By: Michael Francisco

27 May 2003 Truthless Heroes: Extended Analysis A deeper look at Truthless Heroes, Project 86 and their websites

The Evangel Society's initial review of Truthless Heroes generated discussion on the band's message board and inspired numerous, extensive e-mails from disconcerted Project 86 fans. Some aspects of our review are in need of clarification, while others need embellishment. What follows are some extensions and revisions of our thoughts on the methodology of Project 86's new album and the questionable Christianity of their music.

Christian individuals or Christian music?

Despite our best intentions to avoid questioning the personal Christian lives of Project 86 band members, many of our readers have criticized us for exactly this error. Let me make this point clear: the Evangel Society has not called into question the Christian faith of Andrew Schwab or any other member of Project 86. Such a judgment would be very un-Christian. That having been said, we do question the Christian reputation of the music produced by Project 86. There is a great difference between calling certain types of music Christian and calling certain people Christians. [For an extended explanation of different types of Christian music please see Keith's recent article.] In short, we do not find that the content of Truthless Heroes in any way distinguishes the work as Christian. If "Christian music" is a term that can be applied to a piece without prior knowledge of the artist's faith, this album fails to be Christian.

Claiming that the music itself is not Christian should not be a controversial claim. Andrew Schwab makes it clear in several different postings on the message board that he does not consider their most recent album to be Christian (he views this as a positive factor: I disagree). Andrew Schwab says:

This album's message is not directly spiritual in any way, but it is about the means through which we, as humans SEARCH for meaning...it is an album about means and consequences, not necessarily the right ones, but I had to write what I saw and felt around me. (message board posting, emphasis original)

It should be clear that Schwab does not consider the new album to be Christian (the merits of the album's "search for meaning" content will be discussed later). Schwab also says in several places that the band should not be considered a "religious band," by which he appears to mean that the band does not produce Christian music. In fact, in spite of the faith of the members of the band, Schwab says, "We are not a Christian band, though many of our fans have found deep spiritual connection to our songs" (message board posting).

When we first set out to review Truthless Heroes, we were unaware of the band's statements on their website. It now seems clear that Project 86 is open about not being a Christian band. The band not longer wanted to be associated with a "Christian Label," and accordingly left Tooth and Nail.

Subjective Interpretation of Music

Despite these actions, many reviewers of Truthless Heroes see fit to give a very Christian interpretation of the album. Their reiterated theme is that Project 86 presents the vacuous nature of the material world around us-the spiritual darkness—and this emptiness leads the listener to Christ. The problem with this interpretation is that people are in no way pushed or obligated to discover some spiritual Christian meaning in the story. Andrew Schwab makes it clear that some may find spiritual meaning, and that's fine, but it is also acceptable when people find no spiritual meaning to the work. Schwab writes, "If you find God inside of our music that should be all that matters. If you don't then that's fine too. Each person comes from their own place in life. That place is personal, my personal life will always be personal, not public." (message board posting) His view of music is highly subjective:

We also do not feel the need to justify the records we create by explaining what we were thinking when we wrote them. That would rob all of you of the right to YOUR OWN IMAGINATION. Again, we are a band that believes in allowing that art and music speak, while we are in the background. And by the very nature of the beast, music is a SUBJECTIVE experience. It always has been to me. If someone gets something spiritual out of it, that is amazing...we have definitely written about spiritual topics in the past, and may very well in the future.(message board posting, emphasis original)

Further, I object to this predominantly negative (critical) album because I believe that Christians should provide some answers for critical listeners. If finding a spiritual message is simply acceptable and not the primary goal of the music, then the music is doing a poor service to Christ's kingdom. If one merely raises questions and then refuses to offer answers (as Project 86 has done), then there is no assurance that the listener will be moved in any way to the true answer to these problems. Christians must have higher standards for their artwork that subjectivity. The apostles did not present the Gospel as a possible interpretation, they presented it as the only option. The problem is that fans can "find" whatever they want in music. A "spiritual experience" is not by definition a good one, or a Godly one—there are spirits with whom we should have no business.

It may be tempting here to misconstrue my objection into a"You require a song to include a quota of Jesus references to be Christian" argument, but this is not the case. Christians can and should make criticisms of the society we live in, but these criticisms must always draw the listener toward Christianity. Cultural criticisms in a vacuum are not Christian. For Christians to criticize culture, their work must be different from the cultural criticisms of Rage Against the Machine or other secular critics.

Shock Statements or Pornography?

In the many responses to our review of Truthless Heroes, most of the band's fans seem to agree that we have missed the boat by calling the "fashion" page semi-pornographic. The astute have pointed out that the material is intended to make a statement, and not to incite lust. Such a distinction misses the point of our objection. We referred to the page as first obscene, and then semi-pornographic. The second definition in the Oxford English Dictionary of obscene, "2. Offensive to modesty or decency; expressing or suggesting unchaste or lustful ideas; impure, indecent, lewd," aptly describes the "fashion" page. We never claimed that the creators of the "fashion" page intended to incite lust in the viewer. The page does, however, violate Christian decency.

The method of communication is intentionally shocking: depicting women with revealing clothing, and then mutilating them or posting messages on them. The page certainly gets a point across that women are being objectified in society, but at what cost? The art form itself depicts women in a degrading manner, a manner inconsistent with Christian modesty or respect for the female body. Does a follower of Christ send the right message to the world by displaying purposefully offensive material to get a point across? We think not. The "fashion" page falls in to the same traps as the "Piss Christ" art of a few years ago that was almost universally condemned by Christians.

In short, we completely understand the point that Project 86 aimed to convey though the "fashion" page, but the methods they employed are patently un-Christian. The material has a high likelihood to cause your brother to stumble, a contingency that the Apostle Paul identifies for Christians to guard against (1 Cor. 10:32). Young teenage boys are one of the primary audiences of rock, therefore even more caution should be exercised. It may be true that more spiritually mature Christians could look at the "fashion" page and not lust, but many who see the page will lust. Furthermore, there is a Biblical mandate to think on those things that are right, pure, and lovely (Phil. 4:8). The fashion page fits none of these criteria. Christians ought not demean women, even to make a valid social criticism. What seems to be ignored in this shock statement is that the medium does dictate the message. In short, this page unfortunately exhibits an extreme lack of Christian discernment.

Criticize the Wrong Problems

Our first review of Truthless Heroes made it clear that the band believes the government has conspired to some degree with the media to indoctrinate people. It can almost be said that Project 86 subscribes to a Orwellian view of America, where the media propaganda forces people to lose their individuality. Unfortunately, this criticism (one of the main points of the album) does not accurately reflect reality.

There is not grand media conspiracy to offer propaganda justifying the war on terrorism, or the war on Iraq. Anyone who reads the New York Times editorial page (or their front page for that matter) should have no problem discerning the diversity of views in the media. Anyone who follows the talking heads of T.V. will know that people on all sides of the position frequently air out their views. Many of the hottest recent books have argued for a liberal bias in the media (Slander and Bias), which would mitigate the view of many linked influences of Project 86 that the media is serving us propaganda so we will support the war. Another recent book by Eric Alterman argues that the media is not controlled by liberals, but is unduly influenced by conservatives (What Liberal Media?). What all these books agree on is that there is no broad consensus in the media. Peter Jennings and Rush Limbaugh are at odds, and thus unable to deliver homogeneous propaganda.

Further, Project 86 also makes a striking criticism of the practice of using Christianity for marketing. (This likely refers to the band's previous experience as a Christian band and the associated marketing techniques.) I agree with much of this sentiment, that Christianity ought not be used as a marketing tool. However, it appears that Project 86 has gone too far in rejecting Christianity as a public phenomenon. Several different statements of Andrew Schwab make it clear that he no longer feels that he should make any statements about Christianity publicly:

In terms of my personal Christian beliefs, as well as the band's, we believe that they are much too important to us to simply post on a public forum or in an interview; they are much too deep to be trivialized. I could say "I believe in the same God as you" or "I don't believe in the same God as you" and what it would come down to is semantics. I know that this is a different approach than we took earlier in our career, but it is something that has become more and more apparent to us in our own hearts and convictions. (message board posting)

Then again:

We, as artists, don't believe that every person who likes our music has a right to know the details of our daily lives. And that's what personal beliefs and faith comes down to, not what I SAY publicly. The truth is, you could never really know if my life backs up the things that I say. All you would ever be able to do is assume...I guess this is a big way that we have changed. (message board posting)

And here:

That is the most I will say...faith is about your personal relationship with the creator and how you live your life and treat others...not about public figures or stars making loud statements and proclamations. That is not faith...that is propaganda...that is nothing but a straw man telling his public what they want to hear to sell a product. That is not us...though recent history shows that "spiritual" bands sell records... (message board posting)

And finally:

Frankly, I have just come to the conclusion that the idea of sharing your faith through the media is an oxymoron. That is one of the primary themes of this record. These ideas of "self promotion" and "record sales" have nothing to do with what we have learned about our faith over these past years. (message board posting)

All of these statements argue that faith is a personal matter that cannot be honestly expressed in the public sphere. Schwab opposes the belief that Christians should be constantly evangelizing and quoting scripture, and instead he opts never to mention the Christian faith. The scriptural examples all point to a public faith, not a private one. Christ certainly spoke out, even when it was unpopular or when he was misunderstood. Obviously, actions do speak louder than words, but refusing to use words is a reaction that goes too far in the other direction. Even though public declarations of faith are often deceiving it is not justified to refuse to make any public statements of faith. Such a frequent failing should instead call for bands to live lives that fit with their declarations of faith.

Thinking Critically vs. Thinking Clearly

Most of those defending Project 86 point to the fact that Project 86, to their credit, supports critical thinking about the album. This is good, but only as a first step. Critical thinking is only beneficial to the Christian if the Christian thinks critically and finds the right answers. The ultimate aim should be clear thinking, not merely questioning the existing order. Communists often think critically, as well as many other atheists and non-Christians. The measure should be how much clear thinking comes from the influence of Truthless Heroes, not how many people ponder the domination of billboards across America. In this way, I hope our first review and this essay will serve as a challenge to Andrew Schwab and the highly-skilled Project 86 to strive for clear Christian thinking instead of the frequently hollow cultural criticisms they currently support. This distinction helps explain why I find the "911 DIG DEEP" page so un-impressive. So many of the websites linked to are interesting, very counter-cultural, but very few demonstrate clear thinking. I am a critical thinker, and enough of one to know that the Israeli's did not mastermind the terrorists attacks (several of the links made this argument). These links are not justified merely because they provide an alternate framework on politics, for there are many different views of politics and not all of them are correct.

In conclusion, we continue to praise the musical excellence of Truthless Heroes, while maintaining that this album should not be considered a Christian album. We do not aim to tear down fellow brothers in Christ, but to raise Biblical concerns about the content of their artwork and call for discernment. We hope that some of these criticisms are taken to heart by the band (particularly those about the obscene content of the "fashion" page), but until these issues are redressed Christians should treat Truthless Heroes as merely secular music devoid of Christian or spiritual content.

Feedback? Please e-mail us with your response to our review