Skip to main content

When Men Become Animals

    Pop music of the last decade is not particularly known for its excellent songwriting.  Still, some of the lyrics that have graced our airwaves are especially appalling and revealing.  Take these lyrics from Nickelback's charting hit "Animals."

No, we're not gonna quit,
Ain't nothing wrong with it,
Just acting like we're animals,
No, no matter where we go,
'Cause everybody knows,
We're just a couple animals.

How profound!  The depth of meaning is outdone only by the potency of the rhymes.  Let's look at a similar song.  Take Maroon 5's super original song, "Animals."

Baby, I'm preying on you tonight,
Hunt you down eat you alive,
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals.

This recapitulation of this oft-repeated theme at least features some repetition, which allowed it to become ubiquitous for longer than it deserved to be.  "Hungry Like The Wolf" (Maroon 5's "Animals" was clearly inspired by this tune) by Duran Duran is another classic song that would fit this category.  These three songs are actually pretty tame compared to some of the songs that feature this concept and/or similar lyrics.  "Closer" by Nine Inch Nails (I wouldn't recommend looking it up) actually goes by that name because the main line in the chorus is not radio friendly.  Over and over again we see musicians, usually men, comparing themselves to brute beasts.

    What's worse is that these comparisons serve to the glorify animal-like behavior.  This pattern illustrates the modern attitude that we have towards ourselves in relation to the universe.  We are no more than animals.  We may be more evolved, but we are qualitatively the same as our forebears. Musicians, known for bucking rules, take this thought process to its logical conclusion.  If we are no more than animals, then let's act like it!  Their nihilism and hedonism are displayed in lifestyles that feature philandering, drug abuse, and instability.  The result is that the rockstar lifestyle has become synonymous with living in and for the moment.

    Entertainment usually reveals (as opposed to influencing) the attitudes of the masses.  As we look around at our culture we see this to be true.  Generations of those who have been taught that they are mere accidents in the history of a vicious evolutionary struggle have begun to live that way.  Private property is no longer respected.  The sanctity of human sexuality is violated.  Morality as a general category is being dismissed.  All these pale in comparison to the ultimate sign of a culture that has abandoned itself to its base animal instincts--the uniqueness and importance of human life is ignored. Abortion obviously demonstrates this, but the violence in the streets does, too.  People kill other human beings carelessly and with few repercussions.  Our cities are war zones.  Blood stains our streets and we are no longer even shocked.  

    This is nothing new.  It has been the consistent story of mankind.  "Progress" has made no difference.  We can simply kill more efficiently.  Societies that deny the image of God in man have no basis for protecting and valuing life.  Genocide, slavery, and racism ensue.  After all, if survival of the fittest is the way of the world, how can we judge someone for being more evolved than his counterpart?  Our only hope is to pave a new path.  We must recognize God's image in our fellow man.  There is no other way to build a lasting, peaceful society.  Such a society has never really been seen.  The Bible, however, promises us that there will be a day when nations turn their weapons of war into instruments of agriculture (Micah 4:3).  Human progress has no power to effect this change, nor do the U.N. and other international bodies with their intrusive policies and impotent sanctions. Only the Gospel, along with its understanding of who we are in relation to God and each other, has the power to make war obsolete.

            


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...