Doug Van Pelt

Ave Maria, FL and HEAVY METAL

So the news is reporting that an "all-Catholic" town is opening in Southwest, Florida. In the center of the town is a giant Catholic church building and a Catholic University is being built there, too. Lots of Catholics are moving in and the ACLU is worried.

The great thing about this country (I know I sound like an old man that wears dark socks with short pants when I start a sentence like that) is that we have the freedom to build communities like this. If we wanted to start a community called Iron Maiden, with streets named after songs and invited shops that sold studded leather arm bands and clubs that booked metal acts to come and do business, we could. The great thing about being a follower of Christ is that we are commanded (by His example and His teachings) to live at peace with all men, if that is possible. (See, even the Bible has realistic expectations, knowing that some people are "difficult" and they can prevent reconciliation with their choices). I am happy to co-exist with an atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Jewish person or a Wiccan.

I would like to say something here: I love Buddhists. I really do. They are a peace-loving people. I honestly respect their religion. They strive to walk in wisdom and will most often be slow to react. Their core value system is working hard (mentally and even physically) to be at peace with the universe (and that includes people) around them. Yes, I do believe that demonic spirits can be summoned by their worship of a scroll; so I'm not saying that a disciple of Christ is to adopt Buddhist doctrine and absorb that faith teaching into theirs. I honestly believe that all the world's major religions reach a point of conflict when you follow out their core values and belief systems -- sometimes early on in the basic tenets espoused publically, and sometimes when you take the logical extension of what they teach. For example, Jesus taught His followers, who were later called "Christians" in the city of Antioch, that their God was a Personal God -- the only true God -- and One that can be known. Buddhists, some Native American beliefs, and possibly even some sects of Wicca, basically teach that everything -- all matter and space, including one's self -- is god. Those are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ. But you know what? Christians were not taught to destroy other religions. Paul even instructed his followers to not divorce an unbelieving spouse (which, although it's a stretch, could include a pantheistic spouse married to a Christian); but if the unbeliever wanted out, they could be free to go. Now, that, if nothing, shows a pattern of getting along with someone of a different faith. If the marriage covenant can include differing worldviews, then certainly a community can.

Tolerance is a funny word. The first thing that comes to mind for me when I hear it, if asked to define the word, is how my body can tolerate so much poison, medicine, or a drug like alcohol. My body has physical limits that it can take. There are defense mechanisms, like the liver and kidneys, built inside that dispose of the toxins from the body. If that individual level is exceeded, it can lead to death. To me, that's tolerance. It's "putting up with" or "tolerating" something that is toxic. It's very individual (which fits great into my allegory here), so what's toxic to one person (sugar, maybe) is not toxic for another. So, putting up with another person's religion means getting along with, but not necessarily embracing, that person and their faith and its practices.

It can be touchy and require wisdom on how this is lived out. I think it's pretty cool -- if you're going to err -- to choose in advance: "if we err, we will err on the side of grace." For instance, would you let your children have a seance or sacrifice a cat to Satan in one of their bedrooms in your house? Probably not. But if your neighbors were Buddhists that worshiped a scroll in a box mounted on their wall and they woke up in the middle of the night by ringing a bowl (like a bell) and started rubbing beads together in their hands and chanting to try and reach a blissful state (like one of my college roommates, by the way), would it be right for you to organize a petition with your neighbors to get "those Buddhists" kicked out of your neighborhood? Absolutely not! In my opinion, that would be an embarrassing example of some Christian people gone awry.

I'm not the first person you should call if you want to organize a boycott of something. While I'm not saying all boycotts are absolutely wrong and the concept should never be tried; I do loathe them and can easily imagine our Lord shaking His head and saying, "Children, children. You've got it all wrong. Why are you fighting those you perceive as enemies?" I truly think there's a better way. I do understand the reasoning behind some seemingly popular modern day boycotts, but I'm not a fan. Even if another group decides to push their agenda, using our rights as US citizens and consumers of its services and businesses, there's gotta be another way. Sometimes we do have to fight; but I think it should be a last resort. I am so very grateful that we fought against slavery in this country. I do believe that the practice of abortion in this country is a terrible thing that should be a crime instead of a "protected right." (Whoops, I just got some people mad at me!) But there are other ways of treating your enemies than resistance and fighting and boycotts.

One small example would be heavy metal magazines. I'm not a fan of using porn stars or scantily clad female models to sell magazines or metal music. Some of my competitors practice this to some degree. Am I for a boycott against these magazines! Heck no! I'm more for publishing my own magazine that has differenct stances and morals and angles in my effort to sell magazines. Just let me offer my magazine alongside theirs and let the consumer choose.

If a group of Muslims bought a bunch of property out here in Taylor, Texas and wanted to start a Muslim community with a mosque in the center and new businesses popped up with Arabic spelling all around, and lots of Muslims moved in, I would be happy and perceive it as my call to embrace my new neighbors. Would I choose that scenerio? Probably not. Would I resist it if it happened? I don't think that would best represent my faith, as explained at length above. Would I freak out and protest if the FBI watched these people's activities closely? No. 9/11 has given us some reason to "wake up." I think "racial profiling" is okay. I do not think police brutality or hassling people is okay, though. If the tables were turned (and some Christians believe this will happen in our lifetime) and followers of Jesus were submitted to "racial profiling," then it would be a hassle. If policemen pulled me over for no reason and took me down to jail and held me there for some weird lawful loophole that allowed my arrest without legal justification and/or they abused every chance to hassle me and confiscated my property and just made my life miserable, I would not like it. I would try to fight back in a Jesus-led way (peacefully, seeking His wisdom on the best methods and His guidance on if and when to resist at all). There is a difference between staying alert and "racial profiling" that doesn't invade my rights as a US citizen and the abusive and brutality of "racial profiling" gone amuck. Anyone who abuses their state-given (and, according to the Bible, their God-given) authority is being a jerk and should be stopped. That kind of bullying makes most all of us sick. For some reason, the very term "racial profiling" makes most of us conjure images in our heads of police brutality. I'm not sure why, but that label has become emotionally charged and saddled with that image. It's very difficult to enforce the law in today's day and age, but if we try to force some unrealistic utopian ideas upon our law enforcement agencies to prevent an extreme and end up creating loopholes for criminals and mass murders to get away with crap, then we're dumb.

And then I was listening to a great live album on the way to work this morning. The band UFO, in my opinion, should be held in the same league, at least, as Led Zeppelin. If we're going to list any other bands (which, begrudgingly, we should) alongside Zeppelin, there would be The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and even The Who up there. I think UFO should be on that list. But they never really broke through in the US. Their live album, Strangers In The Night (which I truly think is probably the best live album of all time), still stands up to the test of time. This is unlike other old favorites, like the Tygers of Pan Tang, or even some Triumph and Kiss albums. This album was probably one of those "doctored" albums called "live" with overdubs and such; but why argue with the great sounds. One thing I appreciate now more than before are the great rhythms that hold these songs (in between the most expressive guitar solos from Michael Schenker) together. Tunes like "Natural Thing" and "Mother Mary," which have often only bided the listener by waiting for the "hits" of the album, like "Doctor, Doctor" and "Only You Can Rock Me," still stand up as strong. I can see why many fans of modern rock today take the whole "indie rock snob" approach when it comes to a band "breaking it big," and that fan discarding their old "friend" for another, more obscure band. I can share that sense in a way, even when it comes to some old classic rock bands that I still enjoy (and play air guitar to on my steering wheel on the way to work, trying to move the fingers on my left hand as if they're bending notes like the great Schenker did all the time -- what feeling that guy has). I appreciate hits like "Doctor, Doctor" and other tunes, like "Carry On Wayward Son," but they are my least favorite songs on those albums. The reason is, I guess, is that I've heard them too much. I associate them, maybe, with other people's property; whereas I "became personal" with other tunes, like "Miracles Out Of Nowhere" (from Leftoverture) and "I'm A Loser" and "Love To Love." Those songs are the highlights for me. Sometimes the hits, too, are too basic and predictable as songs -- chord structures and all so calculated and simple. I mean, who still likes the song "Smoke On The Water?" It's just become kind of dull to our senses, hasn't it?

Earlier this spring I went to dinner with Bloodgood and was at the table with David Zaffiro, Oz Fox and Paul Jackson. Behind us was Rex Carroll. After dinner as we stood and mingled, I posed this question to those guitarists, as I realized it was a rare opportunity to have them all in the same conversation: "Okay, out of these three guitarists (which is my personal trio of the best), which one is the greatest -- Frank Marino, Uli Roth, or Michael Schenker?" Each had their own different answer. None had all of those three in their top 3 list. Rex Carroll, however, had Schenker at the top of his list (which also included Yngwie Malmsteen) as greatest guitar player; simply because the guy "played with feeling." That, for sure, is Schenker's trademark.

Would I get bored easily with a new community called Schenkersville, Texas? You bet I would. Would I like to visit it a few times? Of course!

Posted by Doug Van Pelt at July 19, 2007 10:19 AM