#2. not actually possible. everyone is judged as a christian everyone is fundamentally supposed to be christian

[tastethegrace]

Analyzing “Montero (Call Me By Your Name)”

I don’t often post things as they’re having their cultural moment.  However, this song by Lil Nas X, a rap/hip hop/pop artist, who is famous for his song “Old Town Road” a few years ago, has caused quite the stir.  On one side of the fence is the LGBTQ+ community, who touts this song as an anthem to the artist’s sexual identity.  On the other are the Christians, many of whom have posted warnings on social media, urging fellow believers to “wake up,” guard their children, and many calling down the name of Jesus against the Satanic imagery associated with it.  The music video for this song sees the artist depicted as Eve in the garden of Eden, being seduced by the serpent.  He is then on trial, then descends into hell, where he himself seduces the Devil.  The artist has also partnered with street wear brand MSCHF to produced what many are calling “Satan shoes.”  These shoes apparently have contain one drop of human blood in the soul, have a black and red color scheme with pentagrams painted on the soul and attached to the laces.  

So first off, the reason I’m writing this post is to critique the Christian reaction to this song and its associated media.  It’s important to understand this right off the bat, as I will not be analyzing this song on its artistic merits.  Instead, I will attempt to analyze the artist’s intent behind the imagery and symbolism he chooses to use.  

If there’s one thing that I have grown to understand, it’s that the American Church has a fundamental misunderstanding of how believers are to interact with culture.  We have been stuck in the same culture war for decades, with this idea that we must enforce our beliefs on others, affect change through politics and protests, and fear all that is antithetical to the Christian belief system.  This latter point is the most significant, and one that many of my Christian friends may dispute.  

Let me explain here.  In the age of social media, everyone judges and reacts quickly, posting their affirmations and protests for everyone to see without putting much thought into what they’re actually critiquing.  Sadly, the American Church, most of the time, has followed suit.  Rather than choosing a different way to interact with the world on social media, it has become a leading reactionary voice -- a more intense version of what already exists in the mainstream.  It has so become the case that the world looks on and mocks.

As a younger Christian, I went with the flow, just as everyone else did.  But as a I grew up, and especially in college, I learned the importance of questioning, of slowing down, of considering the ins and outs, the truths and lies present in our everyday world.  I believe this process gives insight into the presence of God in our everyday lives, presenting us with his truth and beauty, present even in the darkest of places.  It also gives us the ability to, like Jesus, call something what it actually is, diminishing its power, and responding to it with the importance/weight it deserves.

Now understanding this context and the process by which I will move forward, let’s talk about this song.  First of all, the lyrics explicitly discuss the artist’s encounters with one specific person, a male in this context.  There’s a couple of levels to this song.  The first, that many in the LGBTQ+ community point out, is that he says that his partner “lives in the dark,” while he himself “cannot pretend.”  This refers to the fact that his partner is a closeted gay man, while Lil Nas is out.  As for the rest of the lyrics here, Lil Nas discusses his attachment to this man and the sexual experiences he has and wants to have with him.  He mentions the use of drugs to illustrate a hellish environment.  On a deeper level, evidenced even more clearly in the music video, Lil Nas is using this situation as a metaphor to reach out to his former, closeted self.  

In the interest of digging for the truth, I would go one step further here.  While it is obvious that the artist wishes to affirm his former self and encourage a lifestyle that is honest, at the very least, he also confesses what he wants very clearly.  All of the explicit imagery here is true to his experience.  So what does he want?  He wants deep connection, intimate experiences, and he’s ultimately willing to go to “hell” to get it, even if his partner won’t come out.  

Why is it important to understand this?  Am I trying to affirm how Lil Nas gets what he wants?  No, but that’s also not the point.  Understanding the artist’s questions are just as important as understanding his answers; in my opinion, even more so.  In order to make any sort of true judgment of merit or integrity, either subjective or objective, it’s important to understand fully how the artist is coming to his conclusions.  

Moving on to the music video, I’m going to use an analysis posted by reddit user margarita_atwood, as she discusses much of I what I found myself.

Everyone is going to have an opinion on this video, whether that opinion is heavily in favor or disfavor...Later, I’ll talk about why the negative opinions about this video don’t really matter and actually play right into LNX’s plans.

Lil Nas as every character: Through the miracle of CGI, LNX plays every single character. Some people might interpret this as LNX making love to himself in some scenes, but I think it has more to do with the Jungian concept of the Shadow Self (explained some in this video). There’s definitely some interesting psychology behind LNX playing all the parts. He’s talking to himself, seducing himself, running from himself. And I don’t think it would have had the same impact if the main characters were played by anyone else. He’s definitely being a little narcissistic, which he winks at with his own face on a Narcissus flower (daffodil) that I’ll get to next...He also says in the intro: “Welcome to Montero”, which is both this fantasy land he is creating for us in the video, and introducing us to his real self, saying welcome to the real me.

Scene 1- Garden of Eden: In the first scene. We’ve got the temptation of Adam by the snake/Satan in the Garden of Eden story mixed with Greek classical architecture motifs (sans Eve, as LNX raps “If Eve ain’t in your garden/ You know that you can/ Call me when you want”). In the reaction video I mentioned earlier, LNX talks about how growing up gay in a black church (or any church for that matter) made him repress and feel ashamed about his budding sexuality as a young adult. So while the lyrics are explicit, all of the themes in the video are very pointed allegories about how he’s dealt with his sexuality. He runs away from his tempting snake-self, meanwhile running past a Lion King-esque Mufasa cloud featuring his fate/destiny, and Narcissus flowers AKA daffodils (in the Greek myth, daffodils grew where Narcissus drowned after staring at his own reflection for too long), only to be caught by his temptation in a scene that gives me a ton of Labyrinth vibes. After his literal fall with possible Paradise Lost references to this perceived “sin,” we nearly see his alien-snake-self fellate his Adam-self. Finally, we close in on a shot of Greek writing on a tree. Some people smarter than I were able to find out that this is an excerpt from Plato’s Symposium which reads: “So in the beginning when they were cut in two, they yearned for each other’s half.” Symposium is basically a bunch of Greek philosophers telling metaphorical campfire stories about love (let’s ignore once again problematic themes of statutory rape in some of this). The excerpt in the video in particular is a part where one of Plato’s students Aristophanes gives an account of the origin of soulmates. Originally people were joined as two people to make one whole person. In this story, there were male/male, female/female, and female/male pairings and the gods became jealous and split them in two. The Montero excerpt is explaining this splitting of soul mates where they’re doomed to long for their other halves to become whole for eternity. Lots of allegories there regarding LNX trying to seduce a possibly gay man who is still in the closet.

Scene 2- The gladiator’s Colosseum: LNX then is taken as a prisoner in chains to a Greek colosseum, also full of LNX judges in Marie Antoinette wigs and faceless LNX mob spectators. I believe his character in this scene is supposed to be a Ulysses-type as his pink, fur shawl he’s wearing has a ram’s head broach...the blue LNX jury sentences him to...jail, and he gets literally stoned to death... Ulysses-LNX presumably dies and his soul is being lifted up to the heavens. An angel awaits him above, with a lot of Creation of Adam motifs (which was also hinted at on LNX’s IG). But just before he reaches his guardian angel.... a stripper pole rises up from the earth...and he rides that b**** all the way to the seventh inner circle of h*** in some thigh-high boots, tricking all the way down.

Scene 3- Twerking on the devil: And now we get to the biggest scandal. LNX said to those of you who think gays deserve to go to hell, watch me go to hell and give Satan a lap dance....he’s one-upping the shock factor in each part. Think it’s scandalous to go down on myself? Just wait. There’s some trolling of Illuminati/Satanist conspiracy rumors in the motifs. Honestly, the purpose of this scene is that he knew religious types would try and metaphorically crucify him over the lyrics. So he said let me beat you to it. He’s trolling the religious hater that I’m sure made his life growing up a proverbial hell already. And hey, the more times they stream and react to the song out of anger, the more money he makes from their anger. And then he goes and pulls a mafia hit, killing Satan after seducing him, and taking his horns of braids and becoming the fallen angel...

While perhaps not stated the most eloquently, and obviously from a more approving light, the OP gives us some insight into the symbolism used in this video.  On first glance, the believer might gag at how biblical imagery is used and twisted here.  However, I would encourage that believer to be patient and consider for a moment a few things.

1. If we let our gut reaction to this imagery become our public reaction, we prove the artist’s perspective of believers correct in the eyes of the world.  

2. If we consider the symbols and imagery used, it is obvious that this piece was intricately planned by Lil Nas to suggest his conclusions through the subversion of cultural norms.  This is not a new technique by any means, and it is important to acknowledge this.

3. Remember that Lil Nas was raised in the church.  His use of biblical imagery is intentional here.  If you detect a hint of bitterness in the twists he uses, that’s because there is, and not without reason.

See, I think that if Jesus looked at this video and gave us his reaction, it would not be a warning to us to guard our hearts.  That’s common sense.  I think it would be sadness that Lil Nas has not experienced the true intimacy and connection that he so desires in a healthy context, but also that he would be so bitter as to use the imagery as a “F*** You!” to the church.  Granted, this is all speculative, but when I look at Jesus in the gospels, I never see Jesus trying to separate or isolate his disciples from sinners.  He sees right to the heart of why sinners sin, and urges his disciples by example and speech to have compassion.  It is the the Pharisees and teachers of the law who he preaches against, urging his disciples to guard their hearts against them.  

Finally, there’s the even bigger deal being made in Christian circles of the “Satan shoes.”  Let me set the record straight here.  This company put out “Jesus shoes” a couple of years ago that claimed to have holy water in its soles.  This was a stunt by the artist for the very purpose of causing controversy.  It was done out of anger.  The imagery only has power if we let it be something other than what it is.

I have seen so many people decrying the use of this imagery as an act of devil worship.  That’s not what this is.  Is Lil Nas believing a lie?  Most certainly, as all humans do every day.  But this should not be shocking.  We must look behind the symbols to what they’re really pointing to.

In conclusion, I felt that it was important to share my feelings on this, as the social media chatter is a prime example of how the American Church has lost its way.  However, on a more personal note, I have a lot of history and connection that helps me to deeply understand what’s happening in this song.  That drive for connection, that willingness to put myself in horrible places to find it, the feeling of dirtiness and the running away from it...and especially the now often used intimate metaphor “call me by your name,” referring to the book/move of that title...I’ve been there.  I even embraced it for a time.  So more than most, I am more inclined to have compassion on those who are in that place, even if they don’t see the fruitlessness of it.  The Lord has been good to me.  He was with me in that place, just as he is with me now.  It is important for all who call themselves Christians to remember that before we judge, we must seek empathy and compassion, fullness of understanding, and most of all, the heart and mind of Jesus himself.

#culture #review

[pamphletstoinspire]

Haggling With God: The 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Who has the guts to bargain with the Divinity? Abraham, the father of the Israelites, does. In the Readings for this Sunday, we find united several themes: persistence in prayer, the justice and mercy of God, the generosity of God.

1. Our First Reading is Gn 18:20-32

In those days, the LORD said: “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave, that I must go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them that comes to me. I mean to find out.”

While Abraham’s visitors walked on farther toward Sodom, the LORD remained standing before Abraham. Then Abraham drew nearer and said:“Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty? Suppose there were fifty innocent people in the city; would you wipe out the place, rather than spare it for the sake of the fifty innocent people within it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to make the innocent die with the guilty so that the innocent and the guilty would be treated alike! Should not the judge of all the world act with justice?” The LORD replied, “If I find fifty innocent people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” Abraham spoke up again: “See how I am presuming to speak to my Lord, though I am but dust and ashes! What if there are five less than fifty innocent people? Will you destroy the whole city because of those five?” He answered, “I will not destroy it, if I find forty-five there.” But Abraham persisted, saying “What if only forty are found there?” He replied, “I will forbear doing it for the sake of the forty.” Then Abraham said, “Let not my Lord grow impatient if I go on. What if only thirty are found there?” He replied, “I will forbear doing it if I can find but thirty there.” Still Abraham went on, “Since I have thus dared to speak to my Lord, what if there are no more than twenty?” The LORD answered, “I will not destroy it, for the sake of the twenty.” But he still persisted: “Please, let not my Lord grow angry if I speak up this last time. What if there are at least ten there?” He replied, “For the sake of those ten, I will not destroy it.”

This Reading makes several presumptions about the nature of God and our relationship with him:

a. It is possible for the righteous to intercede with God and influence the Divine will. b. God is fundamentally just, and justice includes not only mercy for the innocent but punishment for the wicked. c. If there is a conflict of the claims of justice and mercy, God prefers mercy. d. God is reticent to punish the wicked, and does so only when fully justified. These theological convictions, embedded in the narrative, have shaped Jewish and Christian understandings of the nature of God, prayer, justice, and mercy throughout history. The sites of Sodom and Gomorrah have been discovered at Tall el-Hammam in Jordan, and are currently being excavated. They were populous and wealthy cities in their day, strongly defended and controlling important trade routes that crossed the Jordan River just north of the Dead Sea. They were indeed destroyed suddenly by an intense aerial fire burst (meteors?) that incinerated the whole area.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a tremendously traumatic event in ancient Near Eastern society. This Biblical account of the destruction insists that it was the work of God’s providence, and justified by the immorality and injustice rampant in the cities.

Abraham assumes that it is unjust of God to “treat the innocent and guilty alike.” Yet we all know of cases where God appears to do so. Jesus himself tells us that God “sends rain on the just and unjust,” and furthermore, that people who die in natural disasters are not necessarily more wicked than those who survive (see Luke 13:4). The fact is that often in this life we do not see obvious differences in the fate of the wicked and righteous (see Psalm 73). The “moral logic” of God and the universe only holds if there is an afterlife. Without faith in the life to come, it is not possible to justify the ways of God on earth. Critics will say belief in the afterlife is a psychological crutch. I beg to differ. Belief in a final judgment and an afterlife is a courageous affirmation the moral justice of God and therefore of all reality. It is part of a hope-filled worldview that refuses to capitulate to the apparent dominance of evil in this world. Moreover, it is based on the testimony and example of Jesus Christ, who alone among human beings has died and returned in the flesh to speak to us and testify about the reality of the hereafter to those who knew him and would perpetuate his teaching.

2. Our Second Reading is Col 2:12-14

Brothers and sisters: You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And even when you were dead in transgressions and the un-circumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions; obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross.

Let’s observe the stress that St. Paul lays on the Sacrament of Baptism. This aspect of St. Paul’s teaching is sadly neglected in American Christianity, which prefers to see St. Paul as the Apostle of “faith alone” to the exclusion of the sacraments. But here in this passage, St. Paul affirms that baptism is a spiritual burial of our old nature and a resurrection to new life in Christ. There is an implicit comparison with circumcision: as circumcision marked the entrance into the Old Covenant, so baptism is the “new circumcision,” in the sense that it is the rite that marks our entrance into the New Covenant.

In this Reading, we see the mercy of God at work, even as it was in the First Reading. Our merciful God works to bring us to life even when we were “dead in transgressions and the un-circumcision of our flesh.” It is not as if we were righteous or even seeking God when he began to work in our life. It was while we were still wicked. So God shows mercy on the wicked — namely, on us. God “errs” on the side of mercy (so to speak), when mercy and justice oppose.

3. The Gospel Lk 11:1-13:

Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John taught his disciples.” He said to them, “When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread and forgive us our sins for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt to us, and do not subject us to the final test.”

And he said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend to whom he goes at midnight and says, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, for a friend of mine has arrived at my house from a journey and I have nothing to offer him,’ and he says in reply from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been locked and my children and I are already in bed. I cannot get up to give you anything.’ I tell you, if he does not get up to give the visitor the loaves because of their friendship, he will get up to give him whatever he needs because of his persistence.

“And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish?

Or hand him a scorpion when he asks for an egg?

If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?”

In this Gospel we get St. Luke’s version of the “Lord’s Prayer.” Why the difference in wording with St. Matthew’s more commonly-used form? Jesus taught the disciples about prayer on many occasions, and what comes down to us as “The Lord’s prayer” is a précis or abstract of Jesus’ teaching on the subject, which may vary a little from apostle to apostle or eyewitness to eyewitness, as they remembered it. Moreover, remember that Jesus taught in Aramaic but the Gospels are given to us in Greek — that is, with our Lord’s words translated. So the Lord’s prayer comes to us in slightly different forms. The Lord himself may have taught it with variations on different occasions.

The two paragraphs that follow the Lord’s prayer are meant to encourage us (1) to be persistent in prayer and (2) to trust in God’s generosity.

One may ask, if God is so generous a Father, why does he insist on our persistence in prayer. Why not give everything immediately? Or better, why make us ask at all? Why not give us everything we want and need without our asking?

The philosopher Eleanor Stump actually tackles this issue head-on and provides some surprisingly satisfying answers.

Dr. Stump points out that parents who give their children everything they ask for end up spoiling them; but on the other hand, parents who always say “no” estrange their children from themselves. God is a good parent, however, and the dialogue of prayer actually fosters relationship between God and his children, in which God permits the participation his children into his providential guidance of the universe. God is neither a “sugar daddy” nor a “scrooge,” but a Father who encourages us to make our needs and desires known, always trusting in his goodness.

The best gift of all is God’s gift of Himself through his Spirit. This is what we have received in baptism, and we continue to experience new “fillings” with the Spirit through prayer and our reception of the sacraments. St. James urges us not to waste prayers on material acquisitions for the sake of our pleasure; instead, let’s focus our prayers at this Mass on a greater reception of the Spirit, the best gift God can give us.

From: www.pamphletstoinspire.com

#haggling with god