Theology of Radiohead's "National Anthem"

One of my teachers says that Nirvana marks the turning upside down of an attitude towards music. Music, according to him, must be satirical after Nirvana. The rock and roll classics - the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc. - were happily unaware of their music. Now, alternative music, like a modern Don Quixote, fails to achieve such blissful unawareness precisely because they are trying to be blissfully unaware like the great classics. Sure, there may be exceptions to what my teacher says, but for the most part I think he's right. And many bands really have not noticed this shift and continue their desperate attempt to be blissfully unaware of their own greatness (sort of like Don Quixote).

Radiohead is among the few artists who have effectively and confidently understood the nature of the times. Perhaps one of the most profound examples of this is the third track off of their 2000 album Kid A, "The National Anthem."

This track is highly satirical; it is perhaps a commentary on the myth of progress which has thrived in the west for the past few centuries - that myth which manufactures an optimism towards a progress which the 20th century has proved to be an illusion. Patriotism, the confidence that man is progressing, and that going to war is a totally necessary step to achieving a human utopia, is viewed in hindsight as a morbid optimism. 

"The National Anthem" pushes an optimistic, major tune (the optimism/myth of progress) and slowly transforms the optimism to a chaotic minor (reality). 

Here are five examples:

1) The bass groove that runs throughout the song begins in the key of D hitting the major 3rd (F#) but then shifts to the minor 3rd (F) transforming the tune from a happy groove to a twisted groove. Augustine and Aquinas were both keen to point out that evil is simply a perversion of good. And the scariest, most wicked characters in stories and movies are often clowns, dolls, little children - those things that are supposedly innocent. They are the things that absolutely frighten us, perhaps more than a dragon or a transparently wicked monster. The song is built on this morbid bassline.

2) Thom Yorke's vocal line reaches up at first to the same F# (major 3rd), almost like an attempt to sing along to this deceptively happy tune, but as the song progresses this note slowly slips to the F (minor 3rd), as the singer - sort of a main character experiencing this morbidly optimistic tune - becomes aware of the perversion (first at 1:50).

3) The horns and trumpets carry this theme more obviously. Trumpets and horned instruments are generally supposed to be happy, reminding you of a parade, a celebration, or a national anthem. But Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood have intentionally arrange the brass instruments to sound like "a traffic jam." This is one of the most effective methods in which they let the song slip into morbid optimism. 

4) Another obvious example is the background radio. When Radiohead performs this song live, Jonny actually plays a live radio station or t.v. channel over the sound system (at least I think that's what they do), tweaking it throughout the performance. This is the link between the morbid optimism of the song to the morbid optimism of political propaganda. This is important for Radiohead, as Thom Yorke often ends his shows saying things like "no more idiots in charge."

5) As the chaos of the song escalates, Thom Yorke transitions from singing a haunting "so alone" to screaming "turn it off!" This song builds gradually, but surely reaches its climax and sputters into chaos.

Theology:

Irony is when something functions the opposite of how it is supposed to function. In this song the major bass line and vocal line, the trumpets, the lyrics, and the radio sounds in the background all function the opposite of how they are intended to function. All of these are supposed to function to create a mood of triumph and happiness. But as they are tweaked in a sort of perversion, the function powerfully to create a mood of morbidity. 

In the same way, the pharisees' self-righteousness functions the opposite of how they intended it to function. All of their righteousness is in the end precisely their wickedness. It is the same with King Sennacherib in Isaiah 37; he will be "brought low" precisely because he exalted himself. And Jesus lowness and humility is precisely his glory, righteousness, and exaltation (Phil 2).

This is a pervasive biblical concept: "The first shall be last and the last shall be first." 

Radiohead has created a masterpiece. This song exemplifies the depravity of humanity; it is a perverted depravity; it is a dent in a fender; it is the sort of depravity that takes good things (parades, major keys, etc.) as the pharisees took good things (prayers, knowledge of Scripture, etc.,) and twists them to be used for wickedness. This is propaganda and hypocrisy. 

Theology of Release

"Need some release, release, release /
We need love and peace!"
- U2


I work at a cabinet shop from 7 to 330. There are four times every day that I experience a sense of release: 10 am, 12 pm, 230 pm, and 330 pm. These are 10 minute breaks, a 30 minute lunch, and the end of the work day. Whenever the buzzer signals one of these times a certain emotion surges through my body. This emotion is especially strong on Fridays when the weekend begins at 330. This is the same emotion I experience when I finish a hard paper or a test. It is the same emotion I experience when make it past that section on 205 where traffic is merging, and I am freed to drive at a comfortable speed. All these things strike exactly the same feeling in my mind. These all have this feeling to different degrees. For instance, 10 am break isn't quite as exciting as 330 end of the day on Friday, or as exciting as graduating undergrad. But still, these all have exactly the same emotion. These are all communicating the same concept.

I think that the reason God designed this concept of release was to give us an infinitesimal picture of what it will be like when Jesus returns, and we are finally freed from sin: "...when he appears we will be made like him, and every who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure" (1 John 3:2-3). 

Theology of Ipods

Music declares the glory of God because it depends upon dynamics like harmony and rhythm. Harmony and rhythm are always reflections of the Triune God, who is three persons in perfect harmony and rhythm; they are perfectly in sync, perfectly united; they create a perfect chord in the unity of love; they are beautiful. So the reason that music is beautiful is because it reflects and points to this God. We hear music and it brings us into a certain mood, emotion; it will bring us into a tranquil mood or get us pumped to exercise or work hard. This is an image of the Spirit's influence on a human being; he brings the harmony and beauty of the love of the Triune God to bear on our heart and excites us to faith and good works: "We love because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

It's no surprise that humanity has invented a thing called an ipod, or things like MP3 players, walkmen, etc., so that we can always access music. God has made music to be a booster; it is something to motivate us to push through our day. This is because it is a reflection of the love and harmony of the Triune God. 

I am saying that the reason that God has created a world and guided its history in such a way that the 21st century would witness the popularity of these things called ipods is to demonstrate and dramatize humanity's need to be sustained and motivated by the Holy Spirit who is the love and harmony of the Father and the Son. 

Ipods are sort of like prayer, Bible, or community; as ipods give us access to music, which motivates us to push through our days, so these things give us access to the fellowship of the Triune God throughout, who is the one which music points to and proclaims. This access to the Triune God gives us spiritual motivation and excites us to display self-giving love towards our neighbor. 

TULIP: five pillars for a robust evangelism

TULIP is an acronym for the five points of calvinism; they are Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints, and these have become increasingly precious to me. 

I do not view Romans 9 as the slam-dunk calvinist passage, although I do think that it teaches unconditional election. Probably what most strongly convinces me of the reality and truth of these five points is Romans 1, which I believe outlines a radical total depravity. Here Paul is speaking of all humanity. To quickly summarize Romans 1:18-32, humanity has committed idolatry; we have worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, and the result is hardness of heart. God's punishment for idolatry is an increasingly wicked heart. God's punishment for idolatry is more idolatry, essentially. "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts," "God gave them up to dishonorable passions," and "God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done." 

This is the result of idolatry, and we are all guilty of idolatry. In fact, this is precisely Paul's point, viz., there is no human being whether Jew or Gentile (3:9) who is not guilty. We are guilty, and the result of our guilt is an inability to love God, and inability to choose God; we are consumed by our pride. As Lewis outlines in The Great Divorce through the words of George Macdonald: "Hell is where God says to man, thy will be done." And he shows in this novel characters like Napoleon, who desperately resist the incessant grace of God towards them in their pride and self-justification. 

All humanity is guilty. All humanity is like Napoleon. We desperately resist the grace of God for the sake of our pride. 

If all humanity is under the condition that Paul describes in Romans 1, then only the reality of the remaining four points of calvinism could possibly save us:

The Unconditional Election of God the Father, that does not depend on our choosing to love and trust Jesus, but produces it,

The Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption of God, in which Christ crucifies precisely the sin of rejecting him as savior; he has forgiven God's elect precisely for the sin of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, 

The Irresistible Grace of God, in which God the Holy Spirit overwhelms our sinful hearts with the truth of the cross and the heart of God the Father towards humanity in Jesus Christ, and

The Perseverance of the Saints, by which the Holy Spirit sovereignly brings the work he has begun in these elect to completion.

These things ought to drive our personal evangelism, because they mean that the Triune God is able to save any human being we speak to, no matter how hard-hearted and depraved they may be. In fact, it teaches me that all humanity is totally depraved anyway, and so my faith can never be in how good a person may be, but it must be in the work of the Word and the Spirit alone. As Barth outlines so well in his commentary on Romans: with no possibility on our side, God's great possibility comes into view. 

Even if you are an arminian, you should evangelize like a calvinist, with no hope at all in the goodness or freewill of humanity, but with a robust faith in a sovereign God who is able to save any human being you are speaking to through the preaching of the Word and the conviction of the Holy Spirit (1 Pet 1:23). 

Delusional People

Blue tooths are ridiculous. People are willing to appear out of their mind for the sake of convenience. It always takes me a few seconds to realize that someone is talking on their blue tooth, and that they aren't having a lively conversation with themselves. When I notice these people, I like to point them out to my friends. "Dude, check it out. That guy's insane!" It's always funny to imagine that people talking on their blue tooth are just extremely delusional.

Why are we so fascinated with people who have conversations with people who are not actually there? What is it about delusional people that is so interesting? These people live in an imaginary world. When we look at their actions from the outside, they appear totally ridiculous.

Maybe it's because we like to think of these people as being in a completely different category than we are.

I remember one time when I was at a coffee shop in Portland early one morning, and a customer walked up to the barista and threw a piece of pie at him. The customer said, "How's that for customer service? Never mess with a professional boxer!" And stormed out.

Everyone in the cafe - especially the barista - was left totally confused. I was thinking, "Who does this guy think he is?" But that was obvious. He thought he was a professional boxer. And as we all know, professional boxers have the right to throw pie at baristas who do not offer satisfying customer service.

My boxer friend was seriously delusional.

After this happened, the people in the cafe looked around at each other smiling in unbelief at the event that had occurred. It brought us a sense of unity. We were united in the fact that we weren't like this crazy delusional boxer guy. It's so nice to feel normal. It's so nice when you are the driver and not the squirrel trying not to get hit by the cars on the highway. But the truth is we are all delusional. We find our identity in ridiculous things, and we live our lives based on the ridiculous rights we assume from these ridiculous things.

I like to hangout with people with great personalities. They are fun to be around. After a while I notice that I start imagining myself to be these people when I engage with other people in conversations. It's weird.

And sometimes when I'm driving in my car alone I start to replay conversations in my mind, which turn out exactly how I would have liked them to: with me proving my formidable rationalism and wit. Sometimes when I'm playing my guitar in my room - even when I'm worshiping - I start to imagine playing in front of an admiring crowd of peers. Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous.

Sometimes when I write blogs like this I imagine myself being read by thousands of faithful subscribers.

There are things I choose to believe about myself that are quite frankly too embarrassing to repeat.

These illusions always have consequences. I bring these images of myself into my personal relationships. The problem with this is that these images are delusional. They are not real. And my friends are usually good about breaking these images down. When this happens, I often resort to irrational justification, and a lot of times it hurts my relationships; I end up saying hurtful things in a rash attempt to maintain these illusions.

Essentially, I throw pie at my friends because I think I'm a professional boxer. We all do it. So we should repent and find our identity in the truth that Jesus loves us.

Soren Kierkegaard's Reconstruction of Epistemology

Here is a short paper I wrote for Philosophy on Kierkegaard, which deals with several other voices as well on the topic of the relationship of faith and reason.

Soren Kierkegaard’s Reconstruction of Epistemology

            Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was a Danish philosopher who –in the footsteps of Immanuel Kant- challenged the epistemological presuppositions of the enlightenment. Unlike Kant, however, Kierkegaard was an orthodox Christian and argued for the validity of orthodox doctrines such as the Incarnation through an existentialist lens. Kant had dealt an effective blow to the enlightenment’s optimism towards an epistemology built upon human reason (McGrath 220). But Kant’s blow also crippled any optimism towards the possibility of actually knowing absolute truth. Kierkegaard shows that Kant’s argument for the limit of human reason is precisely the impossibility which Christ the Incarnate teacher and teaching meets in his humanity and makes actual knowledge a possibility (Rose 46).

            Kierkegaard often wrote with pseudonyms, perhaps most notably the name “Johannes Climacus.” Since Kierkegaard himself was a Christian, he was able to write with the penname Climacus to develop a skeptical worldview which proved the limit of human reason alone. Climacus breaks down the Socratic notion that gaining knowledge is a matter of finding knowledge within oneself, that a teacher is one who assists the learner in finding the knowledge within himself; “the problem of acquiring and understanding the truth is purely epistemic, not existential” (Rose 40). Practically, this epistemology bears remarkable similarities to the self-confident epistemology of the enlightenment to which Kierkegaard responded. Kierkegaard brings Climacus to arrive at “The Absolute Paradox” - the Incarnation, the eternal within an historical event –an idea which a skeptic who is reliant upon human reason (like Climacus, and the students of the enlightenment) must reject. Tim Rose comments, “The Incarnation appears to be paradoxical, partly because Climacus does not understand it, and partly because he does not want to understand it” (Rose 59). In other words, Kierkegaard has demonstrated that human reason will arrive at the paradox of the Incarnation and reject it. “The paradox is composed in such a way that reason has no power at all to dissolve it in nonsense and prove that it is nonsense; no, it is a symbol, a riddle, a compounded riddle about which reason must say: I cannot solve it, it cannot be understood, but it does not follow thereby that it is nonsense” (“Journal and Papers” 7).

            Rose shows that Kierkegaard’s argument for the limit of human reason is consistent with several Christian thinkers before him, viz., Martin Luther, J.G. Hamann, and Blaise Pascal. For Luther, the Kingdom of Earth could also be described as the Kingdom of Reason. Human reason alone was entirely impotent to reach the Kingdom of Christ. Luther is careful to show the importance of reason within the context of the Kingdom of God working alongside faith, but like Kierkegaard, Luther asserted that reason had no power to achieve faith.

            Rose also points out the that ironically Hamann uses David Hume’s argument against Christianity to establish the legitimacy of Christianity: “What had for Hue made Christianity implausible, in Hamann’s eyes served to give it greater strength and credibility. Hamann therefore turned Hume’s critique on its head” (Rose 148). This method is similar to Kierkegaard’s approach. Kierkegaard articulates Climacus’ skepticism towards the paradox of the Incarnation precisely to show the miracle which stands above reason. Karl Barth, in step with Kierkegaard, similarly writes, “Without any possibility on our side God’s great possibility comes into view, making possible what is impossible from our side” (Barth 17). And Kevin Vanhoozer likewise uses this same method of turning a “critique on its head” in response to Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction. Derrida asserts that “the age of the sign is essentially theological,” which Vanhoozer takes up as precisely what legitimizes Christian theology (Vanhoozer). Kierkegaard’s method of building up a legitimate skeptic viewpoint and turning it on its head is a consistent historical pattern exemplified particularly in Hamann’s work, which, according to Rose, was a specific influence of Kierkegaard.

            Lastly, Rose demonstrates the similarities between Kierkegaard and Pascal. Pascal likewise argues that reason will reach a point in which man must depart from it in order to embrace faith. Pascal says, “reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it” (Pensées 83). Pascal also, consistent with Luther and Kierkegaard, asserts that reason has a particular function within Christianity: “Submission and use of reason; that is what makes true Christianity” (Pensées 83). Rose argues that Kierkegaard’s thoughts have remarkable similarities to these Christian thinkers “contrary to the frequent claims of his radical unconventionality” (Rose 144—152).

            For Kierkegaard, soteriology and sin are epistemological in nature. The rational autonomy of the enlightenment (and Socrates) functions to prove the depravity of man. The more man ascends intellectually the more he distances himself from the truth, as Climacus articulates, “Indeed, he must not even be a seeker… he has to be defined as being outside the truth (not coming towards it like a proselyte, but going away from it) or as untruth. He is, then, untruth” (“Fragments” 13-14). Climacus has established that the sin and impossibility of humanity is epistemological impossibility; he is completely unable to ascend to God, indeed, the more he ascends intellectually the more certainly he will be unable to reach God. If for Kierkegaard the nature of sin is fundamentally an epistemological impossibility, then soteriology is fundamentally an epistemological possibility created externally. Rose says, “There is therefore an intrinsic link between this subject and Kierkegaard’s soteriology, and it is impossible to separate these two topics in his thought” (Rose 45).

            Kierkegaard does not resist the blows of Kant, but rather lets the limits of reason be clearly shown in Climacus’ writings, and then rebuilds the legitimacy of Christian faith by pointing to the Incarnation of Jesus, the teacher and teaching. Salvation is not achieved through an intellectual ascent of man; it happens externally through the reality of the person and work of Godman Jesus, the revelation of God. 

Believing in Jesus: Thoughts on How to Fight Pride

"Ain't no killer like pride / no killer like "I" / no killer like what's inside" - Switchfoot

The biblical narrative seems to reveal sin as fundamentally born from selfishness and pride. Sin is to tell God, "I got this, I don't need you anymore..." or "I think I know how to live my life best."

In pride and selfishness, Adam and Eve chose their own way over God's way. In pride and selfishness, Cain killed Abel. In pride and selfishness, humanity attempted to build a tower to heaven. These all exemplify a rejection of God's way, a stepping outside of relationship with God, a turning our backs on God and doing things our own way. Mankind has been trying to build a tower to heaven ever since. We do this through visiting pornographic websites, through drunkenness, through cheating on tests, through stealing, through settling for crappy relationships, etc. These are all towers to heaven, a way around God's way to pleasure. And all of these are fueled by selfishness and pride. 

In the prophets, the vast variety of the sin and idolatry of the nations are summed up in their loftiness, pride, arrogance, haughtiness of heart, false boasts, etc. 

In the New Testament it is the pharisees who are the bad guys, not necessarily because of things we would describe as abominations, but because of their pride and self-righteousness. Because the pharisees are confident in their own righteousness, they pridefully reject the love of God poured out in Jesus. 

There is no sin that does not amount to a prideful rejection of the grace of Jesus. 

Jars of Clay describes the Christian life as "the battle between grace and pride" in their song "World's Apart." 

Time and time again Israel believes that they do not need Yahweh, and they turn to other sources of pleasure and security. In pride and selfishness, they believe that they are able to be sustained without the help of Yahweh. The process of sanctification and exile functions to humble Israel, so that they are freed from their pride and arrogance and return to Yahweh in humility.

Jonathan Edwards called pride God's greatest enemy. 

Pride is pervasive. It plagues our whole life. 

"I'm so filthy with my sin / I carry pride like a disease." 

And pride is impossible to overcome. Once we make any progress in humility we are immediately aware of it, then it's back to square one. 

How do we avoid this? Pride is impossible.

I feel frustrated and helpless when a time of pouring my heart out in joy to Jesus is quickly converted into the simple thought, "I bet people would really think I'm great if they realized how much I love Jesus..."

Pride surges through my mind as I write. My devotional times incessantly go back and forth between legitimately finding joy in Jesus and realizing this legitimacy, which ironically cripples the joy in self-centeredness. 

The truth is that I am just obsessed with myself. And whether or not I am secretly trying to convince you of my humility in this note is not the point. The point is that the statement is objectively true regardless of my subjective motivations. I am just obsessed with myself. Fact. 

However, it is also objectively true that Jesus still loves me.

Simply put, even if I am motivated by pride to proclaim how much Jesus loves me in spite of my pride, it is nevertheless still true that he loves me. 

And that's the only hope we have to ever overcome our pride. 

"Let my foolish pride forever let me down" - Switchfoot