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

Candlemass wrote:

Neal Morse Code wrote:

Follower of Jesus wrote:What is he afraid of? Why not embrace the label of Christian? Is it because it will limit record sales? I'm serious...what's the motivation behind saying this? I can't help but think that its nothing more than not wanting to alienate people who might listen to Stryper but won't if they think they're a Christian band. Again, I come back to our examples in Scripture. Wearing the name of Christ is something we should boast in! I don't say this is a condemnation of Michael. I don't agree with him on this at all, but I do believe he is still very much my brother in Christ.

Not so quick there, FOJ.  For instance, author Ted Dekker also is not too fond of the "Christian" label, as he believes that word has been maligned, misused, and has been an oppressive symbol among certain groups.  He prefers "Christ-follower," as do I.

Yea, not so fast there either, as if some new label won't be maligned, misused and a symbol of oppression among certain groups as well...

"Because of you, the name of the Lord is blasphemed among the Gentiles!"

Your logic's a bit flawed there.  Sometimes the Body deserves a beatdown when it allies itself with powers responsible for persecuting the innocent, standing in self-righteous judgment of unbelievers, and the like.  The ultimate question is: do the accused have it coming? "Let none of you suffer as an idolater, a busybody," et. al.

alldatndensum wrote:Perhaps this is more about selling a new Stryper record than it is about distancing himself from whatever tags will be placed on the music by almost everyone?

Hmm...


Now I know why you boasted about your unkept lawn..

Neal Morse Code wrote:

Candlemass wrote:

Neal Morse Code wrote:

Follower of Jesus wrote:What is he afraid of? Why not embrace the label of Christian? Is it because it will limit record sales? I'm serious...what's the motivation behind saying this? I can't help but think that its nothing more than not wanting to alienate people who might listen to Stryper but won't if they think they're a Christian band. Again, I come back to our examples in Scripture. Wearing the name of Christ is something we should boast in! I don't say this is a condemnation of Michael. I don't agree with him on this at all, but I do believe he is still very much my brother in Christ.

Not so quick there, FOJ.  For instance, author Ted Dekker also is not too fond of the "Christian" label, as he believes that word has been maligned, misused, and has been an oppressive symbol among certain groups.  He prefers "Christ-follower," as do I.

Yea, not so fast there either, as if some new label won't be maligned, misused and a symbol of oppression among certain groups as well...

"Because of you, the name of the Lord is blasphemed among the Gentiles!"

Your logic's a bit flawed there.  Sometimes the Body deserves a beatdown when it allies itself with powers responsible for persecuting the innocent, standing in self-righteous judgment of unbelievers, and the like.  The ultimate question is: do the accused have it coming? "Let none of you suffer as an idolater, a busybody," et. al.

It is not flawed at all, but changing your label is, as if someone is going to see the difference in one who refers to themselves as a "Christ Follower" or a "Christian"...

To quote Michael Nesmith of the Monkees, "That's, like, your hang-up, man."

For me, it is easier when referring to bands by saying they are a "Christian band(s)" instead of saying "they are  a rock band comprised of Christians". For me it is less wordy and shorter. I have bands ranging from secular (Def Leppard, Dream Theater and MARS project Driver), both Christian and non Christian members (GX, Impellitteri and Fires of Babylon) and full on Christian bands (Petra, Stryper, Barren Cross, Whitecross, King James, Saint, Theocracy, etc). I would be hesitant in calling the band that are a mix of Christian and non Christian members Christian rock bands but I would have no hesitation in calling the third category that have all Christian members Christian rock bands.

Also, for Michael to say that, that's his choice. Everyone knows Stryper are Christians and are a Christian band. I wonder what the other 3 members think?

What Michael is fighting against is the stereotypes and labels that is too much prejudicial to the bands. I have introduce many bands to a few friends in the past and it happen in several times that my favorites bands had been rejected with sentences such as: "Is this white metal? I don't want to hear it..."

However, In my book there are some advantages in labeling the bands. How could I discoverer about other christian bands, if not by the label?? How could we find a place like that to discuss about the similar tastes?

To sum up, I guess the labels brings more disadivantages than advantages, but that is not that bad after all.

Soldier777 wrote:For me, it is easier when referring to bands by saying they are a "Christian band(s)" instead of saying "they are  a rock band comprised of Christians". For me it is less wordy and shorter. I have bands ranging from secular (Def Leppard, Dream Theater and MARS project Driver), both Christian and non Christian members (GX, Impellitteri and Fires of Babylon) and full on Christian bands (Petra, Stryper, Barren Cross, Whitecross, King James, Saint, Theocracy, etc). I would be hesitant in calling the band that are a mix of Christian and non Christian members Christian rock bands but I would have no hesitation in calling the third category that have all Christian members Christian rock bands.

Also, for Michael to say that, that's his choice. Everyone knows Stryper are Christians and are a Christian band. I wonder what the other 3 members think?

I find it easier to say rock band or metal band than Christian band.

I would assume that in 2015, anyone who would buy a Stryper record would have already labeled them a Christian band, in their mind anyway.

ParaNormaN wrote:

I find it easier to say rock band or metal band than Christian band.

If you were to recommend, lets say Petra, to a nonchristian...how would you desribed them to the person ? Even when talking about metal bands, you gotta be specific. Look at death and black metal. If someone has christian context as a death or black metal band, you gotta have something to indicate that their songs are not of the same subject matter as the secular. I would think so, anyway.

undead toaster wrote:As far as bands like Amon Amarth go, there is a certain sound (albeit a rather subtle one) that distinguishes "viking" metal from other melodeath/folk metal.

Well, thats why I specifically said viking " death metal. " I would think that if the idea of songs about viking lore offends you, you won't be interested in Amon Amarth.

NoOneIsHere wrote:

 He just simply doesn't like bands being labeled that way.

I guess my follow question for him would be this then - why did you embrace ( because he certainly did ) it before and why do you think differently about it now ? Why the change in attitude and whats the thought process. Because I must say, his reasoning in the interview is quite shallow if you ask me.

Candlemass wrote:That's true, there's no question that Stryper put themselves in that box, along w/Believer, Saviour Machine, Teramaze and a host of others who wanted out later...

Other than SM ( I guess cause i'm not into them ), those other bands don't write specific christian themed songs anymore. I have no problem seeing Believer and Teramaze as just regular rock bands, because their songs ( for the most part ) reflect that. If Stryper goes back to the " against the law " days then he might have a case. And then, he needs to be honest and say that he no longer wants his band to be viewed as " christian " band. I may not agree with it, but I can respect the honesty when you acknowledge your past.

I tried reading the article in the original post, but I was having a hard time following the line of thought.

The article seems to be about Sweet not liking the label "Christian rock band",

But then he goes on to say...

"We never ran from our faith, we have always been the most full Christian rock band that is comprised of Christians the whole time."

So...He doesn't like the label "Christian rock band", and says Stryper is NOT a Christian rock band, but yet he uses that self-same term to describe Stryper.

Mortal wrote:I tried reading the article in the original post, but I was having a hard time following the line of thought.

The article seems to be about Sweet not liking the label "Christian rock band",

But then he goes on to say...

"We never ran from our faith, we have always been the most full Christian rock band that is comprised of Christians the whole time."

So...He doesn't like the label "Christian rock band", and says Stryper is NOT a Christian rock band, but yet he uses that self-same term to describe Stryper.

His whole rationale is a very flawed, I thought.

sentient 6 wrote:

NoOneIsHere wrote:

 He just simply doesn't like bands being labeled that way.

I guess my follow question for him would be this then - why did you embrace ( because he certainly did ) it before and why do you think differently about it now ? Why the change in attitude and whats the thought process. Because I must say, his reasoning in the interview is quite shallow if you ask me.

True, would be a good question to ask (and have actually answered)...

One thing I think is crazy though, and I have seen it on Facebook MANY times already, is when someone says they will no longer be a fan because of this. That to me seems absurd.

If their lyrical content doesn't change, which no indication it will, and he continues to profess that the band members are Christian, which he does....why on earth would someone stop being a fan just because he doesn't want the band labeled?

As perplexing as his reasons may be, if nothing changes about the band then I think it is even more puzzling as to why someone would stop liking them over it.

Maybe he's just tired of getting picked apart over every little thing by Christians?

sentient 6 wrote:His whole rationale is a very flawed, I thought.

Based on the article alone, I think so too.

Stryper is NOT a Christian rock band,

But they've always been gung-ho about being a Christian rock band.

ParaNormaN wrote:

I find it easier to say rock band or metal band than Christian band.

Also, don't you find it ironic that you are making this statement on a site called " the christian metal realm " ?

NoOneIsHere wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:

True, would be a good question to ask (and have actually answered)...

He kinda did. I would go deeper though.

NoOneIsHere wrote:One thing I think is crazy though, and I have seen it on Facebook MANY times already, is when someone says they will no longer be a fan because of this. That to me seems absurd.

If their lyrical content doesn't change, which no indication it will, and he continues to profess that the band members are Christian, which he does....why on earth would someone stop being a fan just because he doesn't want the band labeled?

As perplexing as his reasons may be, if nothing changes about the band then I think it is even more puzzling as to why someone would stop liking them over it.

Maybe he's just tired of getting picked apart over every little thing by Christians?

I think that they are offended. offended since they make most of the money from christians.

sentient 6 wrote:

NoOneIsHere wrote:One thing I think is crazy though, and I have seen it on Facebook MANY times already, is when someone says they will no longer be a fan because of this. That to me seems absurd.

If their lyrical content doesn't change, which no indication it will, and he continues to profess that the band members are Christian, which he does....why on earth would someone stop being a fan just because he doesn't want the band labeled?

As perplexing as his reasons may be, if nothing changes about the band then I think it is even more puzzling as to why someone would stop liking them over it.

Maybe he's just tired of getting picked apart over every little thing by Christians?

I think that they are offended. offended since they make most of the money from christians.

I guess...

If I like a band and I have been a fan for a long time, it would sure take more than that to stop being a fan. That's just me though.

I would have asked him..."If Stryper is not, as you say, a "Christian rock band", then why did you just describe them as a "Christian rock band"."

I think there should be something that differentiates the two terms.

What is the difference between the two terms?

"Christian rock band" VS. "Christian rock band"

And what makes one better than the other?

NoOneIsHere wrote:

I guess...

If I like a band and I have been a fan for a long time, it would sure take more than that to stop being a fan. That's just me though.

I am not saying I agree with their attitudes or certain behavior, but that might be one reason for the harsh reaction by some. I can see as a kinda slap in the face to a group who is their bread and butter. But I would never condone behavior that gives christianity a black eye. I that in itself is subjective as well I guess.

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.

Stryper were among the earliest pioneers in Christian hard rock and metal.

I now forsee Stryper and more specifically Michael Sweet being a pioneer of Christian bands stating they are not Christian bands but Christians in a band.