#Christian theology in music

[compassionmattersmost]

Bob Marley: A Christian Mystic in the Rastafarian Tradition

When we think of Christian mystics, names like St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and Thomas Merton often come to mind. These individuals, through their writings and lives, embodied a deep and profound connection with the divine, often expressed through personal, mystical experiences of God. However, the notion of Christian mysticism is broader than traditional Catholic or Protestant…

[cupcakegalaxia]

Hill 👏 song 👏 is 👏 not 👏 a 👏 bib-lic-al 👏 CHURCH 👏

[austerity-audacity-asceticism]

sharing some resources on the works of st. hildegard of bingen!

Texts and Chants

Hymn to the Virgin (w/ sheet music and commentary)

Scivias

Selected Writings of Hildegard von Bingen

Hildegard of Bingen: Visions and Validation

The visions of Hildegard of Bingen. 1928.

Hildegard of Bingen and the Greening of Medieval Medicine

fair warning, though. some of them are behind a paywall. do with them what you will.

[straynoahide]

tolkien meta: the melodic structure of the ainulindale, arda's endgame, and the doom of men

so basically this is about what one can learn and connect to the rest of the legendarium's lore from the ainulindale, and also peer into tolkien's psyche as a side effect i guess. expect excessive theology or more fun imo philosophy of divinity and lengthy tangents about melkor, the nature of evil and theodicy

a small disclaimer - this touches thorny topics in philosophy like the problem of evil, the nature of redemption/salvation, death...

this isn't about my beliefs but presenting and reflecting on tolkien's own within the history of ideas. i acknowledge anyone who reads this also has their own, and can agree or disagree with tolkien. my views may seep in unintentionally but i try to go deeper than that.

pd: I write Eru/One/God indistinctively on purpose. it's for rhetorical emphasis, not so much out of (cultural) christianity.

part I - introduction (in this post) part II - the themes/structure, discussion part III - discussion (cont): themes of arda and life part IV - discussion (cont 2): theme of the children part V - discussion (cont 3): aftermath/second music

Introduction (i rec reading even if you're versed in the lore)

for those who are not so familiar with parts of the legendarium but still interested in a deep dive, the ainulindalë ("song of the ainur") is the creation myth of tolkien's world.

i rec just reading it if you haven't even if it's after reading this. it's quite beautiful and unique and it's brought admiration even from ppl who study that kind of thing professionally about real cultures. i'm not given to flattery but idk just check it out.

so anyway, the ainur, spirits born from the One creator's mind directly, sang under (or despite) His direction and the melody (both harmony and discord) that resulted, is the history of the world.

by the world we have two concepts here, the entire universe (eä) and the planet (arda) 'earth', of which middle-earth is a later-stage continent. the music itself was a creative process that the ainur partook in before knowing the full implication of their singing.

God showed the ainur the vision of what their music had created and when they saw the world they wanted to live it, to dwell on it and experience it.

God granted this but said they had to remain in it until the full music, the full story had played out.

this includes everything that happens in the Silmarillion, the LOTR movies and sequels/prequels, the TROP series, games, etc, and in some stages of Tolkien's opus, our own world (WWI, WWII, etc).

the Discord refers to the rebellious effect of Melkor on the music as much as his part of the music - the dissonance born from his part's coexistence with the rest of the melody that is in harmony, and takes a 'life of its own'.

this is not unimportant, but i'm not going to discuss it at any point. i will point out here that it has been argued -controversially- by some people to be relevant in compatibilizing or explaining otherwise difficult-to-reconcile lore points that deal with "non-Melkorian evil". this is about things like Ungoliant or the nameless things 'whose mention darken the light of day', whose in-world origins are unclear.

on a broader note, this represents two very different intuitions about evil and divinity (Tolkienian v Lovecraftian, we could say). these are difficult to compatibilize and more than Tolkien's psyche, represent ancient tensions within monotheistic religions themselves, i think. so within Tolkien's world, which has an Abrahamic/monotheistic god, you still find traces of Lovecraftian horror.

all that follows is about Tolkienian evil (meta) i.e. Melkorian evil (in-world), that is uncontroversially and explicitly under the governance of the One, although non-Melkorian evil is a fascinating subject.

[francesderwent]

so I heard you wanna talk religion in ttpd! let’s talk I Can Fix Him (No Really I Can).

“they shake their heads saying ‘God help her’ when I tell ‘em he’s my man.” this isn’t the outright controlling judgment of the saboteurs in But Daddy I Love Him. nobody is trying to tell her what to do or force her to break up. this is a simple admission that the situation she’s in is difficult, that she’s chosen a hard path and needs help. and what is her response? “your good Lord doesn’t need to lift a finger, I can fix him, no really I can.” she admits salvation is needed. but Taylor is casting herself as the savior. she doesn’t need any help, any grace, any divine assistance. in fact, she doubles down: “only I can”. she and she alone has the power to reform this man, because of the love between them. it’s reminiscent of False God, except now the idol isn’t their love, it’s just her. she’s going to save him.

what’s interesting to me is we don’t know how the themes of salvation would have been recapitulated in light of the reversal at the end of the song, “whoa maybe I can’t”, because the song ends there. maybe she can’t fix him because he is ultimately unfixable, irredeemable, worthless. or maybe she can’t fix him because she’s not God. and honestly, I think the song is meant to leave us wondering. she’s waking up to reality, but is the reality his smallness of soul or her power trip?

so what is the blatant Christian language in this song for? is it telling us that Christianity is evil for implanting the idea of redemption into our minds when it doesn’t really exist? or is it a hint that trying to become our own gods, even with the best of intentions, is a pathway that leads only to death?

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Ask #19 — Do you have a favorite Christian song, either traditional or contemporary? 💚

I love so many Christian songs (unfortunately not many traditional ones; am always taking requests tho). But my favorite might be Soldier Poet King. No other song perfectly sums up my thoughts on the Coming of Christ.

Disclaimer: I am well aware that this might not *technically* be a "Christian" or "religious" song. I don't care. For the sake of exegesis and discussion we're all going to assume it is one. Get it? Got it? Good.

The song deceives you with it's folksy and joyous melody into thinking this will be a folksy and joyous song - and it is. For the Christian. It's like a nursery rhyme: a song that's so silly and childlike you don't realize it's horrifying until you open your ears. And when you do what do you hear? Soldiers. Swords. The Destruction of the City. Slaying. A Crown of Thorns. A New King. This isn't giddy and jovial imagery, but the tone is exceedingly so!

When I listen to this song I have compared it to a nursery rhyme sung by children, skipping around, in a cemetery. There is a baroque horror - an "irresistible horror" to quote C.S. Lewis - to these lyrics. Because the fall of Babylon is the disintegration of the cosmos, the undoing of creation (as we know it). It is decreation and it's too late to stop it. But to the oppressed, to the slave, to the child, the fall of the city is the best of news. This is the song of martyrs. The song of exiles and slaves, pilgrims and refugees. We long for the Kingdom of the Skies to come upon earth. And the song perfectly encapsulates the "irresistible love" and overwhelming joy that would fill those who professed faith in the Anointed.

But also important is that the sword only tears down the city, the slaying is done by the tongue. The sword which proceeds from the poet(-prophet)'s mouth. Because the coming Anointed One isn't out for our blood, but it is his words that proclaim justice, his words that define good and evil.

[queenlucythevaliant]

Why can't the churches with choirs and pipe organs and stained glass windows have a bit more theological rigor??

[catboygirljoker]

thank you SOMUCH for all the asks :] if you sent an anon and didnt see your reply check my asks tag !! i am getting to or have gotten to all of then. and please send more i love them so very much

[friendrat]

So we were singing this worship song today, the one that goes, "You are good, you're good oohhh, you are good, you're good oohhh..." and I just had pop into my mind, "but He's not tame." Thank you, CS Lewis, for that memorable bit of dialog.

And it just had me thinking all through the song. Do you think that weird attraction to bad boys that so many girls have is a corrupted longing for God? Because we put so much focus on God's goodness, and we ignore that He is not *safe*. This is the God of the wild. He isn't just the one who can calm the waves... He is the one who first *created* the waves. And I just don't think we really think about or appreciate that enough.

[truthfultales]

How To Navigate Sexuality In Art & Fandom As a Christian

First of all: I´m a Catholic, so Puritanism is disrespectful of God´s beautiful creation in my eyes. The Song of Songs is literally eroticism in prose and a metaphor for the love story between God and humanity.

This does not mean that everything is wise or permitted.

I was recently asked by a friend - and just saw a post by @beautyinsteadofashes that asked the same question - how I handle sexuality in art and fandom.

The Answer:

I try to not repost stuff that could make people fall for lust. Sometimes I see a post that is cute or shines a light on true intimacy - that I do like to repost or "love"/heart, because that´s what true romance is about: Becoming one and pointing to something higher with that.

Wanting the best for the other and symbolizing something with ones actions.

In the beginning, I fell for some more unhinged stuff until I realized that it wasn´t wise.

Nude art? Fine, if dignified. Erotic art? Fine, if it´s well done and not some anime-porn style. It should not awaken the need to masturbate e.g. but can show the beauty of intimacy.

Sex is not bad, it´s the focus that is important. How is it depicted? Is it seen as something selfish? Does someone take pleasure in using the other? Is it being portrayed as something perverse and dirty? No good.

Is it seen as something beautiful? Both parties are giving themselves to the other? Are they "one flesh" and we don´t get to see TOO much? Is there still mystery and dignity preserved between man and woman? Fine. It´s art depicting the art of creation and bonding. Not porn.

So, three things matter:

1. Content (no poly, no homosexuality, no bestiality etc.)

2. Depiction (no porn shots, no self-centeredness)

3. Purpose (Is it done to communicate something beautiful one might strive for, or is it done to provoke lusting and degeneracy?)

What we truly yearn for is intimacy. That´s why we like art that depicts "losing oneself in the other".

We were created for communion and it´s deeply ingrained in us to seek out someone we can share our life with and share in the power of creation. It´s the godly spark in us.

Where do I draw the line?

I draw the line at stuff that fosters a bad mentality and feeds thoughts that do not benefit oneself nor society.

Now some people take it too far and claim erotic art, nude statues etc. should not exist. That is irrational. The most powerful of instincts in us usually point to our nature and beauty. They should be depicted with dignity.

There are people who will lust when seeing statues, but it doesn´t make the statue sinful.

We cannot control how others react to certain things, everyone is responsible for their own boundaries. If I know I struggle with something, I have to see to it that I do not fall for my vice. The responsibility cannot be laid on others past a reasonable amount.

Should I walk around in lingerie on the street? No. That would be unwise. Should I walk in a burka, because a guy could lust after me? No. I´m a human being with dignity and do not have to hide, just because someone struggles with porn addiction and sexualizes everyone.

Some ask: "Is one fantasy better than the other, if I´m lusting?"

I think there are things that are less severe than others. Wanting real intimacy in a fantasy is better, because it points to what Sex is actually supposed to be. Our thoughts matter because they do influence our attitude and actions. One Night Stands in fantasy would distort what sexuality is actually supposed to be, so that would be worse.

Is lusting after a fictional character better or worse than coveting a real person?

Coveting a real person is definitely worse. Fictional characters might make it difficult to connect to real life people who have flaws, but at least you are not coveting someone who does not belong to you. That does not mean we should lust after fictional characters. We can appreciate and "love" them. We can see similarities between them and real people in our lives, but they should not be used as a template for self-gratification. I know many people struggle with masturbation, and I won´t start judging people and their circumstances. All I ask is to reflect and gradually improve in virtue. Base line is: Using a real human being for self-gratification is a disrespect of that person´s dignity, while fantasizing about fictional characters hurts oneself in other ways.

Like my friend said: "It is not saying one is ok and the other isn´t. It´s putting it on a spectrum."

Ideally we do none of those things.

What we think influences our attitudes and actions. We are called to be wise in what and how we consume content. May it be music, literature, art or food.

BECAUSE Sex is something so incredibly powerful and holy, it deserves to be presented with dignity.

Prudery is not dignifying sexuality, it is declaring it something dirty and that is an insult to God´s design.

Sex itself is WONDERFUL but only when it is rightly ordered and as such dignified. It is not about using someone else for self-gratification. It is a promise made with one´s body.

[liewithm3]

Statue Of Liberty

Little River Band, live in Australia with the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra 1979!

[darknesscannotsaveyou]

top favorite CityAlight songs 🥰

[brainypixel]

We are excited to welcome you all to the first installment of our new blog series, "The Theology of Storytelling", now available on the Brainy Blog!

Check out "Introduction of Terms" below!

[compassionmattersmost]

Heaven on Earth: The Teachings of Jesus and Bob Marley

Introduction In a world often divided between the sacred and the secular, it can be refreshing—and deeply inspiring—when we find connections between contemporary culture and ancient spiritual wisdom. Bob Marley’s iconic song “Get Up, Stand Up” is more than just an anthem of empowerment; it’s a profound reflection on the nature of heaven, the divine, and our place within it. Surprisingly,…

[knightfamilyministries]

Like and subscribe to our YouTube channel!!