U2 might have "too much theological content"

I'm sitting in the Dulles airport, after the U2 academic conference, and need to do a quick post about something that's bugging me. It's Beth Maynard's last post on her U2 Sermons blog. I read what she said late last night and I guess it stayed with me. She says something about the theology of U2 that is worth repeating. I could never say it as eloquently as her, so here it is in her words.

I'm annoyed when people choose bits of U2 lyrics as excuses to say something they want to say about theology without stopping to notice what the actual preoccupations of the whole text are. I'm annoyed when people highlight nothing else in U2 lyrics than the kind of material that would of necessity appear anywhere any Christian content is in play. I'm annoyed when people use U2 lyrics to claim U2 for their theological team. I'm annoyed when people pick a few U2 lyrics out of context to check off the "pop culture" box in their largely unrelated Christian talk. I'm annoyed when people act as if every U2 song must somehow be in code, a secret message that's "really" "about" some inner-circle Christian topic. I'm annoyed, in other words, when Christians interact exploitatively, superficially, thoughtlessly, or in a partisan way with U2 lyrics. And yeah, that happens a lot.

But I'm beginning to question if there's such a thing as claiming "too much" theological content for U2 per se. Maybe the real problem is just people claiming that content poorly.

I love this! Beth consistently argues against any notion that there is a dichotomy between sacred and  secular, holy and profane, Christian and non-Christian. I have been guilty of making that distinction for a good part of my life. I grew up believing I had to listen to Christian music because the secular stuff was bad for me. I lived through the "Bob Larson" era when we were told that drums brought evil spirits from Africa, rock music played backwards would say "Worship Satan" and burning cassette tapes would send those demons back to hell where they belonged. I knew that Christian equaled good, non-Christian equaled bad.

This bimodal way of looking at life leaves all kinds of dilemmas. Why could I listen to classical music and not other "secular" music? Was it because the classical masters were writing music for the liturgy (never mind about their personal lives)? What about art, was it acceptable to look at paintings only if they were painted by someone who believes in God (like Thomas Kincade)? Like Abraham in Sodom, can I listen to a band if there are three Christians in it? What about two? One? How many Christians in a band does it take to make the band Christian? Movies... R-rated are out of the question. Unless, of course, it's about the death of Christ and it's directed by Mel Gibson (he's Catholic you know; again, never mind about his previous movies or personal life -- that doesn't count anymore).

One of my favorite stories from the early years of U2 is when a publication in Britain announced that U2 was a "Christian band." Bono said in 1981 at a gathering of Christian musicians that the day the article broke he ran down the road to a friend's house and yelled, "We’re a Christian band! It’s all over. We’re finished." And then he commented to the group, "I thought the witness had ended!” At another point he clarifies, "We weren’t going to tell anybody, we were going to witness by our lives.” He goes on, "Jesus said that we should be the salt of the earth." Then he quotes Isaiah, "Sing his praises to the ends of the earth." That was, and still is, the founding mission of U2.

From the beginning U2 have worked against the dichotomy that something is either Christian or non-Christian. Bono in particular articulates this. His purpose for the band was that of mission with and in the culture, not isolated from it. This integration of faith in life, the refusal to compartmentalize and the embrace of God's creative activity in every corner of this planet is good theology and practice.

In the course I teach, Theology Culture and U2, I ask one question on the final exam: How has this course changed your understanding of theology? Many students reflect significant change and can speak to a more holistic sense of theology. Here's what Karen wrote:

Before taking this class, I thought theology was simply the study of God. I can understand now that theology is yes, based on orthodoxy, but also orthopraxy. The music of U2 has freed my soul in a way. Ha, I’m now more annoying to others – telling them what Jesus is doing in the world and throwing a few U2 facts and lyrics in as well. But more than just learning to “act out” my faith more, or even speak up more… things and life and faith become more primal. More sensory-oriented. Let’s taste our faith, feel our faith, smell it, hear it, let’s touch it. But together, please.

No need to be repulsed. Christianity lived at a distance form culture is a truncated shallow experience at best. If you're looking for affirmation of credal statements and four easy steps to heaven, don't look to U2. But, if you're looking for music and lyrics that struggle with the fallenness of humanity and the potential for redemption within that fallenness, not always having trite and comfortable answers, then, as Beth Maynard signals, U2 might just have "too much theological content" for you.

 

Comments

[Tim]

Kyndria, thanks for the affirmation. YOU would make a good missionary. Oh, I bet you already are....

Karen, The people making too "big a deal" about U2 are usually Christians arguing for or against them. It's a shame to miss all the richness of their art because we're either trying to prove they are or they aren't Christian. Good thoughts.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=654383499]

Tim - Thank you for writing this. I think when the Christian community overanalyzes any kind of art, whether it be music, paintings, sculpture, or theatre, it robs that medium from being, well, art. I understand the fear and caution that was ingrained in us as young Christians. Sadly, when it is carried into adulthood, I feel that it cripples us when we should be the most effective. Trusting God to keep us unto Himself as we go out into the world and minister to the "undesireables" is a part of faith that is tossed aside, and then too easily justified by saying "we are keeping ourselves pure". Yes, we are not to be of the world, but we forget we are called to be IN the world as Jesus was. We are called to minister to alcoholics, prostitutes, strippers, criminals, people who choose "alternate lifestyles", addicts, and the like. Follow the example of Jesus, not the critical Pharisees and Saducees who isolated themselves from the "unclean". And as one is called to minister to these groups, I also believe that one is called to understand that culture so the hearts can be reached. This includes their art, music, lingo, and whatever else is important to them as people. -Kyndria

[Karen]

why don't you just read this to everyone in TC&U2 and be done with it? or Beth's blog. I love it.

also...people make too big a deal out of U2. as in, why pick on just U2? what makes them "Christian" is belief, words and actions. nothing more, nothing less. ...just like the rest of us Christ followers. lyrically speaking, they're geniuses. musically speaking, they're good. actively speaking, they're ahead of the game. now people can pick on things like DATA or the (red) campaign, and make statements like, "Well HE'S a rock star, why doesn't he give more?" "Well...are you doing anything about it? YOUR words aren't promoting love in any way." I would ask them (hypothetically, of course). how are OUR actions promoting love and reconciliation for the whole? or at least those in our community. When lyrics lead us to greater action in Jesus' name, who cares where it came from? Dylan, Crowder, Adele, Webb, Mayer and Caillat have also lead me to think about things from a different perspective...not to their glory, but to God's. when we see them simply as the vessels of words that they are...I argue we won't be so quick to jump on arguing about someone's methodology.

oh Tom. being shady isn't the answer...