Re: Blabbermouth.net Interview: STRYPER'S MICHAEL SWEET: 'We Are Not A Christian Rock Band'

by sentient 6 Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:22 pm

NoOneIsHere wrote:S6,

Yeah, I didn't take that you were siding one way or the other about if the backlash was due to fans feeling offended. I knew you were just putting it out there as a possible reason.

And yes, some fans may feel that way. Betrayed. Offended.

I don't think they should be... But that's up to them.

Oh, I know Smile

. I just wanted to make it clear of what I thought about those reactions.

by Guest Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:51 pm

sentient 6 wrote:
NoOneIsHere wrote:S6,

Yeah, I didn't take that you were siding one way or the other about if the backlash was due to fans feeling offended. I knew you were just putting it out there as a possible reason.

And yes, some fans may feel that way. Betrayed. Offended.

I don't think they should be... But that's up to them.

Oh, I know . I just wanted to make it clear of what I thought about those reactions.

by johnnycanuck Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:57 pm

I think that saying that that he no longer wants to be identified as a Christian Rock band - but a band comprised of Christians is what the reformers were always about. Why do we always have to separate the secular from the sacred? The were many artists and, intellectuals, philosophers and actors who were christian and would never label themselves with the word Christian in front of their vocation. Yes maybe he did at one time, but I would rather him take this route than others like Ojo Taylor, Pete Stewart, Roger Martinez who renounced their Christianity and are now in opposition to it.

by Guest Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:54 pm

johnnycanuck wrote:I think that saying that that he no longer wants to be identified as a Christian Rock band - but a band comprised of Christians is what the reformers were always about. Why do we always have to separate the secular from the sacred? The were many artists and, intellectuals, philosophers and actors who were christian and would never label themselves with the word Christian in front of their vocation. Yes maybe he did at one time, but I would rather him take this route than others like Ojo Taylor, Pete Stewart, Roger Martinez who renounced their Christianity and are now in opposition to it.

I've thought about that too.

When I was reading the article, It was clear to me that Sweet wanted to make a point, but it just seemed like he was doing a poor job of communicating it.

I can see where some good points can be made, but I think he really needs to keep his cool and understand why the labels exist.

I don't see the point in making a fuss every time someone uses the terms "Christian rock" or "Christian metal".

by Guest Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:44 pm

by johnnycanuck Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:12 pm

I saw Stryper in 1984 in Springfield Mass. and I can tell you that the majority of those inside were not Christians. In fact, sadly, there were members of churches outside waving placards condemning them. I was witnessing to several people after the show inside and I pointed outside to the rabble, telling the kids inside that the people waving the placards are causing more harm to the cause of Christ than Stryper ever could.

by Guest Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:17 pm

Everyone giving grief to MS over this, needs to realize that views--and persons--evolve over time. If anyone's earned the right to do so, it's these guys.

by SirJahzeal Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:07 pm

This whole thing is rather silly, in my opinion. In a way, what we have here is another play on semantics. Right?

Whether you utilize the label of "Christian" for a music project or not...Stryper has been "Christian" themed lyrically throughout their discography. Their name is even inspired by a verse in the Christian Holy Bible, "Isaiah 53:5". They have consistently (except for that short period in the early 1990's) worn their Faith on their sleeves with courage.

There are some groups who would limit "Christian" labeled bands to ONLY singing about The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. If you stray from that lyrically, then you risk having that label and your personal Faith brought into question by the "JPM" crowd.

All the while, if we just look at The Holy Bible, it speaks of ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE topically. If the organizers of our modern canon of Holy Scriptures found it fit to include books featuring righteous perspectives on topics of relationships, health, business and etc...then why would it be "off limits" to share these truths through art?

Stryper started in the early 1980's...you are not going to change anybodies minds (Christian or otherwise) about the band as a whole. The ONLY way that you could shake the "Christian" label at this point is by drastically and completely changing your lyrical themes. We all know that Stryper is a Hard Rock/Heavy Metal band. We all know that Stryper is composed of Christians. We all know that Stryper writes Faith based lyrics. Call it "Christian Music" or just "Music", ether way is that same in the end. Stryper is Stryper.

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:13 am

1 4 All wrote:

Interesting...I am curious to see his upcoming videos about this topic.

by sentient 6 Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:39 am

Ok, so what I'm pickin' up is that their main reason for rejecting the label is so they can " reach " more people ? I think that we should look at what this means and what Michael means by it. Is this record sales ? Concert sales ? And then, once you get these " more " people....then what ?

....just askin' the questions.

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:48 am

Pastor Bob says that it's important to look at the heart, and I agree with that...

...but I think it may be too early to really see the "heart" of this situation, and that's why some folks are standing back and watching from a distance.

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:11 am

Garrison4JC wrote:This whole thing is rather silly, in my opinion. In a way, what we have here is another play on semantics. Right?

Whether you utilize the label of "Christian" for a music project or not...Stryper has been "Christian" themed lyrically throughout their discography. Their name is even inspired by a verse in the Christian Holy Bible, "Isaiah 53:5". They have consistently (except for that short period in the early 1990's) worn their Faith on their sleeves with courage.

There are some groups who would limit "Christian" labeled bands to ONLY singing about The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. If you stray from that lyrically, then you risk having that label and your personal Faith brought into question by the "JPM" crowd.

All the while, if we just look at The Holy Bible, it speaks of ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE topically. If the organizers of our modern canon of Holy Scriptures found it fit to include books featuring righteous perspectives on topics of relationships, health, business and etc...then why would it be "off limits" to share these truths through art?

Stryper started in the early 1980's...you are not going to change anybodies minds (Christian or otherwise) about the band as a whole. The ONLY way that you could shake the "Christian" label at this point is by drastically and completely changing your lyrical themes. We all know that Stryper is a Hard Rock/Heavy Metal band. We all know that Stryper is composed of Christians. We all know that Stryper writes Faith based lyrics. Call it "Christian Music" or just "Music", ether way is that same in the end. Stryper is Stryper.

THIS.

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:02 am

Garrison4JC wrote:This whole thing is rather silly, in my opinion. In a way, what we have here is another play on semantics. Right?

I suppose it could be silly...but I don't really know at his point.

Just because "semantics" are involved doesn't automatically make it silly.

At this point, I'm just going to watch and listen.

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:27 am

sentient 6 wrote:Ok, so what I'm pickin' up is that their main reason for rejecting the label is so they can " reach " more people ? I think that we should look at what this means and what Michael means by it. Is this record sales ? Concert sales ? And then, once you get these " more " people....then what ?

....just askin' the questions.

Yes...It was stated that the labels limited their "outreach", and that the main point was to "reach" people.

As far as REALLY "reaching" people for Christ goes...For a band communicating through song, it's going to be limited anyway regardless of the labels.

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:48 am

Mortal wrote:
sentient 6 wrote:Ok, so what I'm pickin' up is that their main reason for rejecting the label is so they can " reach " more people ? I think that we should look at what this means and what Michael means by it. Is this record sales ? Concert sales ? And then, once you get these " more " people....then what ?

....just askin' the questions.

Yes...It was stated that the labels limited their "outreach", and that the main point was to "reach" people.

As far as REALLY "reaching" people for Christ goes...For a band communicating through song, it's going to be limited anyway regardless of the labels.

I have always been a believer that the effectiveness of "reaching" people for Christ through metal / rock music is overrated, personally.

No doubt that some people have given their life to Jesus through a band's ministry, so I am not saying it is useless. I just believe that it isn't the tool that people believe it is.

I have always felt that Christian music tends to minister / help those that are already Christians more than reaching the lost.

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:43 am

NoOneIsHere wrote:

I have always felt that Christian music tends to minister / help those that are already Christians more than reaching the lost.

Even this type of ministering is limited.

Music can only minister to people to a certain point.

What I'm saying is that music ministry is going to be limited anyway even without the labels of "Christian rock/metal".

Whether "Christian" or not, if you are trying to get a message across through a song, it is going to be "limited" by several different things besides labels.

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:46 am

Mortal wrote:
NoOneIsHere wrote:

I have always felt that Christian music tends to minister / help those that are already Christians more than reaching the lost.

Even this type of ministering is limited.

Music can only minister to people to a certain point.

What I'm saying is that music ministry is going to be limited anyway even without the labels of "Christian rock/metal".

Whether "Christian" or not, if you are trying to get a message across through a song, it is going to be "limited" by several different things besides labels.

Agreed.

But some bands and fans try to make it into a LOT more

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:24 pm

Here is the next Pastor Bob video in this mini series.

I agree that we can't really go by "Christian" or "secular" labels when determining the heart of certain artists/bands.

Take for example Johnny Cash. He is not on a "Christian" label, but yet he has many tunes that speak of his Christian faith. Johnny Cash doesn't need a "Christian" label in order to show that he is a Christian.

The cool thing about Johnny Cash is that he presents both sides of himself to his audience. The "outlaw" side and the "Gospel" side....and he lets the fans decide for themselves how they want to take him.

I think he's cool with either way. Cool

by sentient 6 Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:19 pm

Mortal wrote:
Yes...It was stated that the labels limited their "outreach", and that the main point was to "reach" people.

As far as REALLY "reaching" people for Christ goes...For a band communicating through song, it's going to be limited anyway regardless of the labels.

I seen them in the 80s, but I couldn't remember if they gave a Gospel message in their set or not. Do they give a clear Gospel message in their set now ? If by " outreach " they mean they want people to hear the Gospel and respond to the Gospel, then I understand. If its not quite that, then I don't know what their goal is honestly when say " outreach. "

by sentient 6 Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:34 pm

NoOneIsHere wrote:I have always been a believer that the effectiveness of "reaching" people for Christ through metal / rock music is overrated, personally.

No doubt that some people have given their life to Jesus through a band's ministry, so I am not saying it is useless. I just believe that it isn't the tool that people believe it is.

I have always felt that Christian music tends to minister / help those that are already Christians more than reaching the lost.

It doesn't have to be ineffective. But when christians do things the way the world thinks they should be done, it does turn out that way.

In response to what you say here, what do think bands are doing wrong in regards how they reach people ?

I believe Christian music should do two things - present a clear, biblical message of salvation, and build up, encourage, teach and edify Believers. If you are not going to proclaim those things, then maybe bands should just stick with the " christians that play rock music " label.

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:46 pm

Here's a good Johnny Cash tune that seems to throw some "labels" out of whack.

It's titled Heavy Metal Don't Mean Rock and Roll To Me.

This would make a cool heavy metal tune Cool

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:28 pm

sentient 6 wrote:
Mortal wrote:
Yes...It was stated that the labels limited their "outreach", and that the main point was to "reach" people.

As far as REALLY "reaching" people for Christ goes...For a band communicating through song, it's going to be limited anyway regardless of the labels.

I seen them in the 80s, but I couldn't remember if they gave a Gospel message in their set or not. Do they give a clear Gospel message in their set now ? If by " outreach " they mean they want people to hear the Gospel and respond to the Gospel, then I understand. If its not quite that, then I don't know what their goal is honestly when say " outreach. "

Yes...The words "reach" and "outreach" seem to be labels for something scratch

by Guest Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:57 pm

Mortal wrote:Here is the next Pastor Bob video in this mini series.

I agree that we can't really go by "Christian" or "secular" labels when determining the heart of certain artists/bands.

Take for example Johnny Cash. He is not on a "Christian" label, but yet he has many tunes that speak of his Christian faith. Johnny Cash doesn't need a "Christian" label in order to show that he is a Christian.

The cool thing about Johnny Cash is that he presents both sides of himself to his audience. The "outlaw" side and the "Gospel" side....and he lets the fans decide for themselves how they want to take him.

I think he's cool with either way.

U2 is the modern-day counterpart to Johnny IMO. Bono possesses the same self-deprecating spirit Johnny did. Among other similarities.

by Guest Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:42 am

sentient 6 wrote:
NoOneIsHere wrote:I have always been a believer that the effectiveness of "reaching" people for Christ through metal / rock music is overrated, personally.

No doubt that some people have given their life to Jesus through a band's ministry, so I am not saying it is useless. I just believe that it isn't the tool that people believe it is.

I have always felt that Christian music tends to minister / help those that are already Christians more than reaching the lost.

It doesn't have to be ineffective. But when christians do things the way the world thinks they should be done, it does turn out that way.

In response to what you say here, what do think bands are doing wrong in regards how they reach people ?

I believe Christian music should do two things - present a clear, biblical message of salvation, and build up, encourage, teach and edify Believers. If you are not going to proclaim those things, then maybe bands should just stick with the " christians that play rock music " label.

It's not that I think the bands are necessarily doing anything wrong on purpose, I just don't think the medium itself is a strong way to reach people.

1) Too many times the words are buried in the music
2) There is usually no support network for people who want to give their life to Christ. Especially when you are playing in a bar with minimal acknowledgment of even being a Christian band.
3) Far too much idol worshipping of the bands
4) A lot of concert salvations are merely fans doing what they think their idols want them to do.

Honestly, I think that a lot of times fans start web pages and fan clubs and use the ministry angle to justify the time and money they spend doing it. When in reality, they just want to spend time doing something with their passion for music.

I think too many folks forget that it's OK to listen to music just for entertainment.

I personally don't look to bands for spiritual advice. I listen purely for the love of music.

by Guest Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:12 pm

NoOneIsHere wrote:U2 is the modern-day counterpart to Johnny IMO. Bono possesses the same self-deprecating spirit Johnny did. Among other similarities.

That's cool Cool

I'm not really all that familiar with U2. I know a few good tunes that I've heard on the radio, but I've never purchased any U2 albums.

by Sponsored content