My wife is a really smart lady. Like seriously smart. She’s constantly throwing out little statements that have a huge impact on my thinking. The other week we were having a discussion (read: argument) about Christian music and why so much of it is so terrible, and in this conversation she said something really insightful that…I can’t remember.
But I did leave this reminder in my phone—that’s one point for you, Siri—that I think was close enough to what she said:
Conservative values and creativity are not mutually exclusive.
I think it was at that point in the conversation we had both come to the agreement that the people who hold the money/power/influence in the Christian music industry are most likely incredibly conservative individuals and so artists are forced, implicitly if not explicitly, to create music that appeals to them. In some cases, this might mean that less creative routes are chosen in favor of tried and true formulas.
Maybe my wife and I are wrong about this, but let’s ask a few questions about creativity and the assumptions we make about creative people.
Are Creative People Inherently Liberal?
This is a difficult question because it involves two poorly defined words: creative and liberal. I don’t know what you think these words mean, so I’ll tell you what I think and you can either agree with me or be wrong. Ok?
To be “creative” is to create from the center of your being. I might “create” a sandwich for lunch today, but that’s not being creative. Creating is where we take part of ourselves and put in into our work. “Liberal,” on the other hand, of freedom. The issue, though, is what the liberal person is declaring freedom from.
The United States was founded by some amazing men who were all liberals. They espoused liberal French philosophy about democracy, freedom, liberty—do you see a pattern here? These fellows, whom today’s conservatives hold in high regard, were the extreme liberals of their day.
The issue today, however, is that liberals are declaring freedom from the moral framework that our liberal founders thought to be implicit in any success republic. This is why Christians often fear the creative works of liberals: creatives put part of themselves into everything they create, and liberals could be putting their “freedom from morality” in their creative works.
But the freedom aspect is just one part of the equation. To be liberal is to also be looking for “more.” There seems to be an inherent desire for more, for progress, of the ever elusive sense of “better living,” but right along with that is a desire for “bigger” or “more” living, which we could go ahead and “Christianize” as “abundant living.”
All we’ve done so far is define our terms. The question remains, “Are creative people inherently liberal?” The answer to this is “yes,” but the mental image this question conjures needs some fine tuning. A liberal doesn’t have to be someone who wants to throw off all moral constraints, diving head first into a Bohemian lifestyle of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. Honestly, I’m incredibly liberal in my desire to find new, abundant ways of knowing and loving God and expressing His love and truth in my life. However, I’m incredibly conservative in my social views.
But this leads us to the next question…
Is “Sin” Required in Our Story-Telling for it to Be Seen as Original and Creative?
This is one of the biggest myths about creativity. It’s based upon the previous assumption that all creatives are morally-free liberals. This simply isn’t the case.
The problem is that writers and directors want to create gripping dramas that communicate what it means to be human. They want the audience to connect with their work, but there are some issues here. Firstly, humanity is broken, fallen, consumed with sin. To represent humanity without representing sin and its effects is to lie. However, over the past two hundred years, we have moved from stories where sin is present as it is in humanity to stories where sin is sanitized—having no ill-effects—or glorified—as a solution to an actual problem or as the preferred alternative to a moral solution. That’s why, to some degree, sin in media isn’t automatically terrible. It’s whether or not it’s presented as the destructive, dehumanizing force that it is.
Ravi Zacharias, one of my favorite speakers, has often shared this quote from Simone Weil, and it will make this point for me:
“In reality nothing is so beautiful as good; nothing so continually fresh and surprising; so full of perpetual ecstasy; nothing so monotonous and boring as evil. With fantasy good becomes monotonous, boring and dull and flat. Fictional evil becomes varied, intriguing, attractive and full of charm.”
Can you create great content without glorifying sin? Yes. YouTuber Olan Rogers tells hilarious stories and writes ridiculous sketches without swearing or bringing any real elements of “sin” into his work. Here’s a Schneider Family favorite:
Do we have to present sin to tell a good story? No, not at all. And yet, if we want to present humanity in all it’s fullness, we have to admit that sin is real. However, sin is destructive, and this truth should be reflected in a realistic, not preachy, way. In fact, since all of creation is fallen, we need to give room to show how that “fallen-ness” works it’s way into every area of life. If there’s one issue with Christian creative works it might be that they only ever ring half-true because they don’t usually give space to the darker side of life that is very real at the present, even though Jesus has brought us victory over it.
Tying it Together
Liberals want to declare freedom; Christians do, too! Thanks to Jesus I have been set free from the compulsion to sin, from the depths of darkness, and so much more. I have been set free to seek out the abundant living that liberals also seek, and as a creative, I have been charged to present that abundance and freedom—found in Christ—along with the reality of living in a broken world. Yes, the world is broken and sin is rampant, but God is greater and the life He gives is abundant.
Conclusion—What Do We Do Now?
This question is one you’ll have to answer for yourselves. For me, I’m going to start being more transparent in my writing, being open about my life and my struggles, starting first with my experience with depression. This will be a long road for me to travel because I’m a very private person, but I know it’s what I need to do to declare freedom in my writing.
That’s what I I’m going to do; what about you?
Eric Dye says
I think this is deeper and more relevant than most of us realize…
Phil Schneider says
Is that just a polite way to explain why no one’s reading this? 🙂
Eric Dye says
LOL
Kenneth Rosentrater says
This is a good article, and the video guy is indeed wacko and hilarious.
But is anyone beside me so tired the the lavishly tossed about euphemisms for the real “f-word”? It’s so obvious. Might as well just go to the original, because the euphemism actually means the same thing! You can look it up.
I don’t know if this guy claims to be a Christ follower or not. But I hear his single top-favorite word (evidently) glibly sprinkled into conversations all over the church world, and methinks people don’t think.
I have never in one instance found the word to add anything positive to any conversation or exclamation. Tossing it in is kinda like putting a 20-year-old rusty part on a showroom car. It just jars things.
Maybe it’s a lack of vocabulary.
But still, your article is good and worth consideration.
Thanks Phil.
Ken Rosentrater
Phil Schneider says
Ken, I get your point. Really.
But I think that, sometimes, we need to realize that language is cultural. Amongst those I grew up with, “freaking” was used in the same way that the “f-word” would be used, but it was never spoken with an intended euphemistic link. For example, when I was a kid, I got in trouble for saying “gosh.” because my mom say that it was the same as saying “the LORD’s name in vain.”
But it wasn’t for me because I didn’t intend it that way. I wasn’t self-censoring blasphemy. I was just using a word for an interjection or exclamation, a valid role of language. (Though, I grant you that any repeat used that frequently can be annoying and/or represent a lack of vocab or preparation.)
I think that sometimes well-meaning church people mark off a list of words that are sacrilegious or incredibly offensive, which makes sense. However, then, many of these same people rope off other words that connect to the words on the list. That sounds a bit Pharisaical to me: God put a boundary here, and we set up a second boundary further back…just in case.
Lastly, I think I reject the idea “if you’re going to say *this* you might as well say *that* argument as a universal truth. My wife and I use euphemisms around our daughter for topics that need to handled with a bit of a soft touch. Furthermore, there are times when someone uses a euphemism as a transition tool from a more profane vocabulary or as a “sea wall” against the profanity they are surrounded with. Perhaps this guy in the video is surrounded by a sea of profanity, and he uses euphemistic words to keep himself from drowning. To the first example, my high school chemistry teacher used to use “raspberries” as an exclamatory interjection. Why? Because he’d been a Marine, and to quote him, “This is the result of training. You don’t leave the Marines saying ‘raspberries.'”
Just some thoughts. Thanks for the comment.
Eric Dye says
I agree, Phil. There is a big difference between saying a word and meaning the word being verbalized (see Symbolic interactionism). Words are merely signs and symbols used to communicate a huge array of ideas. Using foul language should not be avoided simply because it is foul, but because the heart reflected by those words is foul.
Making a blanket statement that “freaking” really means “f-ing” is overly simplistic, judgmental, and legalistic.
Communication is very powerful and I think we would all do ourselves a huge favor by aligning our language with our heart more accurately.
Phil Schneider says
Look at you, pulling out sources. 😉
Eric Dye says
😛
Gus says
I think there are Christians out there doing really creative works. That challenge is that in being in the population minority we have less exposure or avenues of it being promoted or put in front of us in some way. Especially in the musical arena. This is why I love Noise Trade – I get music in front of me that is often created, published and promoted by the artist – there are less people involved in making in mainstream. If we are going to talk about bad or lower quality creative music – I think percentage wise we would find that there is just as much secular music that is “terrible.” I think it is just to easy to say that with out giving some sort of comparison examples. I have found great artist in just about every genre that most people have never heard of that have a Christian world view. Songs that are musically great, lyrically creative and theological thoughtful. Another interesting thought, at least for me, is how you can have artist in just about any genre (rock, rap, indie, funk, country…) and they all get labeled “Christian” instead of or in addition to the actual genre that is is being performed.
Question – when we say that it is terrible – what are the apples to apples comparison? Name the secular artist and the Christian artist that is considered good and terrible respectively…
This is the conversation that I would love to have – cause I think I could find some artist that are great that are doing creative work – it takes more energy and time to find it because again we are in the minority. Also I think most of the secular work out there is meaningless – it kills me (meaning I laugh out loud) when I am watching a show like The Voice and here someone like Usher say you need to be true to your art, and then you listen to his catalogue of music and say WHAT?! Sure it is energetic and has a driving beat but is that what we are saying is the world changing creativity? I think we could say that about at least 80% of what is being created, produced and put in front of us to consume….
The other area I would argue that see a lot of creativity is in sermons. I think we forget how much energy, time and effort are spent by great preachers preaching great messages that has hopefully impacted all of our lives – we usually don’t pay for these – but this is an art form and skill that has to be developed and presented, but I don’t want to get too caught up in the consumerist mindset.
I do like what you have to say in the second part of your blog post – that to create good material we need to be honest – to be less than that we are just white washed walls. I more so just wanted to challenge the idea that Christian music is all terrible.
I do think however that your point maybe could be better made when it comes to movies. I think even the rest of your argument applies more to “Christian” movies than anything else..
I am tired of writing now – I have more I would like to say – but I would be more interested in talking about the music part and seeing what you think is good music, or creative artist and in what genres?
I think I rambled a lot, did not spell check or reread this so it might just be a mess. Just being honest. 🙂
Phil Schneider says
As a pastor and a regular preacher, I’m certainly not going to argue that there isn’t a lot of creativity that go into sermons. 🙂
I agree that Christian movies are where the quality disparity really shows up, but I do think that there’s something to say about music. I’m not going to blast artists on here for two reasons: 1) they are real people and don’t deserve me telling them they suck; 2) (and this might be an issue with how I phrased myself above) but defining both “terrible” and “creative” are both very subjective tasks.
However, I think my point really starts and rests here, especially regarding music: “I think it was at that point in the conversation we had both come to the agreement that the people who hold the money/power/influence in the Christian music industry are most likely incredibly conservative individuals and so artists are forced, implicitly if not explicitly, to create music that appeals to them. In some cases, this might mean that less creative routes are chosen in favor of tried and true formulas.”
Music execs, radio programming directors, etc. are the ones that have ben impressed by the music, and these people—heads of Christian record labels and radio stations—are more than likely as “conservative” as they are “Christian.” Furthermore—and maybe even more so—we have to consider the radio listeners and the music buyers. In my area, the main two Christian radio stations are supported by listener donations. Who has disposable money to donate to a radio station? Who LISTENS to radio? Older, more conservative people. So, there is “better” and “more creative” music out there, like on NoiseTrade, but the kitschy stuff gets thrown into the mainstream because the powers that be like it more.
Chris Wilson says
I thought this was a really interesting piece Phil. I think I agree with you, but I think there is good reason why people see creativity and being a moral liberal as being linked. One of the easiest ways to be seen as creative is to break a taboo. If something is taboo then people probably don’t want to talk about it, write about it or create something about it. So breaking that taboo makes you appear to be original and so creative (even if it’s just a rebelling of another story).
Romance stories are good examples, the key to a good romance novel is an “unacceptable” relationship, so in the past it might have been people from rich and poor background, then different races, then from the same sex and now vampires…because. In each case as one example becomes more acceptable to society, new targets had to be chosen to keep the star crossed lovers apart. Maybe that’s why Romeo and Juliet still resonates, because the family’s hate each other and are at war, we can understand why they can’t be together.
Anyway I think this is true of music and other creative endeavours as well but I don’t think it is the only form of creativity nor does it mean that only moral liberals are creatives as well (like you say).
Phil Schneider says
Great point about taboos, Chris. That was the root of the original Star Trek series-using sci-fi to talk about those ” out of bounds” topics.