Blogger Template by Blogcrowds

Thursday, November 19, 2009

I Want To Be In the Light

“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” - Romans 7:15

Every now and then I get smacked over the head with some Truth. This morning, the Truth holding the baseball bat was that I have a problem with sin. We have a problem with sin in this world. No, this isn’t a post about how sinful the world is, and how we’re all going to hell, it’s about how sin, when confessed, can be the biggest hope for change we will ever experience. Between hearing today’s My Utmost for His Highest and actually listening to the lyrics of Charlie Peacock’s “In The Light” on my way to work today, I’m feeling pretty convicted of my own selfishness and sin. Now before any of my friends who aren’t believers see this as one more example of how Christianity tries to make people feel guilty, let me just ask that you put aside that assumption and hear me out. Honestly, being convicted of my own sinful nature is the only thing that has ever brought about true, lasting, healthy change in my life. Being convicted of my selfishness forces me to turn to God - run to him, even - and away from my own self-destructive tendencies.

Anyone who has tried to lose weight only to fall off the sugar wagon, or tried to be more disciplined with finances only to spend too much on Amazon one sleepless night, or tried to get rid of a toxic relationship only to be drawn back into the same patterns over and over again knows that change comes so hard to us. Yes, we can overcome hardship, and will evolve and grow naturally over time, but it takes a lot of effort, and a lot of failure, and a lot of persistent will on our own. But with God, change is not only possible, it’s required. The One who loves us so much that He died to be near us wants nothing more than any true lover would want for their love - for them to be transformed for the better by the renewing of their mind - in the way they see, God, the world, and themselves . We can do this by coming to terms with our sin.

So, on sin: I can’t say it any better than Oswald Chambers did this morning. I think this message really struck me because it’s so radically different that what I tend to hear from Christian culture— ‘God forgives because He loves!’ Well, according to Mr. Chambers, God is not that simple, nor that easy:

“Very few of us know anything about conviction of sin. We know the experience of being disturbed because we have done wrong things. But conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit blots out every relationship on earth and makes us aware of only one— "Against You, You only, have I sinned . . ." (Psalm 51:4). When a person is convicted of sin in this way, he knows with every bit of his conscience that God would not dare to forgive him. If God did forgive him, then this person would have a stronger sense of justice than God. God does forgive, but it cost the breaking of His heart with grief in the death of Christ to enable Him to do so. The great miracle of the grace of God is that He forgives sin, and it is the death of Jesus Christ alone that enables the divine nature to forgive and to remain true to itself in doing so. It is shallow nonsense to say that God forgives us because He is love. Once we have been convicted of sin, we will never say this again. The love of God means Calvary - nothing less! The love of God is spelled out on the Cross and nowhere else. The only basis for which God can forgive me is the Cross of Christ. It is there that His conscience is satisfied.

Forgiveness doesn’t merely mean that I am saved from hell and have been made ready for heaven (no one would accept forgiveness on that level). Forgiveness means that I am forgiven into a newly created relationship which identifies me with God in Christ. The miracle of redemption is that God turns me, the unholy one, into the standard of Himself, the Holy One. He does this by putting into me a new nature, the nature of Jesus Christ.”


So you see? Sin isn’t there to make us feel guilty – well, it is, but it doesn’t end there. Sin is there to allow us to be transformed! When one is convicted of sin, not just “experiencing being disturbed because we have done wrong things”, it causes change. We run to God, who already died for us, and are forgiven. In forgiveness there is redemption, and we can become new.

So how does the Charlie Peacock song fit in? Well, take a look at the lyrics:

I keep trying to find a life
On my own apart from You
I am the king of excuses
I've got one for every selfish thing I do

What's going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicion
That I'm still a soul in need of a savior

CHORUS
I wanna be in the light
As you are in the light
I wanna shine like the
stars in the heavens
O Lord be my light
And be my salvation
All I want is to be in the light
All I want is to be in the light

VERSE 2
This disease of self runs through my blood
It's a cancer fatal to my soul
Every attempt on my behalf has failed
To bring this sickness under control

What's going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicion
That I'm still a soul in need of a savior

I must have heard this song a hundred times before. It was made famous by DC Talk on their Jesus Freak album in 1995, and it still has me toe tapping and singing along to the catchy, upbeat radio version. But I think today was the first time I really stopped and listened. “I keep trying to find a life on my own, apart from you…This disease of self runs through my soul…every attempt on my behalf has failed to bring this sickness under control…this only serves to confirm my suspicion that I’m still a soul in need of a Savior…” My God! Not only does conviction of sin bring about my renewal, but it also keeps me reliant on my Lord and Savior! How miserable a person would I be if I was forgiven once when I accepted Christ, and was so convinced of my own worthiness after that that I could do no wrong? I would have no need of God or Christ, I would be like a god, self-sufficient and separate from the One True God. The miracle of Christ’s death and subsequent grace for our sin is that “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8) and that every time we sin, if we run back to Him, His death is still sufficient and His grace covers us again. In fact, the Bible says that “The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 5:20-6:4) We are allowed to sin so that His grace might reign in us, so that we can have a new life. How awesome is that?!?

And again, sin isn’t God’s way of just ‘making people feel guilty!’ How we respond to that awful, uncomfortable feeling we get when we know we’ve done wrong is up to us. Take a look at what happened to the two disciples who directly betrayed Jesus on the night He was arrested. Both Judas and Peter were told that they would betray Jesus, and both of them did. But the difference between their reactions to their betrayal is huge:

“When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.” (Matthew 27: 3-5)

“The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly.” (Luke 22: 61-62) Then Peter ran back to the fellowship of the disciples, and when Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them told the apostles about Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was the only one who “got up and ran to the tomb” (Luke 24:12) when no one else believed the women.
One betrayer ran away, one ran to Jesus. One was lost to sin and despair, and death, and one went on to become a great Church planter for Christ. How we deal with our sin, the sin that is our inheritance, is up to us. God doesn’t use sin to make us feel guilty, as if guilt were His end unto itself. If we lose ourselves in guilt, we will be consumed by it, and it will be our end. I believe with all my heart that if Judas had gone to God instead of seeking solitude, God would have lifted him up. How can I believe this, when Judas was the ‘ultimate betrayer’? Because God makes it clear that whenever we sin, we put Jesus on that cross, and yet He forgives us daily. If we choose to acknowledge our sinfulness and run to Him to confess it, He will make us greater than ever before, so that His glory may be known through us.

And so I say that we have a problem with sin in this world. We have so white washed the definition of sin that it’s lost all its power to convict. We have so blurred the lines between right and wrong with moral relativism - usually to save our own butts by not offending anyone - that people are drowning in a world where everything is permissible. But we know that not everything is beneficial. If you hear noting else in this tirade of mine, hear this: this is not a call to Christians to reform the world by pointing the finger at others’ sin. Remember that Paul said in his letter to the Corinthians “what business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13) We are called to look inside not only our own churches, but inside ourselves, and come to terms with our own sin. Take the planks out of our own eye, and all that. We have a problem with sin in this world because we are no longer taught how to a) recognize it in ourselves, and b) how to deal with it when we do. We look for things to distract us, or talk to our friends and look for reassurance, instead of getting on our knees before God and admitting that we’ve fallen short, and can’t do this on our own. And He promises that he will lift us up, into the light, which is where He is. And where I want to be.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Logan (yes, THAT Logan)

So I've been MIA for a while. Things have started to amp up around casa knitmetogether; we're hosting the high school Bible study in our home, and holiday plans are starting to take over our lives (in a good way). Plus, there's a new addition to our household! Hubby and I adopted a puppy this past Sunday! Well, he's not really a puppy, he's a two year old Shih Tzu Poodle. But at thirteen pounds he looks like a puppy and definitely acts like a puppy, so it's hard not to call him one. Meet our Logan!

Don't worry, this isn't going to turn into one of THOSE blogs, where the blogger gets a pet and all of a sudden all she can write about is her new baby. But as the daughter of an allergic mother (and an allergy sufferer myself) I've never owned a four-legged pet before, and feel I'm entitled to one bragging post.

We adopted him from Doggie Protective Service, an organization based out of Southern California who does adoption events in NorCal. I highly recommend them. They post photos and usually videos of their available dogs online, so you get a great idea of the dogs' personality before you meet them. They really know their stuff with breeds (which is really important if you're an allergic household like we are) and provide a lot of support for adopting families. The lovely staff at Pet Food Express (where the adoption was held) was incredibly knowledgeable, personable, and helpful. Plus, we got a 20% discount on our purchases for our adopted pet on adoption day! Our pooch came neutered, tagged, microchipped, vaccinated, flea-treated, and groomed. And did I mention that he's ridiculously cute? Every time I make a howling noise to get him to look at the camera he makes this face. I swear, seven howls, seven identical photos. So cute!


Logan has fit so seamlessly into our home, it's a miracle. We heard so many stories prior to adopting about his wild ways and how little training he has, but he's Mr. Mellow around us! Not that he's not an energetic little teenager who thinks he's six months old when it's playtime, but he's very chill out in the evening, after some play. Yesterday my knitting friends came over to meet him and he chilled out on the rug, or entertained himself with his giraffe rope (a gift from my lovely co-workers in HR) while we had a nice visit.

He's already learning to sit, to stay (kind of), to heel on a leash, and has had no accidents inside! I know, I know, we're spoiled rotten. He took to his crate right away, though we need to work with him on going to bed when we want him to, instead of on his whims. He's done great in our car without a crate, which is awesome because we want to be able to take him places with us, and his crate won't easily fit in my teeny back seat. Hubbs is over the moon about him, especially since he chose Aaron's name as his own (we were tied on two names - we liked both but each had our favorite, so I wrote them on tennis balls and threw them to our puppy. Logan didn't even pay attention to the other name/ball). Score one for the Hubbs!


And yes, Logan did get his name after the X-men character. Logan is Wolverine's real name, and while our pooch bears no resemblance to the scary comic anti-hero, the name does strangely fit him. So we're happy with Logan, and his collar with embroidered name will be here soon! More pictures below (for those of you who just can't get enough).



















Thursday, October 8, 2009

Cassiopeia

Some of you may have heard that I've decided to finally enter the world of uber-geekdom, and declare my love for the world created by J.K. Rowling by joining the Hogwarts at Ravelry Group on Ravelry. (Note: if you're not a Rav member, you won't be able to follow the group link. Sorry.) Basically, some phenomenally creative people decided to re-create the make believe world of Hogwarts in the Ravelry forums, where members get sorted into houses, can 'take classes' and earn house points by completing homework and knitting/crochet projects. There's a lot more to it, and you can apparently be as involved as you like, but that's the main gist of things.

I, of course, have been sorted into Ravenclaw, the best and cleverest of houses. (btw, did you know there was a Harry Potter Wiki? I totally didn't before now.) And I absolutely love the homework given by this term's astronomy class, so that's the one I'm doing. The first assignment is to select one planet or celestial body and describe it on my blog. I chose the constellation Cassiopeia, mostly because it's been my favorite constellation ever since I watched Clash of the Titans about 300 times between the ages of six and ten.

Cassiopeia is a stellar northern constellation. It belongs to Ptolemy's 48 original constellations and has endured as one of the 88 modern constellations. Cassiopeia (or Cassie, as she's known to her homies) is pretty easy to spot in the sky because of the distinctive "W" or "M" shape (depending on the time of year) the five main stars in the constellation make.


The mythology behind Queen Cassiopeia is what makes this constellation my favorite. (And no, I didn't get all this from the movie. I read, too!) Cassie was the wife of King Cepheus of the mythological Phoenician realm of Ethiopia. She was incredibly beautiful, but also arrogant and vain, which ultimately (as in all good myths) lead to her demise.
According to Greek Mythology, Cassie decided to brag to all that would listen that she and her daughter Andromeda (also a constellation with a galaxy) were more beautiful than all the Nereids, the nymph-daughters of the sea god Nereus. The nymphs, being mighty vain creatures themselves, complained to Poseidon, the god of the sea, who sent the sea monster Cetus (yet another constellation) to destroy Ethiopia. When Cepheus and Cassie heard about this (not sure how. Maybe Bubo was a sort of carrier pigeon?) they decided to consult an oracle who told them that the only way to appease the sea gods was to sacrifice their daughter. So Andromeda was chained to a rock at the sea's edge and left to be taken by Cetus. But Perseus (the Hero,and last constellation from this story) arrived in time, saved Andromeda, and ultimately became her husband. Since Poseidon thought that Cassiopeia should still be punished for her vanity, he placed her in the heavens in such a position that, as she circles the celestial pole, she is upside-down for half the time.

Some accounts say she was chained there in shame, others that she still was honored by the gods for her beauty (even though she royally pissed them off) and so they hung her there to be a reminder of the downfall of vanity.

Anyway, that's my homework assignment. I had fun!

Monday, September 14, 2009

Mad Men and Madder Women

I just got through watching a feminist commentary on the 60's using Mad Men as a parallel. Being the feminist minded/gender studies minor that I am, the information they presented was nothing new (albeit very entertaining with clips of Christina Hendricks in those killer dresses interspersed throughout). But hearing again how little choice women had back then reminded me how blessed I am to live in the age I do.


Is everything equal now for men and women? Unfortunately, no, but we've come a long way. A quote from the commentary: "I used to watch my dad and his friends sit around and ask each other if they'd 'let' their wife work. 'No,' they'd say, 'she shouldn't have to work. I should be able to provide for my family enough for the both of us.'" Providing for the family was a cage for women; because men did it, there was no need for them try. And if a woman did work it was seen as a failure on the part of the man to provide. There was this idea that men were defined by their opposites i.e. women. In a society where this mindset is the norm, if a woman can provide, or for that matter reason, conduct business, excel in higher education and sports, what is left for men? As the roles of women in society changed, the mindsets of men had to change as well, to encompass the idea that they could be defined as something other than just opposite of woman. And I think the possibilities for both genders expanded exponentially with this shift. Women were less limited, but so, too, were men. Where is there room for a man who is passionate about cooking in a society that defined men as opposite women? Or passionate about design? Where would all the wonderful stay-at-home-dads be in a culture like that?


In this post-third wave world we live in, as a woman I thank the Lord every day that I have a husband who, to my mind, embodies the ideal mindset of the feminist man (not the the Hubbs considers himself a feminist, heavens no! that has too much stigma :) ). Aaron has a very similar worldview to all the other responsible men of faith of his generation (by responsible I mean the wonderful young men, both single, married, or newly wedded we know who see marriage as a daily commitment of faith, honor their God-given role as a father, and work every day to love their wife as Christ loves his church [Eph. 5: 21-33.) According to Aaron, it's his job to provide for our family. I don't dispute this, even though I could intellectually, because I know that for many men (though certainly not all. No generalizations here!) being able to provide for their family is a matter of honor. I don't understand this, but if all those books on marriage have taught me anything it's to respect that there are just some things about the motivations and hearts of men that I will never understand, simply because they are foreign to how I am psychologically made up as a woman. And so I respect it. Aaron feels he must provide for our family. But contrary to the mindset of the mid 1900's, Aaron sees the burden of providing lying on him as a way to set me free, rather than keep me caged. We've had lengthy discussions on the subject, and Aaron is fine with providing if I want to stay home. He is fine with providing if I try staying home, go a little nuts, and decide to work. He is fine with providing so I can get a Masters (or two), even if it means I'm just going to be a highly educated stay-at-home. He's fine with providing if I go into a career where I make more than he does (and has made more than one request for me to get on with advancing my butt so he can have a Sugar Mama). And this last one is the most baffling for me, because even if I made more money than him, it wouldn't lessen his hearts' desire to be able to provide for our family as if he were the sole breadwinner. That is a man who knows that his identity isn't defined by what he isn't, a man who isn't threatened because others can do what he can do; he knows who he is in his own eyes, in my eyes, and in God's eyes. And so he is free to be unendingly supportive, so that I can take advantage of this post-third-wave world and all the endless possibilities there are for women today.


I am grateful for what the founders of feminism, and every wave afterwards, did to shape the world I live in today. The Suffragists who won us the vote, second wave women who read about their own mystique and demanded equal rights, the third-wavers who broke the mold further and allowed us to define feminism for ourselves, to all of them I am grateful. But I am most grateful to the housewives who were living on the cusp of the second wave - I think they were much stronger than ever I could have been, living in a world of such limited choices. When I try and imagine what I would have been like if I'd lived back then, I don't think I really could have lived. Knowing how viciously I fight any expectations I feel are unjustly put on me, I figure I would have been one of those heavily medicated women who swung between hysteria and depression, because in that time I wouldn't have been allowed to fight at all. It's a very safe feeling, knowing that even if I'm loud and abrasive I'll be accepted and supported, rather than ostracized. Even though my chosen life path is what most people think of when they think of 'traditional' family life, I know I am free to be happy with this choice because of my beautifully progressive husband and the beautiful age I live in. Because how I define my feminist life is my choice. And how I choose to live that life is my choice. Not my sentence.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Book Review: Fearless by Max Lucado

I read the first chapter of Max Lucado's new book, Fearless, about a month ago when he released a .pdf of it as a teaser, and I remember thinking that I knew about five people who might benefit from reading this book. I just put down my review copy after finishing the last few pages over cereal, and now feel that everyone I know, Christians and non-Christians alike, should read this book.

I don't consider myself to be a fearful person, and yet, unbeknownst to me, I'd internalized more fears than I'd realized. Given that we live in a fear-based society with dire warnings and hidden dangers a newspaper flip or a yahoo page away, it isn't surprising that living with fear has become normal. Fearless effectively points out how much we stand to gain by choosing to let go of fear and trust God. How much more effective would I be for Him if I could live a fearless life?

Max Lucado's book breaks down the most common fears our society faces one topical chapter at a time, starting with some of the most personally effecting, and ending with the most consequential. Each chapter addresses a different fear with such an easily digestible ring of truth that reading a chapter is like eating a cupcake and finding a gold nugget in the middle. I thoroughly enjoyed reading a chapter or two before bed, and finding great things to pray over as my own fears were rooted out, brought into the light, and given over to God. Fear topics addressed in Fearless include:

  • fear of not mattering
  • fear of disappointing God
  • fearing our resources won't stretch far enough
  • the fear of not being able to protect our children
  • fearing overwhelming challenges
  • fearing worst-case scenarios
  • fear of violence
  • putting our confidence in money
  • fear of death
  • fear of the unknown - what's to come
  • fear that God's not real
  • the fear of things getting much worse - global calamity
  • the fear of letting God out of the box we've created for Him

I love that Max Lucado doesn't waste words. He says just enough to address the problem of fear, point out the consequences of living with that particular fear, give biblical truth, insight, and hope, and leave you, as the reader, to connect the dots in your life. The only criticisms I have are that, at times, Lucado gets a tad cheesy for my taste, through funny asides to the reader or some truly groan-worthy puns. However, that's just my personal preference for writing style coming out, and not a criticism of his writing. Also, in the grand tradition of Christian books-turned-mega-hits, there does seem to be quite a bit of merchandise available for Fearless t-shirts, bible studies, calenders, etc. But, a Christian writer's got to make a living, so again, I don't begrudge Max Lucado his merchandise marketing. Truth is still truth, and Fearless has plenty of it.

Even if you're not a believer, this book has valuable truth in it. Everyone lives with some kind of fear. Usually I like to end a review with a few "read this book if you...'s" but this time I can't, because in my mind there isn't anyone to whom this book wouldn't apply. And it's an easy read. So read it. Just read it.

Fearless: five stars

Monday, August 31, 2009

Book Review: Real Church by Dr. Larry Crabb


I've been a fan of Dr. Larry Crabb's work ever since the Hubbs and I did a nice little couples' devotional when we were engaged that featured sections by Dr. Crabb and his wife. I was very excited to get this book to review, because more and more often in my life lately people have been asking "why go to church? What is church supposed to look like?" and I thought this book would answer some questions about the discontent people seem to be facing with churches and give me a new perspective. It did, indeed, challenge my perspective on church, but I finished the book feeling as if, somehow, I had missed the boat.


In Real Church, Dr. Crabb asks the question "does [real church] exist, and if so, can I find it?" The book uses sections to tackle the church question: section 1 - Why should we go to church? Section 2 - What church do I want to go to? Section 3 - Marks of a church I want to be part of. Section 4 - A more personal reflection from Dr. Crabb on what he wants in the church he calls home. Dr. Crabb brings up these questions through personal anecdotes and reflection, often in a style that is almost an internal monologue, that sometimes left me, as the reader, feeling like I might understand his point if only I could hear it face to face.


There's a lot of discontent in the book, which resonated with me, as I see discontent with Christians in the church becoming more and more of an issue. But the discontent Dr. Crabb expressed was so prevalent and without resolution, that the book left me feeling very sad. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the answer to "what is real church" is an easy one to come by, nor do I think that any modern book, no matter how brilliant it's reported to be, could solve all the problems in the church. But as a person who derives great satisfaction from being an active part of a 'real church', I was really craving an acknowledgement that good churches are out there, and church is worthwhile. What I was left with was a list of all the things churches should be (and are, by extension, lacking), with no message of hope for the church, or any practical suggestions for actions we can take to make things better. Read this book if you are a Christian who likes having your ideas challenged and your routines stretched. Read this book if you're a Christian who is part of a really awesome Church, and wants to be reminded of how good you have it so you can thank God that he's provided you with such a good family. Read this book if you're really unhappy with church, and are just looking for something to make yourself feel justified in feeling the way you do so you can quit the church guilt-free. Otherwise, don't bother.

So, my opinion on the issue this book brings up: Does the Church today look like it did in Acts? No. Does that mean it's not worth being a part of? No! Does that mean we're off the hook, and can write church off because we're not happy with it? Oh, heck no! The Bible makes it clear that that's not an option, that we need a community of believers to thrive. And where in the world did we get the idea that church is all about us and our experience, anyway? Not from God, that's for sure! I know there are crummy churches out there, churches that breed complacent faith disguised as self-contentment. But there are also good churches, amazing churches, that are out in their communities, loving people, meeting people where they're at, and encouraging authentic, transparent, maturing relationships with God and with each other. In my experience, people who prize authentic faith in a church community will find it, even if they have to change their life or move to get it. People who want church to pat them on the head and tell them that they're OK as long as they show up on Sunday, place their offering in the basket, and constantly compare themselves to the 'un-churched' to make sure they look better than them, well, there will always be those churches if that's really what you're looking for. Bottom line is: you get out of church what you put into it. If you're dissatisfied with your church, is it because it's spiritually stifling, or slowly dying out? Then why are you still there? If you're dissatisfied with your church and feeling disconnected, but aren't investing anything more than enough time on Sunday morning to fill out your weekly time card, then be honest enough to ask if the true source of your dissatisfaction is with yourself? If you are sitting back, longing for an authentic church, one that speaks to the heart of our culture today, and not doing anything to start or remake one, what do you have to complain about? You want a faith revolution? Get up and start one!
Real Church: Two Stars

Monday, August 3, 2009

On Double Standards in Christian Culture: A Concert Review

On Saturday, after working a grueling sale day at my LYS, Hubby, BanieMcBane, geekosupremo and I went to the Switchfoot/Blue October concert in downtown San Jose. Perfect way to unwind at the end of a long day! Seriously, the concert rocked! Usually I’m not good for more than a quick “concert was great” tweet after a show, but I came away from this concert with a lot of distinct impressions, and some thoughts on Christian music that, in my opinion, are long overdue being said.

We got to the venue in time to catch most of the opener, a band new to me called Longwave. They were amazing! Great presence on stage, and their sound was incredible. As soon as I went home I looked them up on itunes, and I predict I’ll be listening to a lot of them in the future. They had a highly professional – and highly marketable – sound for the indie-rock genre. My first impression was Coldplay meets Radiohead, but as I heard more of their sound, I head some Cure, some U2 influences, even some of The Faint in there. Very hot. They managed to combine a lot of influences, while putting it together in a very personal way. They had a brief instrumental interlude that was so evocative I left wanting to hear so much more of them just playing. I think these guys are going to do very well, and anyone who loves great rock musicality that is supported by inventive vocals should check them out.

Switchfoot was up next, and they were INCREDABLE! Seriously legit rockers. I’ve been singing along to these guys on the radio for years, so I was a bit nervous going to see them live. You know how it is – there’s always a little bit of worry seeing a band you really like in concert: are they going to be good? Are they going to be totally different? Will you hear their music differently afterwards, and will that be a good thing? So I was thrilled that their set (which was, in my opinion, much too short) delivered even more than I expected, and was a great display of the talent, versatility, and relatability they offer as a band. If you’ve been following my quest for relevant, rocking Christian music, you know I’m a fan of Christian music that speaks to the human condition and calls for social change. Even so, Switchfoot was the first Christian band I’ve ever seen in concert. I expected to have fun; what I didn’t expect was to love the concert as much as, if not more than, some of the other amazing shows I’ve seen over the years. I am very particular about live shows; in my opinion if a band can’t deliver on stage, they’re not real musicians – they’re products of a really good sound production team. As a result I never go into shows with expectations either way, lest I be disappointed. So, as big a proponent as I am for good Christian music, I had reservations about how good a ‘Christian band’ was going to be onstage (a serious double-standard which I will address later), and was thrilled that Switchfoot ranked up there with Reel Big Fish, the Distillers/Transplants, and Depeche Mode/Poe for favorite concerts I’ve attended. It was great, not only feeding off of their amazing energy onstage, but jumping around with hundreds of people all rocking out and praising God. Thank you, Switchfoot, for an amazing show!

So: The Double Standard. Some people will read the sentence two rows above and sneer “how can you say you both rocked out and praised God? That doesn’t work.” I’ve seen this kind of mentality on both sides of the music scene, both secular and Christian, and frankly I’m sick of it. I mean, come on, it’s not like we’re comparing country music and reggae here, we’re talking about bands in the same basic genre who happen to have different perspectives on God and faith. I really saw this double standard played out at the Switchfoot/Blue October concert, which is why I wanted to address this with more than my usual quick ‘great show’ post. I even saw this ugly duality in myself, in how I had more than my usual reservations about how a band was going to be live, just because they were a ‘Christian’ band. Why is Christian music so set apart?

I really think this double standard goes both ways. When a band comes out on a Christian label, Christians will usually scrutinize the lyrics - the band’s ‘message’ - to see if it’s ‘Christian’ enough to pass the faith test (whatever that arbitrary test may be). Do they say God’s name enough? Do they say both God and Jesus? In interviews, do they take credit for their talent, or do they modestly give all glory to God? There are all kinds of ways Christians decide if a band is worthy of being on a Christian Label that often have very little to do with the band’s music. Once the band is accepted by Christian culture, if they make any changes that push them towards more of a mainstream sound – replacing God’s name with ‘baby’, or touring with a 'non-christian' band, for example – they’re called sellouts, and their faith is questioned by the Christian community at large. I think this is total crap. Christians love Bono for the good works he does in the Lord’s name, because we see him as a warrior for justice and social change, and love him for doing God’s work effectively from a secular platform. He's the poster boy for stealthy faith: infiltrating the secular music scene and getting 'all those heathens' to attend what are essentially worship services in the guise of a concert. How the heck do we expect other phenomenal faith-based bands to be able to reach broader audiences - audiences dearly in need of hearing bands with a positive faith-based outlook - if we lambast them every time they try to grow and appeal to the masses? Let's not forget how Fall Out Boy mentioned in an interview that they didn't know much about Jesus until Anberlin (awesome faith-based band - review to come) went on tour with them (source). In my opinion, more bands need to blur the lines between Christian rock and secular rock, because musically there’s not a difference. There have never been more bands on the Christian music scene that could take on some of the top-grossing rock bands out there, but are so pigeon-holed by the Christian Band label that they don’t get the play. Wake up Christians: stop putting bands who try to bridge the gap out in the cold by pulling your support when they ‘go mainstream’. Since music was invented it has been a conduit for bringing people together and overcoming divisiveness. I can’t think of a better way to be ‘lights in the world’ and ‘salt of the earth’, getting the message of God’s love and redemption out, than through awesome rock.

On the other side of the fence are the people who think that any band that is a Christian band couldn’t possibly know a thing about good music. One of the weirdest things for me about the Switchfoot/Blue October concert was seeing how very different the audiences were for each band. Switchfoot had a great turnout; tons of people rocking out and singing their lungs out. But when Blue October (of whom I am a huge fan, btw) took the stage, almost all of the faces were different, and not in the usual ‘I’m a bigger fan of this band so I’ll stand near the front now’ kind of way. It was literally as if there were two casts for the crowd scene on a music video, and the director had yelled “switch!” All the Switchfoot fans left as soon as their set was over, and all the Blue October fans came only once they knew the Christians would be gone, because they wouldn’t be caught dead at a ‘Christian’ show. Come on, Switchfoot fans, afraid you’ll be judged for liking a band who cusses at concerts? Come on, Blue October fans, afraid of being judged because you may actually like a band who loves God as well as great music? Both sides seem to me to have their heads in the sand, and are missing some really amazing music in the process. On the way back to our cars we were walking in front of a guy and two teenage girls. In a voice dripping with scorn, they guy asked the girls if they thought “all the churchies left before Blue October came on?” and lit up a clove with a disdainful chuckle (which was funny, because not an hour before I was telling BanieMcBane and geekosupremo about Anne Gwish, and how her scenester superiority was often expressed in the lighting of a clove). After I figured out what he’d said (it took about 30 seconds to sink in, because his voice was muffled by the clove) I was half pissed off at his blatant expression of a stereotype as one of at least four ‘churchies’ who had stayed, and half pissed of because, well, he was kind of right. Not right in his derision, but in thinking that most of the 'churchies’ did, indeed, take off. What is it about the world that makes them think Christians have no taste in music? What is it about Christians that allows us to feed this stereotype by, for example, leaving a concert before the co-headliner performs? What is it about the world that makes any band under a Christian music label automatically one to avoid at all costs?

Strangely, I’ve seen the “all Christian bands suck” mentality come from Christians as well as non-Christians, and this I really don’t get. Well, to be fair, I do get it, because I used to be the same way, but think this mentality is majorly lame. When I was younger (high school and part of college) and way less mature, I was a huge proponent of the “all Christian music sucks” school of thinking, and in that way I ensured that to all of my secular friends I was never one of ‘those’ Christians. Sure I loved God, but I’d never have a Jesus fish on my car. Sure, I called Christ my Lord and Savior, but I never listened to that kind of music, I listened only to good music. This allowed me to feel accepted – if I could make fun of my faith culture with my friends who did the same, I could be a ‘cool’ Christian, instead of one of those ‘Jesus Freaks who takes their faith way too seriously and probably protests at abortion clinics in their spare time.’ While I recognize the appeal of deriding Christian music to feel accepted, people of faith who do this have to realize that they make those of us who know good Christian music exists - and what’s more really enjoy listening to it - look like chumps. They are putting us by default in the camp of religious dupes who will blindly swallow anything with a Christian label on it. That’s not fair, nor is it accurate. Honestly, I understand why the Christian music genre has traditionally been an easy target for this type of animosity, because for a long time after its conception it really did was sad, from a rock perspective. But now, anyone on either side of the faith fence who thinks that the blatant distinction between Christian and non-Christian rock is valid, who sees Christian music as a bunch of whiny, sappy, Jesus freaks who wouldn’t know a beat if they were beaten with it, hasn’t done their homework. Seriously, realize that this is a judgemental stereotype. Yes, there still is plenty of sappy soft-rock Christian music out there, but it has so completely been outpaced by amazingly talented and ground-breaking musicians that it is ignorant to paint them all with the same brush. Listen to Air1 for a week, (go on, I dare you. You can stream it online live for free.) and tell me that there aren’t amazing bands out there on par with anything played on Live 105, whose only difference is that they operate under the blanket of faith, and don’t flip off their fans in concert.

So…I got more confrontational in this post than I usually do. I've definately used more ironic quotation marks than I usually do. I’ve had this topic come up at least five times in the last two months with people on both sides, and this concert was the tipping point which made me pull out my soapbox. If I seriously offended anyone, I apologize, as it wasn’t my intention. It was, however, my intention to get people on either side of the love it or hate it Christian music issue to think, and in doing so I expect that I ruffled some feathers. I hope so. We need to examine our bents and proclivities often, and decide if they have solid basis, or if they are merely there because they make us feel safe. I would love to hear if you agree with me, and why. I would love to hear if you disagree with me, and why. I would love to hear if you hate my soapbox rants, and never get to the end of them. Not that this will stop me in the future, mind :).

Christy out.

Older Posts