Thursday, December 17, 2009

Christians and Culture Pt. 1

The following is an article I wrote in a "Christian Goth" group where someone asked whether it was possible to be Christian and "goth" in light of some of the more extreme "gothic" people.
This is also my first written address to the idea of culture and counter-culture, an idea I hope to expand (so comments and opinions are very appreciated).


"Christian AND Gothic?"

I found the group's ("It's possible to be a Goth, and Christian") description to be a very well-put argument for goth in the very broadly defined sense of the term, but more specifically what it seemed to be advocating was not "goth" but a counter-culture against superficiality and hypocrisy.

Let me start by outlining the danger of counter-cultures. Being against that which is wrong is a particularly Christian concept, the sort of concept that modern-day pluralists and your average cheerful evangelical simply can't wrap their mind around. Muslims have no problem being against beliefs contrary to their own, and yet somehow we of the true Christian faith lack the courage to be so on a grander and more definite scale (standing, after all, on such a strong foundation). The problem counter-culture almost inevitably encounters is that it becomes obsessed with non-identity. It starts out by challenging the falsehoods of the (usually) more popular cultural norms, but in a short matter of time finds itself trapped by the need to constantly be different. Demagogical pundits run into the same problem by getting trapped by their own rhetoric so that they can never afford to post a moderate opinion.
So modern Goth, while it achieves one goal in its rejection of pop culture, also finds itself trapped in its non-associative identity. For a counter-culture to truly succeed it must, soon after its rejection of the popular, construct a definite and lasting identity of its own. The Reformation is a good example- first we rebelled against the popular beliefs of the Roman Catholic church, and then a number of Reformers over 100+ years established the central beliefs of mainline Protestantism, which are still held to this day. Sure, there are lots of different denominations, but those developed mostly later on, and largely due to the influence of outside ideologies. The core tenants of Protestantism established by Calvin still thrive in a decently large number of churches (Ironically, it was often people, like Luther even, who because they were simply counter to the excesses of the Roman Catholics, ended up establishing churches outside of mainstream Protestantism which actually still agree with much of the Roman Catholic belief system). Goth, likewise, has encountered a problem very similar to the Protestants. However, today's culture makes very little space for absolute identity and beliefs, and so one might argue that Goth as a culture of its own has been stunted. I would argue that Goth as a culture of its own stunted itself. Because Goth has associated itself as necessarily counter-cultural, it finds itself stuck in a paradox. Simply by naming itself as a theme, a group to associate with, it becomes a culture. And yet, at the same time, it claims to embrace all those who are counter-cultural.
But counter-cultural to what? By casting the net far and wide into the deep waters of malcontent and righteous anger, Goth has dredged up not only the innocent and pure who are disgusted with superficiality, but also the disturbed, the vampiric, the bleeders and the magickers, the satanists and the chaos theorists. What to do, then, when such a lot is dressing the same way, listening to the same style of music, and claiming the same cultural name? Well, in the Protestant tradition you split and form your own church. But because Goth has associated itself as simply "against pop culture", technically speaking it has no grounds to cast out the evil in its ranks. By the broadly accepted definition of goth, a satanist and a spiritist have just as much right to be goths as a Christian wearing black clothing and makeup and listening to H.I.M. (figure out what his name means if you will). They are, by definition, running counter to the popular culture as well. They just happen to also be against Christianity, against even common morals and accepted sanity in some cases. By supporting the rights of the individual to express themselves how they see fit, Goth has attracted some (note the caveat) of the worst people around. But who will cast them out when your culture embraces them in its very doctrines?

Just two other problems I have with Goth then, apart from the paradox and problem above. One is that the gothic mode of fashion and distinction is, like all fashion and art, a way of hiding what lies beneath. The gothic makeup industry only differs from popular makeup magnates in that it seeks to focus on the dark, on the impure, on that which is considered unattractive, but it still seeks to change your face. It still seeks to achieve a particular ideal by altering your appearance, by layering a mask of white or ash or clown cover upon your natural features. A truly counter-cultural order would simply be done with appearance and go natural. It is only by rejecting the superficiality of makeup entirely that one truly runs against the grain of pop culture.
Second problem: The obsession of shock and discomfort is, as some have pointed out, not a Christian ideal. Yes, you're going against pop culture by having 15 piercings, 12 tattoos, and a padlock in your left ear. But if you're doing it simply to shock people, simply to scare people, then you're not being loving as Christ called us to be. Christ certainly did not modify his body in any way. Christ did not show up in town with black hair, white makeup, and a lip piercing. And Christ certainly did NOT wear bondage leather, listen to songs about vampirism, and then wander into the temple wondering "WHY do they hate me?" Christ was counter-cultural, but he was so by way of reason and truth. He brought true religion to fight against the heresies being distributed by most of the factions of the day.

So if you want a descriptive definition of goth, you're not going to have much luck. There are simply far too many points of view standing under the same umbrella (in the rain, inside the cemetery, at midnight). But if you want to know how to be a faithful Christian AND live counter to the popular culture in a way that both rejects falsehood and defines truth, then I can help you.

2 comments:

  1. Wow, so that is what being goth means. I had no idea that it was a 'counter-cultural' movement, to be honest. I just always thought it to be a type of sadistic embracing of death and evil. In other words, I do not see any way that a Christian could dress and act like a Goth, while representing Christ. Jesus Christ is hope, victory over death, and triumph over evil. Scriptures tell us to shun evil, and turn away from satan's tools-the gothic lifestyle seems to embrace these things rather than shunning them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yea, which is I think where the idea of dual lives- one Christian at church, the other secular at home- shows itself once again. Young Christians especially fall into the idea that we can embrace any particular cultural style and set of messages and make it our own, and we often do so without any real discernment. Sure, we say, goths wear black and listen to weird music- but it's only the WEIRD ones who hang out in cemeteries and cut themselves and try to draw runes on their floors. We don't have to be like THEM. Of course, as we grow up we begin to realize that other people are entitled to their own impressions of us and when they see Christians acting like goths and satanists acting like goths they won't bother to try to find a difference (if there is one).
    All in all we just need a greater degree of image-consciousness and responsibility and discernment in our lives.

    ReplyDelete