Metal and Christianity, Part 2

How my faith is compatible with metal



If you are a Christian, you have no business listening to metal. You are not welcome. And you will always know and feel that.

--anonymous comment

In a previous post, I addressed the topic of how my musical preferences don't conflict with my faith. Here, I address the less obvious topic of how my faith doesn't conflict with my musical preferences.

Where Do You Stand?

My recent poll asked, "How do you feel about Christianity and metal?" I was surprised that nearly a third (9) of the respondents answered that being anti-Christian is an integral part of metal. They might be offended to find out that a lot of church leadership looks at it exactly the same way. I was also surprised that an equal number of people answered that they are Christian metalheads. More of you (11) are neutral toward Christians and Christian lyrics. Honestly, I thought many more would be neutral, and am honestly shocked at how many fell into the pro- and anti- camps. And 45% of you think the (often anti-religious) lyrics of metal are important, compared to 11% who don't believe they're important and another 42% who think they are sometimes important.

Assuming my poll is accurate, about a third of metalheads think that being against God is a necessary part of metal. I suspect due to both things being important to them, and finding a lot of support for their religious ideas in the metal community. But it's hardly necessary to the genre. In fact, early Black Sabbath lyrics were far from Satanic--they faced the devil, but did not embrace him. Doom metal pioneers Trouble had overtly Christian lyrics. And believe it or not, there are actually a few good Christian metal bands out there in just about every genre (including black metal).

There are a lot of good reasons that Christianity and metal can blend well.

Metal and Christianity, Part 1

Listening to Metal Is Compatible with Christianity

The question periodically comes up: How can I, as a Christian, listen to music that is anti-Christian? Ordinarily, the question comes from a fellow Christian. Recently, I have found that it's not only Christians who see a conflict, but also non-Christian metalheads.

The thing is, I've never seen any kind of inherent conflict. I don't feel a need to justify it to anyone. But the curiosity and confusion is out there, and I've been challenged on it many times.

Basically, all of the objections can be thrown out by one observation: I listen to music. I don't care about lyrics. Anyone who's read my blog knows that, and if you've read it faithfully you know I prefer when I don't understand the words at all. But because sometimes that explanation is not enough, I will try to take up each of the common objections.

The Lyrics Are Sinful

There is no rule which states that you have to agree with your music. Nobody seems to have a problem with the Beatles' promotion of drug use, and they seem to think John Lennon's plea to "imagine there's no heaven" is somehow a good thing. Nobody questions Christian Beatles fans. And nobody questions Christians who listen to today's pop music promoting promiscuity, drug use, homosexuality (or at least lesbian behavior), and degrading not just women, but all of humankind.

Metal Briefs: Anti-Islamic Metal

A while ago, I discussed heavy metal's relationship with Islam. In that post, I asserted that the only reason anti-religious metal bands go after Christianity almost exclusively is because they're pussies, afraid to target Islam for fear of getting killed. Some commenters alternately theorized that this has little to do with it, and that instead it's because of the bands' unfamiliarity with Islam. Well, vindication of my point came in a recent Terrorizer interview (Electric Wizard cover, #204, Dec. 2010) of The Meads of Asphodel. Discussing whether he expects any religious backlash over their new album The Murder of Jesus the Jew, vocalist Metatron stated:

Possibly in America, [but] I doubt it over here. Would I do such an album as blatant about Islam? No, because do I really want to be beheaded?

I would assert he's wrong about any possible backlash, even in America. Metal bands insulting Christianity have become so commonplace today that it's no longer controversial, it's cliche. But he's right about what might happen if it was Islam instead. In this day and age, Christians don't generally murder people who blaspheme against God. But as recent events in Iraq and Egypt reveal, Muslims are not so forgiving. And as we've seen in Pakistan, it can get you executed by the state itself, and anyone who speaks up against such a law will be murdered and his murderer lauded as a hero. That's disgusting. Just as disgusting: converting to Christianity from Islam can get you executed in Afghanistan (the reverse doesn't).

So, moving forward with my support for bands who directly attack Islam, I present to you three albums from bands who are not cowards. By supporting them and drawing attention to them, I hope to do my part to show no fear in the face of this kind of repulsive intimidation, and to hopefully make anti-Islamic statements so commonplace that, eventually, they'll stop using these tactics.

Infidel: Destruction of Mecca (2008)

Wow. When looking for music based on lyrical content, I expected to find a whole lot of crap, but Baltimore's Infidel shattered that idea with their death metal assaults. Destruction of Mecca sounds like a mix of Immolation, Cryptopsy, and even a bit of Behemoth. It's lacking the fantastic bass of Cryptopsy, but even without it this is superb death covering the gamut of tempos. It's produced like Immolation's Majesty and Decay, i.e. clear but not over-polished, and actually has a much better drum sound. The vocals and riffs are a mix of all three styles, focusing on really emphatic, brutal toe-tapping (face stomping) rhythms (check out "Genocide on Gaza Strip" for one of the best). The solos are Slayer-esque, which is always a nice touch.



And with lyrics like these, they've proven they have balls:

Die for my god!

Blow up Mecca
Your suffering begins

Bloodshed upon your streets
Little children, women weep
Body parts all around
Children's cadavers on the ground

I have seen the martyrs' bodies
Fall from ancient times,from past
All the ancient martyrs dying
For a cause that will not last

Destruction of Mecca
We lay your souls to rot

Nice. I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

Taghut: Ejaculate upon the Holy Qur'an (2008)

Taghut is a black metal band from New York who generally insult every Abrahminic religion equally, and do so in the most juvenile way you could imagine. For example . . . well the title pretty much says it all. Now, this is an extreme example of the immaturity of the lyrics, and if they were all this bad I would have guessed it to be a parody. And for the first three songs, you think it is, and it's actually kind of funny. But then you realize they're serious about it, and it's all downhill from there. They also throw in some Nazi stuff, hinting at their motivation for hating these religions (Semitic roots), and at the end of the album throw in a generic song about murder, which is out of place on the album, and a generic song about hating cops, which is completely out of place in any kind of black metal. What are they, gangbangers? The music is equally bad, being derivative and disjointed. Take the most generic-sounding Norwegian black metal you can find, make sure the riffs are forgettable, and slap in some amateurish Slayer-wannabe solos (they don't fit the music, even if they were well done--which they're not). On top of that, make sure your guitarist screws up a lot (especially on "Blaspheme Muhammad's Name") and has trouble keeping up with the faster tempos (see "Better to Reign in Hell..."). The vocals are done in a distorted whisper, which is easily understood, which would have made it a nice fit for good lyrics . . . but you won't find those here. They do show a measure of creativity on the song about cops, and I actually like the vocal style (it is different), but there's not much else good I can say about it. I give it 0.5 out of 5 stars.

Ayat: Six Years of Dormant Hatred

Hailing from Lebanon, Ayat is the only one of these bands actually from the Muslim world. If Ministry's Al Jourgensen started a black metal band, this is what they would sound like: An industrial guitar tone and very Ministry-like riffs and drumming, coupled with voice samples. Six Years of Dormant Hatred is their first full-length, and it has a lot of good ideas in it. Opener "Ilahiya Khinzir! (All Hail Allah the Swine)" includes pig squeals to add extra insult, and the second half of "Fornication and Murder" is very strange and interesting. Closer "Such a Beautiful Day! (The Exaltation of Saint Francis)" has a mellow psychedelic riff and clean vocals. But the album also has its share of pitfalls. Why they keep putting two songs in one track I don't know, and the second half of "Puking Under Radiant Moonlight (Followed by a Century Long Ejaculation)" is a boring repetitive riff with foreign-language voice samples, which has no effect on me. As a rule, the songs aren't terribly memorable either, and they tend to get repetitive and--as "Thousands of Pissed Motherfuckers..." illustrates--some of them are kind of dumb. Still, it shows some promise. I give it 3 out of 5 stars.

Here's hoping that enough bands do this that it also becomes cliche and non-controversial.

Metal and Islam

A Brief History of Metal's Anti-Religious Side, and Criticism of Its Failure to Target the Muslim Faith

The anti-religious bands of metal today are either idiots or pussies.

For at least the last 30 years, metal music has often treated religion with antipathy. The trend began in the late 70's with groups like Pentagram and Venom, who used images and lyrics insulting to Christianity purely for its shock value. Some fans took it seriously, whether because they thought it was serious or that it should be serious, and truly anti-religious and anti-Christian groups like Bathory and Mayhem hit the scene.

Metal is, with few exceptions, born from nations with a Christian religious heritage. So, it made sense for the ones seeking shock value to target Christianity. But now the idea is divorced from shock. It became an "ideal", so why do they continue to focus on the Christian faith?

I recently wrote a letter to Decibel about this conclusion, simplifying my observations to fit in the space of their letters:

Nergal was just acquitted of publicly denouncing religion, thank God. Freedom of speech is too important. If he had torn up a Koran, he would have faced the same charges, but he'd also have a fatwa on his head. Just look at Lars Vilks and the late Theo van Gogh. Or compare the stories of Melechesh in a Jewish state to Acrassicauda in a Muslim one.

The Crime of Rejecting Islam

There's a lot of hubbub in the news right now about a man in Afghanistan who rejected Islam in favor of Christianity. The clerics all want him executed, and apparently in that country it is a crime punishable by death.

The first thing that comes to my mind is, what kind of government did we allow to remain there? Sure, the Taliban was bad, but how much better is this?

But although I'm as outraged by the whole thing as everyone else, I can't entirely condemn the people of Afghanistan. They're scared, and understandably so. They had Westerners come into their country five years ago and shake things up, and they want to hold on to their old way of life. Islam is the one thing that unites them and it's the central fact of their lives.

The good thing? At least they don't execute people for never accepting Islam in the first place.

The worst thing? It certainly doesn't show a very strong faith when you have to use duress to keep people in the faith. And it really doesn't encourage people to convert. The only people who apparently want to convert to Islam are boxers and basketball players.

But you know what? They're no worse than a good number of Medieval Christians. They're just a few years behind us in social development, and I don't think it will be too many years before they've caught up. We should be thankful this incident is an excellent example for instruction of these people, so they can really think about the issue if they're able, or at least be forced by international pressure to spare him and let this "rejecting Islam" crime to be an institutionally unenforced law.

My two or three cents on the Mohammed cartoons

I have a new renter! He appears to be a psychiatrist that wants to help you relax. So, click the thumbnail in the sidebar to check it out.

A couple of weeks ago, if someone had made any suggestion that Muslims would be burning Danish flags, it would have been a joke. The most offensive thing that ever came out of Denmark before that was King Diamond.

I wondered where they got the flags, before I found an article explaining that one store owner at least had purchased them after he found out about the offensive cartoon. My other theory is that there is a flag store somewhere in Damascus or some other Arabic capital city, and the owner has a stock of flags from every country in the world. He’s just waiting for the lucrative opportunity when someone from Mauritius will do something to anger the Muslim people so he can sell the flags, lighter fluid, and lighters. (He even has some flags pre-packaged with matches and flammable liquids to sell at discount package prices!)

But anyway, on to the cartoons. I don't see why everyone immediately thinks that this is an insult to "the prophet." The way I would interpret this offhand is that the cartoonist was making a statement about the current attitude of what everyone likes to call "the religion of peace." The statement: Mohammed would not have wanted people to go around killing other people for the sake of Islam. At least, not if it truly is "the religion of peace" as they would have us believe. And perhaps since I've been a long-time listener to heavy metal music I might have a better idea what northern Europeans are trying to say. Of course, the Arab people don't have a sense of humor. They're trying to make a series of comics poking fun at the Holocaust. I'm sure you could already find that if you searched the web for a little while, and it would probably be pretty funny if you can dissociate humor from reality.

In any case, even if he was trying to insult Islam, he's a hero for freedom of speech. If that is the case, he may be a dickhead, but still a hero in some sense.

It probably wasn't wise to make his statement the way he did. But the deed is done, and I, for one, would like to send my moral support to the cartoonist and to all the great people of Denmark.

And to all the people who thought it would be a good idea to burn Danish flags, I would like to send a message: lighten up. Sure, I understand why you're insulted, especially if you don't have a sense of humor or an education or anything like that. But in the end, it's not really a big deal.

Pluralism: The Solution to the ID Debate?

Copernicus Now has written an extremely interesting allegory about the “conflict” between religion and science. (Okay, maybe it’s a metaphor. Stop splitting hairs.) I suggest you read it, lest ye become one of the unwashed barbarians (or paranoid peasants) of which he speaks.

Instead of discussing the relative merits of evolution and intelligent design, today I’m going to take a more pragmatic approach.

At my undergraduate university, I took a class called “The Gospel in a Pluralistic World.” (Well, I didn’t so much take it as I stopped showing up after three weeks and then dropped it on the last possible day.) Anyway, that class was about addressing the different ideologies that Christians can encounter in a productive way. And in my short time there, pluralism was a four-letter word. (No, they didn’t spell it prsm, or plsm, or plrm. You know what I meant.) This is because pluralism was seen as an attempt to accept all points of view, and if you’ve read the Bible (especially the first chapter of Ezekiel and the 28th Chapter of Matthew) you know that it is the Christian’s duty to present God’s Word in the hopes that everyone will accept it. Along with pluralism, in the eyes of some academics, comes relativism.
Also, pluralism was equated with a common understanding of tolerance, that all points of view are to be embraced unless those views are intolerant of other views, or they are absolutist. But I’ve realized (probably partly due to a South Park episode and Philosophy 201) that tolerance should mean purely a pragmatic acceptance of all views (as opposed to an academic acceptance), with the caveat that we are free not to embrace those views with which we don’t agree, and even to criticize those views. (In the future I’ll try to avoid sentences with 7 or more phrases embedded within them.)

This brings me up to yesterday. I attended a lecture on the ID debate. It was excellent. He went through the history of the Bible’s relationship to public schools. A couple of things became clear. One, that religion as we know it in the US is not anti-science, or anti-intellectual, but instead anti-elitist. From that we can understand that historically religion is not opposed to the teaching of evolution, but instead it wants its side of the story presented as well. Two, the traditional debate about the Bible’s relationship to public schools was never about Christians versus non-Christians, but instead about Protestants versus Catholics, and it goes back as far as the 1830’s or 40’s. The conflict between these two groups is based on the former’s reliance on the Bible as authority and the latter’s reliance on earthly leaders (i.e. the Pope) as authority. And three, that ID is just the latest controversy in this ongoing debate that will likely never end.

Proposal

So that brings me up to the lecturer’s suggestion. He implied that ID should be disregarded altogether. He also implied that ID (or any variant formulation thereof) should stay out of the science classrooms. However, he would have a sort of epistemology class offered. Call it introductory philosophy if you will. He didn’t go into much detail on it, but here’s how I would do it.
The class would go over the very basics of epistemology. Addressing Parmenides would make an excellent introduction to the class, and would make the kids more likely to listen and open to different suggestions. It would discuss popular epistemological traditions such as revelation, reason, and, of course, the scientific method. The course would promote pluralism and would hopefully make everyone happy.
In my world, it would be a required class in order to graduate.

Basically, the reasoning behind this is that science, while extremely important in our society, is not the only way to know. It gets put up on a pedestal while other epistemological methods are scoffed at. There is no good reason for this state of affairs. (Of course, maybe I’m biased because of my belief in a liberal arts education.)

This idea is not susceptible to the slippery-slope problem that FSM points out in ID. Plus, it has the added bonus of being pretty much impervious to legal attack (quite unlike ID, which, were it ever to come before the Supreme Court, would likely be struck down).

There may be problems with my proposed solution. Introducing these kinds of questions could undermine the atmosphere of authority that teachers and administrators need to keep control in the classrooms. If you introduce it at a middle school level, the children may not be capable of grasping the concepts. If you introduce it to high school seniors, many dropouts won’t ever get to hear it and the kids may already have an unquestioned acceptance of certain views (and also, everyone knows that senioritis can seriously interfere with learning).

Despite these problems (and any others I may have missed), it’s still a worthy proposal. And I definitely believe it to be important enough to be a graduating requirement. Isn’t it certainly at least as important as social studies? Or a year of history? Or reducing the kids’ options to take one of their many elective courses? Or a year of English when the students take an English class every year from kindergarten through the 12th grade?

Certainly, the question “How do we know what we know?” has been the mort important question for all philosophers since the beginning of that great tradition. Could they all be wrong?

Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design (or ID) is a hot topic these days. For those not in the know, the basic premises are these:
1. Evolution is only a theory, and is not proven
2. There are many holes in the theory of evolution
3. ID resolves this problem by positing that some intelligent force is at work in the evolutionary process, or that evolution is false entirely and that species are the work of some intelligent force.
4. Therefore ID should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes
Understandably, the scientific community and others are concerned about the final assertion. School boards in some states (notably Kansas) are attracted to the idea.
I will address the three major arguments of ID critics in order to get a better understanding of the issue.

Intelligent Design is just a subterfuge for teaching religion in public schools

The criticism most emotionally and emphatically put forward by most lay ID critics is that it’s an attempt to teach religion in schools. This argument may have some merit, although people in policy-making positions don’t spend much time on it, for reasons that will become clear.
Yes, at first blush, ID sounds like the Judeo-Christian and Muslim ideas of creation. And in all fairness, this is probably why people want ID to be taught in schools. It would be ignorant to assert otherwise. But what looks like a leopard may actually be a jaguar.
What makes ID something new and different is that it completely avoids any discussion about the guiding, intelligent force. It could be any god or pantheon of gods: the Judeo-Christian God, Allah, Ahura-Mazda, or even the body of Tiamat destroyed by Marduk. But this ignores the fact that it could be something else: a galactic computer, aliens, or Aristotle’s unmoved mover, or something that we don’t even comprehend.
Aside from the fact that non-religious explanations can be had for ID, it doesn’t really fall into our normal understanding of religion. I’m probably stepping into the Language Guy’s territory here, but I think religion is generally thought of more as an understanding of that intelligent force, as a set of morals, or as a means toward salvation or some equivalent. ID doesn’t attempt to address any of these concerns, and religion (at least as I know it) generally treats the origin of things only incidentally.

If Intelligent Design is taught in public schools, then you will have to teach any and all ideas, even crackpot ones

There is a very amusing satirical response to ID in The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which also has an uncyclopedia article on the subject. This position partially depends on the subterfuge argument addressed above, especially when you note that FSM-ID is essentially no different from regular ID, except that it is actually more a promotion of a particular form of creationism. It’s similar to an assertion that Christian-ID should be taught in public schools, which is something no one is seriously suggesting.
It does bear noting that teaching ID would necessarily also allow other ideas into the school. But it seems a weak criticism because no other such idea has been seriously promoted. Has anyone even come up with a comparable idea? All explanations I have heard, other than evolution, would fall into the sphere of ID.
The argument also partially depends on what is a “crackpot” idea, the issue to which I turn next.

Intelligent Design is not scientific

This is the argument where everyone is putting their money. Proponents of ID have even put forward a new definition of scientific theory, but it can hardly be taken seriously because this definition would include astrology. And opponents of ID have put forward their most damning criticisms under this argument.
Scientific theories rest on testable hypotheses. For example, if the current atomic theory is correct, then we can expect that sodium, when it comes into contact with chlorine, will result in an entirely different substance. This substance we know as common table salt. But what about evolution and ID? Bear with me as I develop the argument.
Evolution rests on the theory of natural selection. Natural selection comes from observations of life-forms in nature as well as an understanding of genetics. Since we know how genetics work, we also know that natural selection happens. But, as I believe ID proponents correctly observe, there is nothing solid to show that all species come about from common ancestors through the process of natural selection.
As an example, it’s patently bizarre to assert that a simple genetic mutation put lungs into an animal that previously only had gills. It’s even more bizarre to assert that it happened to an entire breeding population, or that small genetic mutations, all of which were beneficial, eventually led to the development of lungs in a breeding population. Does this mean it didn’t happen? Certainly not, but it provides a foothold for ID.
ID latches on to these utter improbabilities, as well as the lack of a complete fossil record. While we can’t realistically expect scientists to produce such a record, this is what ID proponents would have them do, or else teach ID. In this way ID is perhaps a good thing, because we should always examine our science and point out its flaws lest it become dogma. But ID attempts to explain these problems with the bare assertion that, since natural selection can’t account for everything, there must be some intelligent force behind it all. This is where, it is contended, ID steps over the line and becomes unscientific.
But is it really any more unscientific than evolution? No one would seriously argue that the theory of natural selection isn’t scientific. In fact, I don’t know why they still call it a “theory” and not a “law.” Evolution, however, is something different. I suppose it is testable, but to this date it has never been tested. If, for example, scientists could observe a population as it develops into two genetically incompatible species, then evolution will have been tested. But it never has been tested in this way, and likely never will be, at least not on the same scale as the lungs-to-gills transformation. Correct me if I’m wrong on the state of research. There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence in favor of evolution as a theory, but ID is correct in pointing out that it’s far from proven as a law.
ID, however, is not even testable. Even if we observe a new species developing from another, it would support ID no more than evolution. And even if we observe a new species coming out of thin air, it still doesn’t prove that there was some intelligent, guiding force behind it. Unless and until we observe the intelligent force itself, ID can’t be tested.
ID does have a lot of powerful support from the pure position of reason. Philosophers for more than two millennia have used pure reason to come to the conclusion that there must be some higher force. And the early philosophers, notably Thales, Aristotle, and Democritus, believed that it is impossible to discuss philosophy without discussing what would now be seen as more scientific endeavors. So the question really comes down to where the line is between philosophy and science, and whether there should be such a line.
I’m not sure how adequately I addressed this last issue, but at least it gives an overview, and allows us to make some conclusions and ask the right questions.

Conclusion

ID can’t properly be called religion, and it doesn’t really open the door to an infinity of crackpot ideas (unless you let non-scientists redefine what makes a scientific theory). ID is useful because it points out the flaws in the currently accepted scientific model of evolution, but it may go too far in making untestable assertions to explain those flaws.
Religion has its place, and science has its place. Reasonable people agree on that.
So what should we do about it? I can’t see any harm in requiring teachers to point out the flaws in the evolutionary model. Is there anything wrong with requiring teachers to make a statement that, while evolution is widely accepted in the scientific community, it is not the only explanation, and that these other explanations will not be discussed in class? I’m not sure what you do after that, if one of the students asks to be directed to a resource on these alternative explanations. This opens up a slippery slope. So you could simply have a standard list of other resources available in the area, or tell the kid to search the Internet, or allow the teacher to decline to answer the question.
What’s the best answer? I don’t claim to know. Let’s hear what you have to say.

Edit (11:00 a.m. Oct. 28): I would like to add one final point. Assuming that ID is nothing more than creationism in disguise, then going through ID as thoroughly as evolution in class would likely have no effect on students except to slow down their science education. If they are creationists they will get that education elsewhere, and if they are not then the ID discussion will likely have no effect on them. If there is more to ID than that, the situation is different.