In our culture today, there seems to be a blurred line between what is deemed obscene and acceptable; offensive or artistic. Particularly with Christianity, it’s almost as if people attack those who believe in God, or adhere to a Christian form of worship. In music, movies, television, and especially social media, Christianity is mocked, and worship of the Devil is pushed into the spotlight. Christians need to consider if this is the direction our culture should go.
Lil Nas X’s new music video for his song “Montero” not only sparked controversy, but opened a window into the status of our culture. Lil Nas X is seen pole dancing into Hell, dancing suggestively on the Devil, and using Biblical references such as the Garden of Eden in the song’s lyrics. The music video was released on the eve of Holy Week for Christians, which raises the question how others would react if he were to do the same for other religions.
Lil Nas X provided not only a music video sexualizing Satan, but shoes in partnership with the brand MSCHF. The Satan shoes are a pair of Nike Air Max 97’s created by MSCHF, but not affiliated with the brand Nike. Nike is currently in the midst of a lawsuit with MSCHF over copyright infringement since Nike itself did not work with Lil Nas X on the shoe. MSCHF released 666 pairs on their website, and despite the $1018 cost, every single pair was sold out in less than a minute.
Nike’s lawsuit against MSCHF was out of concern for the use of their logo, and their desire to dissociate from Lil Nas X and his Satan shoes. The soles of the shoes contain a drop of human blood mixed with black ink. According to The Daily Wire, Nike explained on social media that they “do not have a relationship with Lil Nas or MSCHF. Nike did not design or release these shoes and we do not endorse them.”
The entertainment industry has always championed taboo or eccentric qualities, such as Lady GaGa’s meat dress about a decade ago or the energetic theatrics of Queen’s Freddy Mercury. However, there is a line when the scale of culture has tipped so far that the most extreme forms of expression are seen as acceptable.
Christians and conservatives are not merely complaining about a sexual music video, or Satanic shoes. A clear shift in culture is happening right in front of us, and that is the concern being raised.
Political analyst Joseph P. Overton created what is called the Overton Window; a spectrum laying out the order in which ideas move from radical to completely normal. The Overton Window begins with the unthinkable, shifts to radical, and finally to acceptable. Although it is a theory that compartmentalizes how a society views public policy, the Overton Window in practice can be applied to the general culture.
The Overton Window moves from side to side, and throughout history there has been a gradual progression on the spectrum. Based on Lil Nas X’s new video, it seems the needle is moving quite fast towards radical ideas becoming normalized.
Author Billy Hallowell expressed in an interview with The Federalist Radio that this represents, “the slip into apathy, this spiritual apathy, this feeling that either this stuff isn’t real or we just don’t care about it.” Christians should not be ashamed to state their concerns and go against what is “popular” or trendy. Fight the trends if it means sticking with your values.
The desire to be apathetic to religion and spirituality, especially that of the Christian faith, while simultaneously brushing off the significance of this cultural shift, is hurting us. It is not the time to be passive as a Christian. Morale will be lost when apathy takes hold.
Lil Nas X’s shoes and song symbolize the acceptance of the absence of faith, and presence of the unthinkable. The Overton Window scale will tip again with time.
In a Tweet from Lil Nas X, he states, “I literally sing about lean & adultery in old town road. u decided to let your child listen. blame yourself.”
The problem is not just the parents allowing their children to listen to the music, but it is the culture. This type of entertainment is readily accessible to children. Children are the target audience for anything that changes the culture, whether Lil Nas wants to acknowledge this or not.
The irony in Lil Nas X’s Tweet is him admitting to singing about drugs and cheating on your partner, then blaming others for “letting their children listen to it.” Take responsibility for the content you create.
Although Lil Nas X completely avoids personal responsibility for his music and rhetoric, Christians should strive to take the high road. Lil Nas X deflects and pushes the responsibility on parents, knowing full well the impact of music on a culture.
We have a responsibility as well, to recognize our involvement in allowing this to happen. Taking ownership of our cultural leniency and pitfalls as Christians brings us to the realization that we are not perfect, and can always improve.
Continue to take personal responsibility, be honest if the cultural shift makes you hesitant to stay with trends, and encourage your friends to do the same. We will lose the natural progression of the Overton Window only if we give up.
First I’ve gotta say something about your “theory”:
The Overton Window cannot be applied to obscenity. Saying it won’t make it so. And even if it did, it is literally designed to objectively describe human behavior, so human behavior cannot be deemed “unnatural” under it. It’s like saying a squirrel eating acorns is unnatural.
Anyway, I always thought we conservatives opposed cancel culture, but I guess not when free speech offends us.
Let’s take a moment and think about some of the people who stood outside of your personal narrow Overton Window, which seems to be bounded by respect for Christianity and modesty in sexual expression.
– Michelangelo
– Edouard Manet
– Henri Matisse
– Paul Cezanne
– Pablo Picasso
– Galileo Galilei
– Thomas Jefferson
– Thomas Paine
– Friedrich Nietzsche
– Ayn Rand
– Richard Dawkins
– Stephen Hawking
– Albert Einstein
– Billy Joel
– Rolling Stones
– The Beatles
– Elvis’ hips
– Many, many movies
Imagine where the world would be if your ideas had their way! Our art, literature, philosophy, and science would be devastated. Maybe the video and shoes offend you. So what? Should we oppose speech based on whether or not it offends someone? Isn’t that a future we are trying to avoid?
I hope I never live in a world where we have your definitions for what speech is “acceptable”, “radical”, and “unthinkable”. On the other hand, I await that shift of your misapplied window to where absence of faith is the norm and where people are freethinkers. That’s a cultural shift I’ll gladly be a part of.
You say you hope to create dialogue, so as your fellow interlocutor, I request that you defend your ideas and attack mine.
All the best.
I think it’s telling that I found more value and depth in this comment than in the article itself.