An open letter to The Flaming Lips

Dear Wayne, Steven, Michael and Kliph,

Let me introduce myself: My name is Josh, and I am a follower of Jesus. Not much farther down the list of things I am you will discover that I am a Flaming Lips fan. I bought my first Flaming Lips record in 1993, when I was ten years old and The Flaming Lips have been my favorite band ever since. Like most of your admirers, I have been an enthusiastic fan. I listen to your entire discography regularly, I sing along at your concerts, I hosted Zaireeka listening parties, I wore my oversized Flaming Lips t-shirts all through junior high as often as Wayne used to wear that old Sonic Youth t-shirt. I even showed up on Wayne’s doorstep with a stack of my band’s albums.

In fact, The Flaming Lips are one of the major reasons that I myself have been a musician, touring the world and releasing rock records for more than a decade. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

As I mentioned in the first sentence of this letter, I am a follower of Jesus. I prefer this title to the term “Christian” because of the dreadful and unfortunate connotation the word Christian conjures up. Believe me, I am by no means ignorant to the horrific reputation Jesus’ followers have earned both for themselves and for Jesus himself. Christians, by and large (and especially here in America) are thought of as hateful, highly politicized, right wing, republican, flag-waving, gun-toting, war-mongering bigots. Sadly, I cannot argue that this perception of Christians is entirely misplaced.

I realize that Wayne (and perhaps the lot of you?) has been an atheist for a long while, but I suspect that the bands aggressive stance towards Christianity in particular stems from the largely accurate description of them I mentioned above. That is why I am writing this letter, to apologize on behalf of Jesus’ followers and to clarify: we—Jesus’ followers—are not all like that. And, for that reason, to petition you with this simple request: do not hate us all.

I am, of course, an intensely imperfect person. But, I am by no means a racist, hateful, highly politicized, right wing, republican, flag-waving, gun-toting, war-mongering bigot. Neither is Jesus. In fact, actually following Jesus requires unconditional love for all people (including enemies), rejection of violence, rejection of faith in politics and rejection of patriotism. In short, the exact opposite of the traits american Christians are most notorious for. I’m not suggesting that these are or should be your ideals per se, I just mean to point out that an authentic pursuit of Jesus is, sadly, quite the opposite of public perception.

Let me be clear, my letter’s intention is by no means converting any of you to my way of thinking. Nor do I plan on complaining that your anti-christian rhetoric has offended me. It hasn’t. On the other hand, I’m afraid some of your more blatant statements might be—regardless of your intentions—misconstrued as hateful toward some of your very sincere admirers.

When Kliph wears a t-shirt that says “Christianity is stupid”—as is his prerogative—I’m not sure I’m mistaken in assuming that he is making an effort to point out that he believes that I am a fool. I love Kliph. He is enormously talented and has been very kind to me in person. I wonder why he would—without knowing me at all—think me a fool simply because of what I believe? Should we all be judged in this way? Would Kliph condone a generic statement that Islam is stupid? Or that buddhism is stupid? Or that atheism is stupid? Does he mean to say he believes that a certain set of beliefs are misplaced or that all who disagree with him are, well, stupid?

When Wayne sings “burning the Bible tonight,” I would honestly not censor him or suggest that he ought to change his lyrics. My faith is not so shallow that those who disagree frighten or offend me. I even suspect that I might understand, in a way, the sentiment behind the statement. But I wonder if beneath the lyric and the frustration with religion there is a more personal vendetta against an entire group of people. Please forgive me if I’m being presumptuous here. I am asking non-rhetorical questions, not making statements.

It may come as a surprise to discover that you have a great deal of devoted fans who are also devoted followers of Jesus. In my years on the road and in the music industry as a Jesus-follower myself, I have met countless creative individuals who have been inspired and influenced by The Flaming Lips who also believe that Jesus is God. They come to your shows, they buy your records, they cover your songs. They even share the stage with you.

I sympathize with the fact that Jesus-followers believe some crazy-sounding things. Yes, I believe Jesus is God, I believe in a literal, corporeal resurrection of the dead, I believe a personal, loving God created the universe, etc. I sincerely believe in all these things, but I do not hold these beliefs over the heads of those who reject them. I do not believe that these beliefs make me, in any way, better than any other human being. I do not believe that those who reject my beliefs are idiots or that they should be treated differently. In fact, I believe that Jesus wants me to love and serve everyone, especially those who deeply disagree with me, without an agenda to make them more like me.

Do you hate me? Do you think that I’m stupid?

Don’t get me wrong, I would never suggest that you should relinquish the passion that motivates your own personal beliefs, but does that passion direct you to dislike strangers who care deeply for your band and your art and even you as individuals outside of The Flaming Lips?

I hope that it will not offend you (or weird you out) to learn that I pray for your band daily. I DO NOT pray that you will become like me, or that you will “cease to be heathens” or some such nonsense. I pray that you will be safe in your travels, that you will be blessed each day with joy and laughter, that you will have life—as Jesus puts it—to the fullest! Now, I understand and that you believe those prayers disappear into thin air, perhaps you even think me a fool for praying them. But do you resent me for doing so?

It is my sincere belief that Jesus needs new PR. I find it a terribly upsetting irony that by and large the equal rights, social justice, creative and expressive community of artists here in the states are so hostile towards Jesus. In reality, the Flamings Lips sentiments of peace and love, kindness towards animals, and hope in the face of death are not at all dissimilar to the way of Jesus. The american Christian sentiments of war, anger, retribution and judgement on the other hand have more in common with Satan than they do with Jesus. Those “god hates fags” folks are NOT Jesus-followers. The people who would have you believe God hates homosexuals and disapproves of interracial relationships are DEAD WRONG.

To quote Charles Dickens via the Ghost of Christmas Present : “‘There are some upon this earth of yours,’ returned the Spirit, ‘who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.’”

And hey, you love Christmas right?

I guess all this is to say, though I do not seek to correct or convict you with this letter, I do hope to convince you that many of the fans you promise are the greatest on earth, love your band with a very sincere affection and also love Jesus. We are by no means a religious lot. On the contrary, we think the myth of a Christian religion is an incredible fallacy. We are a subversive movement of rebels and lovers with an insatiable desire to see the world’s wrongs righted, the world’s hungry fed, the world’s widows and orphans cared for and most of all to see that those with no joy and no love receive both to the point that their cup runs over. We believe that this is what Jesus is after, not unquestioning minions who conform to arbitrary rules and regulations, but a group of rescued lovers who are deeply loved and who love others.

It’s true that many who claim Jesus would have you believe otherwise, but know that Jesus himself warns against them. When you rail against their type, I believe Jesus rails with you.

But do not hate us all. Why hate when you can love?

With unwavering devotion for many years and many years to come,

Josh Dies and Showbread

CLICK HERE TO PRE-ORDER AN EDICT OF WORMS FROM HTTP://JOSHDIES.STORENVY.COM

We’ll also be offering a $50 special edition bundle for a limited time: 

Both Joshua S. Porter’s “Ziz” novels (Nevada and An Edict of Worms) are packed into a single 500 page hardcover volume. Limited to 100 copies, hand numbered, autographed and personalized by the author, this collection will never be printed again. The 5.5 x 8.5 hardcover is bound in black cloth and covered with a dust-jacket featuring artwork exclusive to this volume.

Each special edition pre-order includes a limited edition poster print—signed by the author—featuring original artwork by David Daughtery inspired by Nevada and An Edict of Worms.

Special edition pre-orders will also get digital downloads of both Nevada and An Edict of Worms audio books.

If you were around for the release of Nevada back in 2009, you’ll recall we offered a limited edition hardcover that literally sold out in less than 10 minutes. If you’re interested in the special edition, act fast.

The standard edition paperback will also be available for preorder on 01/03/12 for $20. We’ll have plenty in stock.

Orders will not ship until 01/30/12. PRE-ORDERS WILL BE THE FIRST TO SHIP. 

Scalene, the new album from Dies is out. You can get it from my webstore or from amazon mp3. You can also download a free 3 song sampler via Come&Live!

The 2007 album from Dies: Aesthetics of Violence has been released for the first time through iTunes and amazon mp3. Physical copies are out of print and there are no current plans for a re-release.

My new novel An Edict of Worms—the sequel to Nevada—is still in the editing phase and running slightly longer than expected but on track for a January release. Pre-orders will be announced in the coming weeks.

An announcement about my next book is coming soon.

Issue #2 of The Black Meat has been suffering a terrible delay due to complications with the artwork, which is out both mine and Patrick’s hands. Issue #3 is completely finished and will follow issue #2 when it is finally finished.

Issue #2 of Remission has been delayed because of Kyle’s (our artist) very busy schedule. It’s coming.

The book about horror movies that Patrick, Landon and I had planned on writing has been inactive for a few of years now. No current plans to move forward with it.

Knife To Meet You has two new songs. One about Jaws and one about The Fly. No current plans to record or perform any time soon.

The Thieves Guild seems to be dead or hibernating. I text Reese about it a couple of months ago and he insisted the band should live on, but I’m not sure how a band in a coma lives on. The good news is, with Five Iron returning we’ll at least hear something new from Reese. Patrick and I will either put the songs we’ve written in a vault to await the unlikely day Theives Guild might stir, or we might turn those songs into another project. They are good songs.

Showbread has announced our new album will be called Cancer. The concept and lyrics are both written and the music is being drafted daily. It is the biggest project we’ve ever attempted. We’re talking to Sylvia about returning to the studio early 2012 for a release shortly thereafter through Come&Live!. More announcements about the album, its release and fundraising are all coming soon.

Just about all the other emails i get are questions about or debates over theology stemming from conversations going on here or at Showbread’s formspring site. We are currently looking for an adequate and healthy outlet to funnel all those discussions into.

Also, Abi and I got a big Christmas tree.

“‘Well,’ says the objector, ‘I should like to know how you would manage matters if the ruffian should actually break into your house with settled intent to rob and murder. Would you shrink back like a coward and see your wife and children slaughtered before your eyes?’ I cannot tell you how I might act in such a dreadful emergency—how weak and frail I should prove. But I can tell you how I ought to act—how I should wish to act. If I am what I ought to be, I should be calm and unruffled by the alarm at my door. I should meet my wretched fellow-man with a spirit, an air, a salutation and a deportment so Christ-like, so little expected, so confounding, and so morally irresistible that in all probability his weapons of violence and death would fall harmless to his side. I would say, ‘Friend, why do you come here? Surely not to injure those who wish you nothing but good? This house is one of peace and friendship to all mankind. If you are cold, warm yourself at our fire; if hungry, refresh yourself at our table; if you are weary, sleep in our bed; if you are destitute, poor and needy, freely take of our goods. Come, let us be friends, that God may keep us all from evil and bless us with his protection.’ What would be the effect of such treatment as this? Would it not completely overcome the feelings of the invader, so as either to make him retreat inoffensively out of the house, or at least forbear all meditated violence? Would it not be incomparably safer than to rush to the shattered door, half distracted with alarm, grasping some deadly weapon and bearing it aloft, looking fiery with wrath and mad defiance at the enemy? How soon would follow the mortal encounter, and how extremely uncertain the outcome? The moment I appeared in such an attitude (just the thing expected), would not the ruffian’s coolness and well-trained muscular force be almost sure to seal the fate of my family and myself? But in acting the non-resistant part, should I not be likely, in nine cases out of ten, to escape with perfect safety?”

Adin Ballou, Non-Resistance in Relation to Human Governments

preview another song from the album: “The Last Enemy to be Destroyed is Death”

1. A Mute Idol
2. Pilgrim’s Regress
3. Meticulous Providence?
4. Alone Among God’s Primates
5. Viddy Well, Brother
6. The Last Enemy to be Destroyed is Death
7. Soldiers and Cops
8. Son of the Fly
9. Marana Tha!

Scalene, the new album from Dies is coming this fall.

Josh Dies breaks the 4-year silence on his solo career with Scalene, the follow-up to 2007′s Aesthetics Of Violence. It seems the trademark genre-shifting that has marked Dies day-job band Showbread has a spill-over effect into his solo efforts: The second Dies record does not sound like the first.

Dies has traded its Skinny Puppy and KMFDM influences in for a dose of New Order and Depeche Mode. The crunchy, industrial edge that was the centerpiece of the first Dies effort is now a sort of delightfully ugly stain on what seems to be an otherwise poppy, new wave sort of record.

Scalene might not sound quite like heavy machinery breaking, but it does answer an age old question: “What would it sound like if Phil Collins collaborated with Trent Reznor?” You might not have been asking that question, but you’ll still want to hear the answer.

“Why is Captain America cool? What makes him so unique?”

His moral character. He’s the patriarch of the marvel universe, all the heroes admire him and all the villains fear him. -Josh

“Captain America has a “moral character”, yet his objective is to defend America by use of force/violence at the orders of a militaristic government. How can violence be an analogy to morality if it is actually immoral in reality?”

Captain America also has a perfect physicality by way of a serum, spent decades in a block of ice and returned from the dead with the help of a ray gun that displaced him in the space-time continuum.

I understand that for a anti-patriotic, pacifistic, anarchist type Christian to have Captain America as a favorite comic book character is a bit odd… But at the end of the day he’s just that: a comic book character. It’s not real. It’s pretty out-there science fiction and fantasy. I wouldn’t get too tied up in it. -Josh

I assumed this person was a fellow pacifist challenging us to align our love for a violent, patriotic superhero with our strong disdain for patriotism and violence. As it happens, this fellow was actually a staunch supporter of what they called “physical justice,” as is evidenced by their lengthy follow-up question:

“Josh, the point is that you cannot separate morality from fiction. No Xtian could accept the premise of a fictional world where rape or murder is considered a moral virtue. Thus, if violence itself is immoral in reality, it cannot be moral in fiction.To do so would be no different than justifying ANY sin in a fictional world. Can a Xtian justify pornographic material in the context of fiction? Of course not! That would be completely inconsistent, just like your position. Please think this through. This proves that violence itself is not always wicked. We identify with superheroes because we KNOW that physical justice and self-defense is righteous. You affirm this every time you root for the ‘good guy’. Be consistent.. God himself affirms this, he sets up guidelines for holy violence (death penalty-Gen.9). Angels with swords drive out man from the garden. Paul calls civil rulers ‘God’s ministers’ of justice.Warfare takes place in Heaven in the book of Revelation. How do you justify these things if all violence is ‘immoral’? Trading pacifism for the evils of militarism is one extreme to another. God teaches a balance. The biblical examples cannot be “metaphors” for the same reason that fictional stories cant.”

this is an interesting conversation, so i decided to extend it to my website here. i tend to be a bit long-winded in these types of debates, so I’m going to to do my best to keep things concise as i make several points about the conflict in question.

1) The “Marvel Universe” VS. the Actual Universe

The point is being made that sin—whether depicted fictionally or actually taking place in real life—is always sin, i.e. a rape cannot be despicable in real life and commendable in a movie. Christian morality is absolute, thus our convictions extend from reality to fiction. Two points need to be made in order to understand how this has to do with my personal affection for Captain America. First, there is, sometimes, a limit to how much literal morality a fictional world can withstand. For example, the film District 9. As a Christian, I believe that for all Christians, violent self-defense is contrary to Jesus’ teachings, even within the confines of government. But what if one is defending themselves against a giant alien “Prawn?” Is the Prawn more like a human or more like an animal? It would be acceptable to use violent self-defense against an animal, but not a human. This is a question we cannot answer because a Prawn is not real and there is no “spiritual data” we can gather to asses such a predicament. They exist only in a singular movie universe and are not real. Therefore, if a Christian believed it permissible for fictional characters to violently defend themselves against a fictional creature, there is no real dilemma. The entire debate, while entertaining, is completely irrelevant.

Now, in the case of Captain America and my affection for the character it is worth mentioning that in my personal history of reading the book (beginning with Ed Brubaker’s run in 2005) Captain America (Steve Rogers) has almost exclusively battled super-powered villains with other-worldly/mutant abilities, giant robots, space aliens, genetically enhanced super-nazis and even Norse Gods. The “Is a Prawn more human or more animal” conundrum easily negates any moral conflict in each of these situations. No theological thought has been put into whether or not it is ethical to destroy a robot body if there is a human presence of some kind within the robotic shell. No one has shed any blood or even ink over the idea of killing a shape-shifting Skrull alien. No one loses sleep over the consequences of going to war with a race of Norse Gods. In each and every scenario, something is so outlandishly unreal that no real dilemma is worth debating. I believe all physical violence is wrong for Christians, but what about physical violence against cloned, half-robot, super-nazis? I don’t know because they aren’t (and most likely, will never be) a real issue because they will never be real themselves.

So, while I affirm that sin is always sin (even when fictional), when the “realness” of the fictional world in question is strained to a point, certain “gray areas” introduce themselves, i.e. can a pacifist root for an autobot against a deception when they do physical battle?

My second point is this: When/if Captain America uses physical violence against someone other than aliens or robots, even though it isn’t real, I do not believe that this is an ethical or “Christian” act. This is not something I had in mind when I mentioned his “moral character”. I would list this as a violation of his moral character, a sin, a mistake, etc. Captain America is written as a flawed, imperfect human being, and whether his authors agree with me or not, i believe the use of violence against semi-real human opponents is flawed and imperfect. This won’t cause me to put his book down, but it won’t make me believe in violence either. I think I should once again insist at this point that HE’S ALSO NOT REAL.

2) The supposed “Biblical case” for just violence.

There has been a certain amount of debate between Christian pacifists and those who disagree with them for hundreds of years, so I don’t expect to settle the issue right this moment over the internet. I think there’s a pretty strong historical case for believing that the first century church was entirely non-violent and this only began to change drastically around the time of Constantine. For the sake of space I’ll respond only to the biblical cases made by the person via formspring.

1) “God sets up angels with flaming swords to guard the garden and instates the death penalty in the book of genesis.” In the case of the angels with the flaming swords, I’m not sure there’s any case for “righteous violence” at all. We are never told what, if anything, the angels did with “flaming swords.” We have no idea how literal or symbolic the description is, and even if we assume that it is indeed literal and that the angels did indeed decapitate humans with flaming swords, how on earth can this apply to us? Surely we can’t argue that if God tasked two angels with violent guard via flaming swords we all have a permission slip to ignore the sermon on the mount?

Using Genesis (or any of the Torah) to argue in favor of the death penalty is very problematic. The Torah demands the death penalty for adultery, lying about virginity, blasphemy, violating the sabbath, cursing your parents or even being a rebellious drunkard of a son. Jesus insisted that anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery (Luke 16:18) and yet I’ve never heard of anyone quoting Leviticus 20:10 in order to have them put to death for it. Why is it then that so many Christians insist that the Old Testament condones capital punishment, but only for the crimes we feel like punishing, not Old Testament crimes? In John 8 when Jesus was given the opportunity to comment on (and even carry out) the Old Testament death penalty he, amazingly, said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

2) “Paul condones a violent civil government in Romans 11 and 13.” This is a popular passage used against Christian anarchists. It’s interesting to note that many Christians seem to assume that Paul only had America in mind when he wrote that the governments had permission to “wield the sword.” If we are to take this passage the way many Christians insist on taking it, then we must remember that Saddam’s Iraq and Hitler’s Germany were both appointed by God to wield the sword and that when we fought against them we are “rebelling against what God has instituted” and where therefore “bringing judgment on ourselves.” It’s also interesting that Paul wrote these passages at a time when emperor Nero was violently oppressing Christians. Did Paul intend for the church to rally behind their governments and confess that when they were fed to the lions that they were justly “wielding the sword”? Rather than completely derail the discussion here, I’d just like to direct anyone still reading to the works of Jaques Ellul, Walter Wink, Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Shane Claiborne, John Howard Yoder and Greg Boyd to name a few, for more on this.

3) “The book of Revelation contains violent warfare.” Revelation is one of the most mysterious, cryptic and debated books in the entire bible. To argue that it supports your case for violence is to argue that your interpretation of Revelation is correct, and within orthodox evangelical Christianity, there has been tremendous ongoing debate on the meaning of the entire book for ages. Even the doctrine of “The Rapture” is relatively new in the church. There are many folks who insist that the book of Revelation is, in many ways, as Greg Boyd said to us last Saturday, “a pacifist war scroll.” John’s use of apocalyptic literature, the cultural climate that he wrote within and the nature of his exile are all important things to consider when reading Revelation. I, like many others, would argue that the largely accepted “violent” reading of Revelation is completely mistaken.

3) Our intrinsic nature is to root for the good guy.

This is true and I believe it comes from God. But I believe it is also that in our fallen nature we naturally—and sinfully—crave violent retribution rather than forgiveness and peace. Part of us that bears the fingerprint of our creator craves justice and for good to triumph over evil. Another part of us that is defiled by our sin nature craves violence and revenge.

and finally, 3) The sermon on the mount

A lot of effort has been spent to try and make Jesus mean something else when he taught:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5: 38-48)

The New Testament is very clear in forbidding violence, retaliation and revenge. Yet when we read these things we search, in desperation, to find a way to excuse them away. How can anyone do this? How can someone love their enemies so much that they won’t kill them? How can someone love peace and humanity so dearly? Surely this is not what is expected of us, it’s too hard! And yet we find the bible explicitly commanding we do just that.

What a terrifying and beautiful idea.

Captain America: The First Avenger hits theaters July 22nd.