the gaga series [part 4]: on the sin of being different

[prologue]
i realize that this series is really not incredibly cohesive, but hopefully you all understand the common ground that all these posts occupy (wall street). this time id like to organize things a tad differently. cheers.

[chapter I]
there are a few people who dislike/question lady gaga only because she is “different”. now admittedly, i find this group of people lessening, probably because the politically-correct, pseudo-intellectual community is very assertive about this being an insanely juvenile way to look at things. and i do appreciate that they fight ignorance and shallowness in their own way, but yeah. developing distaste on the sole basis of difference/unknown factors is pretty elementary, but its also a real thing that we deal with in life.

its understandable that people are afraid of what they dont know. yet understandable and acceptable are really not at all in the same boat. id like to say its unacceptable for people to be afraid of what they dont know, but thats kind of harsh and i really dont think that i think that to be true. but something along those lines.

besides being the root of all sorts of injustice, the decision to take offense at things that are “different”/”disagree with you” (quotes quotes quotes) is also the decision to reject what that “difference”/”disagreeing party” (lol partyyy) has to offer you. and everything/everyone/everywhere has something to offer. to think otherwise is one of the highest forms of pride, id say. but who knows. nose.

[chapter II]
now, if any one group of people were to be made infamous by their inability to accept the different, everyone and their mother and their father and their nieces and their dogs would agree that that group of people = the church. this is a hilariously ironic and absurdly depressing fact. honestly think of any period in history and some of the breaking news of that time will concern the church persecuting some group of people; even when the church itself was being persecuted. weird. and it continues today. the never ending story.

in its perpetual witch hunt, the greater church has then missed out on a lot of very critical shifts in human history. exhibit A: the dark ages. the decision to burn intelligence and emerging culture because it was “different”/”disagreeable” and therefore “demonic” sets the clock back a pretty gnarly amount of hours for everyone. and this is something atheists still hold against the religious. lol. exhibit B: the reenactment of exhibit A: creationist majority deciding to entrench themselves in ignorance and opposition to evolution and the entire world of science instead of 1) thinking/learning/educating themselves a little more to support the creationist agenda or 2) stop being so public about religio-politics and start preaching the gospel more.

[chapter III]
anything relevant in the times, the church catches on 10+ years later when the hot topics die down and everyone finally realizes that this “different”/”disagreeable” and “demonic” new innovation is actually an idea waiting to find its redeemed purpose. in that awful time of fear and ignorance, horrible atrocities have taken place in the name of religion, in the name of upholding the standard, in the name of protecting God and His people, as if that was ever our job. (God is your protector, it doesnt work the other way around. i really hate retreat shirts that try and incorporate “we must protect this house”.)

a movement or a people being different does not make everything about them evil; again, everyone has something to offer, or rather something in them needs to be called out into reconciliation. the new age and neo-pagan circles are veterans in the supernatural compared to the church. what if we gave up pitchforks and torches and extended hands and feet to go love on a lost group of people, call out their destiny, and see that special side of Christ expressed through them shine for everybones benefit?

[chapter IV]
so the church on a macrocosmic level needs to learn to accept difference, but thats a no-brainer. there is also a microcosmic reflection of those same principles that id like to address. though, in all honesty, there is a book titled: “Culture of Honor” by Danny Silk from Bethel Church in Redding, California that is, without any exaggeration, a perfect discourse about these kinds of things. so go buy and read that book. but until then.

when disagreement becomes the division in a relationship, its because being right has become more important than being together. its taken me some time to realize that this is stupid. this is also rampant in the church. hence, denominations. but we are supposed to be known for our love for each other, not for our synchronized swimmers minds (John 13:35). therefore, even in the face of complete disagreement (e.g. charismatic – conservative, religious – gracious, denomination A – denomination B) we should be able to love each other in the end. at a corporate as well as individual level.

now the terrible reality is that in the face of disagreement, relationship ends or you start another church. but one day we will get it. one day the church will understand that being different is not actually a sin. one day the church will be able to see Christ in others as the hope of glory. one day the church will be able to see itself and the world as the Father sees the church and the world. one day good ol’ christian boys and girls will be able to look at lady gaga and see her as an idea in the mind of God once upon a time and be able to call out the glory He has in her.

[chapter V for Vendetta]
agreement should not be a prerequisite to relationship.

when you choose to surround yourself solely with those who agree with you, you enter elitism, cultism, paranormal activity. pharisees. you limit the ability to bless and be blessed to what you can understand and legitimize, making yourself the author of your faith and the giver of good gifts.

again, a lot of this goes back to topics we discussed in [parts 1-3]; fear for out ultra-sensitive minds that for some reason, we dont seem to have the faith that Jesus will help us out in what we believe/think/hear/regurgitate and fall into all sorts of devious traps, or self-righteous assumptions that only we can have the whole truth, or decide to condemn those who disagree so that their disagreement becomes poison to us, or whateverrr.

Jesus saw how His father saw and lived His life that way. how fitting would it be to let Him continue living His life in us that way? He saw prostitutes and tax collectors and chose not to demean the legitimacy of their lives or shun them because they were propelled by completely different mindsets, but to spend time with them and love them, transforming these degenerate sinners into the first saints. He saw pharisees and the religious and chose to discuss their lives with them, teaching on the truth. paul saw gentiles, an ethiopian, women, etc. and chose to commend their awesomeness and bless them with his own.

“As you breathe in, cherish yourself. As you breathe out, cherish all beings.”
-Dalai Lama

[epilogue]
to hate on anyone is stupid. to hate on anyone because they are different/disagree with you is stupid. to hate on lady gaga is stupid. to hate on lady gaga because she is different/disagrees with you is stupid. simple math. and hate steals, kills, and destroys. steals the ability to love and be loved, kills people/places/things, and destroys everything worth building.

rocket science.

the gaga series [part 3]: on scales and chutes and ladders.

[introduction/disclaimer again again]
it has been a fair amount of time since [part 2] was “published” and im sorry about the lull time, though im sure it didnt bother any of you all that much. midterms and rainy weather throw me into slow motion. which is actually really enjoyable. but for now, lets return to addressing mama monster, the lady gaga.

again, id suggest you read [part 1] and [part 2] before [part 3], but whatever. today, i feel like things will be kind of loopy. but. who cares.

On Scales and Chutes and Ladders
intake this post episodically. there are lots of tangential nuggets ill just spill out on the table and towards the end, hopefully i can wrap it up in a happy meal. classic coke on the side.

the wages of sin is death. every good little Christian boy and girl should know this. we hear it all too often.

now, if you decide to identify someone or a group of people or a nation primarily by their sin (e.g. lady gaga, tiger woods, the gay community, nazis, todd bentley) then, in order to follow your inclination as a creature of morality and justice, you have placed a demand upon yourself to primarily speak death over that person/those people.

real issues
then the decision to hate abortion doctors and politicians who support abortion is not actually pro-life. the decision to condemn those who are having premarital sex is what makes abortion a legitimate decision for the outcast; it speaks death over the consequences of that lifestyle. could it be that condemnation is what kills the baby? think. i doubt demolishing abortion clinics or red tape will end abortion in America, but ive faith that a gracious and loving people will.

gay teens committing suicide because of the aggressive intolerance they face is tragic. its also a result of Christendoms decision to pronounce death over that community, refusing to see them as all that much beyond their lifestyle, which we are oh so loud about disagreeing with. i wonder what it would have looked like if the church was the first to embrace and love on the gay community. the way it was supposed to be.

facebook statuses and tweets. the religious community is so bent on being known for what they are against, and seem ever so confused about what they are for. choosing to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil over the tree of life is what initiated the fall, and its what perpetuates fallen habits in a redeemed reality. it always has been and always will be this one issue. its not a matter of charismatic v. conservative, or signs and wonders or tongues or baptism or when the sabbath is or how to celebrate it or this or that; it will always be this one question: what tree do you choose to eat from?

add 1 cup of the gospel

When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And He said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.“
-John 8:10-11 NKJV

this, to me, is the most beautiful story in the gospels. ill write more on it some other time. but for now, lets focus on the order of what Jesus says.

Jesus: Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.
Church: Go and sin no more; then we might stop condemning you.

Grace empowers what He commands. it is the removal of the object of condemnation (the law) that separated sin from us and us from sin. Jesus fulfilled the law and now we are no longer under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:23-25) and therefore empowered to live holy lives like we could never do while under the law (Romans 7). He did all this through love. after all, He is love (1 John 4:16). AND AS HE IS, SO ARE WE IN THIS WORLD (1 John 4:17).

Jesus didnt demand sinless-ness as a prerequisite for mercy and grace. then we, who have FREELY received, should FREELY give. dear world, we no longer condemn you; therefore, be empowered by love and grace to sin no more. wouldnt that be something.

and then
hey young lovers addicted to premarital sex, we love you. we are here for you even if you continue in this, even if you conceive because of this, we love you and grace to you. surely we dont agree with everything you are doing and would love to see you change your ways, but we know that its not preaching rules and regulations that leads you to that, but KINDNESS that leads to repentance. hey gay community, we love you. hey religious community, we love you. hey atheists, we love you. hey everyone, we love you.

theres an unhealthy obsession with casting stones festering in the church. its as if, in the face of a seemingly immoral universe, we Christians have to maintain the balance by letting it be known there are those who disagree. but the scales were always meant to be uneven; mercy triumphs over judgment.

On Lady Gaga
Don’t be insecure if your heart is pure
You’re still good to me if you’re a bad kid baby
-Lady Gaga “Bad Kids”

gaga gets it. got this post forwarded to me from a friend. relevant. lol. the writer does a pretty awesome job postulating on what loving outcasts looks like and talks about loving societys ‘little monsters’ and also pulls from the same song. pretty rad stuff. a man after my own heart. haha. his post will serve as my conclusion.

[conclusion]
read that guys post. next time: the sin of being different.

the gaga series [part 2]: on antichrist superstars

[introduction again]
if you havent read part 1, im not sure why you would want to start at part 2, but all the power to you, reader. this one is a little less scripture-y and a little more whatever else-y. id say opinionated, but everything is opinionated, so whatevzies. probably less nerd-dom, though. sadly. sadly and thankfully.

On Antichrist Superstars
im sure youve heard it before. its said about basically everyone. more accurately, anyone who does not blatantly support the churchs interests or advocate the churchs interpretation on life/death/life is pretty much bound to be accused of “leading a generation astray”.

“leading a generation astray”. hm.

primarily, id like to focus on the myth of celebrity and the illusions people kind of accept with any public figure, but those are more ideas trapped in development that im not sure i even believe fully, so ill toss in some legitimate remarks before that, i guess. legitimacy is the new holy, it seems.

on “leading a generation astray” referring to believers
read Romans 8:38-39. and also read the rest of the bible. we have become inseparable from Christ. any verse referring to falling away or falling from grace is in the context of replacing the redeeming power of Jesus with human efforts, which are undeniably insubstantial. can lady gaga steal you out of the Father’s heart?

on “leading a generation astray” referring to non-believers
here we have an issue with how you even define “leading a generation astray”.

1. if it means leading a generation away from God, we have a serious accusation issue going on. which is no news, when we talk about the church. the sinful nature is the bad guy, lets remember this. and even that bad guy wasnt able to stop God from pursuing His lovelies and having communion with them. a celebrity does not keep you away from God.

2. if it means leading a generation into sin, again, lets get real. with a sinful nature, we were inseparable from sin. a dietary schedule for willpower couldnt stop that, neither could praying more or singing louder. Jesus was and is and will always be that answer. as a sinner, you sin. anyone could tell you that. sinning more or sinning less doesnt make any difference, sin is sin and a sinner is a sinner. AND ANY SINNER CAN BE REDEEMED. so what is the issue, honestly?

3. im pretty sure any other meaning is addressed or encapsulated in 1 and 2, which are already basically the same thing.

in conclusion, the whole thing about “leading a generation astray” is a confused statement altogether which, when emphasized, can only reflect a basic misunderstanding of the power of the gospel. what do you have more faith in, some public figures ability to get in the way of the God who is love, or the redeeming ability of the God who is love?

returning to antichrist superstars
there was a civil rights movement in the hearts of the oppressed before martin luther king jr. was born. germany was writhing in chaos and confusion before hitler rose to power. if you understand anything about politics, you know that change does not travel from the top down, but from the ground up.

public figures (in this age, i think celebrities are interesting to highlight) are at best voices of some invisible entity (usually a mass of people) that both acknowledge and reinforce what is already there. there is a silent foundation, the internal world of people, and all it takes is one person to embrace that and speak it out, and all of the sudden you have transformed snail-paced reform to lightning-fast revolution. but nothing was really initiated; something was expedited. however, to say, for example, that bob dylan introduced something completely new is not entirely wrong.

a foundation of unspoken desires or repressed thought. usually, a whole bunch of people share it without knowing. then along comes polly who says hey i feel this way and im not going to apologize for it. then everyone backs polly because she has described the indescribable thing they were born holding. polly did do something new, and her take on the unsaid is going to be different than jacks, but she is not really an astronaut, just a pilgrim.

if i tie this back to something biblical, maybe it will sound more right. God is always looking for the one. abraham, moses, david, gideon, the prophets, really name anyone. but its the one that is willing to act upon what everyone else is feeling. all the hebrew slaves wanted out of egypt, and with sheer numbers they could have done it, im sure. but moses was born into a different mindset, aware of his ability and responsibility to change things. also he had an encounter with a talking burning bush. given enough time, im sure a hebrew revolt would have ensued, probably lots of fighting and stuff, but it would have happened. enter moses who speaks with the power of God, but also with a voice that gives audibility to that desire for freedom, and in a few pages we are in the promised land.

i like to think of celebrity as the latest art form. if this is true, then the public is the artist. if this is true, then its the wordless, colorless, indescribable whatever that is being made in the celebrity; something on the inside is physically manifesting externally and becoming this celebrity. then, a celebrity is not some demonic figure that came from nowhere to “lead a generation astray”, but the inevitable expression of a collective group of people. to then blame the attitude and action on this one figure without coming to terms with some sense of responsibility for the arena and existence that the celebrity enjoys seems illogical and unfair. its not that much of a stretch, really.

On Lady Gaga
sexual identity/carnal identity as a whole is a serious and legitimate issue for us. i think gaga is the voice of acceptance that the church should have been for the ostracized. im sure youve read post secrets about how necessary suicide seems when a homosexual is persecuted by his/her own family. its out of style to combat carnality with legalism and religious piousness. actually, it was never in style. what people want is an affirmation that there is nothing wrong with where they are, who they are, why they are. if gaga advocates homosexaulity, promiscuity, drug addictions, alcoholism, etc. whats important is not the ability to discern that these things are “wrong” and “evil” and “sinful”, but that the level of reception reflects something else entirely. there is a demand for affirmation. i need someone to tell me that im alright. and if i cant find that in a “legitimate” way, or as most people would translate that: “at church”, that doesnt mean im going to stop looking.

lady gaga is not leading a generation astray, shes saying letting them know that its fine to be astray and that theyre not alone in being astray. and both of those things are true!

would i prefer that she acknowledge that Jesus is the answer you really need? of course. do i need that to be able to appreciate and understand and learn from what she is doing? no.

[inconclusive conclusion]
if you think an antichrist is that creepy dude from left behind, go read the epistles of john and figure yourself out. putting the blame on an individual for sinful natures and the behavior that comes from that is a misunderstanding of life and reflective on what powers you respect. gaga isnt leading a generation astray, the generation, along with every other generation before it, was already astray. that doesnt stop Jesus from loving us, nor can it stop Him from getting us back on track.

i just dont get the hype. i dont understand fear-based “christianity”. im not even going to capitalize it. judgment and condemnation take a lot of effort, and if youre willing to constantly spend that effort that incurs zero reward, there is something wrong in the picture, and its probably self-righteousness. lol. mangoes.

next time will be on scales, i think. more money, less problems.

the gaga series [part I]: on glass cannon christianity

[disclaimer/introduction]:
so in light of recent events (of which, i can name none) ive decided to write a series of blog posts that will somewhat address the wonderful subject of lady gaga. tied into this series will be plenty of tangential nonsense and seeming heresies, im sure. and as a kind of disclaimer to complement my sometimes out of control sarcasm, i do believe just about everything im about to write. if you disagree, which i believe many will, we can still love each other, unless youre that petty.

On Glass Cannon Christianity
nerd-dom, a realm that has contributed and continues to contribute to my development in a huge way, has a pretty vast pseudo-language that is just hilarious. one of the terms that are encapsulated in this said pseudo-language is the famous/infamous “glass cannon”.

glass cannon: (n.) Refers to a person, weapon, or vehicle which has a high output, but a low defense, life, durability, etc.
-urbandictionary.com

this is also sometimes referred to as a “squishy wizard” or “squishy mage”, which, again, is both hilarious and painfully lame.

id like to argue that the way a lot of Charismania (the larger charismatic church world) views Christianity and Christians is akin to some glass cannon complex. surely, prophesying, healing, casting out demons, raising the dead, etc. signs and wonders are in our arsenal, but still the slightest contact with a harry potter book or continual exposure to secular music or some alien generational curse or friends who smoke cigarettes will completely undo your faith. the extent of this mentality, as with everything, varies from person to person, but you get the general idea. the fundamental contradiction is generally accepted that we are “more than conquerors” but at the same time highly susceptible to every face of “demonic activity”.

this notion, i think, is completely wrong and cripplingly stupid. its also more things, but im sure the verbiage wouldnt be appreciated.

in terms of spiritual warfare (which i think a lot of this notion kind of revolves around) our instruction are to

be strong in the Lord in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
-Ephesians 6:10-11 NKJV

so here we find a beautiful reminder that in the same way that we operate in His power to “go on the offensive” or proactively do spiritual things, operate in spiritual gifts, etc. we operate in His power to defend ourselves from spiritual attacks. therefore, if its in His might that we take refuge, in His armor that we stand against wiles and other fun words, what exactly is so worrying, why does paranoia even have a place in Christendom? to drive the point further, we arent even fighting in the armor, we are standing with the armor on. when the kingdom of darkness sees the armor of God, which id like to believe is the robe of righteousness we have in Christ Jesus, the battle is over. Jesus was even kind enough to announce that “it is finished”.

if putting this outfit on is our great defense, then essentially it is the being of who we really and already are that acts as our ultimate shield against every other power.

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
-Colossians 2:9-10 NKJV

Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
-Colossians 2:15 NKJV

Q: how terrible would it be for some sort of demon gremlin to try engaging in Charismania warfare, only to be faced with the truth of the past that he already lost?
A: pretty terrible. source code.

so not only are we perfectly equipped for anything that comes our way, everything that is to come our way has already been dealt with. what the heck.

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
-Ephesians 4:6-7 NKJV

peace that surpasses understanding as the guard of our hearts and minds. so essentially spiritual war (if it can even be called that) is won by resting in the victory we already have. submit all that human desire to wage war to God, and thus win the battle. (see James 4:7). its offensively easy. trolls.

Q: which is stronger, a generational curse or Christ Jesus who became a curse for us?
A: if you dont know this, you are in trouble. backsliding, perhaps.

Q: what is more powerful, the principality over Thailand or Christ Jesus who is the head of principality and power?
A: if you dont know this, you probably know nothing worthwhile.

Q: what is more influential, what the radio tells us to do, or who God says we are?
A: sigh.

Q:  what is more troubling: that when reading a harry potter book, you might accidentally say some witch spell, or the fact that Charismania often advocates certain “cleansing prayers” that can easily be, in every manner and respect, incantations?
A: be offended.

On Lady Gaga
listening to lady gaga’s music might stumble some people, and thats fine. if its a problem for you, dont listen to her music. the entirety of this issue is a lot like food offered to idols. its against some peoples consciences and thus sin for them, and not against others and thus not sin for them.

but if youre whole reasoning is out of fear, hopefully the above will kind of loosen the bolts on that whole thing. you will not turn into a prostitute or become bisexual or develop demon horns if you listen to her music and watch her music videos. trust me, none of the three has happened to me and i listen to her almost all day long.

lastly, if youre a gaga hater, there are issues you need to realize you have. firstly, get over your self-righteousness. hating “sinners” doesnt make you any more of a saint and it doesnt prove your self conjured holiness to anyone. further, being able to postulate about antichrist candidates doesnt make you discerning or more spiritual, it makes you pretentious. more to come in later posts.

[conclusion]:
if youve read this far, hats off to you. if you disagree with whatever, im not trying to convince you that youre wrong about something, i just want you to wonder if you are. honestly, i just want people to be able to think for themselves and experience the Truth (the person, not the list of theological points) for themselves and not have to be the typical regurgitating Christian that is ruining the world.

grace, grace, life and peace to all of you. <3

cyber yoga.

say something offensive today.

trying to re-understand art. [part 3].

“When a piece of sculpture or a musical composition produces an emotion that one feels to be higher, purer, truer than ordinary life, such a work must correspond to a certain spiritual reality.”
-Marcel Proust

get it, mr. proust.

if art can be thought of as a door/gateway, then any extensive interaction begets traveling from whatever room you are in to whatever room lies behind the door. the different aspects of the work can then affect whether or not that transition is desirable/plausible/maybe even asserted upon unknowing viewer, like a black hole kind of vacuum thing, etc.

so skip a few stones, and then~

adele’s soulful love songs are doors to that kind of soulful sadness and at the same time thrills and ecstasies. by seeing the door, you can get a feel for what the room is like. a garage door is quite different from a public bathroom door.

praise songs (if you can graciously consider them an art form for now, though generally speaking, i would disagree) become huge doors. a group of people purposefully (again, arguable) producing/outlining this doorway to another reality, by faith, declaring His goodness, awesomeness, faithfulness, etc. until the door becomes so welcoming that you cant help but fall into that room beyond it.

and if the door were a praise of His goodness, then the room would be His goodness, the same way Louise Bourgeois’ spider statues are declarations of her mother-daughter relationship and invite you into the room of all those emotions tied to that. which would explain why that song “How He Loves” is such a fan favorite and powerful and all, because it doesnt sing of our love for Him, but His love for us, inviting us not into the joys of having passion, but the joys of the passion thats so after us.

in Redding, California, theres a pretty famous story about a woman who looked at a painting and then had a tumor crawl out of her ear and die. the painting had the word “hope” written over some hills and stuff. past the visual elements, i think it was a gateway, “portal”even, to hope, and something poured out of that opening into the lady, or perhaps the lady went into the opening, or whatever, but ultimately, two realities met and one knelt before the other.

i think this is why music moves people. movies move people, paintings and sculptures and plays and poems move people. “moving” is traveling from one room to the next, or perhaps simply taking a little souvenir from one room and bringing it back to yours.

Jesus was an open heaven, He was what jacobs ladder pointed to. angels ascended and descended on Him (John 1:51). people interacted with Him and things changed for sure. i think people know that people are doors to other things, etc. blah blah shnahhh~

artwork as an extension of the artist, blehhh~ doors everywhere mehhh~

repetition. repetition. backwards thinking. in the end everything is so simple, but the complexity of the simplicity makes for a good pastime.

seriously, though, marcel proust… thats a good word.

is caring.

put your faith in His love for you, not your love for Him.

lately, ive heard a pretty decent number of preachers speaking on the difference between peter and john (Jesus’ disciples) and its all been awesome.

peter was always boasting in his love for Jesus, doing pretty rash things in the name of zealous passion. john on the other hand was always boasting in Jesus’ love for him, even naming himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. which is pretty hilarious. in the disciples darkest hour, peter, grounded on his abilities, found himself weeping bitterly outside the city. john, grounded in Jesus’ abilities, found himself gazing at his crucified Christ.

Jesus is the best investment. haha.