As we approach the second anniversary of the Rock and Theology blog, I have been thinking about the approaches we have been taking to the topic so far. Speaking for my own contributions, I am aware that the kinds of things I have been writing might be different from what some might expect for a blog at the intersection of “rock” and “theology.”

There are many potential ways into this intersection, because theology is such a diverse discipline, and rock no less a multifaceted genre. Early on, it was clear to me that at any rate, we would probably have to be writing not only about rock and theology, but about “rock culture” and “theological culture,” because so much of what we might want to say would have to do with what we had learned of theology and music in our particular contexts, and because rock is best understood not only as isolated sounds, artists, or songs, but as a complex culture or set of overlapping cultures. The same, I would argue, goes for theology. It is not reducible to or even most adequately characterized as various “schools of thought” or “traditions of ideas,” but as concepts and practices taught and learned in theological cultures for various culture-dependent purposes and with specific culture dependent effects.

This is why readers will rarely see me, for example, try to clinch the theological sense of a lyric by an invocation of a biblical verse, traditional doctrine, or catechetical teaching. The field for the production of what is meaningful at the intersection of rock and theology is more complicated than that, as both everyday life and academic scholarship confirm. In face of this complexity, I am aware after two years here that I tend more than ever to write in the vein of philosophical or fundamental theology, or philosophy of religion. Or more specifically, philosophical/fundamental theology of practice, or philosophy of religious practice. By these veins, I mean the kind of theological writing that looks at the ground for claims about religious or theological practice (or, correlatively, about musical experience).

In principle, this approach is open to all interlocutors who advance claims about religious, theological and musical practice and experience. This renders me not uninterested in biblical quotations, but rather in why we appeal to scripture and what makes such an appeal compelling in this kind of situation. The bottom line, as it were, is to do a kind of theological analysis of popular music that is theologically literate, reflexive, and open to all conversation partners without a premature closure due to unduly privileged religious language or experience. I probably still reserve the right to unironically drop Jesus into a meditation on Galaxy of Tar or Thomas Dolby, but it is a right I will rarely exercise. Having said this, any number of approaches may be and are taken by other theologians to this rock-theology intersection, including other contributors to Rock and Theology. That is very well and good! I am often mistaken.

Tom Beaudoin
New York City

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree