Because handling a snake is taking the easy way out
There's a rather obscure American church you may have heard about, where members pick up and handle deadly snakes as part of their routine services. You know, you've got your Fender guitar amps, your pulpit and PA, and then, a whole pile of poisonous snakes.
Generally associated with the primarily rural (and Southern) Church of God, this church embraces a rather literal take on a couple of the final verses in Mark 16.
17-18"These are some of the signs that will accompany believers: They will throw out demons in my name, they will speak in new tongues, they will take snakes in their hands, they will drink poison and not be hurt, they will lay hands on the sick and make them well."
Now, to get technical for a moment, verses 9-20 of Mark 16 (the last chapter of that particular book) are generally excluded from "The Bible" because those verses did not appear in some of the more important early manuscripts, and because of their "different style and vocabulary," also raises doubts.
This pentecostal sect takes this verse literally, and so believes that if they've been anointed by God, then they will not be killed when bitten by the snakes, and they claim to celebrate this miracle during their services. Besides the obvious, it's clear why snake-handling is not a mainstream practice: it' s a generally held interpretation that in this reference, Jesus was speaking specifically to his remaining 11 disciples, not necessarily everyone who believes in him.
I will admit that there is a part of me that had the courage these snake handlers do, believing that God would protect me from a very real, very specific and very immediate harm.
But the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that these snake handlers are taking the easy way out. Sure, it's dangerous picking up a snake, and it is a demonstration of their faith (albeit misguided), but what do they do the rest of the time? Personally, I think there's more courage involved in a daily, humble faith that grows deep with routine reflection and fruitful acts of obedience. Faith is not about engaging in a public spectacle like the snake handlers: faith is deeply private and personal, and God alone knows us in our stillness.
So back away from the snakes.
Scandinavian Metal Praise
As I continue my search for positive, uplifting music, I've stumbled across one of the best musical discoveries I've made in months: "Scandinavian Metal Praise." The name is pretty self-explanatory; Christian "Praise and Worship" songs played by Finnish metal musicians, sung in English. Overall, I love it.
I've never been a fan of "metal praise" in general: it just seems too forced for me, either too raw or too slick... nothing "just right." But when I was browsing iTunes for covers of "Take Me In" by Petra, I came across SMP's version! And guess what? It's the best cover yet, unlike the one by Kutless, which is just way too slick-metal for me.
When I went to check out the album itself, it got better yet. As you can see, the album cover is simply a church or kingdom, perched upon a tower in the clouds or something. Now THIS is the kind of praise and worship I can get behind. The riffs run the range from fairly poppy to heavier than what I'd expect, and the vocals sound similar to Evanescence. However, the guitars and drums are mixed way up front, so they don't necessarily drown out the vocals, but they encourage you to crank the whole thing louder, which is probably the perfect experience for listening to the album.
There are a couple songs that I don't love, like "When the Spirit of the Lord," which reminds me of that old metal praise standard, "Jehovah Jirah." But the awesome songs, "Great in Power," "Praise Adonai," "Worthy is the Lamb" and "Take Me In," more than compensate for any of the band's shortcomings.
In short, give it a listen. Then get it. (Here's a link on iTunes).
- Blogger Arni Zachariassen has a rundown of SMP and insight into some old school Christian metal. (He also has chose a handsome Wordpress theme for himself).
- Here's a write-up of a festival (RockUnited) in Scandinavia where "Scandinavian Metal Praise" performed a set of four songs. I think it might have been the only set they ever played. Know your Finnish metal? You might recognize them from the photos.
- The MySpace page for Scandinavian Metal Praise.
- Here's the band performing "Worthy is the Lamb" from what I think is that previously mentioned festival. Apparently there were serious monitor problems, which explains the vocal lag/audio problems.
As much as I want to like Robert Crumb’s illustration of “Genesis,” I can’t
Like Pedro the Lion records, drinking actual wine in communion, smoking cigars and Emergent theology, sometimes Christians want to be bad -- or at least unconventional.
I think that's why I wanted to like Robert Crumb's illustrated version of "Genesis." And despite moments of greatness within, I just can't look at this book any further, and can't recommend this book to anyone.
Maybe I should have taken the appearance of the serpent, embossed in gold on the back, as a hint that this book needs to be avoided.
First of all, if you don't know who Robert Crumb is, let me explain: he's one of America's "popular" comic artists, known for subversive and "alternative" works (ie pornographic or at least soft-core) like Fritz the Cat and Mr. Natural. Fans of the story/film "American Splendor" might recognize him from his role in Harvey Pekar's story. His work is at times bold and vibrant, and at others, crude. (Yes, I do feel a bit like a stick in the mud writing about him in this way, but I have to call it like I see it).
In October, Crumb, an atheist, released his illustrated version of "Genesis" after four years of illustration. As his introduction notes, he took on extensive research to get proper period based clothing and environmental settings right, and did not alter -- or exclude -- any text, which seems largely drawn from the King James version, and other modern interpretations. In the introduction, Crumb also notes that he has treated the text with respect and as a straight illustration job without editorializing, though he does suggest that the stories themselves are codes and symbols of a "true" Hebrew history... which is where he kind of loses me.
Ultimately, my quarrel isn't with the content itself: "Genesis" is admittedly a raw, primal story full of violence, deceit and sex, which Crumb zooms in on in his illustrations. I imagine Crumb took on the challenge of doing this work if only to illustrate the story of Lot and his daughters (Uncomfortable does go far enough in describing it).
What I did like was the way Crumb extended and drew out lines that upon merely reading, wouldn't necessarily get a deeper look: For example, when various descendants are mentioned, each son is given a portrait... a reminder of each family's existence, not just a precursor to someone else's existence.
For example, one of my favourite passages illustrated is of Lot's conversation with God about sparing the city of Sodom from destruction. Here's the original NIV text:
24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [f] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
When reading this exchange in text alone, it seems a little tedious: why does this conversation even happen? But in the illustrated "Genesis," you can see Lot's fear and desire to save the people of Sodom, and you can see him trying to bargain with God. It's not deep theological exegesis, but it does help to connect with the story itself in a new, personal way.
And I'm also not even bothered by the "God is a old white guy with long white robes and white beard and white hair" depiction, as tired and cliche as that is.
No, my fundamental problem is that Crumb has decided to draw every female character in the entire book, despite whatever clothing she wears, with the nipples protruding though her comedic form-fitting desert attitire.
There is nudity elsewhere in the book -- but it's the overt sexual image of all the female characters that I feel depersonalize and fetishize them in a grotesque way (Which wouldn't be out of place if you were to criticize his other work). For me, it's too distracting and contributes to a nagging feeling that despite all the high minded principals Crumb laid forth in his introduction, he's trying to pull a fast one on anyone that may take the book seriously in any way and secretly revels in his twisted depictions.
I simply feel disappointed by the potential that this book had to be a gritty and realistic illustration of "Genesis" -- so much so that I couldn't even finish it. While I did enjoy the dimension that illustration added to the text, I think I'll instead try to hunt down more visual texts that may have a little more sincere intentions.
With that said, if someone who knows nothing about the God of Abraham and Jacob begins to learn about him through this book, I hope that they continue to learn more about him and yearn to find deeper meaning to their life. For those readers, I would suggest they take on Eugene Peterson's version of the Bible, "The Message," which is a contemporary interpretation meant more for "reading" and less for "study." (Curious? Check out the entire book, available here on biblegateway.com).
Merry Christmas
Angels from the Realms of Glory
Angels from the realms of glory,
Wing your flight o’er all the earth;
Ye who sang creation’s story
Now proclaim Messiah’s birth.
Shepherds, in the field abiding,
Watching o’er your flocks by night,
God with us is now residing;
Yonder shines the infant light.
Sages, leave your contemplations,
Brighter visions beam afar;
Seek the great Desire of nations;
Ye have seen His natal star.
Saints, before the altar bending, Watching long in hope and fear; Suddenly the Lord, descending, In His temple shall appear. Click here to listen Words: James Montgomery Music: Tyrone Warner
Does Larry fail God’s challenge in “A Serious Man”?
The Coen brothers have returned with another stellar film, "A Serious Man," following their two previous releases, "No Country for Old Men" and the celeb-packed "Burn After Reading." This film, set in a 1960's Minneapolis suburb featuring the most gorgeous mid-century modern furniture ever, follows the life of Larry, which goes from okay to mortally damned.
If you want to read the entire plot of the film, go check out it's wikipedia page. It's complicated, dense and somewhat jarring... and like what many reviews say, if you're not Jewish, you're going to miss out on a massive swath of humour and meaning.
Despite what I've read about the film, some things continue to puzzle me, and still haven't found a decent explanation for.
1. "A Serious Man" is loosely based on the book of Job, a story about a man who is caught up in at bet of sorts between God and the Devil. Job looses everything, and despite the council he receives from his friends, and despite the bitterness and pain he feels, he does not turn away from God. So to me, it looks like Larry is Job, losing his family and his possessions and his health... simple. I'm still torn on the role of the rabbis, they are either Job's friends or God himself in person form... if they are his friends, they are offering him useless advice that he doesn't really take, or if they are God, he is asking them serious questions and not getting much of a response. Either way, I'm okay with that reading.
2. The ending. When Larry finally changes the grade to C- instead of F, within minutes he gets the urgent call from his doctor, and his son is moments away from being ripped out of the ground by a tornado. On one hand, this could be the continuing of Larry's trials, or the way I see it as, which Larry actually gives up on God and living a "serious" and honest life, and changes the grade. Immediately after he changes the grade, God's wrath manifests itself physically in his body and as a tornado, about to destroy his only son. Harsh.
3. The prologue. I admit that about 5 minutes into this, I was wondering if I had stumbled into the wrong theatre. In a way, it seems pretty simple. The visitor isn't defined as being an evil spirit or a regular person (he's listed as "?" in the credits), which works on the same principles of the theory relayed later in the film about Schrodinger's cat.
Which leads to Larry's massive physics diagrams about how you can specifically explain why you can't actually know anything (and still be responsible for it). I think for a lot of religious people, Christians included, that from a certain philosophical standpoint, an unknowable deity or God cannot be rationally explained. It seems like a straightforward idea, and I like how it's presented in "A Serious Man."
If you have any ideas about the film, please share them... I'd love to hear it. It's going to be a shame that I'll likely have to wait until after Oscar season before anyone wants to talk about this I guessing.
You know what, ‘Fireproof,’ you’re alright by me
Like most of my urban dwelling brethren, I'm pretty cut off from most mainstream Christian culture, especially culture born waaaay south of the border. Sure, downtown we love our Sufjan Stevens and Thrices, but most of the younger, young-ish and young-at-heart people I know are not really going to perk up when someone mentions "The Well."
I don't think it's necessarily an attitude thing, nor a "we're more sophisticated" type thing either... downtown, churches are more likely to be "plants," store-fronts, locals, stuffy, alternative or traditional. Like our city, the church presence is very diverse.
But despite all that diversity, there's not much in the way of Christian media in the core; there are hardly any "Christian" radio stations, there's no "Michaels" (but we do have our Crux!), and most of all, we don't have any mega-churches. And without that "large-group" environment, a lot of content, good and bad, passes on undetected. I think that easily explains why Rob Bell's previous visit to Toronto was (by my impression) almost entirely attended by out-of-town 905ers and beyond.
OK, I'm way off topic here and I'm not planning on peeling back that thought any further for now.
So there's this movie, "Fireproof," which most people won't look twice at, except for the fact that it's probably the most popular, mainstream "Christian" movie today. Starring everyone's favourite Evangelical punching bag, Kirk Cameron (yep, from "Growing Pains"), who plays a firefighter with a very Christian name, the very cheesy flick follows him as he takes on a "Love Dare" while trying to save his marriage.
"Rescue Me" it ain't.
With a tag line of "Never Leave Your Partner Behind" (which you will of course hear in reference to fighting fires and in marriage), I won't harp on the film too much, because it only cost half a million dollars to produce, and it ended up grossing over 33 million since its release last year.
Like I said before, it's very cheesy, and at times the production can be amateur, but about halfway through the flick, it seems to get i'ts act together and become a real movie. Sure, it keeps mucking up it's "Marriage is Fireproof" theme: love is a spark, fire threatens to burn your marriage down, lighting a fire = rekindling a romance; but despite my criticisms there, I will have to admit that this movie does have a great message.
At the heart of the film, it's quite literally a lesson in love; there's a "Love Dare" that Caleb takes, and yep, you can get a version of the love dare in book form. There's speeches and long talks that feel like they've been born from a pulpit, and when Caleb's dad discovers his unbelieving son lives near an old Christian summer camp, complete with firepit and wooden cross, you know that somebody's going to be kneeling in front of it by the end of the movie. Even if they have a horrible "Georgia" accent (ahem, Cameron).
Despite my cynic attitude, there's lots of things I enjoyed about the movie: It's very "south," with lots of drawl and male posturing, which at once feels real and down to earth, all the actors are more or less non-actors, which adds to the sincerity (Caleb's mother actually looks like she could be someone's mother. Much love to Ken Bevel as well, he was the best and most prominent non-actor in the movie, and he totally rocked it), and sometimes I wonder if all the cheesiness is intentional: giving couples who initially watch the movie together something to make fun of before they are truly bombarded by the sincere gospel message presented here.
Looking over the special features on the DVD, it gave me an extra appreciation that I wouldn't have gotten just from the film itself. The outtakes show just how much fun they had shooting this mostly-depressing film, the moments where cast and crew pray before shooting every day is totally inspiring, and to hear about why the filmmakers took on this project were enlightening (basically they feel like marriage is under attack... however, it looks like they're not going anywhere near the "gay marriage" issue here).
A point they make in the special features that I really appreciate, is that this is a film you don't often see: It looks at people's lives after they live "happily ever after" and before something "tragic and life changing" happens. It's when the monotony of day to day life and unfulfilled dreams take root, and to the film's credit, I applaud it for taking a realistic look at what that life experience is like.
So, if you're a Christian, in a "Christian" marriage, or even have friends who are receptive to the gospel and maybe even having some marriage troubles, I would suggest "Fireproof" is worth a watch.
Other Interesting notes:
- Kirk Cameron, in lieu of payment, donated his paycheck to his favourite charity, Camp Firefly
- From what I can tell, pretty much everyone involved in the film is a volunteer
- Apparently Kirk Cameron refuses to kiss any other woman, even on screen, so in Fireproof, when his character does kiss his wife, its Kirks wife dressed up as the main character
- Every location the film shot at was provided without payment required
- Every "house" scene was shot in the same house
Nothing: The collapse of faith and David Bazan’s “Curse Your Branches”
(Maybe it's the music industry, maybe it's something private, or maybe it's just rebelling against his youth, but whatever sparked it, it seems like David Bazan's transition from Doubting Thomas to agnostic is complete.
Through his poetry, Bazan has always wrestled with the church, it's believers and it's practices, and that's what has drawn so many people to Pedro the Lion over the years. And whatever Christian-related content that drew people in, Bazan provided just enough antidote to keep those listeners in check.
The band's first record was released in 1997 on the so-called Christian punk record label "Tooth and Nail" in 1997. The "Whole EP" (say it out loud a couple of times) begins with a song called "Nothing," which introduces the listener to a man who embraces philosophy over morals and rules. At one point, he says "It's just not true, that there's only one way."
The EP then goes on to that character developing a drug habit ("Fix"), trying to kick it (the excellent "Almost There"), then seeing a friend who overcame his addiction thanks to "Mr. Hole-fixing man" ("Whole"). That album concludes with "Lullaby," which has become an anthem for modern Christian life. I love this song so much, that I'm going to include some of the lyrics here:
Sun shines, and leaves blow and my hope like autumn is turning brown.
I know it seems like I'm always falling down.
And it does not matter to me, although it seems like it should.
It's because I know I'm understood, when I hear him say..."Rest in me little David, and dry all your tears, you can lay down your armour and have no fear.
Cause I'm always here when you're tired of running, and I'm all the strength that you need."
"Lullaby" is followed by an instrumental, "Hymn," and it's all over. Ever since I first heard this song almost 10 years ago, I still need that instrumental track to fully recover from "Lullaby." Personally, I imagine the "David" here as King David, and how he would converse with God, but it's easy to hear this and believe you are listening to some of David Bazan's most honest, powerful and uplifting songs ever.
But ever since "Whole EP," David has been fighting against that sentiment as hard as he can... I've read that in the past, he'd be playing his songs and people would be having intense emotional reactions, while he wasn't feeling anything, and was uncomfortable with manipulating people like that.
With his next record, "It's Hard to Find a Friend," you can hear that instead of embracing this kind of cathartic narrative, he instead explores new stories and characters, like the memorable father and son exchange in "Big Trucks," the man who finds out his girlfriend has been cheating on him in "Bad Diary Days," and the guy who has a problem with natural beauty in "When They Really Get To Know You They Will Run." But there's still religious material as well, like "Of Minor Prophets and Their Prostitute Wives," a retelling of the obscure Old Testament book Hosea. Then finally, the album's finest moment, "Secret of the Easy Yoke," featuring a man who feels unmoved and annoyed by his friends and their seemingly perfect devotion. However, by the end of the song he's turned to "Peace be still," a mantra of simple confirmation and encouragement.
(Yes, there was "Promise" originally at the end of this record, but supposedly Bazan was told to add an uplifting song to the end of the record, and on the re-release in 2001 was left off.)
In his next record, the EP entitled "The Only Reason I Feel Secure (Is That I'm Validated By My Peers)" he returned to the more introspective side of his writing, peaking with a beautiful rendition of "Be Thou My Vision." From there things turned rather dark, with the warning of the powers of sex and power and murder in "Winners Never Quit," a story of two brothers: the "good" Christian who is secretly bad (and murders his wife then commits suicide), and his "bad" Christian brother who is arrested while driving drunk and goes to jail. "Bad Things To Such Good People," the final song from the brother in jail, describes the arrogance of his father and contains a somewhat controversial line: "All the while, the good Lord smiles and looks the other way." You could interpret it as the Lord is simply forgiving both the father and the son in jail of their sins, or you could also look at it as the Lord is simply letting chaos reign in their life and doing nothing about it. (Starting to sound a little like what Bazan is saying in "Curse Your Branches," right?)
Actually, for a good statement of where Bazan was at around the time of "Winners Never Quit," check out this great interview here.
Then there's the amazing rock record, "Control," easily Bazan's most distressing record, which tackles infidelity, global warming and modernization. While he was merely baiting his Christian listeners in "Winners Never Quit," in this record he finally tells them to buzz off with "Rapture," a song about an adulterous couple having dirty motel room sex and one screams out "Oh my sweet rapture, I hear Jesus and the angels singing Hallelujah, calling in me to enter the promised land." Later in "Priests and Paramedics," a priest at a funeral for the adulterous man gives his people gather a bitter pill: "You're gonna die. We're all gonna die. Could be twenty years, could be tonight. And lately I have been wondering why we go to so much trouble to postpone the unavoidable and prolong the pain of being alive."
"Control" then adds a question mark in it's oft-debated finale, "Rejoice," which says "Wouldn't it be so wonderful if everything were meaningless. But everything is so meaningful and most everything turns to shit. Rejoice."
Following that, David seems content to slowly go darker and more skeptical, all kind of staying in this ambiguous Christian world viewpoint, like on "Achilles Heel" and the synth-only record, "The Headphones," throwing in the occasional four or seven letter world to rankle his critics.
However, with his first full album under his own name, I feel like things are a lot different. Things are personal again, however, it seems like the sarcasm has been replaced with vitriol and anger. "Hard to Be" kicks things off with an indictment of the creation story as a Christian's excuse for misbehaviour, and ends with his graduation from "believer" to "non-believer." There's "Bless this Mess," which either celebrates the inversion of popular Christian parables (the wheat and the chaff, the candle under a bushel), or celebrates those who flaunt them. "Harmless Sparks" takes on pedophile priests and inserts a confession of his own doubt and it again conflicts with his family. "When We Fell" indicts the threat of Hell as motivation for belief. In "Bearing Witness" he's sick of "making the pieces fit" and in "Heavy Breath" he reassures his God-fearing friends that life without him isn't any different.
The album ends with "In Stitches," which instead of reaffirming anything, seems to confirm David's agnostic attitude. He's still talking to his God, but like the entire album all along, it's in the tone of talking to someone who has been betrayed by an ex-lover. (A common description of "Curse Your Branches" is that it's David Bazan's "break up album" with God).
I've been thinking about it, and to me, from a lyrical point of view, it seems like David has finally turned into the character he voiced in "Nothing" way back in 1997 on the "Whole EP." Happier to go his own his own way, and giving up the struggle of belief.
I'll admit that I don't know David personally, and I don't what's really in his heart. For all I know that this is just a natural progression of his writing, and his relationship with God is his own business, so I don't want to come across as judging him for what he's chosen to believe. I don't even want to go into the whole alcoholism thing either, despite it being such a large presence in his songs, because again, I don't need to be judgmental of that (especially when I see my own struggle with that as well).
I guess after being such an intense fan, and hanging on much longer than a lot of my other Christian brothers, I don't think I can hold David's songs as close as I once did. I'm still totally in awe of his talent, and I've been forever changed by his writing, but "Curse Your Branches" seems to be the album at which when I have to keep his music out of reaching distance. It's not enough that I can recognize that I disagree with much of what he has to say, because I've been to all the places he visits here. I personally want to move past those places, so while I appreciate and respect what he's done, I can't dwell in it like other albums he's done.
However, part of me also knows that if I give up on him now, I might miss out on him coming around to the final "Lullaby" chapter in his records, which is just a too glorious prospect. Johnny Cash and Mike Knott worked in similar circles, so anything is possible, right?
(As a post-script, I know there's so much more I could talk about here too, like the Christmas EPs, his relationships with other "Christian" artists like Damien Jurado, but this is sprawling enough already).
(As another post-script, is that I wanted to note that I've had the pleasure of seeing him perform many times over the years: Opening for Low at Lee's Palace, rocking out the Horseshoe a couple times with TW Walsh, playing Buffalo with Starflyer 59, another Buffalo set done completely solo at the Mohawk, a solo show at the Music Gallery, a solo show in Seattle at the Crocodile Cafe with Damien Jurado and Ben Gibbard, and his return to Lee's Palace with a full band in tour for "Curse Your Branches." Whatever he does, I'll still continue to come out to the shows, because they are always powerful experiences.)
(As one final post-script, I have to point out something funny Matt McKechnie wrote about me on his blog, taken from the last Bazan show at Lee's, "I saw my friend Tyrone (of Silver Speakers) standing stage left with the look of an awed child meeting Santa Claus.")
Maybe I’m missing something here: Some thoughts on “community,” the city and the gospel
This week our Grace Gathering (a Grace Toronto Church bible study) was talking about values, and what values we think our city has, and what kinds of values we should have as a group of Christians in the city. One of the values we talked about was "community," which seems to get a lot of lip service, but I think I really understand it.
In the broadest sense, "community" is an organized group of people with a set of values or a group in a certain location (thanks wikipedia!), or more specifically, people who share "intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks" and other factors.
From that article, I also found Scott Peck's description of community building, from a "pseudo-community" to "true community," which as an end result, sounds like an awesome place to be:
True community: the process of deep respect and true listening for the needs of the other people in this community. This stage Peck believes can only be described as "glory" and reflects a deep yearning in every human soul for compassionate understanding from one's fellows.
Personally, I think I've been involved in various different types of communities over the span of my life. Some went deeper than others, but I think groups like Beavers/Scouts when I was in elementary school, Beyond Existence (youth group) in high school, and Campus Crusade for Christ when I was in university, all provided a true "community" type environment.
However, leaving Kingston and Belleville behind and moving to Toronto, I don't know if I've ever felt a part of a community in the same way as those experiences. Like many people in Toronto, I wasn't born here, I didn't have family here, and I really had to find my own way to figure out where I belong (still haven't achieved that though).
And in Toronto especially, I've noticed that jobs/careers don't seem to foster community either; most people will hardly ever spend recreational time with co-workers outside of the job site, and instead lead fairly fragmented lives.
I'm guilty of this: I have my "working" life, my married life, my church life, my family life, my sports life, and my arts life, which overall, doesn't seem to crossover so much. I see coworkers during the day, my wife in the evenings, my church friends on Tuesdays and Sundays, the TFC on Saturdays, my family every other month, but I never really do any one of those frequently enough to develop or foster true community.
Perhaps part of my problem is physical location: I live on Danforth East, go to work on Queen West, go to church on Queen East, check out football in Parkdale and do shows in Kensington... it's all downtown, but it's also very, very spread out. But as more and more friends move out to Danforth East, and more interesting bars/coffee shops/restaurants open up in the hood, and maybe someday even a Grace Toronto church plant move out there, maybe I'll feel like it's a true community?
Maybe that's why a group like The Society in Toronto, a community which people pay to join, and in exchange are cultured and entertained, can exist and be successful (though at times, it seems like this is a short cut to authentic community).
Though I love the internet and the mass dissemination of information it has created, I also feel like it has eroded the idea of community as much as it has fostered it. The internet allows me to find other people who love Pedro the Lion just as much as I do, but it also gives me a sense of false community through Myspace, Facebook and Twitter, where my "real" friends dwell, but is also bolstered by a large group of "fake" friends too.
There are exceptions though: there does seem to be a rabid shoring up of communities in the downtown music scenes, with groups like Wavelength, Pitter Patter and Two Way Monologues, bringing musicians and music fans together, as well as big events like Caribana and Pride, and even the countless marathons that jam up traffic all summer. But I wonder, that though there are communities developed there, they all seem to be "event" based more than anything else. Looking back to the "True Community" definition, I don't think these groups apply.
When I explore my own mental health, and read about the experiences other people have had with anxiety and depression, I'm often overcome with emotion because it's like I'm finally knowing that someone else has experienced what I have experienced, and in that knowing, there is some form of refuge: somewhere I can belong.
However, that refuge is not nearly as deep as the one I find in the gospel, where I can find the ultimate sense of belonging; one that will carry with me through every stage of life. To end this thought, I'll leave you with a quote from Psalm 36, verses 7 to 9.
How precious is your steadfast love, O God!
The children of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings.
They feast on the abundance of your house,
and you give them drink from the river of your delights.
For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light.
They stacked bibles on top of a black-and-yellow bass amp
Christian Metal. It's hard to take seriously, though if any genre is compatible with the Christian church, it's metal's ornate virtuosity, the anguished cries, and front-men who can't resist a messianic pose or two.
So with that said, the pinnacle of this particular genre is Stryper. Always has, and always will be. But I'm not here to give you a history lesson, which you can just wiki for yourself if you like.
First off, I have to say that I don't like being negative when I write about music, especially Christian music, because I'm sure these guys are totally earnest and honest with what they are doing, so I don't want to come across like I'm disrespecting that, nor do I want to disrespect the Sweet family in what has been a tragic year in their lives, and in that regard, my thoughts and prayers go out to them.
But ultimately, Michael Sweet and his band are the ones going out there on the road (for several weeks of shows) and asking people to buy tickets and other paraphernalia, so to that extent, I feel like it's fair game to give my honest thoughts about my experience.
Which brings us to Sunday night, when Stryper came to Toronto on their 25th anniversary tour, which while a fun time, also smacks of being a real-life Spinal Tap (Spinal Tapian?) adventure.
Though this is the band's 25th anniversary tour, and is touring with all four original members, it wasn't exactly envisioned out that way. A "new" version of Stryper just put out an album called "Murder by Pride" and apparently they were going to do a split set, one with the "new" band doing the new stuff, then the "old" band doing classics for the anniversary. However, somewhere along the line the new bass player decided that he couldn't take the time off of work for the tour. It was good news for fans anyways, because that means the original four members are doing a 90 minute set with no break.
For fans with deep pockets, the band has also been selling "backstage passes" for 50 bucks which lets fans check out the band's soundcheck, a free copy of "Murder by Pride," get 1 piece of Stryper gear signed, and I quote from their blog, "Get your picture taken with the band, using your own camera."
Apparently for their stop in Toronto, all the passes were sold out, so obviously the demand for this kind of thing is there. However, it seems like anyone who went to this, didn't write or post any of it online... I wish I knew someone who did, because it sounds so deliciously awkward.
Opening for the band that night were local Christian metal rockers Forevertree, who actually had a pretty decent modern rock/metal kind of sound, with some explicitly Christian lyrics, which I ultimately have to give them respect for. Despite being unknown by the older crowd there that night, they rocked excellently and won over as much of the audience as they were going to. If you're curious, please give them a listen here.
Following them was one of the regular opening acts on this tour, a band called Flight Patterns, which you've never heard of before. Why? Because from what I can tell, is that their first official show was opening for Stryper on the first date of this tour, beyond that, the band has no official bio, just an EP on iTunes, a Tumblr photo blog (started a few weeks ago), and zero plays on last.fm.
So why are they on tour with Stryper? It turns out Flight Patterns features the guitar work of one Michael Sweet, Jr., son of the lead singer of Stryper. You can read Michael Sweet, Jr.'s first ever interview here if you're curious.
Unfortunately, Flight Patterns is just not my kind of music... it's more like a rock-jock emo kind of thing, and I'm not their target audience by any means (think Saves the Day or Hot Rod Circuit). Their singer Max Prussner was enjoyable, and I like his own recordings, but as for Flight Patterns, they were just not a good fit for the night.
If anyone from the band is reading this, please do the honourable thing and offer to go first for the rest of the tour... you seem like cool guys and I wish you the best of luck with your career, but please respect the other hardworking bands on your tour, bands like Forevertree, and offer to take the first place spot. Pay your dues.
Anyways, on with Stryper. They did indeed bring with them their classic stage setup to tiny Reverb at Queen and Bathurst (probably the grossest venue I've been to in a while), complete with Stryper banner and loads of black and yellow striped guitars and various "cabinets." Though they were stamped with "MESA" logos, part of me suspects that some of them were dummy amps, meant to look impressive -- not necessarily to push some air.
(Earlier that day the band's massive van and trailer was clipped by a streetcar and blocked traffic for a while, which also sounds like a Spinal Tap like adventure, but I haven't heard too many details about that).
Shortly before the band took to the stage, one of the crew came on stage to tell people that because of their "record label," no one could take photos at all, except people with media passes, and only for the first three songs. This was pretty weird, not because of the media thing, because that's actually a pretty common practice (thought not at the Reverb I imagine), but the fact that someone had to come on stage to announce this. Even worse, is that the band had a surly roadie that spent the entire set telling people with compact point-and-shoots to stop taking pictures. Nope, I'm not even kidding.
Worst of all? This apparently worked, because no photographic evidence of the band's visit to Toronto seems to exist at all. Good for the band, I guess. As another aside: they seemed to have a disproportionately large crew for a venue that only holds 400 people, but I'm sure they were playing much larger venues other places on tour.
I also have to comment on the crowd: It seemed like the fans gathered were either 35 and up or 20 and under, and not really a lot of people aged in between. I even saw two teenagers that looked like they stepped directly out of "Heavy Metal Parking Lot," complete with long, feathered hair and tight black-and-yellow leather jackets. There was also another elder metalhead who wore skull rings on every finger, an upside-down cross around his neck and bright orange and yellow bellbottoms. He looked famous, but I wasn't quite sure who he was. I would have also bought a T-Shirt, but they were only selling the "anniversary" shirts and they cost 30 bucks. Yikes!
But I digress.
When Stryper finally came out (with a path cleared through the crowd by security guards) and took to the stage wearing their custom black and yellow outfits, when it came to the music they did not disappoint . Everything was flawless, from the solos to the singing: the band had stage presence, and rocked so much harder than anyone their age has the right of doing. I was too young to enjoy the band when they were at the height of their popularity, but I recognized in them during that performance everything that made them great, and why people were so dedicated to them, and why they even had a number one video on MTV. I could have done without the Boston cover, and more of "Breaking the Law," but they were simply fantastic. I'm very glad and very thankful that they brought their tour through Canada, and if they ever came back for a 30th anniversary tour, I wouldn't hesitate to go again.
Web 2.0
Christian Life
Silver Speakers
Movies watched, reviewed.
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- January 2009
Should I keep writing about material things?
Would you like to see something written up about this lamp?
Just a quick bloggy existential crisis: I've been thinking long and hard about the kinds of things I think long and hard about, and what I write about, and if that's worth writing about.
The quick and easy answer is no, of course not.
The truth is, it's really easy to write about things I've bought or received or found. I can look at it, describe it, vaguely share what it is I like about it, provide some background on it and where it came from, and where I put it in my home. Because hey, sometimes I'm proud of my stuff: I think it's pretty cool, and I think I've worked hard to earn it, and I want to show it off. Sure, my vintage Lotte lamp is but a fraction of the value or a house or loft or car, but it's valuable to me!
But I'll also admit that writing about -- or investing any sort of value -- in material things that are trivial and frivolous is a shallow en devour. Sometimes it makes me feel like writing about goods and trinkets feels like the written equivalent of tumblr post featuring the account of an ingénue's daily thrift-store/American Apparel "outfit" and sure-I-did-it-myself haircut.
So where is the line drawn? Why stop at "objects," when maybe I should also stop writing about "places," "stores," "food," "concerts," "books" and "movies," right? At a certain point, that even gets a little shallow, right? Even writing about my own writing, musical or otherwise is even sort of selfish, right? To go even further, who cares about what I have to thing about Government/Religion/Art in general?
The downward spiral can go even further: Why write that novel? Why take that photo? Why hack that Ikea? Well, I could go on, but you get the point
Here's what I think: As long as I never lose sight of the big things are actually important (God, family, community, love, culture), there's not a good reason why I can't adorn my life or my writing with diversions that add a little embellishment. After all, these kinds of things are the spice and flavour of life -- to a point.
For now, I'll stop this train of though here, and leave you with a quote by my favourite philosopher, Soren Kirkegaard, from "Fear and Trembling."
Thanks for bearing with me on this... we'll now return to your regularly random updates about whatever.