In Defense of Miley Cyrus: The Art of Wrecking Balls and Sledgehammers

by Ben Howard

I'm guessing you're a little bored of Miley Cyrus. You read the blog posts, watched the VMA performance, dug yourself into a scandalous Wikipedia hole to figure out what the hell “twerking” was and now you're just done with the Miley Mania, the Cyrus Circus, the Hannah Montana Hullaballoo.

Well, dear friends, don't be so quick to jump off the Miley bandwagon because things are just starting to get interesting. Last week saw the release of her new video for the song “Wrecking Ball” which features the young star writhing around in rubble, riding a wrecking ball naked, and licking a sledgehammer. Because of course it does!

Since Miley is currently the Big Boss of ruining the hearts and minds of America's youth, there has been a good deal of hand-wringing about this “shocking” video. What kind of heresy is this?! What kind of monster would allow a naked woman around construction equipment?! What does it all mean?! (And seriously, why is she licking a sledgehammer?)

But here's the problem. I am of the opinion that those raising the alarm have been overly influenced by the VMA performance (which I reserve the right to have no opinion on other than to say that Blurred Lines is a terrible song when performed live). They've filtered their opinion of “Wrecking Ball” through the lens of the VMA's. They think it's just another example of Miley taking off her clothes to get attention.

And they couldn't be more wrong.

I'll admit that the song, by itself, is essentially a by-the-numbers pop hit. It sounds like it could have been written for Selena Gomez or Demi Lovato or Female Popstar X and it would be just as popular. It's good, but it's nothing special. However, when you add in the video you have the ingredients for a profound (if potentially unintended) statement. You see, I'm convinced that “Wrecking Ball” is a legitimate work of art.

While it may sound like any run of the mill love song, listen closer. These lyrics aren't about romantic love, they're about sex. They're about a physical love so intense that the participants didn't realize the lack of emotional intimacy until it was too late. Miley doesn't sing about still “loving” her ex, she sings about still “wanting” him.


The video emphasizes this raw, physical kind of sexuality. Miley's nudity isn't subtle, nor is it seductive. It is total. It isn't sexy as much as it is sexual. She is the metaphorical and literal incarnation of the wrecking ball.

It is only too obvious to the observer that the relationship in question was more of a quasi-relationship bereft of the emotions it professed and the intimacy it desired. It is a relationship based on want, desire and the power of physicality, yet from Miley's lyrics you can see she desires the emotional intimacy, the freedom of vulnerability, that she has been prevented (prevented herself?) from having.

Here is where the true artistry begins. The video highlights this desire for vulnerability, the desire to know and be known, by invoking the iconic Sinead O'Connor video “Nothing Compares 2U.” That video consists almost entirely of a close-up shot of O'Connor singing her pained emotions directly into the camera thus keeping eye-contact with the audience. It's captivating and deeply moving.

However, where “Nothing Compares 2U” forces the viewer to encounter O'Connor's emotional gaze with unwavering concentration, Miley's video cycles back and forth between the raw emotion of the close-up direct-into-camera shot and the brute force destruction and raw sexuality of Wrecking Ball Miley. Where O'Connor's video was artistic for it's unflinching portrayal of emotion, the artistry of “Wrecking Ball” can be found in the tension and confusion between the vulnerability of Miley's gaze and destructive chaos.

It's tempting, not to mention easy, to try and couch this song and the feelings it narrates into the narrative of Miley Cyrus: Pop Star. Many view it as a conscious sexualization in order to shed her good girl image. Others have implied that the song is about her on-again/off-again relationship with Liam Hemsworth. It's tempting to think these things, but it's almost a 100% certainty that they aren't true.

The song was written months ago by a team of songwriters and producers. It's possible (maybe even probable), that it wasn't even written with Cyrus in mind as the singer. It was recorded by July at the latest. This song, like any good pop song, is a construct, a product of the culture that creates it. And this particular song was birthed of a culture that is deeply confused by the relationship between physical and emotional intimacy. This is the art of our culture and it is good.

This is good art because it reflects the culture back at itself, but with big hooks and even bigger vocals. This is culture in a fun-house mirror. This is culture turned to 11. This is good art because everyone knows that it's about someone even though it's about no one in particular.

This is good art because it's about us, even though we know that's not possible.

So let us all heed the warning of this pop music construct. Let us choose to be vulnerable, lest we become the instruments of our own destruction in search of an ever illusive intimacy. Let us work through the pain of our confusion together with honesty instead of destroying each other in our isolation.

And let us refrain from licking sledgehammers, because that's just weird.

Ben Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87. 

 

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology.

You might also like:  

• What It Means To Not Mean Anything
• The Meaning of the End
• Myths and Legends: Jordan, Presidents and Arrested Development

On Pop Theology Podcast: Episode 33 - Everyday Insights From Vodka

by Ben Howard

This week on the show Ben, Sebastian and Ryan talk about Christianity and alcohol. They share stories about their childhoods as well as their first interactions with alcohol. They also discuss the increasingly accepted role of alcohol in the evangelical and post-evangelical church. After this conversation, they talk about the two bogeymen of the evangelical church, alcohol and sex, in a new (and possibly slanderous) game called "What's Your Affliction?" Finally, Sebastian shares a tale about his drunken philosophical take on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

We hope you enjoy this rambling and lovable concoction. If you do, please rate and review us on iTunes to aid our attempts to take over the world.

You can download the podcast by clicking here. Or you can subscribe to the podcast by searching "On Pop Theology" in the iTunes music store.

Also, remember to "Like" On Pop Theology on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @OnPopTheology for all the updates, posts, and links throughout the week.

Finally, if you'd like to stream the podcast, you can do that here: 

Peace,
Ben

If you have any questions, comments, or if you just want to say hi, you can contact us at onpoptheology [at] gmail.com.

You might also like:   

• On Pop Theology Podcast: Episode 32 - On Modesty, Dating, and Being Single in the Church w/ Emily Maynard
• On Pop Theology Podcast: Episode 31 - The Wonderful, Magical World of Online Dating
• On Pop Theology Podcast: Episode 30 - Coming Out in the Church w/ Registered Runaway

On Pop Theology Podcast: Episode 20 - Sex, Violence and the Gods of Westeros

by Ben Howard

Ben and Sebastian sit down to talk about their favorite TV show/book series, Game of Thrones. They explore the way the show and the books treat religion, the power of avoiding false dualities of good and evil, the problem of sexposition, and the importance of discussing sex and violence as part of the gritty reality of a hard and difficult life. There are a handful of mild spoilers throughout so be forewarned. Enjoy!

You can download the podcast by clicking here. Or you can subscribe to the podcast by searching "On Pop Theology" in the iTunes music store. If you download the show through iTunes, please be so kind as to rate and review us. We want your feedback and it helps the show to grow. 
 
Also, remember to "Like" On Pop Theology on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @OnPopTheology for all the updates, posts, and links throughout the week.

Finally, if you'd like to stream the podcast, you can do that here:

Peace,
Ben

If you have any questions, comments, or if you just want to say hi, you can contact us at onpoptheology [at] gmail.com.

You might also like:   

• On Pop Theology Podcast: Episode 19 - God and Doctor Who w/ James McGrath
• On Pop Theology Podcast: Episode 18 - On Understanding Judaism w/ Krista Dalton 
• On Pop Theology Podcast: Episode 17 - The Theology of Louis C.K. 

God is NSFW

Brother Adam F. Graham

by Adam Graham

Those four letters are a gateway drug. Click on any link with those four letters behind it and one could find anything from gut-wrenching carnage to scintillating sex. Typically, the four letters refer to the latter rather than the former, ranging anywhere from a stray nipple to full-fledged bacchanals. Some consumers of this content call it “erotica” as opposed to “pornography.” Its solitary function comes from arousing the erotic passion of the consumer, fulfilling fantasy and inspiring similar escapades. Not all erotica comes in that graphic nature; much is packaged in more mundane ways. A romantic comedy at its base level traffics in this arousal.

Why link those letters to God, our fount of everything that is holy and pure? As Kipling said about culture, “East is East, West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” God stands above this touchy, messy interplay that is the pursuit of the erotic. Humans need it for biology’s sake and maybe fulfillment too. But erotica and God do not belong in the same sentence. Oh wait…I just put them in the same sentence.

Some connection exists: Cartman realizes that the easiest way to write a Christian rock song is to take a secular love song and replace certain words with “Jesus” (“Christian Rock Hard,” South Park S7 E9). We pour much of our emotional energy into seeking new relationships, maintaining current ones, or dealing with the aftermath of the failures. Passion burns as fire within us. Must we divorce our religious life from this fire? Or, can erotic love become another dimension of our relationship with God?

In the Hindu traditions, particularly devotees of Krishna (be nice to my Sanskrit transliterations), worshippers can classify their love toward God that relates their connectedness to the Supreme Lord. As knowledge of the divine one increases, love changes forms to meet that knowledge. The base level for worship is santa or quiescence. This type of love recognizes the divinity of God, but the worshipper has no intimacy with it. Krishna overwhelms the worshipper with his divinity, but the worshipper continues on as before, going about daily life. We might call it the “fan stage”—“Krishna is a powerful hero, great guy and all, but I don’t know him personally.”

Krishna

Some worshippers exist in the dasya stage, servitude: love in a vertical relationship. Just as peasants serve the feudal lord who protects and provides for them, a servant’s love reciprocates what physical blessings the lord on high bestows. Love does not necessarily flow from servant to lord. However, a servant knows what the master requires.

In the sakhya stage, devotees become friends of Krishna, akin to the cowherds among whom Krishna lives, and accompany him on his exploits. Just as courtiers and confidants have the king’s ear, these devotees have Krishna’s ear because of their relationship. Friends have certain privileges that servants do not.

Another group has greater access to Krishna. Some devotees enter into a parent-child relationship with Krishna called vatsatya. Friends have us only for certain times, but a child has constant access to the parent. Krishna knows these devotees like parents knows their children and loves them accordingly. It works both ways, too. One avatar of Krishna is Bala Krishna, baby Krishna, whose devotees dote on him like a parent over a child. Who can know someone better than the parent of that person?

Finally, a few worshippers reach that certain level of intimacy with Krishna called srnsara, an erotic love that encompasses all the other types. Devotees, male and female, strive to become Rudha, the most beloved maiden of Krishna’s life, and to recreate the scenes of their courtship. That pursuit proves tricky as Rudha is betrothed to someone else. Yet, observe how Krishna speaks to his beloved: “I brood on her brow curving over her anger-shadowed face,/ Like a red lotus shadowed by a bee hovering above…/In my heart’s sleepless state/ I wildly enjoy her loving me…Damn me! My wanton ways made her leave in anger. (Gitagovinda, trans. by Barbara Stoler-Miller, 7:5-6). Krishna, Lord of the Universe, sounds as dejected as any male lead in any romantic comedy. He wants Rudha and Rudha wants him. Yes, that kind of “want.”

Of course, one might say (with a colonial Orientalist voice [think pith helmets]), “Well, Hinduism has always had a penchant for the exotic.” However, these verses from the Gitagovinda sound similar to some verses in another book I know.  

“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,” Song of Solomon (Songs) contains the most erotic imagery in the Bible. Many contemporary interpreters would describe it as a love song celebrating marital sexual bliss, avoiding the intense (and frequent) allegorization of early Jewish and Christian interpreters. And I agree with them, but the book contains only one reference to God, in 8:6, where passion’s fire resembles the flame of the Lord. 

How did this book become canon without a strong connection to the divine? It most likely did not happen through an attempt to compile a “comprehensive anthology” of Hebrew greatest hits. God must be involved somehow. Something about the love shared between the lover and the beloved resembles the love between God and God’s people.

Lovers of God must become the erotic partner to God just as devotees of Krishna became Rudha. Bernard of Clairvaux thought similarly (well, minus the Krishna part)--he composed 86 sermons on the book and only managed to cover the first two chapters. The lover and the beloved share a deep bond and, to keep it SFW, know each other intimately.

Song of Solomon by He Qi

Hearts leap at the sound of each other’s voice. The two want to frolic together amid the flowers since they both know the love they share for each other. This is the same kind of love that happens deep in romance when all you want to do is know that person more fully, which often climaxes with, well, climax coincidently enough. Sometimes, that love burns into a lifelong relationship in which each partner continues thirsting after the other. “Many waters cannot quench love;” How serendipitous!

If we brought back the erotic dimension, what would it give us? From Song of Songs, erotic love assures us of a God who wants to know us intimately and individually. God would not love us out of a contractual relationship or lump us with all the other children, but would love us because of our inherent qualities and despite our flaws. Perhaps, it would make (Deutero-) Paul’s household codes in Ephesians easier to read, since submission comes into play not in a governance model, but in lovers seeking to outdo one another (I’m still thinking on this one, check back later). 

If nothing else, erotic and God being in the same sentence would recognize that aspect of our created nature in our relationship with God without any shame. God exhibits erotic love to stir the soul just as erotica stirs the libido. And that makes God NSFW.

Adam is a working on his Master's of Divinity at Vanderbilt University. He also preaches at the Howell Hill Church of Christ in Fayetteville, Tennessee and maintains a glorious red beard.

Sex and The "Biblical" View

Read this book

by Ben Howard


On Tuesday I started reading Rachel Held Evans' new book A Year of Biblical Womanhood. The book is an A.J. Jacobs-like take on the idea of biblical womanhood. For a year, Rachel tries to abide by all of the scriptures relating to women and along the way hilarity and insight ensue.

I'm only three chapters in so far, so this isn't a review, but the book has already sparked a few interesting ideas. In between chapters, Rachel does a profile of a woman from the Bible. The profile between the second and third chapters is Tamar.

If you don't know the story of Tamar, she is the daughter-in-law of Judah. She marries his oldest son, who dies. Then, according to custom, she marries his next oldest son. He also dies. At this point, Judah should marry her to his youngest son, but he refuses. A childless unmarried widower would have been in serious trouble in this society so this refusal is not only a violation of the law, it is also deeply unjust.

Like any proper biblical character, Tamar solves this problem by pretending to be a prostitute and sleeping with Judah, her father-in-law. When the family becomes outraged at Tamar's pregnancy, she reveals to Judah that he is the father and he realizes that he has sinned by not giving her his youngest son.

Yeah, that's a bizarre story. I know. However, note that nowhere is Tamar repudiated for her actions. In fact, she is listed in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew. In fact, the other three women listed (Bathsheba, Ruth, and Rahab), are also involved in relationships that our society would deem illicit. Bathsheba sleeps with David who then kills her husband, Ruth seduces Boaz (check out your Hebrew idioms), and Rahab is a prostitute.

This collection of characters and stories makes me ask a question. Where exactly did we get this puritanical notion of biblical sexual morality? Even the Bathsheba story doesn't condemn sex, it condemns adultery and murder.

Queen Victoria

Now, some will point out that Paul talks an awful lot about sexual immorality and that's certainly true, but is that a response to sex or a response to an overly indulgent culture that expressed sexuality in dehumanizing ways?

I don't want to argue that our present-day cultures overwhelming view of sexuality is correct and that the church should embrace it. In fact, I don't want to endorse anything about our current sexual culture. It's selfish, indulgent, and dehumanizing. People are used for the satisfaction of others. People are consumed.

But at the same time the notion of a biblical view of sexuality seems to have far more in common with Victorian social mores than with anything resembling a truthful and honest reading of the Bible. The Bible talks about sex, but it isn't obsessed with it. It's a biological function and a part of life. You can interpret some books like the Song of Solomon to openly celebrate it.

I think we need to start talking about sex in our culture without acting like its the most titillating topic of conversation. It's part of life, let's treat it that way. Churches need to openly talk about this topic. Families need to openly talk about this topic. Friends need to openly talk about this topic.

Also, we need to crack down on people referencing the "biblical view" of whatever. Bringing the word "biblical" into a conversation about morality or social issues is the equivalent of referencing Hitler or communism in a conversation about politics. It's a bomb intended to disrupt and stop conversation. It's a trump card. Even worse, the person using it is usually wrong. The use of the term biblical ends up denigrating and besmirching the very book that someone is trying to hold so dear.

Biblical family?

Rachel Held Evans conclusion in the book, according to reviews, is that no such thing as biblical womanhood exists. In the gay marriage debate, there are constant references to the biblical or traditional view of marriage. In response, Fred Clark at the blog Slacktivist has started posting his Chick-Fil-A Biblical Family of the Day every Friday to show the diversity and bizarreness of the "biblical" view of marriage and family.


The Bible is a book that tells us about God and how God relates to us and who God is. It is not necessarily a book that tells us about morality. That morality is dictated by our relationship to God and God's character. It is dictated by who God has created us to be and how we are to express that in our context.

We have to interpret things in our world and that's okay. Everything has to be interpreted. The best way to do that is discuss it intentionally in community. It is best to have people tell us why they agree and disagree with what we do and how we can and should improve. It is best to be open to change and growth. 

So let's talk about sex and see where we end up.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

Game of Thrones

by Jonathan Harrison

Jonathan here. After my last post, I decided to take a meditation retreat in the Rocky Mountains where I learned, from my mentor, that although I cannot control the inanity of reality shows on TLC, I can control my reaction to them. Since my enjoyment of life directly correlates to the way I react to things, if I want to find peace, I must first seek peace with Honey Boo Boo, TLC, and minute long trailers that glorify ATV accidents, and know that only love can answer all my problems.

Or something like that.

Anyways, all that meditation gave me plenty of free time for my recent guilty pleasure: George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire which you know as Game of Thrones.

Since you don't have much time, and the series takes up a couple thousand pages, I'm going to condense the first book and a half into a few sentence fragments: A midget. A wall. War. The Others. Knights. Kings. And lots and lots of hookers.

Yes. Lots and lots of sex. Granted, the first book never gets too gratuitous, so I don't feel guilty when "the Martin" writes something to the effect of, "And then yonder boy went off to visit wenches," (NOT AN ACTUAL SENTENCE IN BOOK) because I don't view the mention of sex as sinful.

But the HBO drama. Good Lord. Wow. 

The series sort of lulls you into complacency and then *BAM* girls start taking off their clothes and before you know it you're checking to see if you need to close the blinds behind your computer lest you get cited for breaking some sort of indecency ordinance.

In fact just this past Sunday I was having a conversation with a friend from church that went something like this:

"I'm currently reading Game of Thrones"
"Really"
"Yea"
"Do you like the T.V. show?"
"Yea. I think it does a good job of eliminating minor characters and humanizing the more evil charictures in the book"
"Yea. I just wish it wasn't basically a porno"
"..."

So is Game of Thrones sinful?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and maybe tick off some people in the process, and say yes.  Yes it is

In my life, I've often struggled with the cognitive dissonance of good art versus my morality. In our daily lives, we'd like to believe that if something has artistic merit, then the artistry offsets any sinful complications. I struggle with this notion. I struggle with it a lot.

The major problem, to me, is that as American Christians we've all but ignored this difficult question. We like our ability to enjoy good art, and because we do, very few people (usually only fundamentalists) ask if watching X show is worth the risk.

Consequently, we'll also come up with reasons why watching X show or reading X book is worth it. Isn't this funny? As Christians, shouldn't we willingly ditch anything that has even a modicum of sinfulness, no matter how great its artistic merit?

I realize I'm raising all sorts of difficult questions on the nature of sin and what dictates whether something is sinful or not. Different people struggle with different things, but I personally don't need to see 15 pairs of breasts on a daily basis. I just don't. I'm as hetero as hetero can be and I plan on being married some day, but as a Non-Medical Professional Christian American Male (NMPCAM) that number shouldn't be that high.

Wait, Ben, how many people read this blog on a daily basis?

Anyways. Most of you probably pick up what I'm putting down. I'm also extremely hypocritical on this one, but I wanted to ask the question since it's a question that almost no one asks. Is good art worth the risk if it might cause us to stumble? Am I totally off base? Am I letting my right-wing, fanatic evangelical upbringing taint my viewpoint of reality and Jesus? Or am I trying to gain the whole world at the risk of losing my soul? Um. Leave your opinions in the comment section?

Jonathan Harrison has a bee in his kitchen and he can't get the darn thing out of the house.  If you know anyone that wants a bee, please let him know by commenting on his blog that he hasn't updated since late July over at Dried Humor.  Also read Libranding if you want to.

Update: Bee has been moved out of the house and is rather ticked but will eventually figure out how to get out of the gladware container with the stick under it.

Update to the update: Bee figured it out.