Petra vs Stryper

Talk about Petra albums, songs, and concerts.
brent
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 4302
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:06 am
x 149

Petra vs Stryper

Post by brent » Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:13 pm

This is from Michael Sweet's new book.

"I drink. Occasionally I smoke. If you ask my wife, my kids, my tech, my agent or my manager they'll all tell you that I curse more than I should. I've fooled around with women on tour buses. I’ve been arrested for indecent exposure. I've been reckless with money to the point of bankruptcy. My favorite bands are The Beatles, Van Halen and Judas Priest. I was pissed at God when my wife died of cancer and I despise religion.
I am a Christian."

Stryper: More financial success/sales/exposure.
Petra: More ministry, less financial success/sales/exposure.

I don't think we will see books like this from John and Bob. This is not meant to pass judgement. This is just meant to compare the two. This is not to say that successful bands have to live like Michael. This is not to say that more ministry minded, smaller bands don't live like Michael.

There are people that think Stryper was a sold out Christian band from day one. It wasn't. It wasn't even a Christian band by definition. They didn't like the title. Too many secular bands, fans, production crews, studio engineers, producers would have first hand experience with the guys and agree.

The deal is, God can still use the music they made. In spite of the guys living like hell, God can still use the tunes, because Truth is true. This is like us. We can give the world mixed signals in life. I can't wait to read the book to see what Michael reveals. It takes big ole' cahoneys (sp?) to lay the truth out there, to reveal you are real....and "not real".

Thank God Bob and John were not partying it up on the road. Thank God they were not arrested for indecent exposure! Wow. I don't even want that mental picture.
0 x

User avatar
sickasadog
Pethead
Pethead
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:50 pm
#1 Album: This Means War!
Pethead since: 1984
x 98

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by sickasadog » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:16 pm

Yeah, Michael has been really up front about what used to happen in the late 80s on tour. I think that it's refreshing to hear such honesty.

The fact is, no one is perfect. I'm sure the guys in Petra have had their share of things that they are not proud of. When John was in Head East, he probably encountered much of the same temptation that the boys in Stryper did. That doesn't mean that John has to throw it all out there in a book, but young men are easily led astray when temptation repeatedly presents itself. Stryper still plays secular venues and festivals because that's the audience they want to reach. Two summers ago, I watched Stryper play a festival in between Lynch Mob and Queensryche. I have never seen Petra except in a Christian environment.

As for Sweet's comment about religion... many people would agree that people don't need a religion, they need a relationship with Jesus. Religion has co-opted many of Jesus' teachings for political purposes.

I think that many Christians are too judgmental toward others.
0 x

brent
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 4302
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:06 am
x 149

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by brent » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:44 pm

Religion and specific denominations would be hostile toward Michael and say, "I told you so". They would throw the baby out with the bathwater and say all of rock and Christian rock is wrong.

The important thing is not to get hung up on what Michael and the guys did wrong then, but how Michael sees himself through the eyes of God now.
0 x

User avatar
sickasadog
Pethead
Pethead
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:50 pm
#1 Album: This Means War!
Pethead since: 1984
x 98

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by sickasadog » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:30 pm

brent wrote:Religion and specific denominations would be hostile toward Michael and say, "I told you so". They would throw the baby out with the bathwater and say all of rock and Christian rock is wrong.

The important thing is not to get hung up on what Michael and the guys did wrong then, but how Michael sees himself through the eyes of God now.
That's how I feel, too.
0 x

gman
Pethead Fanatic
Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:03 am
Location: Used to be Grand Rapids, MI after leaving the beautiful beaches of NJ. Now it's PA.
x 33
Contact:

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by gman » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:53 pm

http://www.flipgorilla.com/p/2302399036 ... 64712979/4
That's the full preview. Looks like it will be a good read. I hope he expands on what he means by religion; assuming he's applying it in some way to Christianity. Yes it's a relationship with Christ, but we are not to be hermits and reject assembling together as an organized body of believers.
0 x

Shell
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 3242
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:26 am
#1 Album: Beyond Belief
Pethead since: 1985
Location: L.A. area
x 43
Contact:

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by Shell » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:59 pm

There are plenty of Christians who live in an ungodly way and try to hide and/or lie about it. I don't condone the behavior or think a tell-all book is necessarily the way to go, but at least Michael is being up front...And hopefully he has learned his lesson. It's whether he learned something from his nonsense that really matters, and yes, God can and does use sinful people. We'd be in trouble if He didn't. I hope the book helps the audience it is meant to reach.

I understand what he means about religion. Religion is man centered.
0 x

Thief
Pethead
Pethead
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:08 pm
Pethead since: 1990
Location: Puerto Rico
x 2
Contact:

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by Thief » Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:05 pm

I really don't see the comparison, and I don't think they were never meant to compete. Very different bands with different styles and approaches, both in terms of music and ministry.

But for what it's worth, Stryper was the first Christian band I heard when I was a kid, and I was a huge fan of them through my pre-teens and teens (80's). I heard of Petra in my late teens (90's) when Stryper was already out of the picture. Actually, I remember buying Michael Sweet's first solo album probably on the same year I bought Wake-Up Call. If I were forced to draw parallels, I like both bands a lot, but Petra is my favorite. Stryper has a heavier, more aggressive sound that's great to listen to, but I personally enjoy listening more to Petra. I think they are more fun to listen to. And as far as the message goes, I find myself more moved by Petra's lyrics than Stryper's. By a huge margin.

As far as the lifestyle goes, it's not my job to judge Sweet. We've all made similar and maybe even worse mistakes, and I doubt most of us have been subject to the temptations he has been subject to. As long as he honestly seeks forgiveness, who am I to throw a stone?
0 x

davea
Pethead
Pethead
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:15 am

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by davea » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:51 am

Really glad to read this thread/post. I have often thought it would be good if Schlitt, Hartman, and or Volz would write books for us to read that are honest, not for the sake of sensationalism or gossip, but for the sake of making them seem more human and not on a pedestal.
For example our local Christian radio station in Barrie, Ontario has djs that seem one way on air (Kind of more squeaky clean), but if you become friends with them on facebook or read their blogs you get a more 'human' picture of their faults.

I hope one day there is a decent book on Petra, whether it be by one author, group member, or a combination of sorts. Sometimes people don't like tell alls though. There has been a lot of opposition to the dvd Fallen Angel on Larry Norman for example.

Can't wait to read Sweet's bio. He comes across as more transparent than a lot of Christian musicians. There have been exceptions though. Michael English's book about his ups and downs is a good read for example.
0 x

User avatar
zak89
Pethead
Pethead
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:16 pm
#1 Album: Petra Praise 2
Pethead since: 2002
x 16

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by zak89 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:02 am

I'm pretty much decided against reading the book personally (I don't think I *want* to know the whole story here... ) but the key factor for me would be whether Michael's perspective is that of a Christian man who has fallen hard, and experienced (and can testify to) God's redeeming mercy, or if it's more a long the lines of "I'm a rebel, I play dirty and don't you dare judge me". From what I've seen from Mr Sweet lately, I feel fairly safe in assuming the former. Obviously the marketing excerpts are meant to be provocative - that doesn't bother me really.

I mean, take a look at David - the "man after God's own heart". He had his share of moral failings (try, murder?), but try reading through Psalm 51 and seeing any sort of self-justification or glory. That's what so encouraging about the story of David's life - it's recorded in brutal honesty, and despite his achievements and faith, it's only by God's grace that he (or any one of us) can stand justified before God in the end. I pray (and expect) Michael Sweet's testimony will place him in such company.

Edit: Reread my post and found I'd made a critical error in phrasing. :P
Last edited by zak89 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Mountain Man
Pethead Fanatic
Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
#1 Album: Wake-Up Call
Pethead since: 1983
x 266

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by Mountain Man » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:58 pm

brent wrote:In spite of the guys living like hell, God can still use the tunes, because Truth is true.
The Apostle Paul said, "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

Philippians 1:15-18
0 x

User avatar
Mountain Man
Pethead Fanatic
Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
#1 Album: Wake-Up Call
Pethead since: 1983
x 266

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by Mountain Man » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:40 pm

sickasadog wrote:As for Sweet's comment about religion... many people would agree that people don't need a religion, they need a relationship with Jesus. Religion has co-opted many of Jesus' teachings for political purposes.
As a point of clarification, Christianity is less a personal relationship and more of an ancient client/patron relationship with Jesus as our mediator. We, as the client, agree to serve God, and God, as our patron, agrees to confer certain benefits in return. Given the Ancient Near East culture in which the New Testament was written, thinking of God in terms of a personal relationship wouldn't have occurred to the writers and leads to nonsense like The Shack and Joel Olsteen.
0 x

User avatar
Dan
Pethead Fanatic
Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 2529
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:17 am
#1 Album: This Means War!
Pethead since: 1987
Location: USA
x 80

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by Dan » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:13 pm

I like that Sweet had the guts to admit the problems and struggles that frankly every one encounters on some scale in their life. Respect.
0 x

brent
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 4302
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:06 am
x 149

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by brent » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:36 pm

Mountain Man wrote:
sickasadog wrote:As for Sweet's comment about religion... many people would agree that people don't need a religion, they need a relationship with Jesus. Religion has co-opted many of Jesus' teachings for political purposes.
As a point of clarification, Christianity is less a personal relationship and more of an ancient client/patron relationship with Jesus as our mediator. We, as the client, agree to serve God, and God, as our patron, agrees to confer certain benefits in return. Given the Ancient Near East culture in which the New Testament was written, thinking of God in terms of a personal relationship wouldn't have occurred to the writers and leads to nonsense like The Shack and Joel Olsteen.
I think it is about a personal relationship. The bible is plain that we are friends of Jesus. We are bond servants. We have a position. We have a relationship.

The first century believers could not comprehend much of the scripture. Heck, the Jews completely missed Jesus. So, to say the first century people did not comprehend a relationship with God is true, but it does not negate the fact that we have one. The nomads could not comprehend a literal nation that eventually came in the 1900s. People in the bible could comprehend the trinity until Jesus came. People today cannot grasp that, or prophecy, or loads of other things. The truth of the matter is every generation understands and knows more than the last. Every generation begins with the knowledge the last left off with. Two or three generations from now, people will look back and wonder how we missed somethings that we think we have figured out.
0 x

User avatar
Mountain Man
Pethead Fanatic
Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
#1 Album: Wake-Up Call
Pethead since: 1983
x 266

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by Mountain Man » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:09 pm

brent wrote:
Mountain Man wrote:
sickasadog wrote:As for Sweet's comment about religion... many people would agree that people don't need a religion, they need a relationship with Jesus. Religion has co-opted many of Jesus' teachings for political purposes.
As a point of clarification, Christianity is less a personal relationship and more of an ancient client/patron relationship with Jesus as our mediator. We, as the client, agree to serve God, and God, as our patron, agrees to confer certain benefits in return. Given the Ancient Near East culture in which the New Testament was written, thinking of God in terms of a personal relationship wouldn't have occurred to the writers and leads to nonsense like The Shack and Joel Olsteen.
I think it is about a personal relationship. The bible is plain that we are friends of Jesus. We are bond servants. We have a position. We have a relationship.

The first century believers could not comprehend much of the scripture. Heck, the Jews completely missed Jesus. So, to say the first century people did not comprehend a relationship with God is true, but it does not negate the fact that we have one. The nomads could not comprehend a literal nation that eventually came in the 1900s. People in the bible could comprehend the trinity until Jesus came. People today cannot grasp that, or prophecy, or loads of other things. The truth of the matter is every generation understands and knows more than the last. Every generation begins with the knowledge the last left off with. Two or three generations from now, people will look back and wonder how we missed somethings that we think we have figured out.
A lot of the New Testament doesn't make sense if you read it through a modern lens and treat it as if it were written yesterday, and I don't think the New Testament authors were mistaken to understand or talk about Christianity in terms of an impersonal client/patron relationship. It's dangerous to think that we have a better understanding of God and Christianity than the apostles did, or that modern notions of individualism are somehow more "correct" than collectivism (in fact, individualistic cultures are relatively recent, historically speaking, and remain in the minority even today; 70% of the modern world is collectivistic, similar to the culture in the Bible). This is essentially saying that nobody was capable of truly understanding the scripture until we came along with our "superior" knowledge and culture, and I refuse to believe that for a moment since it would render scripture inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of people who have lived. We need to understand the Bible from the perspective of the cultural context within which it was written, and it is a gross error to try to reshape it to fit our cultural sensibilities.
0 x

brent
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 4302
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:06 am
x 149

Re: Petra vs Stryper

Post by brent » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:36 pm

Mountain Man wrote:This is essentially saying that nobody was capable of truly understanding the scripture until we came along with our "superior" knowledge and culture, and I refuse to believe that for a moment. We need to understand the Bible from the perspective of the cultural context within which it was written, and it is a gross error to try to reshape it to fit our cultural sensibilities.
People in the OT knew and knew of God differently than we know him. Their perception of God is different than ours. God revealed himself directly and indirectly in different ways than he does now. God isn't sending angels to wrestle with people, pull their hips out of their sockets, rain fire and brimstone, flood the planet, drop hole cities under ground, turn people to salt, swallow disobedient televangelists in big fish, have a mercy seat here, etc.

The people in Leviticus needed to know how to wash their hands, poop away from their food, build houses for protection, etc. Much of the OT was written to people who weren't as educated and enlightened as we are today. What did the people before the book of Leviticus was written do? They died, pooped where they ate, and did all kinds of things that cut their lives short and sinned against God. So, your rationale does not work. It assumes that everyone had to know everything from the get go and that is not reality.

There are things in the bible hidden from us because it is not "time" for them to be revealed to us. There are things we think we know, that we are going to learn we were just wrong about. The same goes for people in the OT and NT. Only a relative few had a full revelation of God and the things to come. Until those people like Paul and John had those things revealed, the OT people did not have them and could not appreciate them. It was not their time. So....if God gave Paul and John things no man had ever known or seen until that time, what do you do with that?
0 x

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests