What am I rambling on about? Well the anti-sacred might best be analyzed by looking at the Scandinavian black metal movement from the 1990s. The musical genre of metal had taken a new turn with Quorthon and his "band" Bathory, which explored the genre in new territories. Essentially Quorthon created a style of music, black metal (though the name comes from the band Venom), that was faster, heavier, and more distorted than ever. The vocals were inhuman screeching and screams, which more or less created a musical movement that was "evil." It turned metal into the very thing it was classified as: the "devil's music." Many bands followed this style, such as Emperor, Mayhem, Immortal, et cetera, and they gained a large following. It was, and still is, a very anti-Christian genre (one of my favorite genres, but not for any religious reasons), with large influences from Satanism, particularly LaVeyan Satanism.
Like any movement they rebelled against the standard, namely Christianity. They embraced much of their Norse Pagan roots, utilized anti-Christian symbols (inverted crosses, pentagrams, baphomets), and committed many crimes. One of the most notoriously popular crimes to commit was burning down churches. Whatever their disagreement with Christianity was, Lucifer became a powerful symbol of rebellion. Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, describes Lucifer in much the same light: a symbol of power, wisdom, and rebellion against the norm. But while "Satan" might be taken literally as the the Prince of Hell and the rebel to God's Light, LaVeyan Satanist really don't believe in any entity called Lucifer. They don't believe in God, and if there is no God, then how could there be a Satan? Point of fact Lucifer is a symbol for breaking the bonds of slavery with Christianity. Lucifer is seen as a symbol of freedom and human expression, whereby Satanists can embrace "sins" as very human traits that should not be shunned, namely the seven deadly sins. The seven deadly sins make us happy, and that is the goal: to be happy. Of course there are sins in Satanism, such as murder, which takes away another person's ability to be happy and do what they want.
Given this background we can start to look at the church burnings by black metal artists and fans, such as Count Grishnackh (Burzum) and Sammoth, as expressions of power and releasing oneself from slavery. These are all acts of humanistic experience, by which these people felt freed from religious slavery. By humanistic experience I mean they were embracing what it means to be human by throwing off the chains of what is viewed as Christian oppression. While Satanism might be seen as a humanist movement, LaVey wanted it to be a religion, which is why Lucifer is treated as a very real entity, while still maintaining Lucifer a symbol.
So the question here is this: is the anti-sacred (church burnings, Satanic rituals) a spiritual experience? If Satanism is a religion, which it very much is, then these "sacrilegious" acts are only a different form of sacrality. So, yes, what the Satanists and black metal artists from the 90s did was, to them, a sort of sacred act. But "sacred" here should be viewed liberally. Given their views, beliefs, and their acts against sacred places, they would be more inclined to accept it as "anti-sacred." But both the sacred and the anti-sacred are reaching for some sort of religious experience. Ihsahn from Emperor never burned churches, but he did feel that burning churches was a religious expression and a very powerful symbol of being human.
Let me finish with a person justification. I do not support one view or another. I neither agree nor disagree with the church burnings, though I am at odds with the burning of the Fontoft Stave Church, built in 1150 CE, and burned by Count Grishnackh. But on the other hand, I believe people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, and express their religious beliefs. But murdering a homosexual (Faust from Emperor), or murdering a band member (Count Grishnackh), or even burning churches... I can't agree with the murders, but I see no justification for either the sacred or the anti-sacred being more correct than the other. I can't agree of disagree, because it is all based on slippery definitions of belief and expression (something every person is entitled to). I only want to present the anti-sacred as an equally valid expression of personal belief and religion experience.
"Slaves are those of this world who are free to lay their chains upon the master."
~Emperor
No comments:
Post a Comment