“He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”

Permit me for a moment to digress from the Christian music discussion.

This is a far more important issue.

I don’t have very much time on my hands today, but for the few of you who may read this blog, I implore you to read the article I have linked below.

Zimbabwe is on its knees.

What strikes me as sickening, apart from the evil rule of Mugabe and Zanu (PF) is the disgusting apathy of Thabo Mbeki in South Africa.  Both Mbeki and Mugabe deserve every judgment that may befall their heads. 

I know I - as a follower of Jesus - am to agree with Him when He says that every person has insurpassable worth, but I must admit that I am too weak to assign such value to these men.

Here is the article…

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/voters-told-they-must-reelect-mugabe-or-be-killed-by-local-terror-gangs-1343551.html

Zimbabwe needs our fervent intercession right now.

Following on from a conversation I had with Ferg on criticizing Christian music, I realized that I have jumped 2 or 3 steps ahead in declaring my dislike for most Christian music.  I need to be clearer on a number of things.  So permit me to cover some more abstract ground.  I’d like to deal with the issue of judging music in general, regardless of whether it is “Christian” or not.

Firstly, however, I should state 3 things that I left unsaid in the last post.  When I say that the majority of “Christian” music is poor, I mean that the majority of “Christian” music I have listened to is poor.  There is surely a lot of good music out there created by Christians of which I am not aware.  In addition, poor music is not limited to CCM.  Most music coming from non-Christian artists today is rubbish too.  I should also note that criticizing music is far less valuable than creating music.  Bravo to the creator, boo to the critic.  If you are out there trying to create art with honesty, then that alone is virtuous.

Now, I’m going to gingerly put forward some brief thoughts.  Let me be clear, I am not dogmatic on any of this and I’m willing to be checked by those more learned.

It seems to me that, beyond education, there isn’t much point in listening to music you don’t enjoy.  So we should, for the most part, listen to what sounds good to our ears and be confident in our enjoyment.  Having said that, it is also a good idea - although not imperative - to be open to learning more about what is recognized by experts as good and allowing our tastes to develop.

Those of us who listen to a lot of music judge it all.  We make statements such as “that’s dire” about the likes of James Blunt (pictured left) as if we are comparing his music to some qualified standard.  What is this standard?  How can people say the work of Claude Debussy (pictured below right) meets it (whether you like classical music or not) whereas the work of James Blunt doesn’t?

I realize there are many ways to categorize how we look at music (in fact art of any kind), but there are two main ideas that are crucial: subjectivity and objectivity.  In short, a subjective statement is one about how the piece of art impacts you (your emotions, your gut), whereas an objective statement is more concerned with describing the piece.  For example, “this piece of music is nice” is obviously a subjective statement, as is “the colors in this painting are pretty”.  The statement “the rhythm here is 7/8″, however, is clearly objective.  It is a known fact about the piece.

Proclaiming a piece as objectively strong or weak is a relatively clear cut exercise.  In music, a number of things can contribute to a composition being objectively strong.  These include: the skill or technique involved in writing and executing the piece; the complexity of the piece - be that melodically, harmonically or rhythmically; and its success in fulfilling its intended purpose.  That last one is sometimes hard to judge but very important when looking at worship music written for use in a congregational setting - but we will look at that next time.  Not everybody is able to recognize or articulate what the objective qualities of a piece of music are (which is entirely ok, by the way - not everybody is able to cook either), but those things are still there.

When it comes to subjectivity, however, there are as many differing opinions as there are people.  This is because it comes down, largely, to taste - it is the same with food.  People like different things.  Now, with some people, their recognition of a composition’s objective qualities actually informs their taste.  Yet taste is still, even in that case, subjective.

Whenever we hear new music we make judgments about it, the most immediate of which is “do I like this?”  This is, of course, a completely subjective question.  It is relating to how the piece of music impacts you.  I doubt we, at least consciously, can ask “is this objectively good music” before we ask “do I like this?”  We are absolutely entitled to be subjective in our opinions on art.  In fact, it is important to be subjective – that is how we are built.  However, a piece can be subjectively pleasing to you as well as being vulnerable to objective criticism.

I make judgments on music all the time, and what I regard as my least favorite is the music that I find subjectively displeasing and objectively weak.  What I regard as my favorite is music that is objectively strong in addition to being the most subjectively pleasing.

Now, I think applying all of the above to Christian music is valid, but there are a couple of important points to note.  I think I’ll look at that in the next post.  I guess this one was just to set the next one up.  Of course I’m now digging myself a hole if I realize I have nothing of value to say in the next post!  Ha-ha!

A few days ago on a theologically conservative blog (http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1685) the author started a thread on “Christian” music.  In the above-linked post, he drew attention to an article that discussed what the contemporary Christian music scene (CCM for short) view as “Christian” music.  The enlightening piece showed it is more marketing than content which dictates what is regarded as “Christian Music”.  The example used was Sufjan Stevens.  His content is full of love and loyalty to Jesus, yet because he doesn’t buy in to the CCM marketing machine or play at festivals such as Cornerstone, he is not regarded as a “Christian” artist. 

I believe CCM to be in error on this, yet I imagine Sufjan himself doesn’t give a rat’s what the Christian record labels think of him.  It has been apparent for quite some time that, with all due respect to the vast numbers of Christians making and releasing music through these channels, most of the music coming from CCM stinks.  I have a very hard time listening to much of anything recorded by the artists that you find available down at your local Christian bookstore.  Not only that, but as soon as you are taken in by CCM you are packaged and limited in the eyes of both the Christian community and the secular world.  I just don’t see this fitting with what Sufjan wants to achieve.

This leads me to ask what is now most likely a boring question: why does Christian music suck?  I hold in my head a number of ideas on the subject that are seemingly in conflict.  Over the next few posts I’ll try to scribble them down here.  Perhaps you’ll disagree with me (if so, please tell me!), or perhaps I won’t even make any sense - but I’m doing this to organize my own thoughts, so please bear with my confusion!

My next post will deal with the idea that most music recognized as “Christian” is poor, but it shouldn’t be.

I am a funny creature and I confuse myself. 

On Friday 28th March U.S. News & World Report published its annual law school rankings.  This lists what they believe (according to a controversial formula) are the top 100 law schools in the US.

Every year, as the list is released, the majority of the legal diaspora (lawyers, current students, prospective students, faculty) chant in unison ”ran-kings SUCK! ran-kings SUCK!”.  I agree.  These particular rankings are particularly dreadful.  Yet, so many of the above-mentioned diaspora wait impatiently for these rankings to leak, hoping desperately for their school to jump up the list.  I count myself as one of the “great inconsistent”. 

I will hopefully be a student at the University of Houston Law Center (deferring for a year until Fall ‘09) and I was delighted to see UH jump another bunch of spots as it continues to regain its pre-2001 standing (that’s 15 spots in 2 years - go Cougs).  At the same time, however, I was playing down the accursed rankings as nothing more than an inaccurate beauty contest.

I won’t go in to the mathematics of how U.S. News ranks the schools but suffice to say there is enough anomaly that if Yale (a top-ranked school) were to report their graduate employment rate as increasing from 99.9% to 100%, this insignificant rise could drop Loyola-Chicago (a lower-ranked school) by a large number of places.  This is just one of the reasons that the rankings are absurd.  There are also a group of about 20 schools that are always regarded as both the best value and massively underrated.

In addition, it would be very unwise to decide on a law school based purely on a ranking.  There are far more important things to consider.  The graduate employment rates, student-faculty ratio, support structure in the city, location of family, cost of education and reputation in the local legal market should all be foremost in the mind of a prospective law student.

Well, I have decided to embrace my inconsistency.  I won’t sign up for the detailed on-line rankings page (I won’t pay them to perpetuate inaccurate and damaging rankings - fight the power!) but at the same time I shall cheer heartily that UH has the number 2 health law speciality in the country and top-10 intellectual property and trial advocacy programs while rising steadily in overall ranking.  Huzzah! 

So it continues, we will spend the next year “dissing” the rankings system and then come next March we will beg for the new list.

Yesterday, unaware of the events this morning would bring, I began writing a draft post about an aspect of Irish life that I find most taxing.  Namely, Irish people are incapable of holding anybody to account for their actions.

It was inspired by the common attitude to Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern’s seeming exposure as a thoroughly corrupt man.  The Irish public not only held a distinct malaise towards Mr. Ahern’s misconduct, we re-elected him twice.  Now, it must be said, his re-election had a lot to do with the ineptitude of the opposition but we have still cheered on a corrupt leader since 1997 (his reputation has never been without serious blemish since his time as Charles Haughey’s Finance Minister).

“Ah sure, he’s just a bit of a scally.  Aren’t we all?  Better the devil you know.  But he drinks at my local - he’s just one of us”.  We had our excuse guns loaded and ready.

I believe this inability to hold to account runs right through Irish society, but today would be an unwise day to use Mr. Ahern as the inspiration for that post.  This morning, on the back of some embarrassing testimony at the tribunal investigating him, Mr. Ahern announced he will step down as Taoiseach on May 6th.  It seems around these parts, sometimes, you do have to face the consequences of your actions.

However, I was struck earlier by an email sent around by a woman in my church.  The thrust was that, on a day like today, we should pray for Mr. Ahern (as our political leader), for his family relationships and for wisdom in decision making.  We should thank God for the good Mr. Ahern has done in the country (he played a big role in the Northern Ireland Peace Process) and we should pray that the next Taoiseach will be someone who seeks the good of all people in the country, governing with truth, justice and integrity.

I can only say a resounding ‘amen’ to that.

On the advice of a good friend, I have opened a web-log.

 I have no real idea how this is going to take shape, but I’m moving to Houston, Texas this summer and this may be a good way to share, oh, I’m not sure what yet, with those people who may be interested (hi Ferg and Mom).

Firstly, the title of the blog.  It is a line from Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France” which is a book I much admire.  Those of you who are interested in political thought (probably Ferg, probably not Mom) and its progression should read it.  With Reflections Burke became known to many as the father of true conservative politics.

I use the line because I think this space could be an opportunity to chew through some things that intrigue me.  These might trouble me, excite me or both.  I’ll probably mutter about politics, life, theology, music, current affairs - basically all the things you can get from every other two-a-penny blog.  I hope to gain from the wrestling.  I shall be my own antagonist - unless somebody else wishes to play that roll, which I welcome.

In addition, I will most likely keep this updated with a couple of my happenings.  I recently got engaged to my beautiful fiancee, and I will be starting law school in Texas.  So, this being a momentous and exciting time in my life, there will most likely be plenty to discuss…with myself.

Knowing me, this is probably the last you will hear of me for quite some time.