Is the “Virgilicious” Incident a Matter of Misunderstanding Pop Culture?
Fellow Lutheran blogger, Josh S., offers an interesting perspective on the Virgilicious video incident. What do you think? Is this incident a case of older people not understanding younger people and hence not "getting" pop culture enough to see the humor here? Here is a key point in his post that deserves further scrutiny, commentary and criticism:
Without commenting on the video, which I have not seen, all I have to say to some of the people getting really bent out of shape is: LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT POP CULTURE. I’m
reading all these comments on Paul McCain’s blog where many of the
clueless Boomers commenting clearly have no concept of what a parody
is. They don’t have a satirical bone in their bodies. And because they
know nothing about pop culture, not only do they not understand satire,
but they can’t even begin to understand it because they don’t actually know what
is being satired. For example, "Baby got Book" is just a stupid rap
song by some evangelicals trying to be hip with the kids and cheapening
the Bible…unless you’ve seen "Baby got Back" (which no Pietist has
ever seen), and then it becomes rather hilarious and something of a
self-parody. Or let’s consider the case of Eminem. He uses
cuss-language. He says some pretty violent-sounding stuff. And if you
don’t know anything about pop culture, you just think he’s an
abhorrent, gutter-scraping sensationalist. He makes you angry.
But when you know something about rap culture, about ghetto culture,
corporate music culture, and a little bit of his biography, you realize
that a lot of his stuff has these ridiculously deep layers of irony,
satire, and candid appraisal of reality. That’s why he’s had such
staying power. Sure, some of his stuff is just gross. But someone who
doesn’t know the culture can’t see that. All he can see are bad words
and violence and obscenity.
I don’t know where I’m going with
this. I guess I just think that if someone says or does something you
find really offensive, you should try to figure out what they’re trying
to say and why. And if there’s really something wrong about it, you
won’t be able to correct them in a proper way if you don’t take the
time to understand them.
Some of his readers agree with Josh S., you can read some of the comments his readers made in the extended entry.
Comment 1:
My position is that you need to understand what’s going on in the world prior to issuing your condemnations. If it is truly CUW’s and your position that you absolutely do not need to understand the youth and pop culture, I’m sorry to hear that.
Comment 2:
Considering CUW is my alma mater this has hit pretty close to home. I
actually saw the video when it was posted originally and was shocked
and annoyed. The video was done in extremely bad taste and even
included women dancing and rolling around in the chancel. Ultimately,
it wasn’t the fact that it was a parody that was truly offensive – it
was how it was done and what was used. I am happy to hear of their
repentance in the matter and I thank Pr. McCain for taking a strong
stance against it. I must agree with Josh, however, in that it did at
times come across like boomers wagging their finger at "those darn
kids." While I agree that it was sinful, often arguments gravitated
away from Scripture and more toward personal venting, voicing a dislike
of rap, etc. I know some people were just trying to identify their
biases, as one commenter on Cyberbrethren explained, but it still came
across to this young person as "I hate rap; you kids should be
listening to Bach." Ultimately, I’m thankful for the repentant outcome
and I hope we can all learn something from this.
Comment 3:
For those dropping the hammer on these kids why did they make this
video? Was it their intent to communicate a "sacrilegious" message? If
not then maybe you need to back off the firebreathing a little and take
a different course of action.
For example, pointing out that
what they did offended their brothers and sisters and asking them to
conduct themselves with consideration for their fellow heirs in Christ.
Of course this doesn’t have quite the ring of screaming "YOU
HAVE OFFENDED GOD!!!" but what can I say, not everything can be quite
that dramatic.
This is all assuming, of course, that the alter,
vestments, and other trappings of church aren’t considered to be
inherently sacred by Lutherans. I can’t speak to that particular
position, since I’m somewhat ignorant on Lutheran matters.
Pastor
McCain, I’d be a little concerned about some of your commenters. When
they write, "I, too, don’t like rap to begin with, but if it was an
attempt to present the Gospel in rap form, I could have at least
understood it (still wouldn’t have liked it but would have understood
it)."
When you’ve got Reverends saying they don’t like a clear
presentation of the gospel because of the form it takes, I start to
wonder if this is nothing more than a complaint about style, rather
than a concern about substance.
Comment 4:
everything I’ve heard described sounds like it was done in extremely
bad taste and was very ill-advised. [McCain’s response to this comment:
Is there ever a time when sacrilege and irreverence and blasphemy are
ever not in bad taste and could be well-advised?
Comment 5:
I search for the video on youtube and saw it has been also taken down also on Rev. McCain’s site.
Perhaps someone could put it back up somewhere so I and everyone else can make a judgment for ourselves.
I
must say, from what I’ve heard, Josh seems right. Again, bad decision
to use the chapel and all, but it does not sound like they meant to
mock Christ or something. Now, they might have done something
blasphemous, but it sounds like they didn’t mean to do so. If this is
the worst thing they do in college I think that things at Concordia
Mecqon is a pretty tame place.
Of course, I can’t make a decision for certain because it’s been taken down.
So far the only complaints I’ve heard relates to the setting it was filmed (ie the use of vestments etc). Now, I’m an outsider looking into Lutheranism, so I may not have all of the perspective I need to evaluate this, but unless Lutherans consider vestments, pulpits and church buildings in general to be inherently sacred I don’t understand how this video could be “blasphemous”.
My understanding of Josh’s post was he was saying (a) what the students did *was* wrong; BUT (b) some of the criticisms levelled against the video betray a wider lack of understanding of how parodies operate in popular culture.
In other words, Josh *wasn’t* saying “this incident [was] a case of older people not understanding younger people” or failing to “see the humor here”. That wasn’t his argument, and presenting it as such could lead some to suppose that he was seeking to defend the Virgilicious video and its makers.
What he was saying, as I read it, was that some of those who are (rightly) criticising the video are using arguments that show a general cultural misunderstanding. I’ve not read the comments so have no view on that, but that is clearly a different thing from saying that those individuals were wrong to criticise the video.
Indeed, we can draw an important lesson from the point Josh makes: a lot of Christian commentary on popular culture gets dismissed out of hand, regardless of the merits of the point being made, simply because those on the receiving end can see that their critics have a basic lack of understanding of the relevant medium. Thus the critics are dismissed as “ignorant Christians” and the substantive point is ignored.
I’ll never forget the Rev. Dr. Marquardt’s comments during a party at the seminary (which was not held in the chapel). “It’s ok to make fun of fools like ourselves, but lets leave our Lord out of it.”
Those things which are set apart for the worship of our Lord are no longer to be used for common things. Parody is simply not appropriate regarding the holy things of God (his word, his name, etc.)
For those who are offended at those who were offended, I recommend learning more about the culture of the church. Not the “church of whatever I think is true and beautiful”, but the historic church – the One, Holy, Christian and Apostolic – and find out why it is that a person had to die in order for us to even presume to enter the presense of the Lord.
By a strange coincidence(?) Pr. Peterson is just now discucssing Dr. Kleining’s lectures on Leviticus and being able to safely come to God’s presence.
As I don’t think my viewing of the video is relevant to the discussion, I won’t say whether I did or not.
PS. I am not a baby boomer, I know the song “Baby got back” and I find a song like “baby got book” offensive on its face. To compare the word of the Lord to a song that objectifies women in a most vulger way is simply wrong.
Also, I think this is the first time I have seen anyone say that Boomers have too much respect for the Word of God
Pr. McCain, I agree that the Virgilicious video was wrong and done in poor taste. I must say, however, that you are completely missing the point. The discussion at Josh’ blog was NOT about the appropriateness of the video. Josh does NOT think the Virgilicious video was okay or that it was simply a misunderstanding as your title implies. He is pointing out that, WHILE THE VIDEO WAS WRONG, some of the arguments used against it demonstrated a lack of understanding in regards to pop culture. The argument he’s making is that it is important to be familiar with the culture around us so that we can properly critique it without making blanket condemnations of things like rap music. Often Christians rage against culture in way that hurts an argument more than it helps. In his “On Loving God with All Your Mind” Vieth writes that, “Christians sometimes bring derision on themselves and upon their faith by loud and emotional sermons…by their defensive and belligerent accusations of ‘Blasphemy!’” We’re not saying that the video was right. We are simply critiquing some of the ways in which it was argued against and how that applies to culture in general.
I read Josh’s comment when he first wrote it. While I don’t want to say anything against Josh, I have to disagree. First of all, it doesn’t matter what generation you are from (I am one of those clueless baby boomers). The video was just plain wrong, and there is no excuse for it. You don’t go into God’s house and make a mockery of it. Isn’t there a verse about doing something that will make a less knowledgeable brother stumble? And what did Jesus do when the Jews were making a mockery of the temple? Wasn’t He very upset? While I do think I understand what the kids were trying to do, it’s still just as wrong. We are in the world but we are not of the world, so there is no place for parody at the Lord’a altar. I don’t have to understand any generation’s culture to know that the video was sacrilegious.
Pastor McCain, I want to thank you for your approach to this issue. It’s a shame that some can’t really appreciate the larger concern here but either choose to attack you personally, or try to divert the issue into some side-issue. For the record I’m one of those “I know everything twenty-somethings” like Josh S. and I fully understand “pop” culture and rap culture. And because I do, I am even more offended anyone my age would have been so stupid, and so poorly advised, to do something as offensive as they did. They have repented. They are forgiven. I know you know that Pastor McCain. But I thank you for helping to point out a larger point of discussion: why did this happen to begin with? What is about our Lutheran culture that could possibly lead anyone who claims to cherish it to act with such utter disregard for holy things in holy places? It’s a “wake up” call to all of us. So, thanks!
I’m not a baby-boomer, so I can’t be accused of not knowing pop culture. There was nothing funny about the video and it doesn’t matter what kind of music they used to make it. I have to agree 1000% with Roberta. All Josh and people like him are doing is making excuses.
Understanding pop culture?
I think I understand pop culture – it is tainted with sin, like any other culture, like the baby boomer culture. As Lutherans, why is it so hard to concede that? Does pop culture need special treatment?
I am just wondering.
Invoking a special pleading is hardly making much of a case. So those who don’t know pop culture are in no position to criticize? One could invoke the same argument in reverse. Those who haven’t seen the video are in no position to criticize the criticisms of those who have.
Pop culture is certainly worth analyzing diagnostically, as Ed Veith does on his blog. Imitation is another thing. Satire requires a subtle and sophisticated grasp of what is being satirized, something utterly lacking in the video.
This is for everyone who claims this issue is about pop culture:
I’m 26 years old and I’ve been known to listen to all kinds of controversial music. I like music, it speaks to a specific culture,time and place and can communicate a lot about society in less then 5 minutes. I listen to Eminem and have developed a certain respect for his music, lyrics, and message. He uses rap, satyre, and parody to communicate a message to a very specific audience with a very un-christian socialy progressive agenda. Taking his methods and using them to communicate the gospel is like taking a cook book and trying to change the oil in your car with its instructions. There are certain settings where rap parody is not appropriate – for instance in God’s house mocking the Christian tradition. It’s like Adam Sandler mocking Judiasim, he’s a Jew and he mocks the dogma and oddities of being Jewish in some of his comedy. It’s funny because he isn’t mocking Jewish worship or the Jewish God – just the culture surrouding the religion. If this video were a parody of potlucks, brats, beer, etc, I think we’d all be laughing. However this video blatently mocked God, Christianity, and the Cross. Leave that kind of stupidity to the makers of South Park, Family Guy, and American Dad.
I found the blog by Josh to be a bit condescending towards baby boomers. I “get” satire. I love satire. I have quite a few satirical bones in my body. But, in my opinion, simply because something is satirical in nature does not make it immune from criticism or that people should not be offended by it. I found the video which Virgilicious was satirizing (with the help of my son)and I watched. I understand the satire better now. But, guess what? I was still offended. For you see, I was not offended at the satire. I was offended because of the actual content of the video.
The blogger makes the point that we need to understand the culture and what those whom we might find offensive are trying to say. I have no problem with that and think it is an excellent point. But there is a difference between understanding one’s behavior and culture and excusing it. While the blogger does not excuse the behavior of people such as Eminem, I think he comes pretty close when he issues a mild rebuke to those who are offended and don’t understand the culture by saying “all [they] see are bad words, violence, and obscenity.”
There’s nothing wrong with satire. It can be funny and make valid points. But those who practice satire need to realize that they run the risk of offending people and that our society recognizes the right of people to be offended (just ask Don Imus). Culture is what it is and we should seek to understand it. But actions should be judged, not on the basis of cultural sensitivity, but by the Word of God.
Yes, I am A Boomer. That doesn’t mean that I don’t understand pop culture. While I don’t have the same appreciation for it that some may have, I have always hated it when people railed against something just because it was not from their generation. My parents hated the Beatles mostly because they didn’t sound like Frank and Dino. And while I am now of an age that crosses about three generations, I have kept myself current with pop culture through my appreciation of all things music. From Bach to Tupac, Snoop Dog and back again, I have found music I like in every genre I have come across. Now having set up my creds, let me add that I also love a good satire. I grew up on Saturday Night Live. And while every man is fair game for a good roasting, some things are beyond the pale no matter how witty and satirical the piece may be. As an example, while the man in the presidents office is always fair game for satire, the office itself is off limits. So while an individual Pastor may be ripe for a good satire, the office of the keys is beyond the bounds of wit and fall into sacrilege. We can always laugh at ourselves, and others around us, but we need to take care when we laugh at God.
I read Josh’s comment when he first published it, too. I don’t think it’s that he’s making excuses so much, but I think what he is saying is beside the point.
The point is that (even putting the best construction on this and believing it was just supposed to be an inside joke) this kind of video is inherently prone to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
There is a valid point here that I agree with. We should all be working on speaking everything in the kindest way and we should approach all people in a spirit of love. This is the dead horse that I love to beat all the time. I hope that we are all in agreement that things should be said in the most constructive way possible.
…But a word of caution from someone who recognizes himself in some of these comments: Make sure that your reasons for keeping up with pop culture are pure. Do not fall into the trap that Old Adam loves to set. Teenagers battle it all the time and that is where I see it the most often.
Make sure that you are not using witness research as an excuse to immerse yourself in the temptations and sins of this world.
Not too long ago, research was my excuse for listening to Ozzy, Eminem, etc, etc. I told myself and those who called me on it that I was working to combat my ignorance in that area. I made similar arguements to what I have read here. I was good at rationalizing it too. After all: you need to know where someone is coming from. If you understand their situation and you get the context, then you can relate to them on a personal level. That’s how you reach them for Christ. You reach them where they are.
It was a load of hogwash and I bought it hook line and sinker. I wasn’t reaching them where they were. I was reaching them from where we both were. I hadn’t helped anyone and my faith suffered. It was all a farce that I had created to block out any guilt I might experience whenever I decided to do whatever I pleased.
The truth is that you don’t need to be around sin in order to properly identify with it. You are already there and you don’t need any help with the context of the sinful world. We are warned to flee from temptation and the devil, not examine it from a safe distance.
It took my now-sainted Grandmother to show me this. Deep into her 80s, she was the most “out of touch” individual I had ever met… and the strongest Christian. She wanted nothing to do with something that might get in the way of Jesus. I wish I had that kind of faith. Being “out of touch” is where you want to be (1 Pet 2:11-12).
Being outraged at blasphemy and uncomfortable in the presence blatant sin is a good thing. If I let a curse fly and my fellow Christian covers her ears and screams “NO! BLAH BLAH BLAH!”, who is correct? She is. I shouldn’t call her reactionary or easily-offended. She’s out of touch and I should want to be more like her.
It had started out innocent enough for me. I was a Christian who got to enjoy vile music and movies, but I quickly found myself attacking other Christians for stating Biblically supported opinions while I defended the sins of unrepentant sinners and professed athiests. Whose side was I on? Was I putting my effort on the things of heaven or was I wasting time hoarding my treasure here on earth?
In the end, I was guilty of the very division that I saw in my Christian brothers. I was placing my personal views, logic, and taste over Holy Scripture. Since Holy Scripture and my personal views disagreed, I had to be wrong.
…and I still battle with this need to be cool.
2 Tim 2:20-26
Wo, Mike Baker. That’s powerful.
It seems to me that ‘the best construction’ and ‘speaking in love’ get awfully mangled into simply not bothering to judge, or, if judging, couching judgment comfortably within an obligatory acknowledgment of one’s own youthful misdeeds, seen from the safety of a more mature position.
To my mind, this couched judgment is more smug, in the end, than outright outrage.
God bless the outraged. Being outraged is not the same as proclaiming one’s own lifetime of innocence.
For, what good did it do the mature among us, to have passed through those dangerous days of youthful exuberance, dancing on the edge of damnation, to have no adult ready and willing to call us to task? And, yes, to pile it on, as if lining us up for a gauntlet of spankings, and in spite of our being sorry, for the sakes of everything we put at risk: our own souls, the souls of others, the gospel, the church.
What would we ever know as true and right and holy, if someone among us didn’t know it better?