain look in the media, but this is not a “distortion of our perception of beauty.” The only reason the video works is that the woman (or, rather, her final image) is clearly more beautiful than she was when she walked in. The final “product” IS more beautiful - and we can easily perceive that. Otherwise the video would make no sense.
I think what they mean is that our expectations get distorted if we think all women must attain to this level of beauty in order to be considered beautiful at all. But that is a very different point. There are various levels of beauty, sure – and this is important to realize. But what is often ignored or directly denied by posters of the video is that this beauty is indeed objective (i.e., non-perspectival) and external (i.e., non-internal).*
*External factors are certainly not all that matters in attraction or assessment of a person’s overall “beauty” (“inner beauty” is more of a metaphor). And this is also a good and important message. But it is not helpful to try to redefine beauty in a way that ignores the fact of objective, external features.
I discovered this illustration in a new textbook I am reviewing for adoption in my Critical Thinking class. Now, most of the books on the subject are pretty obviously left wing biased. This comes out in the examples they use (most pro-liberal and anti-conservative). But this was a new low.
Note that the image is of a man reading a Bible, yet this has nothing to do with the sort of goofy beliefs being contrasted with scientific facts in the article. Christians, in general, are not known for believing in aliens, astrology, or psychic powers (unlike, say, liberals!). So why use it? Clearly the author thought there was some corollary here, but this is plainly false.
I sent this off to Oxford Press to let them know what I think of it:
While I have come to expect some amount of bias from CT textbooks, and often enjoy pointing out errors in critical thinking in them, I was upset by the religion-bashing in this text. The illustration on page 395 is a good example – here the author compares superstitious beliefs in aliens, astology, and psychic powers to scientific facts. Yet the accompanying illustration shows a man reading a Bible. Why? These superstitions are not part of the Christian worldview, nor are they religious in nature. I doubt this lapse in critical thinking would have gone unchallenged had it been a Quran or a book on homosexual rights in the picture. Isn’t this the kind of unreflective, shallow, and intolerant kind of message that religious people are accused of putting forth? I expect better of Oxford.
Many people are looking to the Bible to figure out if the end is near, and that’s fine. But many do not seem overly concerned with what the Bible says to do about it if it is. They’re buying guns, storing food, and moving to Montana. (None of which are bad things!) But what does the Bible say to do?
Letting the major end time books be our guide, let’s start with Daniel.
- “Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself . . .
- in every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom.
- Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus.” (Daniel 1:8-21, ESV)
So Daniel kept himself morally pure and served better than the natives. He represented God well and was rewarded for it. Interesting example. His friends told the king they would not bow to idols whether or not God saw fit to rescue them. They were able to stand, one way or another, because they did what God said to do regardless of the consequences (which they leftto Him).
What about Jesus’ Olivet Discourse? (I will leave the question as to what this is specifically referring to for now). In Matthew 24 Jesus gave the following commands:
- See that no one leads you astray [if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.]
- See that you are not alarmed,
- when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place… then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
- stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.
Here Jesus warns against following false Christs, unjustified alarm(!), and to flee Jerusalem if the abomination of desolation appears on the scene. Again, nothing about storing food or building bomb shelters.
The Book of Revelation has many commands which I will not list here but they are mostly to remain pure and not become Satan worshipers.
Whether or not we are living in the “end times,” I think it helps to remember that we are just passing through this world, and we have a job to do. 2 Corinthians 5:20-6:10 says,
“We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
What are some features of an ambassador? An ambassador is not living in his own country or culture, and while he must respect the authority of the country in which he resides he is not to violate his own. An ambassador speaks for his country and under its authority. Ambassadors were usually sent to others to make an alliance of some sort.
All of these fit the commands for believers quite well. We are citizens of the Kingdom of God – not the world. And our job is to warn the world of its coming doom. But unlike ambassadors of old, we are not guaranteed safety from this foreign world – we don’t have an embassy where we can hide out in safety.
When the Roman senate decided that a country should become a province they sent ambassadors to discuss the terms of peace with the vanquished people. But this foreign country has not yet been subjugated, so we will often suffer as ambassadors. The idea that God will keep believers from suffering is unbiblical. In the passage above Paul went on to say,
“so that no fault may be found with our ministry, but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger
While ambassadors were never to be mistreated, Paul was an ambassador in chains (Eph 6:20), he had been imprisoned, beaten, stoned, was hungry, thirsty, and exposed to the cold (2 Cor 11:23–28). While some ambassadors wear gold chains, Paul’s insignia is his chains (2 Tim 1:16). He goes on:
through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.”
Paul’s role did not change regardless of the circumstances, and neither does ours. We have the same guidebook for every time and place (2 Tim. 3:16). There is no “In Case Of Tribulation Break Glass” emergency kit in the back of our Bibles somewhere!
So . . . are we in the end times? Consider the following circumstances:
- False worship abounds, some of it centered around immoral activities.
- Divorce is common and many openly ridiculed marriage.
- Abortion is practiced by doctors.
- Homosexuality and bisexuality is accepted.
- Pornography and perversion in art are common.
- Drunkenness and other substance abuses abound.
- Big business swallows up smaller businesses forcing people out of work.
- The state provides food and entertainment to placate them.
- Crime rates are rising, and violent gangs roam the streets.
- The government agencies are engaged in continued power struggles resulting in national instability.
- Government leaders are involved in sexual scandals.
- Christianity is seen as subversive and targeted for elimination.
An apt description of America today? It is actually a description of 1st Century Rome! Things were actually a lot worse back then, especially for Christians. And yet Christianity became the dominant religion in Rome soon after. It would be difficult to blame first century Christians for thinking they were living through the tribulation and the end of the world – but they weren’t. Maybe we are, but maybe another 2,000 years of human history lie before us. Perhaps we can learn something from first century believers who did not give up the fight even under genuine persecution.
American Christians have enjoyed a unique time and place where it is rarely the case that we suffered true persecution. But this is not because of some biblical right. We may be facing seriously bad times ahead, but in the grand scheme of things this is not unusual. The Church has survived worse than Obama, the European Union, the Illuminati, or anyone else today. It not only survived, but thrived. We might be in the end times. We might not. It’s been worse. It might get worse. Or it might not. The most important thing for believers with regard to suffering is that tribulation will not separate true believers from His love (Rom. 8:35).
Whether we face the end times or not, we have our marching orders.
I have coined a new term. The word is “orthovoxy.” Orthodoxy means “right belief,” so what is Orthovoxy?
It is easy to sound orthodox when really one is simply using orthodox language. By using proper terminology in an improper way it is easier to hide errors. I am calling this orthovoxy – “vox” being Latin for voice or word.
The problem with many faulty teachings is that they are not using new language to communicate their new teachings. There is controversy over T. D. Jakes for example. He claims to believe in “The Trinity” but when he describes what he means by “The Trinity” he describes it the way a heretical Modalist would (refs.). Statements like “We have one God, but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration” (cit.) are clearly non-orthodox.
The Apostle’s Creed affirms that Jesus “descended into hell.” Whatever that means, it most certainly is not the Word Faith idea that Jesus suffered and was reborn in hell (refs.)! Although WF teachers like Kenneth Hagin or Kenneth Copeland might not be verbalizing something false when they preach that “Jesus went to hell,” they mean something false.
So orthovoxy does not always indicate orthodoxy!
Nor is this practice limited to heretical notions. William Lane Craig, a brilliant and able defender of the faith, describes God’s eternality as “existing changelessly alone without creation.” So far so good but then he says that God “enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relation to the temporal universe. ” (cit.). Right or wrong, this is not the orthodox understanding of God’s relation to time.
The doctrine of God’s “Impassibility” is another good example. Impassibility has been classically understood as God’s being unable to suffer or be affected – that He is never passive, the effect of a cause. Aquinas takes this to mean that God does not have emotions/feelings, for these are by nature effects requiring a cause (not to mention a body to have them in – see Summa Contra Gentiles I 90. 4-91. 2). Paul Helm says, “we may think of God’s ‘feelings’ as simply his attitudes to what he knows” (Divine Impassibility: Why Is It Suffering? cit.). Yet Norman Geisler says that impassibility means “God has no changing passions, but he does have unchanging feelings” (Creating God in the Image of Man? p. 29). And Ergun Caner defines impassibility as God “never losing control” (The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, God’s Attributes). Which is it?
What are we to make of this? It would be good to remember that we cannot trust the vocabulary of theologians unless we know the theology of theologians.
The following was sent to me by a trusted friend. I share it without change or comment except to say that Priscilla Shire has a ministry dedicated to “hearing from God” and has written books on the subject, while the other, Beth Moore, is the most popular female Bible study teacher in Evangelicalism. Keep that in mind as you read the following:
I recently attended Lifeway’s “Deeper Still” Christian Women’s Conference in Greensboro, NC. The lineup featured three prominent speakers: Kay Arthur, Beth Moore, and Priscilla Shirer (daughter of Pastor Tony Evans). The event drew 10,000 women from several different surrounding states, and several different denominations. Needless to say, the Greensboro Coliseum was packed.
In between worship sets and a few breaks, each of the speakers was given a 90-minute Bible study slot, and the event ended with a question and answer panel with the three women. While I could discuss each Bible study, my point of concern lies more with the behavior of two of the three speakers during the Q&A, and the answers they had for their community of 10,000 fans.
One of the questions that the speakers addressed was, “What is the best part of marriage for you, and what is the most challenging?” When it came time for Priscilla to address the “most challenging part” of her marriage, she explained that she has two small children (one of whom she is still breast-feeding) and well, “I’m often just too tired, if you know what I mean, ladies! [Wink, wink.]”
To my (saddened) surprise, the arena of 10,000 women actually stood up and cheered. Various chimes of laughter, screaming, and “yeah, girl!” boomed in the packed house. This continued for about a minute, while even Beth Moore nodded, laughed and clapped at Ms. Shirer’s comment. Priscilla continued by relating a story of how she often tries to creep into bed after her husband falls asleep so that he won’t start coming on to her. Beth Moore admitted the same, and the more they discussed, the louder the cheering arena shouted and clapped in agreement.
I sat in my seat and was profoundly disturbed. Here I was at a Christian Women’s Conference, and our “trusted” female leaders were joking about avoiding their husbands in bed.
What happened next, I believe, shocked everyone.
As all the shouting and cheering continued while Priscilla and Beth discussed the “too tired” syndrome, I turned my attention to Kay Arthur. This very beautiful, very wise woman was silently flipping through her Bible, which she kept on her lap during the discussion. Finally she looked up at her two fellow speakers and said very kindly but unflinchingly, “Now girls, I understand how you feel. We have all been there, myself included. I remember once sleeping on the very edge of my bed so that I could avoid my husband. I know what you mean. But let me show you something, please.” Kay picked up her Bible and then simply spoke:
“1 Corinthians 7:4-5. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
Oh if you could have seen the faces on Ms. Moore and Ms. Shirer! Ms. Moore had her mouth half-open in disbelief, and Ms. Shirer raised her eyebrows and opened her eyes wider in shock. The Coliseum’s chorus of cheers changed to a disgruntled murmur. I do believe I was the only one clapping.
After a brief pause, the two rebuked women turned to the audience and said with a half eye-roll, “Oh, well Ms. Kay has a verse for everything, doesn’t she?!” The crowd laughed again. Ms. Shirer continued, commenting that her husband loves to eat, so she was doubtful there would be a lot of abstaining for fasting. Ms. Moore agreed. The crowd continued laughing and cheering.
Kay Arthur continued her uncompromising, yet gentle rebuke. “Girls, again, I understand fully what you’re saying, but I’m merely telling you what God has to say about sex between a husband and wife. You are not to deprive one another, except for prayer or fasting. So, unless you’re doing that, you’re not to avoid your husband… and he should not avoid you either.”
Nervous giggles and pauses were all that remained from Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer. Finally, Priscilla exclaimed, “Well! On to another topic, shall we?!” To which the crowd laughed enthusiastically.
While it is bad enough that Priscilla Shirer and Beth Moore made jokes and irreverent comments about avoiding their husbands sexually, I am most concerned that when they were faced with the Truth of the Scriptures, they responded by poking fun at the woman who was wise enough to bring that Truth to their attention: “Oh, well Ms. Kay has a verse for everything, doesn’t she?!” In addition to this, the 10,000 adoring Moore/Shirer fans heard their favorite teachers joking about sexually avoiding their husbands, rather than encouraging healthy, non-avoidant married sexual relationships.
Sadly, this attitude and type of thinking seems pervasive among Christian women’s groups: to be of the opinion that we are never to avoid our husbands sexually (except by mutual consent) is just a bit too conservative.
Too often, women equate Godly submission with being a doormat. This is simply not the case. Our God does not call us to be disgruntled pushover wives; rather, He calls us to rest in the pure joy of our husband’s desire for us, and joyfully give in to his advances.
Brava, Kay Arthur, for standing firm in the Truth of the Scriptures, even in front of an unwilling crowd of 10,000.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-4
The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Ed Hinson and Ergun Caner (Eds.). Harvest house, 2008.
The stated purpose of The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (TPEA) is to place in the reader’s “hands a tool that will enable you to both defend your faith and answer the major objections to Christianity” (p. 11). To that end the editors provide 180 articles written by over 60 contributors concerning the Christian faith and issues related to it.
The writers range from authoritative scholars to academic students (mitigating the editors’ claim that the contributors are “experts in their field” and that “each author is an evangelical scholar” – p.11). Many of the contributors will be recognized from popular apologetics books and conferences. The contributors come primarily from Baptist seminaries along with our own Southern Evangelical Seminary, so a primarily evangelical perspective can be expected.
TPEA covers topics from Abortion to Zoroastrianism, and includes articles on world religions and cults, Christian doctrine and heresies, as well as ethical and philosophical issues. Some important apologetics personalities garner their own articles. The basic classical apologetic approach is revealed in the article selection which will be appreciated by those with classicalist leanings. The average article is 2-3 standard double-column pages long. This has the advantage of quick reference, but caution should be exercised in thinking that more than the surface of most of these issues can be scratched (e.g., three page entries on The Problem of Evil or Evolution!). Of course this is a necessary component of such a work, and the editors managed to devote more space is to certain topics by breaking them up into several articles. The topic of Apologetics, for example, gets 40 pages under various sub-topics, and 23 pages are devoted to Jesus Christ.
Considering the necessitated brevity and the intended readership, most of the articles range from high-to-excellent quality, with few that were disappointingly shallow in their treatments. Occasionally one will find sources cited that are non-authoritative, derivative, or non-contemporary, and it is not unusual for the writers to simply cite one another, or themselves, in the bibliographies. The legitimacy of this practice also reflects the range of scholarship among the contributors, and it can be helpful in leading the reader to the next level up in scholarship. Objective errors were rare (and I was assured by some of the writers that these were introduced during editing[!]).
These latter considerations are neither surprising nor condemning for a popular-level text. Overall, TPEA is a good introduction to the topic of apologetics from the perspective of several evangelical writers. It is geared toward the beginning reader, so those familiar with popular apologetic writings will find little novelty here. For those unfamiliar with the discipline, or its many subtopics, TPEA is a helpful and useful initial resource. To that end, a second edition would profit from an author index, a full bibliography, and a Scripture index.
Metallica and Philosophy: A Crash Course in Brain Surgery. William Erwin (Ed.). Blackwell, 2007.
Intro
It is not often that one can get a basic philosophical education and a heavy metal history lesson in one book. Equally unusual is a philosophy book promoted by the likes of Scott Ian, guitarist for heavy metal standard Anthrax (“The most elucidative dissertation on Metallica ever written. And a kick-ass read to boot!!!”). But this addition to the ubiquitous “Culture and Philosophy” series has accomplished these very things.
Philosophica
In 1999, Open Court Publishing released Seinfeld and Philosophy, the first title in their Popular Culture and Philosophy series. Since then the series has grown into an impressive collection of philosophical investigations of such pop cultural icons as The Simpsons, The Matrix, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Passion of the Christ, Star Wars, Narnia, Monty Python, as well as Baseball, Harley Davidson, and The Atkins Diet. Before scoffing at such offerings, the relative popularity of the typical philosophy book or series should be carefully considered. The publisher clearly tapped into something that the general public found extremely interesting.
In 2006 Blackwell Press entered the game with South Park and Philosophy and has continued with mostly television-related titles until the recent release of Metallica and Philosophy which discusses themes found in the songs of the most popular heavy metal band of all time. For those who are not familiar with the band the question might arise: “Why should we care what Metallica has to say about anything?” For heavy metal rock music fans this is like asking why we should care what Tiger Woods has to say about golf. For decades now Metallica has been the premiere American hard rock band having achieved virtually unparalleled successes both artistically and commercially. Metallica’s extraordinarily talented musicians thus command considerable, generation-spanning influence. Like them or not, Metallica’s attitudes and ideas must be taken seriously. “Philosophica” anyone?
Historica
Metallica’s first album, Kill ‘Em All, was released in 1983 followed by Ride The Lightning in 1984. The difference in quality between the two was substantial. Rarely do sophomore releases meet the expectations created by a band’s initial offering, and to surpass those expectations is even more impressive. Remarkably, 1985’s Master Of Puppets continued the upward trend, and yet the band was still not at the height of their career. In 1988, after the bus-accident death of bassist Cliff Burton in 1986, the silence was broken with the release of And Justice For All. Fans were astonished by yet another hefty leap forward in musicianship. Justice reached number six on the US charts, received a Grammy nomination for best hard rock album, and the band received the first-ever Grammy for best metal performance.
Incredibly, up to this point Metallica not enjoyed any serious air time on the radio, and had not recorded a single music video (something virtually unheard of at the time). With the unparalleled success of Justice it would have been completely understandable if Metallica’s next album was less than their best. Yet it was the band’s fifth recording, the self-titled 1991 release Metallica (affectionately known as “The Black Album”), that elevated their career into the mainstream. Metallica went straight to number one all over the world, earned a Grammy plus other major awards, and sold over 15 million copies worldwide.
The band maintained their hard rock profile throughout the 1990’s despite the genre’s loss of popularity and the replacement of glam metal with grunge music. Metallica cut their hair, got a bunch of piercings, and released their sixth album, Load, which was followed by Re-Load and S&M – a live show recorded with the San Francisco Symphony. The first full length album recorded in the 21st century was 2003’s St. Anger (which was, notably, the band’s first release to be poorly received by fans). This is the point in Metallica’s history where the book picks up (i.e., “Death Magnetic” is not featured).
Thematica
It may seem unusual to non-head-bangers that heavy metal’s most successful band has very few songs about sex or drugs (and their major drug song is decidedly against its use). True, the band’s career began with absurdly metallic titles like “Metal Up Your Ass” and “Whiplash,” but they quickly matured with more sublime offerings like “Nothing Else Matters” and “Fade to Black.” The band’s lyrical themes have included wartime death (“Disposable Heroes”), suicide (“Fade to Black”), addiction (“Master of Puppets”), false evangelists (“Leper Messiah”), the exodus story (“Creeping Death”), the failure of religious beliefs to save from death (“The God That Failed”), and a tribute to Dalton Trumbo’s World War II novel Johnny Got His Gun (“One” – the song which prompted the band’s first video). Metallica certainly cannot be accused of simply producing “kill your mama music.” Many of their lyrics are quite intriguing and often personal.
Evaluationica
As one who grew up listening to Metallica and who later became interested in the study of philosophy, it was with great interest that I looked into what insights editor William Irwin (Ph.D. – currently on faculty at King’s College, PA) had collected from the various contributing authors of Metallica and Philosophy. The book offers twenty articles on twenty topics ranging from a comparison of Platonic and Aristotelian views of art, to the file sharing ethics of Napster. These articles are grouped into introductory matters, existential issues, end-of-life ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and social construct theories.
Space does not allow for a consideration of the merits of various articles. Overall, the band is treated fairly in that they are neither looked down nor heralded as this generation’s philosopher-poets. The legitimate philosophical issues underlying Metallica’s songs are not offered as proof of the band’s incredible depth, nor are they dismissed as naïve. Rather, they are more often considered as the effects of universal themes in philosophy that may describe any thinking person’s writing.
One of the overall strengths of the book is that unlike some of the former Culture and Philosophy books, the authors of Metallica and Philosophy do not simply devote an introductory paragraph to some line in the band’s lyrics and then proceed with a paper that has little to do with the band or its music. The authors generally demonstrate both knowledge and appreciation for Metallica’s writing, and the result is an actual increase in the reader’s knowledge and appreciation of both philosophy and Metallica.
Of course, it is rare that any writer (including this one) will report on what he sees in other’s work without injecting some of his own thoughts. As evidence of this I will comment directly on only one article that I found to be potentially misleading. Peter S. Fosl’s chapter (“Metallica, Nietsche, and Marx: The Immorality of Morality) quickly degenerates into a personal diatribe against Christianity that is only superficially disguised as a commentary on Metallica’s critique of religion. Songs such as “The God That Failed” or “Leper Messiah” do not justify Fosl’s thoughts here. These lyrics are directed against religious falsehood, not the falsehood of religion. Some of the songs that Fosl cites say nothing about Christianity whatsoever, or can be taken in more than one way. It is well known that Metallica’s chief songwriter, James Hetfield, has legitimate issues with his Christian Science upbringing (his mother died of cancer without attempting surgery because of CS’s teachings [note: not Jesus's!] – this has been reported to be the impetus for “The God That Failed“). But Fosl confuses these expressions with his own belief that Christianity itself promotes an anti-life morality (Fosl’s disgust with Christianity is clear from his writing here, as well as his bio at the end of the book). This misuse of Metallica’s legitimate critique of religious charlatanry will only resonate with those predisposed to that viewpoint.
According to CNN Muslims have been bombing Christian churches in Iraq for three days straight now. I bet if they were abortion clinics special forces would have been sent in by now.
I was thinking the other day about messages in music (i.e., the song lyrics) and how some Christians blame the failure of “Christian music” to make it big in the world on its lyrics. In other words, the world doesn’t like our message so it rejects our music.
A couple of counterexamples lept to mind. First, there are successful bands with Christian members (Switchfoot, Lifehouse, etc.). I have also heard bands more strictly labeled “Christian” (such as Jars of Clay and DC Talk) played on the hardest rocking station in my ultra-liberal college town. It seems that if the music is good enough people will listen to it regardless of the lyrical content.
Then I thought of a sort of reverse-example: a secular band with unlikely lyrical content that made it big. And not just any secular band – it was a heavy metal band. In fact, not only was it a secular heavy metal band – at the time it was THE heavy metal band. I am referring to the great ones – Iron Maiden.
Here is a band that was required listening for headbangers everywhere. They wrote metal standards such as The Number of the Beast, Flight of Icarus, The Trooper, and 2 Minutes to Midnight. They rocked, they rocked hard, and everyone knew it. But what did they sing about? Sex? Drugs? Partying? Drinking?
Not so much.*
Instead, the top act of the golden metal era (early to mid-80’s) sang about historical events, epic poetry, literature, film, war, prophecy, and a host of other seemingly non-metal subjects. Why did we listen? Because they freakin rocked! Between Dickinson’s soaring vocals, Harrison’s galloping basslines, McBrain’s thundering drums, and the twin guitar attack of Murray and Smith . . . it was just too good. So when Maiden wrote a 13 minute long song called The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner did we care that we were learning British poetry whilst our heads banged? Not a bit. (I astonished my biology class when the teacher put up a famous line from the poem on the board in correct scientific terminology and asked if anyone could name the source. “How did Beaumont know that???” Ha!).
Given that most song lyrics are not clear enough (either in discernability or in reference), and that good music overshadows most of them anyway, I think we should not use them as an excuse for the failure of music to get played or become popular. If Maiden could sing to the metal heads about the very books we refused to read in class, then Christians can sing truth to the masses if they can write music that people will listen to.
–
*For an interesting (though unofficial) list and assessment of Iron Maiden’s songs, see the Iron Maiden Commentary.
