Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Don't Be a Fundamentalist Anti-Fundamentalist



My younger sister started listening to "alternative" music in the 1990s.

She'll be quick to point out that she discovered it before the vast majority did, too. She likes making sure that everyone knows that.

The allure was obvious. Alternative music as a genre was pioneered by musicians who--for entirely creative reasons--recognized that capitulating to a majority-driven enterprise machine would never allow them to achieve their artistic potential. They'd be continuously compensated for achieving mediocrity. They didn't want that. Who would?

It's hard to blame them. So a post-60s anti-establishment was born, and the criticism against the establishment was palpable. By rejecting the direction of mainline producers, the quality of music became hit-or-miss. But when it hit, it was out of the park. And the best of them then became producers themselves, influencers and decorated leaders who claimed not to be leaders, the unwitting presidents of the anarchists. Which of course helped produce even more really good alternative music.

There was an unexpected problem: it worked. By the mid-90s, the "alternative" that was trying to rebel against popularity was more popular than pop. This left its adherents with a bit of an identity crisis. The rebels against the establishment had established themselves as a new establishment. There's precious little for a trained revolutionary to do when the revolution is over, except perhaps to rebel against their success. Until that works.

Do we do the same thing in our Western churches? A lot of us seem to rather enjoy caricaturing the "radical religious right" (and with good reason!). But once we've seen the self-destructive contradiction in the "our way (of humility?) is the only way" mentality, do we become a bit too manic in our anti-fundamentalist campaign?

It reminds me a bit of the "to hell with freedom of expression" sign that I saw a protester carrying after the Muhammad cartoon travesty in Belgium a few years ago.

When we reach the point where we're fighting to make sure that everyone agrees with our strong opinion that those with strong opinions should be ridiculed, might it be that we're swallowing salt water to quench our thirst? We'll die trying to eradicate fundamentalism with a fundamentalist fervor.

Maybe, just maybe, we have to make room for a little bit of fundamentalism in a non-fundamentalist world.

Otherwise, we might become fundamentalist or something.

Geez, this is confusing.

"That's alternative to alternative"
--Todd Snider, "Talkin' Seattle Grunge Rock Blues"

Comments (9)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Spot on with the state of music in the 90s. I remember seeing it happen and finding it very amusing. And also frustrating because it meant the masses were listening to MY music ;)

Interestingly enough, it seems like that's all people are still listening to.

I don't find this particular problem in my own church. We're all still too conservative to be making fun of conservatives. And by "we" I do pretty much mean "they".
2 replies · active 756 weeks ago
Well, you are in Seattle. What other music would you play? :) I think in Seattle, Pearl Jam qualifies as "easy listening."

Anyway, I love your last sentence there. I'm totally on-board with you. In a way, I kinda want the emergents to think I'm an ultratraditionalist, and I want the ultratraditionalists to think I'm emergent, just to make sure they keep looking at everything from other perspectives, too.

So far, I think I'm pulling it off!
You're not far off about Pearl Jam! One of our stations, "Warm 106.9" is supposed to be all relaxing and good for work, and sometimes I hear Modest Mouse on there. Say what??

We have one lady who still thinks it's wrong to play cards. The other day we were in a group, talking, and I said, "That's just how I roll." She said, "At least we'll never see Sarah *rocking* and rolling." Hm.
Great observations here. I think we can be brittle people. We're very rigid on our doctrines, principles, and programs -- which is great until you bump into someone else just as rigid. The church is full of schisms because Christians are too brittle to bend and work things out. Often Christians in that environment opt for an alternative: the Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox church. But they can end up prone to the same problems there because they take their attitudes and dispositions with them. Our own attitudes and dispositions need addressing as much as the institutions we're reacting against.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Great conclusion, Joel. These days, instead of identifying responsible parties rudely, I just put my thumb up so all four fingers are pointing back at me.

But having said that, it has been a source of frustration for me in conversations with those who've found mobility between religious affiliations that they're more keen on describing perceived frustrations with the group they left than they are in celebrating what's right with their new home.

Even though I'm one of those who's experienced a shift, I actually have very little criticism about the context in which I first came to faith. They gave me a background and set me on my way, and I'm grateful. That sort of attitude opens up a lot of doors for ongoing conversation and community. I wish more people felt the same way after their own transitions.
Brilliant. I have found this tension in my own life and character. I couldn't figure out how to describe the hypocrisy that I saw in myself and in my words. Now I don't have to. Thanks dude! VERY good post!!
2 replies · active less than 1 minute ago
Thanks, Aaron. Probably one of the reasons I really enjoy your insights is because the tension is familiar. Like I said in a comment above, I kinda want the emergents to think I'm a traditionalist, and the traditionalists to think I'm emergent, just so I don't have to be complicit in letting either of them smugly think they're right.

Thanks for subtly shaping me, too, as iron sharpens iron. Nice to have kindred spirits around.
Thanks dude! By the way, you need to guest post for me!!
I know this is an old post but I just came across it! I am always surprised by how little discussion usually takes place between people with opposing views when I visit the US. My impression is that people with like minds stick together and everyone else is seen as a threat, so the extremes just become more extreme as the gap widens. There doesn't seem to be any desire to understand each other or break down barriers of misinformation or acknowledge religious propaganda exists. Kind of a "you can't be my friend unless you think like me". Of course when I visit the US I'm coming home and cramming in some intense catch up with friends and family across the whole religious/political spectrum who all want to check where I'm at on their scale so the experience might be a little extreme in itself. I expect there is debate and discussion in academic arenas but does that happen between neighbors who go to different churches for example?

Post a new comment

Comments by