the copious online edifice of dj sallySALL

Originally published July 25, 2023

Is sounding “with it” unBiblical?? (aka Are Christians ALLOWED to sound “cool” ??)

Have you ever heard a song and said “Oh, that’s by a Christian band, hehe…” or seen someone strolling serenely and been like “Oh, they look like a Christian!”

If you’re thinking logically (and JUST logically) then you’re like “um, unless the lyrics cover such topics and the peep in question be wearing a Christian t-shirt AND you asked them their faith, then how could you know? HMM???”

But, if you know whereof I speak (aka You KNOW, lol) then you know that “You ain’t gotta heard The Word or ask the nerd” to, um, know. You know?

Coz, like, back in the day, non-mainstream Christian music (NOT CHURCH MUSIC but “music BY THE FAITHFUL”) always tended to sound a bit… dusty. As in “not-even-home-studio-quality production values” and the like. NOT that the songs weren’t awesome, just like “they did the best they could with what they had, and since it’s About Jesus then, like, lessGO!” (To a certain degree, lol. And lest you think I be dissing peeps gratuitously, let me tell you that I was in that “it’s nerdy so it’s GOT to be Christian or CCM” category back in the day, lol. Meaning I made music that “meant well, but wasn’t quite there” in the 80s and 90s.)

And, like, I don’t know about you, but these days, if I see someone who looks COOL, as in movie star or rock star or supermodel GREAT (not “good looking” but “well-put-together,” btw, and not just females, either, btw), I’m like SURPRISED when I find out that they profess to love Jesus (my MAIN MAN!). The obvious red flag would be morality-based, aka are they showing off a relationship (or offshoot-thereof, heh) that’s unBiblical (aka out of wedlock) or wearing something… let’s say “skimpy” ? (This itself is a huge and more-huge debate that I’ll cover in THIS article so let’s just hold off on the cleavage and bikinis thing for now. Pleeease and thank ye!)

But I ain’t talkin bout something morality related; it’s just that, for a while, people who professed Christ looked a bit NERDY to me, and not in the current “Star Wars and Harry Potter” thing, but as in the definition that I grew up around that said “social reject that no one likes.” (Well, at least JESUS Loves us, *sniff* lol.)

Was it the modest clothing sans rips or tears or brand names? Was it the more placid expression rather than dark or edgy or just “too cool for school” ice princess or movie star dude that couldn’t be bothered (aka someone “cool” as in “way cool!” was like unapproachable or “I don’t deserve to talk to them coz they’re THEM and I’m… this…!” NOTE that I am NOT saying any of these things is NERDY, just that when reviewing stuff from times past, aka Dragon Warrior and LiteBrite were current and awesome (though they obviously still are, hmph), it’s like “dated.” Or “Aww, that’s so cute, hehe.” (Not “lol” but “hehe,” which tells you everything.)

But you know, neither music nor modesty nor supermodelness is even the point of today’s rant. I mean, Word.

Rather, it’s about, like… sounding WITH IT. As in With the times, or current–not quite “PC” or anything THAT scary, but, like… sounding “modern,” as though I’m not a relic. Sounding like… everyone else. Using the same slang and expressions and reactions and conventions–even if they’re grammatically-incorrect or patently-illogical or abjectly-insane-sounding.

I’m not talking about putting an X sound in words like Espresso and Et Cetera (which be incorrect, btw), or saying “I feel nauseous” (you really mean nauseated–“nauseous” is the thing that makes you feel like you’d very much like to hurl) or even telling me that “This photo is of Simon and I” (it should be ME–the trick is take out the other name and see if it works, aka “this photo is of I” in this case, which would be incorrect, so it’s “this photo be Simon and ME.” See??).

“So what ARE you talking about, then, already??”

Glad you asked!

If one starts a sentence with a CONNECTIVE–and they just started talking for the first time–then, like, um, no.

“So…I was walking down the street, and then, blah blah blah, and then this DELOREAN shows up out of NOWHERE!”

Ok, I’m sorry that you almost got knocked back to the future (thank God you ok, gurrrl) BUT, like… you just started talking and basically just launched into it as though you were–akhhh. Hold up, here we go.

“And THEN this INSANE sports car shows up!”

WHAT and then, chick? You literally just started talking, how can there be an “and then” yet? There’s nothing to AND coz this is still the beginning of our drama.

“Is your point that some modern slang be illogical?”

WELL… if the shoe fits, lol. But that’s just a starting point. Meaning, you need to understand THAT it’s illogical before we can move on to what the PROB with that even IS. Right? Right!

How many times have I mentioned that particular example to people and they GOT it… but then kept going with it in their lives.

“But, like, I’m used to it.”

Ok…

“But, seriously–everyone talks like this. I get that it’s incorrect but as long as I know it’s incorrect, it’s fine. You gotta know the rules before you break’em, right?” (Um, well…)

Or even:

“Ok, I get you, but, like… hold on. Is it even incorrect? Coz where I grew up it’s not incorrect to start a story by pretending you’re already in the middle of it. So it’s wrong for you and I respect that, but it’s right for me, and I respect that too.”

This, of COURSE brings up issues of colonial English and dialect and “who created the grammar that is allegedly ‘correct’ and what if they were wrong or what if that’s the old way and we’re modern or what if that grammar or whateverness didn’t reflect the new technology, so, like… um, you know?”

My issue isn’t with the actual thing that’s being touted as correct or “not-incorrect,” but rather with the reason PROMPTING the person to try and justify something as correct when it isn’t–or to do something KNOWN to be incorrect… JUST to fit in.

Just to be “With It.”

Are you starting to see where I’m going with this, friends?

Btw, did you know that there’s a condition called Morgellons (sic), “characterized by a belief that parasites or fibers are emerging from the skin” (Source: MAYO CLINIC).

When first I heard of this condition, it was lumped into delusional parasitosis, MOSTLY across the board (apart from those who had it, of course). Several years later, a prominent medical institution called it an actual SKIN CONDITION. Meaning they said that the people DID have threads GROWING from their skin. (My thought was “ok, they wore a sweater and a thread got stuck into a scrape or scab and LOOKED as though it grew naturally.” I mean, I’ve stepped on enough dog hairs enough times that I’ve had a few hit my skin at the right angle that it looked as though a crimped silver hair was randomly growing from my sole. But it obviously belonged to one of my hounds, and yes I did confirm it under a scope, lol. I never thought it originated from me. But I can understand quite well both sides of this.)

Anyway, the point is that even though they KNEW it was psychiatric, they bowed to external pressure and changed their definition of a condition to appear (or even become) more “sensitive” to those in need. (Were I the one in need, I’d rather know the truth from someone who could more-clearly see, but perhaps that’s just me.)

At this point, they seem to have changed their view to “unexplained skin condition” instead of “we think they imagined it.” If they really didn’t know, then that’s fine.

But to backtrack just to avoid offending some people–isn’t that a bit like setting a place at dinner for my invisible friend? A placating, condescending “we know she’s CUCKOO! And not just for Coco Puffs, WINK WINK” kind of treatment that… ugh.

Or no, better still, setting a place for that invisible chum who sometimes takes over me and makes me whoop people and can be harmful but at least my feelings aren’t hurt–even if the other peeps at dinner do get harmed.

It’s funny–no, make that tragic–that (some/many) people are willing to do that to make room for trauma and mental illness and “personal taste”… but not for my faith? (Especially when my Invisible Friend makes me HUG peeps and STOPS me from whooping them. Sigh. ❤

Actually, I’m afraid to think what “freedoms” will next be “protected” —Pedophilia? Serial killing? Necrophilia? (“Great to be here, friends! This is my cousin, and his husband and wife, whom he fathered and then gifted to his other friend moloch on the twins’ third birthday, and then took to a taxidermist, ensuring that they’ll be together forever, and never to part; as a special treat for having us over, my sweet cousin has agreed to let us share his experience of honouring his spouses as he does daily with a ritual bathing and purification rite, followed by channeling their spirits and reaffirming his great love for them both. Yeehaw!”

Um, anyway.

When I hear someone WHO PROFESSES JESUS using phrases or using gestures that stem from media or practices that are not New-Testament-Approved, I have two thoughts (yep, simultaneously, heh. I’m pretty sure you realise by now that I can manage that just fine, lol.)

Those two thoughts are:

This person learned this thing from the primary source, which appears to be something “better avoided,” and/or

This person picked up said thing from someone or something OTHER than the primary source and is using it either:

without having looked it up and/or knowing from whence it stems, and(/or?)

KNOWING where it’s from and what it’s associated with.

In other words, they being all unBiblical like dat–perhaps even demonic–and either DO KNOW and DON’T CARE enough to fix/avoid, or DON’T know and DON’T care ENOUGH to find OUT, aka PARROTS, y’all.

Parrot-sheeplings, stumbling-yet-half-flying after the pied piper— in order to escape from The Good Shepherd, perhaps?– almost running P over as he leads them to his own promised land.