everybody lies

Insurrection: Chapters 3 & 4: A monologue

2012-02-17T16:02:00.006-06:00

This is my continuing "review" of Peter Rollins' book Insurrection, although I'm really writing with a mixture of review, summation, and personal reflection. In short, these writings are more a way for myself to work through what this all means, rather than a "review" per say, or my trying to convince anyone else of these ideas. Additionally, please note that my beliefs expressed hear may not necessarily coincide perfectly with Rollins'. View the first installment here and the second here.

In reading chapters 3 and 4 of Peter Rollins' Insurrection, I feel like I'm finally getting to what might be considered a thesis statement for the first half of this book, entitled Part 1: Crucifixion:

"It is possible for people to believe there is an ultimate meaning in the universe without being religious at all--that is, people do not use this belief in order to avoid a full confrontation with their humanity. It is a belief that they can calmly discuss over a drink and which they are happy to rethink. Such people have a reasoned and healthy belief that does not need to be passionately defended against those who disagree." (pp.61-62, emphasis added.)

In an attempt to describe the means by which this thesis was arrived (whereby I wrote in the margins of my copy, "THE POINT!"), I have written an internal monologue that could be used to describe the ironic methods by which many Christians today arrive at a place of "rejecting religion":

"I'm not religious, I just follow God, which offers me the psychological benefits of religion while still allowing me to play the part of rejecting religion. I intellectually affirm the crucifixion, but I don't want to bear the wounds that it leaves. My relationship with God takes the place of my honest confrontation of life.

"I intellectually affirm Christ's forsakenness on the Cross, but I still want sermons that give me answers, songs that give me peace-of-mind, and prayers that tell me it's all going to be OK. That certainty is more important to me than the possibility that that universe might be random and there's not a goddamn thing I can do about it. Even though I say God is not a cosmic vending machine of peace and love and happiness, I want the church to treat God like a machine so that I can use it as a security blanket, allowing me to accept the circumstances that should beget suffering instead of allowing those circumstance to cause me to suffer.

"I affirm doubt and uncertainty as a part of faith... So long as I know with absolute certainty that God is bigger than my doubts. Then I can doubt with absolute certainty."

That's the funny thing about the essence of religion. It's seemingly unavoidable. It's a "psychological phenomenon" (p. 61). Religion is not, and never has been, and never will be, on the decline. It's just doing what it always has done: Taking on a new shape to make it harder to identify, akin to a flu virus.

So what's the point of it all then? Why go to church? Why be a Christian? Is it even possible for these things to be good, or at least honest?

Yes, I believe it is. The essence of Christianity is in the experience of suffering. The essence of religion is the avoidance of suffering.

If it's all about experience, then are beliefs futile? No, as long as they are not a crutch to prevent embracing the world (suffering), and as long as they are not a security blanket (a structure of certainty).

Christ affirmed his belief in God. But he also experienced the loss of his belief's comforting power.

Insurrection: When Crucifixion Became a Myth

2012-02-16T12:02:00.010-06:00

This is my continuing "review" of Peter Rollins' book Insurrection, although I'm really writing with a mixture of review, summation, and personal reflection. In short, these writings are more a way for myself to work through what this all means, rather than a "review" per say, or my trying to convince anyone else of these ideas. Additionally, please note that my beliefs expressed hear may not necessarily coincide perfectly with Rollins'. View the first installment here.

Belief in God is perfectly human--life is hard, full of suffering and bitterness, and we have a natural desire to bring to it order, meaning, and something other than randomness. This is the essence of our psychological need for God to exist. However, religion today is most commonly understood with a deus ex machina mindset: It is the affirmation of a constructed source of explanation, meaningfulness, and solutions to our problems--a.k.a. God.

By rejecting God, one is usually labeled an atheist. But can you really blame a person for being an atheist? Doesn't a God who only exists to satisfy me sound a little feeble? Yes, it does. But that doesn't make me an atheist. In fact, Rollins is going so far as to say that accepting atheism is the only way one is able to participate in Crucifixion. And I agree.

So, the questions now are "What is crucifixion?" and "What is atheism?"

Is crucifixion God sacrificing His son for us? Is it reconciliation for our sins? Does it put us in good standing with God? Is it something that was done for us by which we define ourselves, rather than defining ourselves by what we do?

Is atheism the intellectual denial of the existence of God?

Defining both of them is the only way to define either of them, because experiencing both of them is the only way to experience either of them: Crucifixion is existential atheism--a real, experienced, and felt loss of God. It is undeniable. It is the sacrifice of everything that satisfies our psychological need for God, which is, of course, God.

When religions talk about giving up false gods, they usually mean giving up anything that one worships other than God (e.g., money, cars, Xbox). But what about worshiping dues ex machina? Isn't this "God of the machine" just replacing these (equally) false gods?

In fact, religion usually tells us to give up false gods so that we can find true meaning, purpose, security, and ultimate reality in God-with-a-capital-G. But what about giving up false gods by engaging in existential atheism--In other words, giving up everything that satisfies our desire for God? What about giving up everything including God? What about giving up everything that comes after the phrase "so that"? No one ever talks about giving up that God.

But giving up this God is what Crucifixion truly is.

The church has domesticated the crucifixion into a mythology--a story that brings meaning into meaninglessness. Yes, we affirm that it actually historically happened. But we also look at it with a dirty lens muddied up by the "what does it mean for me?" mindset. Therefore, no sacrifice was actually made. Again, it is simply a deus ex machina.

This is why Christ's words "Why have You forsaken me?" are so wrought with meaning, and yet meaninglessness. Contrary to popular belief, he wasn't crying out to God in the midst of suffering--No, he was suffering in the midst of his utter loss of God.

And the beauty, as well as the horror, of it is that we can participate in it too. We no longer are a slave to our psychological need for God. We can simply enjoy the grace that is the fact that our need exists, much like our taste buds make our need for food enjoyable.

"When we truly participate in the event of the Cross, we are forsaken by ourselves--We are cut off from the system that we construct and which constructs us." (p. 35) There is nothing but our naked self. Nothing but pure purity.

Edited on 2/17/12 at 3:28pm.

Insurrection: God as deus ex machina, or, The Need to Need God

2012-02-15T09:53:00.012-06:00

In my proceeding reviews of Peter Rollins' book Insurrection, I will be writing with a mixture of review, summation, and personal reflection. In short, these writings are more a way for myself to work through what this all means, rather than a "review" per say, or my trying to convince anyone else of these ideas. Additionally, please note that my beliefs expressed hear may not necessarily coincide perfectly with Rollins'. And lastly, I fully understand that my having a blog does NOT automatically make me a writer. (You know who you are.) Ok, hear we go...

Shane Hipps once humorously described the human taste buds as one of the greatest forms of grace: We need to eat to survive, and we have been graced with the fact that eating is an enjoyable endeavor... Hallelujah! Funny as it is, this alliteration of grace should be taken very seriously: We have a psychological desire to eat, which is the reflection of our need to eat, which is an evolutionary advantage to the continuation of our species.

I was reminded of this while reading the first chapter of Peter Rollins' book Insurrection, entitled I'm a Christian! I'm a Christian! Rollins starts off this book by quite simply rejecting the notion of God as we know it. And I don't mean the easy-to-reject notions of God, such as the 'reject religion, embrace Jesus' kind of stuff, but actually reducing our claimed existence of God to a psychological need.

C.S. Lewis made famous his argument for the existence of God by saying that we could no more invent or imagine God than we could invent a new color. On the other hand, Voltaire said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

I used to cling to Lewis' idea. But now, I'm with Voltaire.

Rollins opens with a description of our human psychological need for others. In short, we don't simply desire others, but we desire others to desire us. This results in relationships.

Duh.

But on a more subtle level, it also results in an imagined desire of others for us. This manifests in the form of fantasies. In our world of internal monologue, we are never alone--someone is always watching us. When we "dance like nobody's watching" we're really imagining people watching us, or for that matter, literally dancing in front of other people. When I'm working on my motorcycle and solving a mechanical problem, I'm imagining my dad watching me (and being impressed!). We are always "being watched." Even our fantasies involve relationships

So it is clear that we desire love from others, with evidence of this both in our tangible experiences and our fantasies. But unfortunately, our fantasies quickly become unsatisfying, and our relationships ultimately prove imperfect and conditional. Sadly, our needs are never really met. So what happens now?

The solution is to construct a source of unconditional love and desire. This is what we call God.

The next step is to convince ourselves and others that God was not constructed by us: a process commonly known as evangelism. There's basically three ways to do this:

Physical force. Examples are the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Not much of this really exists in the developed world anymore.
Psychological coercion. This is when a person is made to verbally admit their need for God, although no actual belief exists, such as people who "accept Christ" to avoid going to hell. Again, this doesn't really happen anymore, accept maybe with small children.
Rationalization. This is what does happen in churches today. Rationalization simply means to convince oneself of a belief one already holds, or to look for evidence supporting a belief that has already been accepted without evidence. Knowing that people (perhaps unknowingly) already have the aforementioned psychological need for God, preachers simply remind congregants of their desire for unconditional love and for their life not to be meaningless, and then offer a solution via God. Now, the potential convert has found the evidence they were sub-consciously searching for, and convinces them self (i.e., rationalizes) that God exists and desires a relationship with humans offering unconditional love.

Therefore, getting people to believe in God is very easy. In fact, it is no different than getting a child to believe in Santa Claus. And getting others to believe creates community, relationships, and love, so not only does God solve our psychological need for God, God also solves our need for others.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer called this the deus ex machina--God out of the machine--a term that was coined by critics of ancient Greek theater to describe terrible playwrights who used God as a character to divinely make the plot do whatever they wanted. (We see this today in TV where characters are "killed off" because the actor is leaving.) God is a way to solve a problem.

Today, we call this philosophy. Philosophy, when honestly evaluated, is the necessary search for evidence of God because we have already decided to believe that he exists due our psychological need. At the pinnacle of this discipline are questions like "Why does God allow suffering and evil in the world?" and other irrelevant theodicy. It's just a feeble attempt to help us cope with life--a solution to a problem, but not a means of changing the world.

So it seems that rejecting our psychological need for God--much like rejecting one's taste buds and therefore avoiding junk food--is the only honest way to live a happy and healthy life. Our psychological need for God is an immature emotion that needs to be dealt with and overcome.

Yikes. Is this atheism?

Sounds more like Crucifixion to me.

Insurrection

2012-02-15T08:05:00.005-06:00

Having just read Peter Rollins' book Insurrection, I don't even know where to begin in trying to express how this book has affected my beliefs and, hopefully, my actions as a human being. There are so many ideas that I want to throw out right now, but I believe a more methodical approach may be required, as the various ideas in the book build upon each other.

As Rob Bell said so accurately, the book "pushes you off a cliff," and although I do feel like I'm flying more than falling, I still feel the need to re-read this book and record my thoughts chapter by chapter in an effort to more perfectly shape my wings.

I first witnessed the antics of Peter Rollins in the summer of 2009 at a conference hosted by Mars Hill Bible Church (a.k.a. "the Mars Hill in Michigan") called Poets, Prophets, and Preachers, and later in various podcasts, and more recently with his books. He has been saying things that resonate with my soul at a frequency I didn't know how to hear before.

But this book took it to another level. Subsequent posts will be chapter-by-chapter synopses, thoughts, reactions, and feeble attempts to get my guts back into my torso.

A Parable, 2

2012-02-06T08:32:00.002-06:00

There was a well-known pastor who frequently asked his church members, "Did you pray today?" Knowing this question was coming, the church members always made sure they had said a prayer on days they would be seeing their pastor.

"Yes!" they would say. "Today I prayed for so-and-so to come to know Christ!" Or, "Yes! Today I prayed for my brother, who is recovering from surgery in the hospital!"

One Sunday morning, a homeless man wondered into the church. The pastor, seeing the homeless man from across the room, was quick to take the opportunity to welcome him into his church--especially since all the churchgoers were watching.

After saying hello and introducing himself, the pastor leaned in close and asked the homeless man, "Did you pray today?"

The homeless man leaned in even closer. "Prayer happened," he whispered, "and I was there."

***

Inspired by Richard Rohr's The Naked Now.

A Parable

2012-01-27T08:10:00.004-06:00

There was once an elderly man who loved bird-watching. He knew every bird he happened upon, and he had an ongoing checklist of birds he wanted to see before he died. He never went anywhere without his binoculars, bird-watching field-guide, and a meticulous itinerary of birds he wanted to see. He was a member of a local birdwatching club, as well as a national association of bird-watchers. He went to conventions. He started sticky-threads on bird-watching forums.

One day, the man wanted to take his 8-year-old grandson out into the field with him. He longed to share his experience with his grandson, hoping his grandson would enjoy it. Also, he hoped to spot one of the seasonal species and he had read about being seen recently in this area.

While carousing the field with his grandson, the man went on and on about his knowledge of birds, talking about all the birds he had seen in his life, what kind of birds they can expect to see today, and what times of the year are best to see particular species of birds. But as the minutes turned into ours, the man secretly became frustrated at his lack of a sighting.

Then the boy said, "Look Grandpa, there's a bird!" as he pointed up towards the top of a tree.

"Oh, that's just a crow," said the man. "That doesn't really count as a bird sighting. They're much too common."

"Well," said the boy, "I think its beautiful."

The man stood stunned at what his boy had just said.

After a minute of silence as they both stood watching the crow, the boy said, "Thanks for taking me bird-watching, Grandpa."

World, meet June Embers

2012-01-26T11:10:00.003-06:00

No, it's not the name of old lady. Or an Adele protege trying to come up with the newest nonchalant stage name. It's my new band, and we can be listened to here:

June Embers by June Embers

(Or here, if you insist: June Embers)

You can download it for free. Just do us a favor and come to a show. :)

A devotional for people who don't like devotionals

2012-01-09T07:50:00.002-06:00

If your looking for a great, inspirational, and practical book to read in little pieces every day (i.e., a "devotional"), check out End Malaria. It's a compilation of 2- and 3-page blurbs from successful business guru types on how to be successful, relevant, and most importantly joyful in our post-industrial world of work.

And best of all, you don't have to be a business guru or entrepreneur to enjoy these little blurbs of wisdom. You just have to apply it to whatever it is that you do--work or hobby. (Unless you do something that you don't care about.)

As an added bonus, when you buy the paperback for $25, 20 of those dollars go the Malaria No More. When you buy the Kindle edition for $20, 100% of that goes to Malaria No More.

Check it out.

Cogs

2011-11-04T13:28:00.005-05:00

At the turn of the 20th century, the economy was built on buildings. The more stuff we built, the better off we were.

In light of this, by the middle of century, we began valuing security more than anything. The mantra for the middle-class was work for GM as a button-pusher or a knob-turner, and you'll be set for life. For the elitists, it was climb the corporate ladder and the farther up you get, the less hard you have to work, and the more money you make. And finally, for the education system, the goal became to teach kids to be compliant so that we can objectively measure your intellectual growth, and the system can keep being fed. (And maybe if you're lucky, you'll end up with the white-collar mantra.)

Now, things are changing. Our economy is no longer built on concrete, but on ideas. And thanks to the internet, ideas spread--instantly. Which means individuals have more power than ever... You don't need a publishing company to be a writer anymore. You don't need to live in Silicon Valley to invent something.

There's a story in the book of John about a time when Jesus broke the rules. And that made the high-and-mighty religious leaders angry. (Or maybe jealous.) And like all anger, it was fueled by fear; namely, the fear of their carefully constructed system being torn down, along with the security it provided for the elite.

Jesus understood that for real change to happen, someone had to break the rules and deny the elite their comfortable status.

(Side note: There’s a great book by business writer Seth Godin called Lynchpin which explains how being a cog in a system is no way to go about business, work, or life in general. It’s a great read for anybody wanting to break the mold.)

Jesus demonstrated that we shouldn't be weaving baskets in a world that doesn't need baskets.

A little explanation to my previous post

2011-09-25T10:36:00.002-05:00

Regarding my previous post (Why I Believe in Evolution and Why It Doesn't Matter), I've been getting some questions about why I mentioned evolution in regards to the posted video. I believe that Jill Bolte Taylor's message is that we have the ability to choose to evolve into more and more humanness. We can choose to simply survive (as animals do) or we can choose to thrive in our existence (as humans do). We can use each other for survival (as animals do), or we can rely on each other for spiritual growth (as humans do--Christian or otherwise). We can herd around each other and gather resources to advance our species' development, or we can admit to our need for others in order to become more ourselves alongside each other.

The key word is choose. I believe in evolution--not necessarily monkeys slowly getting taller and less hairy and slightly smarter--but rather that things change (i.e., become more advanced) with changing circumstances. The circumstances of giraffes are that trees are getting taller, therefore their necks have to get longer. And the circumstances of humans have changed in a manner that requires something a little more "advanced" (spiritual) than that of animals, trees, and amoebas.

We have to choose. We can stay where we are, or we can evolve.

As for the part about Seth Godin... You'll have to read Lynchpin to get that one. Which I highly recommend.

"It's only temporary"

2011-09-24T22:34:00.006-05:00

"It's only temporary."

I hear a lot of people say this. About money, about material, about love... about life. The problem with this rather lousy excuse is the word "only." It assumes that temporariness negates purpose, and that the only things that matter are eternal things. Or at least that eternal things are more important.

Sadly, this philosophy is very popular among Christian circles, namely, "This life is only temporary", etc.

I believe the opposite is true. Things are only precious because they are temporary, and the fact that something is temporary makes it precious.

If eternal things are all that matter, than life doesn't matter. And if life doesn't matter, life is easy. When our psyche is craving a little TLC, all we have to do is sit around and speculate about the end times and how we can most efficiently get people saved for "some day"... Because as long we convince ourselves that our version of "some day" is the right version, right now doesn't matter. But we still get the satisfaction of "having a purpose."

Mmm, easy is yummy.

But the truth is, meaning and preciousness are found in the temporary. What matters is now. Your work matters. Your love matters. Your worship matters. Your hobby matters. Star Wars on blue-ray matters. Because what you do with this life matters, because this life only lasts for a finite time.

Everything eternal is out of our control. Speculating about it does 2 things: [a] Makes us feel in control of something we're not (I think that's called worshiping a false god), and [b] wastes precious time from this life.

Don't worry about the eternal. Instead, cherish things that aren't going to last. They're only temporary.

Why I believe in evolution, and why it doesn't matter

2011-09-15T20:21:00.000-05:00

Seth Godin calls it "the lizard brain." I call it fear. Whatever it is, it is beautifully explained here:If everybody lies, maybe it's just because everybody's using the wrong side of their brain.

Reading Music: A means to an end

2011-08-20T13:27:00.003-05:00

I never understood what the phrase "means to an end" meant until I started teaching drum lessons. (Shameless self-plug.) I was with my guitar-slinging brother-in-law one morning having coffee and I was telling him about my new endeavor of music lessons. The inevitable question, "Do you teach your students to read music?" came up, and, without really thinking about it, I said, "yeah, but reading music is really just a means to an end--'The end' being personal expression through music."

For the sake of teaching someone the whacky idea of playing music, we have to speak the same language. But once you've learned the language, you don't need to think about it. You think through the language, without thinking about it. (Like George Orwell taught us in his book 1984.)

A quick aside: This is why I love the aptly named "chord charts" so often used in modern worship music (and also improvised jazz music). They give you the lyrics along with the chords that make up the "foundation" and the "mood" of the piece. The rest you have to figure out on your own--In other words, just feel it. That's what musicianship is: Feeling it.

Reading sheet music does not make you a musician any more than reading words makes you an author. Reading music is nothing more than a stepping stone in the journey towards the next opportunity to express yourself through music. And success happens when each of those opportunities leaves you with nothing more than the desire to do it again.

So, I guess there is no 'end' at all.

Does My Pedalboard Make Me "That Guy"?

2011-08-07T13:25:00.003-05:00

For the last few months I've been using my "small pedalboard" because I often found myself going through entire set lists using only 3 of the 9,000 pedals on my "big board" (a.k.a. Gertrude). This made me feel a little like the congregation perceived me as being that guy who has this big assortment of pedals in front of him that he's not using for anything other than making himself look like he has a big pedalboard.

The smaller board does adequately accommodates the essentials, however I'm left thinking of ideas during worship team practice that involve pedals currently residing on a shelf. So I'm left with trying to remember that idea later, and then finding time to develop it. And then I have to convince myself that the idea is good enough to rearrange my board to accommodate desired effect. (Or convince myself that the idea isn't that good, which is very self-deprivating.) And then I have to hope it works in the context of the whole band on Sunday morning. And then I have to see a therapist because I'm all stressed out that my POG2 won't fit between my A/B-box and RC Booster. And then when I finally get it all done I realize that every time I reach for my volume pedal I accidentally bump my overdrive's volume knob with my heel which messes up everything's levels. And then... You get the idea.

Another downside is that during my daily practicing and tinkering, I don't have instant access to what I call "idea-generator pedals"--Effects that you have to play rather than just turn on or off (e.g., POG2, oscillating delays, loopers). This gets me seriously rusty with these effects, so when it comes time to incorporate one of them into my playing its like re-learning how to use it.

Lastly, a big incentive to me for keeping Gertrude on 1st-string (A sports reference? ...Weird.) is for easier set-up and tear-down. When my board is the same gig after gig, I can make a cable snake with electrical tape that has all 4 of my cables (instrument, power, footswitch, and XLR [for acoustic gutiar]) in a single cohesive unit. Handling gear is so much easier and more efficient this way, even if the board is slightly bigger/heavier. (And yes other guitarists... I'm aware that it's very uncool to have a footswitch on your pedalboard... I like my AC15's tremolo.)

(Also... I just realized that the above paragraph totally plays into a recent personality-profile I took that labels me as a "Maximizer", i.e., someone who always looks for the most efficient way to do something, can't stand the thought of wasting 2 seconds untangling cables , blah blah blah... Man I hate when those things are right.)

So it stands to reason that I will unashamedly be bringing back the big board to the demise of 248 square inches of floor space. (And yes, I did just get out a calculator and figure that out.) Even if I go a whole set list without using anything other than one overdrive and a delay, that's OK.

Because it definitely beats the alternative, which is giving a crap about my perceptions of other people's perceptions.

I love you, Gertrude.

--Jesse

One Head is Better than a Thousand

2011-03-31T13:53:00.005-05:00

Remember sporks? Remember how they were really popular for like 7 hours after they were invented? What happened to them?

They sucked, that's what happened.

Everyone knows how to use a spoon, and everyone knows how to use a fork. They are perfect at completing their tasks; so perfect, in fact, that it is totally worth the effort of having one of each utensil to accomplish their respective goals. Combining them into a genetically-altered hybrid-species simply to save oneself from carrying two utensils instead of one is not worth the frustration of dealing with the fact that a spork can't really do anything except poke the tip of your tongue when you're eating peas.

Ever heard of the Flip camcorder? It's this ingenious product that is about as simple to operate as an iPod, but it's a camcorder. It's the size of an iPod, too, and has a built-in rechargeable battery, and it holds and hour or two of video. That's it.

But that's the amazing part: That's it. No features, no menus, nothing to distract you from what's really important. (Oh, and it's in 720p HD, which makes your Youtube videos look fantastic.)

Everything you need; nothing you don't. Just like spoons and forks. Sometimes, it's what something doesn't do that makes it awesome.

And sometimes, it's what a person doesn't do that makes her good at what she does.

Sabbath

2011-03-24T15:33:00.011-05:00

I've been going through a major transition in my life in the last 2 years. But mainly in just the last few months. I'm not necessarily talking about my recent career changes, my getting married, or even my new custom-length George L cables on my pedalboard (although, rest assured, those cables have changed my life). I'm talking about my definition of one little word:

Work.

Usually at this point in a writing, the author will begin h/er expose with a Webster's definition, and build from there. But I, quite frankly, am a little scared to read the "correct" definition of this word, because I've been having such a blast discovering it for myself. Or at least what it means for me.

I used to define work as something I did to make income. I clock in, I clock out. I'm at work, then I'm not. Someone's looking over my shoulder, then I'm free.

Now I define work a little differently: Work is ministry. And by "ministry" I don't mean that I'm walking around the world in sandals preachin' the good news and eating grasshoppers. Ministry is simply the opportunity I've been given to work.

An opportunity. A gift. A grace.

We all have this gift. According to Seth Godin, when you realize this gift, you become a linchpin--The third group of workers who are slowly overtaking the traditional commercial worldview of managers and laborers. You also become a good reason for Seth Godin to write a new book (case in point).*

Whatever it's called, it's seriously challenged my way of life. I no longer have the ability to simply not be at work. My work is almost always on my mind. There's no more clocking out; no more leaving work at work. I can no longer blame my stress on my uptight boss or my snotty coworkers. Everything (e.g., success, happiness) falls on me.

But on the bright side, I'm doing something (actually multiple things) that I really enjoy. It's like I'm just "being myself" and getting paid for it--joyfully. Suddenly, work is no longer work. It's ministry.

Which brings me to Sabbath, which has also taken on a new meaning in light of my new view of "the world of work." I never used to take Sabbath particularly seriously. As long as I scraped up some free time to (a) not be on the clock and (b) not be tired from previously being on the clock, I figured that was good. But now, there is no clock. I have to intentionally create a sacred time. Just like removing my shoes when I'm on sacred ground, I need to remove my productivity when I'm in this sacred time.

Why is this so important? Because now that I give a crap about what I do, I want it to matter. Which is great, but also dangerous, because it means I want to do it all the time. Which means I'm going to get burned out. But I'm just going to keep on truckin', because in my blind ambition I'm going to start thinking that what I do matters a little more than it actually does, and that I matter a little more than I actually do.

In his song Perfect Desires, Aaron Niequist puts it perfectly:

Perfect are
the good desires
You have given me
Be their end
as You have been
their beginning

Our desires are a gift. We're created to enjoy them, and when we do, we discover the difference between worldly happiness and everlasting joy. But the truth is, whether we act upon them or not, the world is still going to turn. God is still going to love me. But God has bigger things on his plate than whether or not I feel important. And "importance" is exactly what I feel when I work non-stop.

That's where Sabbath comes in. It reminds us that even though we have this awesome God-given thing to do, that thing doesn't control us, give us value, or define us. It's simply there for our enjoyment... Much like the Sabbath itself.

___________________________

*If you read any Seth Godin and also read anything on the postmodern movement of the Christian church, there are some weird parallels. Um... I hope I didn't just give away an idea I should be writing a book about.

7 ways The Oatmeal can KILL YOU

2011-02-02T17:50:00.009-06:00

In case you haven't heard, theoatmeal.com is the funniest and most ingenious thing. Ever. Naturally, I'm now looking for a way to be like/wishing I had invented The Oatmeal. So out of pure spite and jealousy, I present to you...

7 ways The Oatmeal can KILL YOU:

Bobcats will be sent to pillage your food supply.
As the website grows in popularity, we all start looking like this:

The Oatmeal will mock you in that certain kind of way where everyone except you knows you're being mocked, and when you finally realize how big of an idiot you are you kill yourself. (e.g., people who don't know they're being made fun of for these kind of emails.)

You're welcome.

Jesse

Coming Cleaner

2011-01-27T17:20:00.024-06:00

With a little inspiration from Karl (Coming Clean) and my wife (Know Your Bodily Fluids), I feel the irrisistable urge to bring back the blog. Its been a long time since last writing, and my carefully-calculated excuses are as follows: [a] getting engaged, [b] recording an e.p. (To The Steadfast), [c] getting married, and [d] getting married.

Oh, and all these reasons:

I often (which means always) avoid any and all forms of speaking for fear of embarrasment of my speech impediment... In other words, to protect my ego. Then I wonder why that ego feels like a false portrayal of myself.

Music is (and always has been) how I internally compensate for my self-induced avoidance of human interation.
When people ask me "How was worship this morning?" my answer is usually (which means always) connected to how well I thought the music was executed, and/or whether my Fat-Boost was set to the appropriate volume level to kick up those anti-solos just enough to be heard without sounding like I want to be heard... because I'm a minimalist (I decided).
Then I assume that's what they meant, too.
I once told a professional studio engineer and guitar virtuoso/luthier that I installed the Filtertron pickups in my Fender TC-90 myself. Actually, I bought it that way.

I also told him I installed the Bigsby Tremolo on said guitar myself. Yep.
I wear my peacoat because it makes me think that when people see me they whisper to each other, "Is that the guy from Coldplay?"
This blog post, as well as 87% of my guitar playing, was inspired by this guy: http://www.guitarforworship.com/.

100% of my guitar playing was inspired by The Edge. Do the math. It works.

The above bullet-point, complete with obiquitous reference to U2 and that particular aloof-stricken tone where you use periods instead of commas, was also inspired by that guy 2 bullet points up. Actually, it was outright stolen.
I'm considering selling my Suzuki Marauder (my motorcycle--a.k.a. The Murderer) to buy a Honda ST1100. Yes, a sport-tourer. Goodbye coolness.
In college, I wrote an 8-page paper on one episode of Family Guy. A couple weeks ago, I wrote my whole life story for a Bible-study class. It was 5 pages.

When being a shoe-gazer is no longer cool, I'll probably go back to playing in punk bands.

Yay me.

Now that we have that out of the way, hopefully more writing will come. Also, I now own TWO cardigans, which are scientifically proven to make you more creative.

--Jesse

To The Steadfast

2010-05-23T09:32:00.003-05:00

It recently occured to me that (a) I havn't been able to cohesively arrange my thoughts into a new blog post in quite some time (I'm trying to avoid the phrase "writers' block" [oops]) and (b) I havn't shared here about the new band that I'm playing guitar for, To The Steadfast. So for lack of any better ideas to write about, here is our internet-ghetto myspace page:

http://www.myspace.com/tothesteadfastmusic

We have 2 recorded originals. Check it out. See what you think.

Jesse

P.S.: Also, I'm now on twitter @jessevanderweid. Considering my former blog, you'd think I'd have done that a long time ago...

Private Parts

2010-03-11T15:33:00.008-06:00

It's safe to say that our culture of online social networking is something that's here to stay. Since the Roman Empire, humans have been building roads and connecting with each other, and the world has since been getting smaller and smaller. And the internet is making this inter-human connection exponentialling greater every day via email, text messaging, blogs, and social networking sites.

Some will say that as the (metaphorical) world keeps getting smaller, the individual grows more and more lonely. We're losing face-to-face contact, they'll say, in exchange for mere 1's and 0's. And on top of that, the individual's privacy and people-skills are wrongfully compromised in exchange for instant access to anything and everything.

Connectivity, it seems, is the bad guy.

To this arguement, I present last Monday's episode of (...wait for it...) House. While treating a blogger who's spilled her entire personal life to her readers (including details of her marriage), House wonders why someone would purposefully give up their wealth of privacy in a modern, industrial, and privatized world where human connection (read: vulnerability) is only useful for self-service, thank you very much.

To this, Taub (a.ka. "the short one") and Chase respond, "It's for community and connectivity. Privacy is a modern invention. People used to know everything about everyone living in their village; now, the village is the whole world, and its people still want to be connected to each other." (Paraphrased.)

This got me thinking about the argument above that says as the world gets smaller, the individual gets more lonely.

I disagree. Privacy--at least to the extent to which Western culture values it--is the bad guy. This kind of privacy, where individuals only connect with people on a how-can-you-help-me basis, is an invention of modernity. (Yes, I read too much Brian McLaren. No, I didn't copy this from one of his books. Yes, you may make fun of me.) I used to, like House, wonder why people would blog about their thoughts, as if they think they're some kind of real journalist; or bug me with a Twitter feed about their latest workout routine, because obviously excercising is only effective if you tell somebody about it. But in an emerging postmodern world it seems that people (like myself) are rediscovering the value of that constant connectivity. They're craving it, and finding it on the internet.

As I've learned to embrace this thought myself, rather than taking on an attitude of "all I need is me (and God, of course, because I'm a good Christian... but really, just me)", I've found it very liberating:

I don't need to be famous anymore. My friends and family love me more than those 10,000 people in the audience.
What I do (i.e., my vocation) no longer defines me. I define what I do. And I define myself by what has been done for me. (See previous post, Blue-light Special on Grace.)
Rugged individualism no longer holds any appeal to me. Western work-ethic is a good lesson, but all of its side effects--The nuclear household, the SUV, the shame in asking someone for help and the guilt of having to return their favor--are bullshit. I shouldn't have to avoid community in order to be myself.

I realize I'm mainly talking to myself here. And I realize that blogging about blogging might blow a hole straight through my point. But actually, maybe not... I mean, if I lived in a little village, I'd be sharing this with someone, albeit face-to-face, perhaps while stroking some udders or fetching water. Perhaps the visual que of face-to-face contact is less important than the contact. Really, I can look at someone and talk to them every day and never get to know them. Maybe as technology increases and our constant exposure to visual stimuli via media, urban-life, etc., becomes more overwhelming, we look for a deeper meaning of community beyond the skin-deep visual que.

Maybe 1's and 0's aren't as shallow as people think. And besides... The medium of community has never been a village, an udder, or the internet. You are the medium.

--jesse

Blue-light Special on Grace, isle 3.

2010-01-14T08:57:00.010-06:00

First of all... Thanks to Karl of guitarforworship.com for giving me some love on his blog. (See the link on my blogroll to the right.) I have no idea how the guy who's blog I've been following for over a year found mine, but nonetheless I accept the gratitude.

Which brings me to today's topic (Uh oh): The word "accept" is very strange. We often talk about accepting gifts, compliments, etc., but is it really possible to not accept a gift? Well, yeah I guess it is. So, rather, does the rejection of a free gift make the gift non-existent? Of course not. So why do we do it so often? If someone give a child a toy and she doesn't like it, she'll throw it down and pretend to ignore it. But it's still there. It's still hers. The giver isn't going to take it back just because the child is, well, a child.

(On a side note--It's already the third paragraph of this blog entry and I've yet to bitch about Christians. I apologize for the delay. [Yay for "delay"! Ok Karl I hope you're reading this.] Hopefully paragraph 4 is soon enough for you. And by you, of course I mean me. Ok, back on track now.)

This idea of acceptance gets me thinking about the modern Christian idea of "accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior", or accepting him into your heart, or whatever. I've always secretly struggled with this notion, even though I can point to the time in my own life at age 9 that I participated in this blue-light-special ritual. "It's by grace you've been saved," they'll say, "so you better accept Christ so you can go to Heaven. Also--We have your credit-card information, right? Right. Ok, good. Where was I? Oh yeah--Bow your heads and say this prayer with me so that you can be saved by grace through faith."

If the word grace actually means gift, then one shouldn't have to actively accept it, because the act of accepting it becomes the price you pay for receiving it. In other words, saying "the prayer" becomes a good work through which grace is accepted. So really, it becomes "by grace through good works." And if good works are involved, it's not grace, it's payment. Which means it's something we've earned. Which means God owes us grace for being so awesome. Which He doesn't. Hence, the need for grace.

So if acceptance doesn't have anything to do with it, I'm starting to wonder if the Calvinists are on to something. Lucky for me, Dietrich Bonhoeffer offers some insight, noting the difference between "cheap grace" and "costly grace":

Grace as the data for our calculations means grace at the cheapest price, but grace as the answer to the sum means costly grace. It is terrifying to realize what use can be made of a genuine evangelical doctrine. ..."Justification by faith alone" is a misuse of the formula that leads to the complete destruction of its very essence.

When you think of grace as a way to justify an inability to stop sinning, you're left with cheap grace, the grace of the institutionalized post-Constantine Christianity. But when grace answers the question, "How?", i.e., "How can I go on?" or "How did I get into this mess?" or "How can this ever be made right?" or, to paraphrase Bono, "How can such a fucked up world ever be saved?", there true grace is found: Costly grace.

So I'm still left with this question regarding grace: If acceptance isn't a factor, then why do some people not have it? And quite obvious those people are--You know, bad people who murder and steal and rape and otherwise plunder Creation. And not to mention all the people that are perhaps not bad, but just have ignored Christ's call to follow Him--The people stuck in the daily grind, trying to achieve the so-called American Dream, at the expense of being the revolutionary human God intended them to be. And then there's... Oh, wait... The next person in line is... me. A mere 3 sentences down the line from "bad people"; a person who daily misses the mark when it comes to responding to Jesus' call to be the most human I can be: A disciple.

And that brings me back to grace--costly grace--the means wherein the mere opportunity to be a disciple is offered, and the notion of "being saved" becomes nothing more than a product of cheap grace. Faith doesn't help me become a disciple, I just have to do it. Then, obedience will lead me to faith, which will lead to more obedience, and so on, until the Word is as flesh.

But really... Will that time ever come?

(insert grace here)

--jesse

In-Ear Moniter Mixing: Tips and Techniques

2009-12-10T15:02:00.014-06:00

After several years of using Aviom in-ear montering systems at Hillcrest, I've grown very fond of them and can hardly imagine ever going back to ear-blasting wedge-moniters again. My fellow worship-team members, however, have given me some mixed reviews about them, and I hope to address the most common complaints (namely, "I can't hear myself") here.

Compared to traditional "wedge" moniters (live speakers on the stage), in-ears have many advantages. First and foremost is the advantage in FOH (front-of-house) audio mixing quality. Without the "sonic pollution" of on-stage wedge moniters, the FOH engineer is able to portray an uncluttered audio mix. Before our in-ear days at Hillcrest, the excess noise being thrown around by a stage full of wedgies was resulting in the FOH mix being compromised by this excess noise.

Another advantage to in-ear monitering is the ability to control one's own moniter mix. Gone are the days of shouting back to the sound tech, "I need more guitar... More... More... No, more...". With the Aviom mixers on stage, each band member can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and not to mention do it in stereo.

The downside to all this flexibility is that it often leads to confusion. People want to hear themselves first and foremost, but if that's all you're hearing you're really missing out, and your performance may be suffering as well. The key to using in-ear moniters is getting a perfect mix. With wedge moniters, it's easy (and often necessary) to scrape by with a so-so mix. But in-ears are much less forgiving; however, when the right mix is achieved, they're worth the effort.

Achieving a perfect mix starts with the musician/singer. As with anything, if you're shy, unpracticed, or otherwise unprepared, no advice is going to save you. After that, its very important to get the right ear buds to fit your ears, and insert them so that they create a tight seal (you should hear your "head voice" when talking) and insert each bud into the corresponding ear (red=right, blue=left). Once you've got your buds in your ears and plugged into your mixer, you can start mixing.

First, here's a picture of our mixers and how they are labeled:

G=guitar and v= vocal. So, G2 is "Guitar #2," V2 is "Vocal #2," etc.

Here's a method I've found useful for getting a good mix:

Begin with the Master volume at about 1 o'clock, and the Treble/Bass controls and nominal level (12 o'clock).

Select your channel and bring its volume to about 50-75%.

Put all other instruments/vocals to roughly 50%, all "non-musical things" (pastor's mic, handheld mic, etc) to about 25%, and completely turn off all unused channels (to avoid excess noise).

Stereo panning is the key! Generally, you're going to want yourself in the center, along with bass and drums in the center because they're the rhythmic/chordal foundation of the music. Everything else--acoustic guitar, electric guitar, keyboard, voilin, other vocals, etc--should be panned incrementally and equally to either side to create a "stereo image" of the whole band. (See my example below.) What this does is keep all the sonic elements uncluttered in your head. Details below...

Raise/lower the various channels to your liking. Remember, it's better to subtract than to add. For example, if you can't hear yourself, try subtracting things you have too much of. If necessary, adjust the panning of the channels if one side of your head feels "heavier" than the other.

Save your mix. This is done by holding down both Recall and Group buttons, and pressing a channel number. Your mix can later be recalled by pressing Recall and then selecting the channel number you used previously. (Changes to your mix are not automatically saved; you must re-save it after making changes in order for those changes to be recalled later.) When saving your mix at rehearsal, you can call it up Sunday morning and spare yourself a BIG hassle.

What is panning? Panning simply refers to creating a stereo image (left/right). If everything is in the center, all the sonic elements are going to be competing for your brain's attention. For example, acoustic guitar and piano generally occupy the same frequency range, therefore your brain has a hard time distinguishing between them. But, when one of them is in your left ear, and the other in your right, they become distinct and clear. Also, you'll need less volume on each of their channels to hear them, freeing up "space" for other sonic elements.

Here's an example of a typical mix I might use when playing electric guitar. (I'm in channel 10, labeled G2.)

As you can see, I'm using almost no background vocals. I don't NEED them as a guitar player, so they just create sonic clutter for me. I'll usually pick one background vocal (in this case, V2) to give myself a little feeling for the songs' vocals, but the other 2 are very quiet and panned hard left/right. Keyboard and acoustic guitar (labeled "ben guitar") are partially and equally left and right, and lead vocal ("ben vocal") is a touch to one side--just enough to make it more clear. Crowd mics are hard left/right.

This brings me to one last point. As a worship team member you may have noticed in the last few weeks that there are now channels on the Aviom mixers labeled CL ("crowd left") and CR ("crowd right"). The channels correspond to the microphones we've set up on the stage facing the audience. These microphones do exactly what their name implies: Pick up the sound of our fellow worshipers in the congregation plus a little ambient noise. I've found this extremely helpful in overcoming the common isolation-anxiety associated with in-ear moniters. They allow us to hear the crowd's response and hear them singing and clapping along which enhances the experience greatly.

I hope this helps you get a better mix in your in-ear moniters. The better the mix, the less distracted you'll be, and the better leader/performer you'll be on stage.

--Jesse

Don't credit the music

2009-09-23T10:47:00.006-05:00

Music gets way too much credit as a form of God-worship. I believe that music (and any other art, Christian or otherwise) is always worship, but worship can be many other things than music. So why do we do it so regularly? What is its value spiritually? Why is it that only in church we find ourselves singing with a bunch of strangers? It's quite queer, really.

Perhaps it is because music is always “just and good” (Psalm 33:5), even in the midst of imperfect singers and musicians. I think God created music as a sort of gift that allows humans to create something out of nothing. Think about it--songwriting is essentially creating something out of thin air--not from compiling other pre-existing parts and pieces (sans cookie-cutter pop music), but something that only exists because its wholeness exists.

When we get together and sing as a church, it is our time to worship God with each other. It's not "my time" to worship God. Rob Bell said something about the significance of submission in corporate worship--Submitting to each other (singing together) for the greater good of the wholeness of the song and its rhythms and melodies. What a great metaphor for the work of the people: The congregation is held in submission to each other by the song's melody, tempo, and key. And the band members are held accountable to the music by each having their own role in creating the music, and therefore "leading" (although I don't like that word).

If somebody deserts their role for the sake of glorifying themselves, the song (the good work) ceases to exist.

--Jesse

Drops like stars

2009-08-21T10:50:00.004-05:00

A quick note... I'm about to leave for Minneapolis to catch Rob Bell's "Drops Like Stars" tour in support of his new book. Being one of my favorite speakers/authors/pastors/persons, this will surely inspire a new blog entry in the coming days (hopefully).

Also, I'm taking the motorcycle which tends to exacerbate the spirtual element of the obiquitous roadtrip experience. But now I'm just creating expectations, so I better shut up.

Oh I almost forgot... Better do a quick checklist of post-modern-emergent-church-function sterotypes:

Flannel shirt: Check.
Nerdy glasses: Check.
Coffee cup glued to hand: Check.
Permission granted to self to be the first to scream "hell yes" instead of "amen" during the seminar because I need to show everyone that I'm sooo beyond modernity: Check.
Preference of Macs to PC's: Check.

Splendid. I'm good to go.

--Jesse

2009-08-15T10:44:00.003-05:00

You wanna know what really grinds my gears? When people use the word "ironic" when they really mean "highly coincidental".

Yeah, that really grinds my gears.

Back to you, Tom.

--Jesse

Windows

2009-07-21T09:22:00.003-05:00

In response to my previous post ("Jesus is a Liar...", see below), I'd like to take a page from Brian McLaren's book "A New Kind of Christian". (Yes, that's the crazy one about how evolution is not a curse-word.) Also, Richie may or may not have pointed this out for me. But I swear, I read the book before he pointed it out. Anyway...

McLaren alliterates theology to windows. When you look out the window of, say, a hospital, you can see the sky, and you can see it going on infinitely. But you're still not seeing the whole sky. You can go to somebody else's room and look out their window to see another part of the sky, but you're still not seeing the whole thing. Then you can leave the hospital alltogether, look straight up on a cloudless night, and it's better, but still futile.

So once again, the key to Universe boiles down to mystery. Mmm, I LOVE not understanding things.

--Jesse

Jesus is a liar! No, wait... I mean... that came out wrong.

2009-06-26T09:31:00.003-05:00

I came across this story today, which is a very Eastern Orthodox view of Jesus which I feel my Westen upbringing has missed. In summary, it goes something like this:

A long time ago, there was a king who ruled over a great kingdom, with many cities. The king was a good king, granting his people the freedom they deserved. But eventually, some people in one of the distant cities began to take advantage of their freedom by rebelling and doing whatever they wanted, eventually breeding a lifestyle of violence, hatred, murder, rape, slavery, and fear. The king thought to himself, "What should I do? If I take my army and conquer the city by force, the people will fight against me, and I'll have to kill so many of them, and the rest will only submit through fear or intimidation, which will make them hate me and all I stand for even more. How does that help them--to be either dead or imprisoned or secretly seething with rage? But if I leave them alone, they'll destroy each other, and it breaks my heart to think of the pain they're causing and experiencing."

So the king did something unexpected: He left his castle and his royalty, dressed in grubby clothes, and lived among the people of this rebelling city incognito. He pitched a cardboard box by a dumpster and lived there, making a living fixing broken pottery and furniture. He exemplified kindness and goodness and respectfullness and fairness so much so that people began to notice him, eventually became infatuated with him. People gathered around him, followed him, and when the subject of the rebellion came up, he told them that their king had a better way to live for them, a way which he exemplified and taught. People started growing in their confidence in him, eventually mimicing his worldview in their own lives.

Their movement grew, and eventually spread to enough people that they wanted to express regret for their mistakes, but were ashamed to go to the king and apologize for fear of the king destroying them. Then the king-in-disguise revealed himself as the king he really was, and in doing so accomplished through a subtle presence what never could have been accmplished through brute force.

He welcomed them back into his kingdom.

My initial thought after reading this was, "Wow, this really helps me understand the whole Jesus thing in a way I never have before." I felt like my mind was wrapped around the Trinity just a little more tightly: Jesus always has existed; God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit really are one, yet really are seperate; etc.

Then, just as I was starting to feel good about myself for understanding something that all my seminary-student friends love to tell me about, another much more Jesse-esque thought creeped in: "Holy crap... God is a big fat liar."

Did God really have to pretend to be a human to save the world? Did he trick us all into falling for him? Is Jesus just a pretty disguise used by God to fool us into thinking we can be saved? Is God a politician and Jesus his lobbyist?

Hmmm... Once again, I find myself going back to my black-and-white worldview. Maybe a different way of looking at it is this: Rather than God's becoming a human a form of manipulation, it's a form of humility--bringing himself down to my mere human level. God knows that I (albeit with much prodding) can relate with a human--I can't, however, find very much in common with the creater of the cosmos, even though that creator obviously wants to relate with me. So in a weird way, God HAS to "lie" to the world, for the world's own good, with the divine precognition that we have the capacity to realize that it isn't a lie at all--it's His ultimate, divine form of humility and vulnerablity.

Ok, this is the part of my writing process where I start to lose my train of thought, so I'm just going to hit "publish" now and wrap it up later. But in the meantime feel free to post comments as I work through my unquenchable cynisism of everything--Including (appearently) God.

--Jesse

The pedalboard

2009-05-25T16:46:00.007-05:00

I've had some inquiries lately about what's on my pedalboard, so I'm gonna start directing people here for a detailed rundown.

First, the guitars:

Ibanez AK-75 Hollowbody w/ Piezo pickup in the bridge. I got this on evilBay and the previous owner installed the piezo pickup, which is "hidden" in the bridge. This pickup has a totally seperate audio path from the regular pickups, including its own dedicated output (there are 2 output jacks). The magnetic (or "regular") pickups are sent through Signal-A (see below) and the piezo is Signal-B via 2 cables snaked together.
Fender Highway1 Telecaster. This was my high school graduation present, and I'll always play this guitar for as long as it can take the beating of... well, of being a Telecaster. This guitar is always run via Signal-A (Signal-B becomes irrelevent).

The Pedalboard:

1. Ernie Ball Panning Pedal. This is a signal selector that blends between the afforementioned Signal-A and Signal-B. Signal-A is the regular pickups of the Ibanez (or the Telecaster) into the rest of the pedalboard and the amp. Signal-B takes the Ibanez's piezo (acoustic) signal, and sends it directly to the house P.A. system via an L.R. Baggs Para D.I. (upper right corner), bypassing the rest of the pedalboard entirely. So, the rest of Signal-A is...

2. Budda Wah.

3. Fulltone Fulldrive-2. This is my base overdrive tone. Gorgeous. This is on older model with the push/pull volume pot. I'm usually using the lightly compressed "Flat-mids" mode. (A note to guitarists: Do not--I repeat, DO NOT--buy the new "mosfet" versions. I don't know what Fulltone was thinking, but they suck.)

4. MXR Micro Amp. This is a boost for my Telecaster to compensate for it's lower output level. (Makes the soundguy happy.)

5. Wampler Super Plextortion. A Marshall JCM-800 sound, for when heavier distortion is desired.

6. Fulltone Fat-Boost. A lead boost.

7. Ernie Ball Volume. (Far left side.) Has a dedicated tuner-output for silent tuning (Boss TU-2 tuner). I purposely put this before the delay and reverb so that ambient pad and swelling sounds will trail off naturally between note/chord changes.

8. Boss RV-5 Reverb.

9. TC Electronics Nova Delay. Delay based on TC's former TC-2290 Dynamic Delay, made famous by U2's guitarist The Edge. The Modulated delay is awesome. The analog-modeled tone is decent, but not better than the real thing (pun intended).

The silver Vox box is for the amp's built in reverb and tremolo. The whole thing is mounted on a Pedaltrain, and powered by a Visual Sound One-Spot power supply (except for the Nova Delay).

And the amp: Vox AC-15. Mic'd with a Shure sm-57.

So there you have it. Occasionally I might throw on a chorus effect, vibrato, another delay, or whatever, depending on the song set. But this is basically it. And if you ever catch me when a flanger pedal, I give you permission to shoot me.

--Jesse

Things I learned this weekend...

2009-04-20T10:54:00.003-05:00

...while leading worship for 175 middle-school students at a retreat aptly named CHAOS...

The lyrics to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" DO make sense. And if you think I'm lying, you weren't there.
Having sheet music in alternative keys typed up and ready to go is much better than transposing during rehearsal. And besides, my brain doesn't process chicken scratch when there's a guitar on my shoulder.
Always double-check that your wah pedal isn't cocked before starting the first song... ALWAYS. *punches self in head*
Organizing worship teams is harder than I thought, and whenever I'm on the other end of the team (i.e., playing an instrument but not leading) I need to cut the leader some slack when things aren't going smoothly, or unlike how I imagined.
My sister rocks.

--Jesse

Orchestration... & How to Ruin a Song

2009-04-17T15:34:00.002-05:00

For a lack of anything better to write about today, I'm going to direct my billions of faithful readers to another blog entitled Guitar for Worship. The author (his name escapes me) has been a big influence on me regarding guitar playing, guitar gear, guitar tone, and what makes K-Pax such an incredible movie. (We all get side-tracked sometimes.) This particular post involves one of my favorite subjects: Making fun of Christian music. And Christian bookstores.

And Christians.

So without further a due...

http://guitarforworship.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/orchestration-how-to-ruin-a-song/

Narcisissm

2009-04-03T16:57:00.002-05:00

To all my 3.4 readers: I know I havn't written in a long time--I guess I havn't felt very narcissistic. Which begs the question:

Is blogging narcissistic?

I mean, really... Who am I to think that anybody would go out of their way to hear what I have to say to an otherwise non-existant audience?

Hmmm... possibly more on this later.

--Jesse

2009-03-03T17:21:00.004-06:00

Today I disabled and removed my motorcycle's PAIR-valve (Pulsed Air Induction Reed). The PAIR-valve is (supposedly) an emission-control system which allows the manufacturer to pass the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) vehicle emission standards. What is does is introduce fresh air into the exhaust system at the exhaust port just before being pumped out (and subsequently tested). In other words--and to the best of my knowledge*--it's just "watering down" the fuel vapor to pass the EPA test.

The main reason people remove their PAIR-valve is for aesthetic reasons--these things are gigantic chrome-covered eyesores covering up the cylinders on the right side of the bike. Also, it's technically illegal, which is always fun.

But, on a personal note, I also enjoy sticking it to the man. And in this case, that man is the EPA. Now, I'm not against the EPA per say (sorry, I hate that word too), but the whole PAIR-valve thing is ridiculous, and personifies very well the illegitimacy of the global warming debate. It's NOT reducing emissions, making the bike "greener", or preventing polar bears from falling through the ice. It's simply fooling the electronic sniffer.

So there you have it: Big government bureaucracy protecting you by using your money to enforce emission regulations that are only passed by means of falsified test results. But, those results sure sound swell on the evening news, don't they?

*which is very low.

Blind

2009-02-17T09:27:00.008-06:00

Well, it's official: On March 1st I'll be starting my new gig as a Worship Ministry Intern at Hillcrest Church in Sioux Falls. I'm very excited and can't wait to get started. And, on an almost totally unrelated note, I'll also be reducing hours at my--eh hem--real job. Oh darn.

Now for the gooey part... Or, as the narrative voice in my head would say, "Little did he know..."

Up until a few months ago, I never thought I'd ever be in a paid position at a church. In fact, I'd always had a bit of a personal bias against it. And I really don't know why. I've never thought it wrong, or thought myself incapable (Ok, maybe a little), but I guess I just ruled it out very early on. The reason? Well, let's backtrack a little.

I started playing drums when I was 13. It was my first real musical venture--Marching band sucked (I played the sax, which I loved, but school band was basically a sport, not music), I had taken just enough piano lessons to "graduate" myself to drums, and it was time to do what I wanted. (Becuase every 13-yr-old knows what they want, right? Right.)

A year later, I thought I was pretty good. So I started a ska band with some classmates (naturally). A year later, that lead to another band called Empty Tomb--more of a "real" band. Over a couple years, we did some traveling, recorded two albums, all while making the all-too-typical transition from Greenday-punk to Thursday-screamo to Norma Jean-hardcore. And it was glorious.

Oh, I forgot to mention that during this time, from the very week I first picked up drumsticks, I had been playing in my church services. A little pre-mature? Perhaps. But everybody in the congregation--perhaps to their own dismay--told me how awesome I sounded after every service. So I continued, because... Everybody doesn't lie, right? Right. And even if they were (which I knew they weren't) it didn't matter, because church service aren't what I really cared about. The band--songwriting, touring, arguing, dreaming--was what really mattered to me.

And then the band ended. And I was left with church. Ewe. But to my credit, I tried to make the most of it. And I couldn't deny that it felt right, or at least that's what I was telling myself to justify not having a "real" band. So, without really telling anybody I focused on that for the next couple of years through the end of high school, and even started playing a little guitar and doing the dreaded "worship leader thing" every now and then. The joy-factor kinda came and went, but it kept me busy until something else came along.

Then in the spring of 2007 that something (seemed to have) came along. I made the cut as the drummer for a local singer/songwriter with a huge new album on the horizon, the promise of tons of touring, and the means to make it all happen. I had never been so encouraged in all my life--I was finally doing it. My big break had come. I'll save the details for later, but suffice it to say that after a year-and-a-half of mere foreplay (pardon the metaphor), it ended. And it was not pretty, both outwardly and inwardly.

So now The Story is at November of 2008. I'm 22, fresh off a tour with the aforementioned band, opening for a huge-name artist. It was FINALLY picking up, but I had no choice but to leave it all behind, and I didn't udnerstand why. I felt like I was back where I was at 17. But as usual, the key part of this story is "Little did he know...".

That's where the oppurtunity with the internship comes in. Little did I know that after all this, I'd end up doing the one thing I had written off years ago. Well, I guess "end up" is the wrong way to put it, because this obviously isn't the end of anything, but you get the point. God has an absolutely retarded way of conducting business. Or maybe I'm just spiritually blind... As I'm proofreading this, I'm realizing that I totally forgot to mention that in April of 2008 He sent me to Zambia to help lead worship at a conference there. And before that, the worship pastor at Hillcrest was mentoring me without me realizing (or perhaps, acknowledging) it. And before that, I had been recording music in my parents' basement that I later used for worship events. And before that, I remember the only thing keeping me going in life as a teenager was the foresight of my next gig, almost all of which were church worship events.

By the way, I apologize. This is WAY too long. So in conclusion... Ah, screw it. I'm sick of fabricating conclusions.

--Jesse

I got my sexy boots on...

2009-02-15T17:16:00.003-06:00

In light of U2's new album due out later this spring, and seeing their performance on the Grammy's last week (you can make fun of my for that later), I thought I'd write a review of their new single, "Get on your boots". Then I realized that everything that could be said has already been said in another blog. So here's a link:

http://guitarforworship.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/three-new-songs-from-u2/

Suffice it to say, U2 is venturing back to their 90's "Achtung Baby" era, perhaps with a splash of Popmart/ZooTV. At first I was a little disappointed, but after taking a closer look and seeing the Grammy performance, I'm really quite excited for this new album.

Now exuse me while I go learn the "Discotheque" riff.

--Jesse

Stimulate this.

2009-01-30T18:18:00.006-06:00

I cannot believe this so-called "stimulus" package (that's what she said) actually passed the House. A more appropriate name would be spending package. Actually, that doesn't even do it justice--I'd call it the stealing package.

This legislation is just another way to arbitrarily print money. Need a new TV? Uncle Sam will print you one out of thin air! Late on your mortgage in lieu of your new Escalade? Uncle Sam will print you cash to pay your bills! Is your nostalgia being threatened because the auto-makers might not be able to pay their workers $70 an hour to build crappy cars? It's OK!--As long as the CEO's sell 2 of their 7 private jets, I'm sure they can work something out!

After WW2, Germany started printing money to counter their post-war recession. Inflation went up so much (about 1000% per month) people were actually burning money to warm their homes.

The chart at the left shows how much money is in US circulation in billions of dollars, beginning in 1929 with the stock market crash. Notice it stays almost totally flat up until Nixon's genius idea to get rid of the Gold Standard (which meant the government could now print money just for fun), with a slight bump in 1941 in light of WW2. It continues to curve upward (C'mon, could you have resisted?) until the September 11 attacks, where it takes a pretty dramatic spike upward on account of everybody buying patriotic shoes that apparently countered terrorism.

Then there's that HUGE spike in October of 2008 to present. This is the auto/corporate bailouts. I can't even imagine what kind of damage another $800+ billion would do.

This thing is oozing with the concern for special-interest, NOT the people's. In fact, earlier this week Al Gore took his turn injecting his bit in the bill to fund global warming research. (Yeah, that's at the top of my prority list.) And only something like 20% of the money in this bill is going to be used for "stimulation" in 2009, if passed by the senate.

ugh. --Jesse

(myself)x([my view of myself]-[flaws])

2009-01-22T10:44:00.003-06:00

I'm currently reading a book called The Shack, by Wm. Paul Young. I've only got a few minutes before I have to go to work, but I just wanted to jot this down real quick. This is a quote from Papa, who is a fictional (but not-so-fictional) representation of God, talking to the main character, Mack:

"The problem is that many folks try to grasp some sense of who I am by taking the best version of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive, which often isn't much, and then call that God. And while it may seem like a noble effort, the truth is that it falls pitifully short of who I really am. I'm not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and byond all that you can ask or think."

If you're happy and you know it...

2009-01-11T17:04:00.000-06:00

Welcome all! My name is Jesse, and this is my blog, tentatively titled Everybody Lies--which may or may not be a motivating factor for people to read.

I've never really "blogged" before, so I'm not sure if I'm doing it right. It seems quite a peculiar activity--one sharing his thoughts with a faceless crowd, in hopes of people reading, relating to, and discussing the subjects at hand, yet still maintaining a certain blanket of unaccountability via anonymity. So whether I'm going to end up being good at this or not, I'm giving it a shot at the suggestion of some of my friends and (fellow) bloggers. So, here it goes...

If my title seems a bit odd, then perhaps you havn't seen, or at least don't share my captivation with, the show House on Fox. This brings me to my first subject, which is inspired by a rerun of House I saw a few nights ago. (The show is currently in the mid-season hiatus surrounding Christmas and New Years.... New episodes start Jan. 19! Meanwhile, reruns must suffice.)

A couple seasons ago, one of Dr. House's staff members, Eric Foreman, caught the same sickness as a patient the team was diagnosing--a patient that eventually died, and quite horrifically and in extreme pain. Luckily, the team was able to accurately diagnose and treat Foreman due to things they learned during their time with the patient who died.

Upon his recovery, Foreman returns to work with a new attitude onlife: A positive, everyday-is-a-blessing kind of mantality that is indicitive of many people--even chronic pessimists like Foreman--who have a near-death experience. Of course, this attitude drives House insane, as it conteracts the very traits of Foreman that make him a good doctor. It inhibits the team's ability to diagnose their unique medical mysteries, because Foreman's tendancy to question everything and everyone (including House) has gone out the window.

House knows this phase is just that: A temporary, irrational phase. So he convinces Foreman to get over it as soon as possible. When confronting him, the conversation goes something like this:

House: You need to get over this phase. I need you to question me and the team.
Foreman: Phase? Just because you're miserable doesn't mean I have to be. I've found happiness; I'm content. You're jealous.
House: Happiness?!? Contentness?!? Oh please... If everyone was content, the human race would have died long ago in it's own feces.

And that was all it took. And as gross as it sounds, I think he's right. We all want to be 'happy', but what if everyone really was? Would we just start pooping our pants instead of using toilets, totally disregarding the consequences? Would we, in our sense of total self-contentness, stop having sex and therefore cease to reproduce? For that matter, would we stop striving to be a better people? Stop caring about ourselves? Stop caring about others?

Happiness only exists because it's possible for it not to exist. And more often than not, it doesn't.

I, for one, never really feel content--with anything. But it encourages me--or rather, forces me--to strive for what's next... the next oppurtunity for improvement, the next big (or small) step. Without sadness, lonliness, fear, etc., there would be no happiness. And there would be no need to do anything, much less strive for improvement.

So there it is, my first blog. Now how do I publish this thing?...

--Jesse