Review of All Gods Children and Blue Suede Shoes 2012 Edition
All God'southward Children and Blue Suede Shoes (1989) is another evangelical cultural critique somewhat along the lines of Why Johnny Tin't Sing Hymns or The Endmost of the American Mind. Kenneth Myers laments the church's lost influence within the culture as well equally the broader disintegration of morals and intellectual depth in American culture. He attributes this to 2 major factors: rock music and tv set. His argument essentially runs: -Our culture is headed downwardly and Christians have just accepted / accommodated wholesale, subscribing to cultural relativism. What happened? Every bit one might expect, Myers relies heavily on the mantra that "the medium is the message. Really, the penultimate sentence of the volume is "leaders need to become more than sensitive to the manner forms communicate values." His application of that, of form, is to tv set (essentially Postman'southward Agreeable Ourselves to Expiry). This is one of the ironies of the book, equally the assay of technology is completely out of appointment. (That isn't his mistake—every word of technology volition exist out of engagement in a few years. Simply when the analysis runs that technology took away our analytical skills because telly is image based rather than text based, it's difficult not to recall that the cyberspace restored some of that. You are, after all, reading this review and doing it on a site called "Goodreads.") All in all, Myers is far more than responsible with his arguments in this vein than Challies or Postman. I happen to agree that the church has a trouble with the television set we lookout man and with the music we allow. I just don't recollect Myers posited the greatest arguments on either bespeak, and I doubt that someone who disagrees with me would exist convinced my Myers whatsoever more than than they would be convinced past me anyway. The most interesting chapter was the last. After all of his denunciations, Myers concludes by saying that nosotros can bask pop civilisation as much equally we want "as long equally you lot are non dominated by the sensibility of popular civilization, every bit long as y'all are not captivated by its idols" (180). Ironically, he blasts away on culture for 178 pages in a way that strikes me as conveying a few too many not-sequiturs and then concludes past beingness more open up to pop civilization than I'1000 comfortable with. I've had a similar experience in other media ecology books. My suspicion is that nosotros all agree that there is a cultural crisis and that the American church building is slipping into deep accommodationism or even syncretism. Media ecologists then keep to blame the effect on the medium, our culture'southward love of images, or on technology. People like me are tempted to swallow it up because we're and then glad to finally see someone critique the culture. Just while it seems promising, the analysis is flawed and the conclusion is therefore also skewed. The real problem is really quite basic. It's non the medium at all. It's the content. The American church needs to stop tolerating sin in their lives, their choices, their families. If a movie doesn't belong in our homes, nosotros can't blame televisions. Throw away the motion-picture show. Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman aren't the reply. We demand Matt. 5:thirteen-xvi; 6:xix-xx; Eph. 5:3-21 and a whole host of other Scriptures. Interesting quotes: 171—Potent media environmental statement: "Even if all of the entertainment on goggle box was inoffensive to Christian ethics and of the highest artistic merit, its form of communication (and form of knowing) encourages the disfavor to abstraction, analysis, and reflection that characterizes our civilization at all levels... Thinking is often hard work. Television's surfeit of instant entertainment not just provides relief from such hard work; it offers an bonny, culling 'way of knowing' (every bit does rock 'n' scroll) that makes reasoning seem anachronistic, narrow, and unnecessary." Really? 179-180–"Many Christians are interested in the answer to the question, "How can I enjoy popular culture in a way that is consistent with a Christian worldview?" What if someone were to inquire, "How tin I enjoy sexuality in a way that is consistent with a Christian worldview?" It would non be responsible to answer only by offering a catalogue of sexual beliefs and saying, "These are things you can do, and these are things you lot can't." Rather, we should start by understanding sexuality in the context in which God created it, past examining its significance in light of other activities and responsibilities and relationships. A goo reply would begin with a question, "what is the nature of man sexuality.
-In that location is a critical distinction between high and low culture. The former deepens us, makes us remember, and changes usa. The latter just entertains / distracts and leaves us substantially where we started. We are changed and engaged past loftier civilization but just "use" depression culture.
-Because of negative cultural trends in romanticism and modernism, high civilisation collapsed in the '60s and pop culture became the new norm that we all mindlessly swallow.
-This is clearly evident in television where thoughtlessness predominates and in rock, characterized by rebellion and angst.
131—acknowledges that popular art also took up the mantra "the medium is the message."
160—"television is thus not only the dominant medium of popular civilization, information technology is the single almost significant shared reality in our entire gild." Pretty sure that's the internet now.
161—a little shocking: "Because of the way tv works, if the content of every television programme was consistent with a Christian worldview, but idiot box was still every bit pervasive as it is today, I believe it would still pose serious problems for Christians."
Of course, such an reply may not satisfy the impatient adolescent who simply wants to know "how far" he tin can become without sinning. But the cultivation of a Christian worldview is non a matter of defining the "lesser line." It involves reflecting on the nature of things, on the place they have in the larger scheme of creation and redemption, in human being nature and in history."
Really helpful in defining pop civilization and it'south sentiments. Likewise frequently nosotros engage with culture and it's forms without thinking about what the forms themselves communicate. It's true that the content matters, merely this volume is helpful in showing why the form too matters. It is no innocent bystander. Myers wraps upwards the volume with a neat chapter helping Christians call back almost the question, "what now?" Now that I know all this, how might it inform the way I engage with the globe effectually me. There'southward no hole-and-corner sauce. As Christians we need to have a heightened sensation of the sensibilities of pop culture and the gospel that information technology communicates.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
This book was very different from what I expected. The pragamatist that I am, I expected an practical dissection of popular culture. Instead what I got was a more than philosophical exploration of the origins and furnishings of popular culture. Of course, the volume is dated in it's illustrations. References to Miami Vice, Alf, and the Ramones are in the volume. But the cardinal ideas are not dated. Several items of note: His chapter on the restlessness of popular culture was fantabulous and even more timely now than it was then. We are a nervous, restless, untethered society. Why is this the case and how does that effect our discipleship? Second, his critique of the effect of rock music (by this he ways all popular music, not just Ac/DC) on the church was spot on. The church has become "entrepreneurs of emotional stimulation." And his point that television has get what defines reality was excellent. Except now we all get to choose what reality to live in via the Cyberspace. I can live in my Pull a fast one on News reality or my MSNBC reality or my ESPN reality or... And so yes my reality is often divers past what I watch, but unlike in 1989 at that place are numerous realities to choose from. I would recommend the book, but it was more difficult to read than I anticipated.
Man, this was a fantastic volume. Damning criticism of popular culture and the religious appropriation of information technology: "We've managed to exist of the world only not in it." Very similar to T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Preach/Sing Hymns. Appraises pop civilization as coordinating in spiritual danger and temptation equally the fires of persecution (!). While maintaining that Christians may participate in said culture so long every bit they are not moved past the idols which animate it (Citing 1 Corinthians 10).
Nifty book for understanding pop culture, where it came from, it's domination over folk and high civilisation, it's bear upon on the church, and opens upward cocky reflection on how it's impacted us personally.
Myers best points are made by C.S. Lewis and Neil Postman. I highly recommend both of their works, but non this one.
The writer'due south conclusion that information technology's okay to enjoy some pop culture as long equally information technology doesn't become an idol could exist said of anything or anyone other than God - and then there simply isn't anything groundbreaking hither.
What there is instead is a steady worship of high civilization (i.e. that which we received from Western Europe) over and confronting anything perceived as less worthy (specially if it comes from the African continent). Myers'due south disability to find annihilation redeeming well-nigh cultures outside his own is troubling and reveals not only a dissimilar kind of idolatry but as well an inability to find common grace and the imago dei in places outside of his ancestral dwelling house.
Mr. Myers has written a book in which he espouses a theory that culture (both "loftier" and "folk") has been subsumed, if not eliminated, by pop culture. He defines "high culture" as that what nosotros would acquaintance with the "upper crust" of social club. The bang-up works of fine art, music, and literature that have survived the test of time. He defines "folk culture" as the material generated by a subset of society to draw and display their manner of life. (Think of an Irish jig or bluegrass music or an oral legend). He tries to water it down, only in the terminate, it feels, at to the lowest degree to me, an try to lessen the sting of saying "low culture". High culture is for the upper crust, depression civilisation (he says "folk civilization") is for anybody else. This segregation of cultures is implicitly endorsed throughout his volume. In so many words, he states that high culture isn't enjoyed by everyone because information technology takes endeavour to fully appreciate its greatness. However, according to Myers, whether civilization is loftier or low is irrelevant considering information technology is all exist gobbled up by "pop culture". I have several bug with his argument and how it is presented in the book. Myers seems to ignore and overlook several cardinal issues which, if dealt with honestly, would in ways degrade his thesis. The start comes to what is "high civilization". While there are many works of art, music, and literature that are recognized for its greatness immediately (i.e. Michelangelo's David), there are several others that take a while to achieve that greatness (Starry Night by Van Gogh). We hail the works of William Shakespeare today just at the time his plays were written, he was at odds with the "morality law" of his day. There are ofttimes "periods" used to draw the overall nature of a work created during a specific time period, especially in art and music. For example, Medieval Music gave fashion to Renaissance which gave style to Baroque, which gave way to Classical and so forth. These periods rarely have a hard start/cease line and at that place was frequent overlap. A piece of early Baroque music wasn't known as Baroque when information technology was written. People knew it wasn't Renaissance. Only until the Bizarre menstruum was more firmly established did the earlier pieces of that period get its due. Who is to say that much of the discordant cloth being produced today is the start of a new period? I don't know. I don't think pop culture "consumed" high/folk culture. I think pop culture is just folk culture that establish a larger platform. 400 years agone you could go to a tavern somewhere in England and hear bar songs being sung. Y'all could so become to Germany, or Italy, or Russia, or Prc or anywhere else and y'all would find places that served booze and boisterous songs being sung by its patrons. These songs would autumn under what Myers would call "folk culture" and one could surmise that these songs were probably very dissimilar in form, sound, and lyrics. A big reason why is the world was a much bigger place and information technology would be difficult for a song, popular in an English language tavern to make its way to a tavern in Italy. Radio changed that, television receiver exploded that, and the Internet (which didn't even exist when Myers wrote the book) took things to a whole new level. "Folk Culture" historically enjoyed a broad appeal that had a limited geographical influence. Modern media allows the entreatment to menstruation from one end of the globe to the side by side. An artist needs a patron. If an artist wants to get paid for his work, he must find someone willing to pay him for his work. Vergil wrote "the Aeneid" for Augustus Caesar, Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel for the Pope, Bach composed the Brandenburg concertos for a German nobleman. You lot want to go paid, then y'all do something for your patron and you make sure they similar it. You might hibernate a clever dig in the work (Vergil did with the Aeneid, Michelangelo had a few surprises in the Sistine Chapel) merely overall you lot make sure your patron is happy with your work. The aforementioned is true today. One of the smashing composers of our fourth dimension is John Williams, he writes great music for movie soundtracks considering that is where the money is. His work is "high culture" in my esteem and I predict it will be known a 100 years from now. However, popular culture (which is in my opinion folk civilisation on a larger calibration) has access to funding admitting in a dissimilar form. Y'all make the music, if people like it, you go to brand more than, if they don't, you won't. How many "one hit wonders" have there been? Besides many to count. Now, with the appearance of iTunes and YouTube, you don't even need a record characterization to get your music out. If it is skilful, it can "go viral". How much of this will stand up the exam of time? That is hard to say for a moment. Myers engages in a lot of "doom and gloom" nigh the demise of culture and specifically Christian influence on the culture. The book is very negative and frankly depressing. He laments for 10 chapters over the demise of culture. He tries to perk things up a scrap in the 11th chapter only information technology is likewise little too belatedly. He has already made his indicate, culture is doomed, we just need to bunker down. This is all the more interesting given that he wrote the book nearly 30 years ago. Ironic in that many of his chapter titles and most of the sub-chapter titles include popular civilization references that many of our students today wouldn't get. He does try to "modernize" information technology a bit with an introduction that was updated in 2012 but fifty-fifty that is dated at present. Social Media is far more pervasive than it was even merely a one-half a decade agone. He has some good points simply I think he misses the gunkhole with how "folk culture" evolved into pop civilization.
This entire review has been subconscious because of spoilers.
This book is engaging and exciting to read at commencement, and then as it goes on I realize how much I have given in to the idols of popular civilisation. By the cease of it I am very wary of my ain taste in the cultural artefacts I consume all likewise chop-chop without reflecting on what idol I might be worshiping. I wish I had read this book third years agone. Better belatedly than never, though, right?
Really good insights, simply lacking critical analysis of high culture. Dangers of television are rightly noted, but its glories are overlooked. Taking dominion, done properly, will event in boob tube at some point. Simply one instance of a flaw I saw.
Some very very strong chapters and some equally weak ones. Overall though it has influenced my thinking in an edifying way and I'm glad to have read it.
Displaying one - x of 73 reviews
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/91702.All_God_s_Children_and_Blue_Suede_Shoes
0 Response to "Review of All Gods Children and Blue Suede Shoes 2012 Edition"
Post a Comment