Wednesday, May 12, 2021

The Evangelicalist Church Still Doesn't Get It

 ... a response to an article entitled "Here's what's troubling about the exvangelical #LeaveLoud movement"

A lot of exvangelicals have noted that evangelicalists remain stubbornly in their moral and philosophical bubble, even as people have been leaving their ranks in droves in recent years. Rather than looking inward and examining how their doctrine might toxic, they're doubling down on their brand of literalism and conservative morality. The article linked above is a perfect example of this, and I felt the need to break down exactly how and why.

Referring to the growing ranks of "Nones," they note, "these folks haven’t just left the room of denominational preference, they’ve left the house of collective faith." As I explained in my previous blog post, the process of becoming a "None" took a while for me. It wasn't like I just flipped a switch and decided to go full-atheist. It was a gradual process whereby over the course of several years, I examined my own spirituality.

Evangelicalism is very intense, spiritually, emotionally, and relationally. I sought non-Evangelicalist alternatives for each of these aspects of my life, and eventually decided that spirituality wasn't for me. The search for God was proving tedious and pointless. I found emotional and social fulfillment outside of faith settings. I found personal meaning in those relationships, and in rediscovering old hobbies and interests. I didn't need to find God or Nirvana or any such thing. I wasn't 100% happy with everything in my life, but I felt more stable than I had felt since before becoming an evangelicalist.

When talking about African Americans leaving the church, they note that "plenty of our African American brothers and sisters have been neglected or hurt by fellow Christians, either directly or indirectly." It's great that they're acknowledging that it's a thing that's happening, but they express zero self-awareness about the whys or hows of the dynamic.

The evangelicalist church has a serious problem with racism. Most leaders deny that racism is as big a problem as is the lived experience of African Americans. Their responses range from weak exhortations to be color blind ("God doesn't see color!"), or to actively fight against "critical race theory" (whatever they think that means). "Calling out racism is the real racism, actually." They seem utterly uninterested in examining what race problems exist in this country, let alone reckoning with their own role in how we got to this point.

From the article: "Being noisy about joining the 'exvangelicalism' movement is not only a popular thing to do, it’s a way to be popular." This is absurd, and underscores just how little they have actually listened to exvangelicals. First, for most exvangelicals, leaving the church (or "deconstructing") is a gradual process, usually taking months or years. And as a movement, it's barely identifiable as such. There's a label that a lot of us use, but there's no organization to join, no website to sign up for, no PAC to donate to. There's literature, hashtags, and social media, but not really a thing one can "join."

Second, leaving the church is incredibly difficult and painful for exvangelicals. Again, if they would actually listen to our stories, they'd know that. It's not "popular" by any stretch of the imagination. Some folks have garnered a significant audience, but that's true for literally group or "movement." I doubt many exvangelicals are leaving in pursuit of popularity (similar to the sexist "fake gamer girl" dynamic--that women and girls are just pretending to enjoy video games to get guys' attention). Most of us are just random people like me, who left because church doctrine and culture didn't jibe with our reality.

The next paragraph has a lot going on in it, so I'll just copy & paste it here for ease: "Almost without fail, a person leaving a church loud will cite bad or hurtful behavior by the people or leadership at the church. And of course, no one wants to stick around where they are mistreated. However, in a culture that has widely embraced moralistic therapeutic deism, many think that being morally challenged, or anything that falls short of all-out affirmation, counts as 'personal harm.'"

There's a lot to unpack here, and doing so thoroughly could be a whole separate blog post in itself. Basically, this seems to weakly acknowledge the real problem of abuse in the church (see #ChurchToo), the problem of LGBTQ+ people being disaffirmed, but conflating everything in a simplistic way and dismissing it as a mere disagreement of morality.

Of course, this is incredibly insulting to anyone who has been abused by the church, and to anyone who has been pushed out due to their sexual or gender identity. Being misgendered, being told their orientation is an affront to God, isn't just being "morally challenged," it's abusive, bigoted, and actively harmful. This callous, malicious tonedeafness is exactly why people are leaving, and if they'd actually listen to people, might begin to understand that.

Moving on, the article describes another dynamic of church-leavers: "This Gallup poll also points to interpersonal strife as a significant reason for leaving the church. ... people are leaving the house while blaming folks in one particular room." Speak from personal experience, this is both true and incredibly oversimplistic. Yes, I had problems with my previous marriage, and yes, I conflated a lot of that with the church.

However, this is a crucial part of the the evangelicalist experience. Believers are encouraged to "give everything to God." And this includes interpersonal conflict. Why are they surprised then, that when their religion can't solve those interpersonal conflicts, that people give up on the religion? If God can't help me with my most important problems, what good is this whole thing?

And, yes, people should leave the house if they have irreconcilable problems with people in one room. If someone is being abused, you can't expect the victim to have to live with and interact with their abuser constantly. Unfortunately, evangelicalist teachings do encourage exactly this kind of dynamic by emphasizing personal forgiveness and community restoration. Most non-evangelicalist psychologists would instantly recognize this as counterproductive to healing.

The article goes on to caution against conflating personal failures of individual churchgoers with the message of Christianity: "It is first and foremost a commitment to Jesus Christ which, second, involves a set of claims about reality." The problem is, a lot of the harm people experience is exactly because of evangelicalist doctrine, at the hands of people who are committed to Jesus.

Further, many of us exvangelicals have examined this "set of claims about reality," and found them wanting. The claims of Jesus's resurrection, lordship, sacrificial atonement, etc., are apologetical claims which lack good evidence. If the Bible is mostly tall tales (which I've found it is), then the reality is, I don't have to take it, or the evangelicalist church's teachings of it, literally.

The article continues, "The more that the wider culture finds Christian teaching outdated and outrageous, the harder it is to distinguish between the various motivations of those who leave the church, and/or the faith." They almost get it here. There are a lot of different reasons people leave the church. Some of them are related, some are not. Every one of us has or had our own reason or reasons for leaving, and we each have our own tale to tell. If only they'd listen.

Finally, "What is clear is that it is essential, at least for anyone who intends to persevere in the faith, to know what the Faith is. For example, Scripture is clear that followers of Christ should 'live peaceably with everyone, as far as it depends on you.' Anyone who takes that teaching seriously, not to mention the many others that directly apply to our lives within the Body of Christ, will find it difficult to 'leave loud,' or to justify leaving over silly disputes, or to neglect praying for those who have left."

First, everyone who has left the evangelicalist church will find it laughable that any significant number of evangelists make a serious effort to "live peaceably with everyone." This is the same faith tradition that tells its follows not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers," to live "apart from the world" or whatever.

Finally, the last sentence dismissing exvangelicals' problems as "silly disputes" is incredibly, disgustingly insulting. People have been abused, spiritually, physically, emotionally. They've been ignored, talked down to, disregarded, dismissed. These are not silly disputes, they are real problems that hurt real people in real ways.

They don't get it. They don't listen. I don't think they even want to get it. They have a vested interest, not just in their churches' membership, but their own careers. But it's not too late to let go. I think I've done okay without evangelicalism. I didn't even have to "leave loud" or chase popularity. I just had to find my own path and follow it as best I can. Isn't that what life is all about?

Thursday, April 15, 2021

My Experience with Evangelicalism

or, I Gave My Life to Jesus and All I Got Was This Lousy Gaslighting

Content Warning - Evangelicalism, mental health issues, non-graphic accounts of suicidality, spiritual abuse

Preface

I was deep into the evangelicalist church in the mid-2000s. I suffered many mental health challenges, before, during, and after. There was a lot of Stuff wrapped up in there, including my failed first marriage, and what I will refer to as my “Problem.” I will be detailing my experiences with Evangelicalism, but Marriage and Problem stuff remain on the sideline for now.


The Gospel, the main tenet of Evangelical Christianity (what I refer to as Evangelicalism) boils down to this: Humans are imperfect, sinful. Breaking God’s law separates us from him, and subjects us to his holy judgment (i.e., eternal damnation in a literal Hell). Jesus is God-incarnate, and when he was crucified, he bore the judgment of God. Admitting one’s sins, accepting Jesus’s sacrifice, professing faith in Jesus, and turning one’s life over to him is the key sacrament of Evangelicalism. It is transformative, in a literal-spiritual, eternity-defining way.


Christianity encompasses a lot of different beliefs and doctrines. Evangelicalism’s beliefs include a literal Hell, the need for redemption (Jesus’s sacrifice) to save one from God’s wrath, the necessity of faith, and the literal, infallible truth of the Bible as the divinely inspired “Word of God.” Other forms of Christianity have different takes on each of these tenets. Evangelism is the act of sharing the Gospel with others, and that lends to its visibility in American culture. This is the faith tradition I adopted.


Okay, with introductory stuff out of the way, on to my personal story ...

Childhood

I grew up in a small town in Wisconsin, and I went to Church because that’s what you did. I went to Church Camp because it was fun and I got to hang out in the woods and meet people (especially girls). There was always a “sharing the Gospel” thing, followed by an “altar call,” which I participated in. Basically, it’s an invitation to give one’s life over to Jesus as Savior and Lord. It was a powerful, moving thing. Like taking a dive into a pool full of blissful religious sacrament.


I stayed in church, but spiritual practice never really went anywhere. The Bible was boring, and the Gospel didn’t really connect with anything in my adolescent life. I stopped going to church except for the occasional Christmas Eve, and religion faded from my life.

Come to Jesus Moment

In my mid-20s, I got into a relationship, which soon turned into an engagement. Things were going well, until my “Problem” started cropping up. It wasn’t a big deal, until it was. The engagement turned into Marriage, and then Problem became too much. I was frustrated and desperate. I wanted the marriage to work, so bad. But, I wasn’t making it work, and I couldn’t imagine living a life without it, knowing I had failed at the one thing I really wanted. I wanted to just end myself, literally. I attempted suicide.


Obviously I survived.I ended up in a hospital in the middle of nowhere. Wife tracked me down and came into my room. “You have a Problem, but I have a plan. Come home with me. Everything will be okay.” Not knowing what else to do, I agreed. We went home and I started getting professional help for trauma recovery and mental health issues.


I started thinking and talking about spirituality. Having survived a “series of events,” I was contemplating the “meaning of it all” or whatever. Wife had been talking a lot with my co-worker in those weeks, since they shared a Christian faith. I knew Wife was interested in various religious and spiritual ideas, including Christianity, Judaism, and various more esoteric things. I met with my co-worker’s pastor, and he shared The Gospel with me. I went home and asked Wife what she believed. Despite her dabblings in other spiritual practices, The Gospel was central to her beliefs.


I recalled my Church Camp experiences, contemplated giving my life Jesus, and I figured, why not. I said the prayer, and I decided to give the Christian thing a go. What else am I gonna do?, I figured.

Beginning my Journey

I connected with Co-worker’s church. It was a very small church--they met in a high school gym on Sunday mornings. Regular attendance was a few families. I got a standard-issue NIV-edition study bible, some workbooks, and some Jesus music. I was skeptical about some of the doctrine and historicity of the religion’s history, and I got a couple books about that. I started going to Sunday services and attending small groups for prayer, study, discussion, and “fellowship” (the fancy term for “hanging out”).


The next few weeks and months were very rewarding. I had friends, a community, and I was able to talk about my Problems openly and honestly. It was cathartic. It didn’t hurt that we had beautiful San Diego parks and scenery to enjoy. I joined the church’s “worship band,” so I even had a musical outlet. (I have fond memories of tackling the musical challenges that entailed.)


However, after the initial bliss of conversion, Problem crept back into things. Wife, Co-worker, Pastor, everybody insisted that Jesus could help with Problem. “Just give it to the Lord, lay it at the foot of the Cross, and let Him bear your burdens.” That kinda thing. It’s a beautiful image, a powerful metaphor, a lovely idea .. that I couldn’t find a practical application for. Prayer, Bible study, music, meditation .. Problem persisted through all of it.


So I escalated my anti-Problem tactics. Wife suggested this Jesus-based workshop type thing for folks with Problems of various types. (She also found a Twelve Step group for Problem. It wasn’t specifically Christian, but there’s a lot of spirituality in it, and a lot of members are Christians.)


I continued pursuing non-spiritual treatment, including psychiatry and therapy. I started dealing with some old personal issues related to Problem, and various medications kept my mood from crashing too badly.

Change of Scenery

Logistics of life in San Diego started taking a toll. Between cost of living, traffic, and the perennial threat of wildfires, we felt like a change of scenery was in order, and we moved to Iowa.


I connected with Co-Worker’s old church there and resumed normal spiritual operations. I confessed my various issues with my new church family, made new friends, and even finagled my way into the worship band. This church was a little bigger--they at least rented space from another church (a Seventh-Day Adventist church, who met on Saturdays). They eventually pooled enough money to put a down payment on an actual building.


There, we started seeing some things that were slightly “off.” Families had different, questionable boundaries when it came to what media they let their kids consume. At least one of the other families seemed to have abuse issues that spilled over into church life. This aspect came to a head when the pastor led a series on “Biblical discipline,” where he advocated a doctrinal basis for corporal punishment. This included somewhat graphic descriptions of how he implemented these practices. It was too much, and we left that church.


We settled on a more “mainstream” Baptist church. Once again, we got involved in a variety of different programs there, and made quick friends with many of the regulars.


Through all of this, I was by all accounts a model Christian (or, a model Evangelicalist). I studied the Bible, prayed constantly, tried to apply Biblical principles to my life, and proudly (though awkwardly) professed my faith to others.


But in the process of doing so, I ended up closing a lot of people out of my life. Part of it was due to the time I was spending with my new community, part of it was due to Problem, but a lot of it was an attempt to shield myself from anti-Christian influences.

Struggles and Conflict

Spiritual warfare is a common topic in Evangelicalism, and this manifests itself in a lot of ways. The idea is that Satan is trying to undermine the greater Christian Church in our world, to separate people from God. There are literal spiritual battles happening between Satan’s forces and God’s. Popular media is one common vector for these spiritual battles. Heavy metal music that worships Satan, popular music and movies that glorify sex, depictions of new age and other non-Christian religious practices. If it isn’t “centered on Christ,” it’s suspect. It could be a “foothold” for the Devil’s forces to meddle with one’s spirituality, a “demonic stronghold.”


All of this confounded my Problem significantly. It largely lived in my head, but would occasionally manifest in various physical ways. As I struggled, I wondered why, often asking myself: “Is this because I heard that one song on the radio? Or remembered that one movie I used to like?” I was faced with choices constantly: “Do I want to [fill in the blank], or do I want to glorify Jesus? Which is more important? What are my priorities? Do I really want this?” I doubted myself constantly, and this turned into more self-hatred. “Why am I like this? Why can’t I do anything right? When will I change?”


All of this took a toll on Marriage. Wife took many of my struggles very personally. From her perspective, our faith was the main thing (if not the only thing) holding our Marriage together. Without Jesus, everything is destined to fall apart. This is what Evangelicalism teaches: Everything in one’s life should be centered on Christ. Work, relationships, family, hobbies, conversations, thoughts, activities, everything. Without this Christ-centeredness, things fall out of alignment and into chaos.


This dynamic became a kind of Sword of Damacles looming over my head. I was always one slip, one crisis away from everything falling apart, again. From losing everything, again. It became yet another source of stress in our Marriage. Between my Problems, her Issues, and my mental health (which was still far from optimal), we endured a lot of stress. And we argued. A lot.


We added marriage-help stuff to our course load of Jesus-based “programs.” Center everything around Christ, and he will heal you. “Give your burdens to Him! Lay it all at the Cross!” We spent a lot of money and time on counseling, programs, retreats, etc. Some of it was helpful, like learning how to communicate and adopt unselfish attitudes. But Jesus didn’t really “lift our burdens” like we were promised. Some things got better, but the underlying Problems and Issues remained burdens squarely around our necks.


In the meantime, I still had a lot of doubts on certain aspects of Christianity. Why do certain parts of the Bible contradict each other? Did Jesus really die and get resurrected? Why are some parts of the Catholic Bible different from my NIV? Does God really condemn Hindus to Hell if they don’t convert?


That’s where Apologetics come in. It’s the field of trying to prove the objectively true historicity of the Bible, of Christian doctrine, etc. In addition, I became interested in digging into the textual history of the Bible. But, the more I read and learned, the more doubts I had. These doubts would become all-consuming. Obsessive. “Can this thing be refuted? What if it can’t? I have to find out!”


This did a number on my mental health and my marriage. Remember, Jesus and our faith was the lynchpin everything together -- without Him, we are nothing. I became suicidal again, and I spent a long weekend in the psych ward at the local hospital.


I emerged with a renewed commitment to Jesus. More church, more Bible study, more meetings, more prayer, more of everything Jesus. Unfortunately, I became more withdrawn from everything except work and Church. Every aspect of my life had to pass through the Jesus filter, which was also informed by my other personal problems.


Most frustrating and stressful was the mental component. Between Problem, Marriage, and questions of faith, it was a constant mental battle. And everything fed into each other. “Why won’t Jesus take away this Problem? Why won’t he heal our Marriage? Am I a good enough Christian?”

Questionable Doctrine and Culture

I did a lot of studying of the text of the Bible. The results of this study were a mixed bag. On the one hand, I learned a lot about ancient Hebrew and Greek, about the mechanics of how the text of the Bible was handed down through the centuries, about the emergence of different doctrinal traditions of Judaism and Christianity. On the other hand, I found a lot of difficulties. Some of them were mechanical: this one part of the Bible doesn’t jibe with this other part. Some of them were doctrinal: can I eat pork or not? Sometimes the two mixed: why does the “virgin birth prophecy” reference an apparent mistranslation and misappropriation? Nobody could give me satisfactory answers to these questions.


I struggled with the “Jesus is the only way to God” tenet. What about people born in the Middle East who will only hear about Christianity through a “evil westerners” filter? What about Catholics, or Lutherans, or even Baptists but who might also practice astrology? Are they going to Hell?


I struggled with the concept of Missionary work. A missionary family spoke at a church one time, specifically their work in Brazil. “But, they’re all Catholic there, so why not work with the church there?” I heard about missionaries risking their lives working in places where Christianity was illegal. “So, you’re breaking the law just to evangelize?”


I started seeing political beliefs that didn’t really jibe with Jesus’s character. It was unclear to me how one could be “pro-life,” yet support the ongoing wars in the Middle East. “Turn the other cheek” isn’t intended to be a national defense strategy, one televangelist said (without elaborating). I remember one fellow church member complaining about how people were working in the desert near the Mexico border, offering water to immigrants crossing illegally. I didn’t really see a lot of community charity or outreach happening. All the money went back into the church, or to missionary work. Racial justice boiled down to “we’re all God’s children, he doesn’t see black or white.”


The church started teaching Young Earth Creationism, a la Ken Ham. I understood the doctrinal basis: the Bible is literally true in all of its teachings, so the stories and chronology in the book of Genesis are thus literally true. Supposedly, The Flood explained a lot of things, from geology to fossils. God created all life as it is now; evolution is an anti-Christian lie. But as someone who grew up loving math and science, this was all … a bit much.


We attended “worldview” conferences, where nationally-known speakers would talk about what’s going on in “The World,” the battle of Christianity versus Secular Humanism. We were taught to venerate the American founding fathers, about America’s Christian origins, and how secular history ignores the founding fathers’ Christianity. (Tellingly, we learned about how some Christians worked to abolish slavery, but not how other Christians fought to keep it and expand it. And later, how some Christians fought to keep segregation and other racist policies in place.)

End Times and Conspiracy Theories

Another rabbit hole that I fell down: Eschatology. It’s the study of Biblical prophecy as it relates to the End Times. Most of this is described in Revelation, but there’s other prophetic material scattered throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Different Christian faith traditions ascribe different meanings to the Bible passages often cited as End Times prophecies. Most Evangelicals believe in some sort of literal End Times, where the world will be embroiled in war and various disasters, God’s children will be Raptured (beamed up to Heaven), and Jesus will return to establish an eternal kingdom on Earth.


It was fun, looking at current events and the state of the world, and trying to match the pieces of the End Times puzzle. There were theories that the UN was a front for the Antichrist, or the EU, or the Catholic church. Any new viral outbreak was a candidate for an apocalyptic plague. Any kind of religious pluralism and global government were to be distrusted. All eyes were on Israel, the epicenter of every prophecy, and as God’s chosen people. It all felt very sleuthy, like poring over a Marvel movie trailer looking for clues about what might be in store for the Avengers.


But there was a limit to the kind of nonsense I paid attention to. Harold Camping and his radio ministry got a lot of attention for his End Times predictions in the early 2010s. I occasionally listened to his radio show, and a lot of his theological views were pretty out there, even for Christian fundamentalism. His End Times predictions were based on numerology and other questionable esoterica. 


In retrospect, it was a dangerous rabbit hole. There’s a lot of actively harmful conspiracy theory rhetoric out there today, from QAnon, to anti-vaxxers, to anti-semiticism. I could have been easily pulled into any of those things, and sadly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of my old church friends have been since.

The End

The end came in the late 2000s when all the Problems and Issues were becoming way too much. None of my various personal conflicts were going away. This caused more and more stress, and eventually it just broke. My life turned into a stereotypical country song: I lost my wife, my job, my house, and even my dog.


However, with the proverbial Sword of Damacles no longer looming over my head, I allowed myself to explore my skepticism. I read a book from an author whose college professor had a simple, but powerful response to a detailed analysis attempting to reconcile two conflicting narratives in the Bible: “What if Mark got it wrong?” There was more to it than that, but one by one, I examined a lot of tenets of the Christian faith, and I came to the conclusion that apologetically, it just didn’t add up, and theologically, it wasn’t really for me anyway. I left Bible-thumping Evangelicalism behind for good as I started rebuilding my life.

Aftermath

In the following years, I explored other spiritual outlets, but nothing really took. I was spiritually tired. Or rather maybe, tired of spirituality. It became less and less important for me. What if there is a Higher Power out there? Does it even matter? Maybe? Maybe not? How does it affect my life today? I don’t think it really does, and I don’t really see any point in pursuing that kind of thinking.


I finally found “healing” from my Problem by coming to a place of acceptance. I remember talking to a therapist a couple years later about where I was at, and his response was along the lines of, “That sounds like very normal thoughts and behavior.” Oh, okay then.


The solution to Marriage problems was just .. letting go. Did it make me a bad Christian, going against the word of God and all that? Maybe. I didn’t care anymore. The word of God didn’t heal me or my Marriage. I started to find actual peace and stability by letting go of those evangelicalist rules. I learned to ask myself, How do I stay true to myself? Who do I want to be? Not, What does God want me to do?


And with that, I reconnected with myself. My truer self. Not the Good Christian I thought God wanted to be. I listened to the music I wanted to, watched the movies I wanted to, socialized with the people I wanted to. I stopped concerning myself with whether something “glorifies God” or not. I stopped censoring myself.


I found a new job, started dating again, and eventually re-married. As of this writing, we’re celebrating 10 years of being together.


I’d love to say everything was sunny days and happily ever after, but as I’m sure everyone who reads this knows by now, Life is Struggle. However, it’s a lot easier living this struggle without constantly stressing about whether everything I’m doing (and thinking!) aligns with “God’s plan.” And it’s very liberating, letting myself just .. be myself. Watching aspects of my personality re-emerge that I’d suppressed, and then watching new aspects emerge. It’s been nice, actually.


If I could do everything all over again, would I do things differently? That’s such a hard question to answer. On the one hand, I made some decisions that turned out poorly. I went through a lot of pain that I wouldn’t have gone through had I decided differently. On the other hand, a huge part of who I am now (good and bad) is due to how I survived my journey through hell and back, and I certainly had some personal problems that needed addressing. So, I don’t spend much time dwelling on it. I don’t see much of a point. I can pinpoint my bad decisions, and have tried not to repeat them.

What Have We Learned?

Now is the time when I get on my pulpit and offer myself up as an object lesson. The term “spiritual abuse” gets thrown around a lot when criticizing religion, and although I am not sure exactly what it means, I’m pretty sure I experienced some version of it. I experienced a ton of stress trying to conform myself to a spiritual ideal. Daily, debilitating stress. It took years to unravel myself from the tangled mess of doctrine and self-hatred.

Spiritual Abuse

The main doctrines of evangelicalism stem from the notion that humanity is “fallen,” separated from God, and deserving of eternal hell-torture. This notion was central to the spiritual trauma that I suffered. They (meaning the amorphous social blob that is The Church) found me in a desperate, broken state, equated it to the “fallen humanity” doctrine, and offered Jesus’s redemption as a solution to my desperate, broken state.


The problem, of course, is that although my “soul” may have been “saved,” my “flesh” was still weak. This is in the Bible, and gets preached a lot to people who are struggling with their various Problems. In the New Testament (the “important” part of the Christian Bible), this “struggling flesh” is a common theme in Paul’s letters. “But, Jesus offers healing and rest!” And when, inevitably, “healing” and “rest” don’t come, I’m left to wonder why. “I’m broken,” I concluded. Again and again. And Evangelicalism didn’t debate this! Of course I was broken; after all, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”


In addition, I never felt like I was good enough, or like I was doing enough. I was told, you can be struggling, but “take the actions of love” ... whatever I needed to do. So I would finish my task at work, do the dishes, take out the trash. And then struggle some more. I’d pray, study my Bible and workbooks, volunteer at church, confess my sins to my brothers in Christ. And then struggle some more. What do I need to do? It was never enough. I was broken. Not good enough. 


In this sense, I was stuck in this cycle of feeling like a piece of garbage. I was broken, so I need help, but then I fail, so I’m broken, and I need help, but then I fail. Unfortunately, this is where Evangelicalism thrives. They welcome people who are broken and suffering, and pull them into their fold. “You’re suffering. We can help. Jesus can help. Just lay it all at the Cross!”


Cynically, I think I understand this now. “It all” refers to my money, time, and my soul. Give it all to God. That is, to Church, to various Christian businesses. Keep feeding the Evangelicalism machine. And it works, because people become too invested to stop. Just keep giving a little more of yourself. You have to give yourself fully to Jesus. Do you have any more to give? Make checks payable to…

Gaslighting

The other big point I want to talk about is what I alluded to in the subtitle of this blog post: Gaslighting. Evangelicalism feeds a lot of nonsense to believers, and I was subject to a lot of it. 


A lot of the apologetical stuff comes from a place of disingenuity. Some authors play the skeptic, but are really just setting up straw men, subsequently knocking them down with weak assertions of historicity (many of which are easily debunked by counter arguments that never come up in these materials).


Biblical interpretation is another big one. Evangelicalists talk a lot about the “inerrant word of God,” but gloss over how certain doctrines and positional issues are derived from the Bible. Everything from the virgin birth, the Sabbath, the trinity (as in, “God in three persons”), to LGBT+ issues, abortion, etc. Want to witness some bizarre logical gymnastics? Ask a Biblical Literalist why lesbian sex is wrong, but eating shellfish is okay, using only Scripture.


Speaking of which, “sola scriptura” is another strange dynamic. Evangelicalists have adopted the Protestant view that the Bible is the primary, and only, definitive word of God. Any tenet of faith must be derived from the Bible, not from teachers. They point to how Jesus challenged the Pharisees’ extra-scriptural laws and regulations. However, it takes a lot of pretzel logic to reconcile a lot of faith traditions and doctrinal tenets (in Evangelicalism specifically, but also in Protestantism in general) with this “strictly Biblical” stipulation. A lot of what Evangelicalists believe was set in stone by ~4th Century church leaders, picking which Christian writings would be canonically Scripture, and then applying their own interpretation to define what Christianity was. Believers were not to dare question or doubt this process.


A common theme preached in evangelicalism is that of morality. Of course, the morals we’re supposed to live by are “biblical” morals, because that’s the word of God, and that’s where morals come from. Humans can’t be trusted with their own morals, because, remember, we’re fallen creatures, depraved by nature, and without God we will just became angry murder hobos. Of course, they gloss over the fact that most of us are more than capable of exercising common sense and empathy to guide our “moral” decision making. I don’t need God to tell me not to hit someone; I don’t hit people because it’s mean. But evangelicalism has millions of people convinced that the only thing standing between them and a murderous rampage is religion.


“Spiritual warfare” and “demonic strongholds” are other concepts that constantly plagued me. On the face of things, the concept is simple enough (whether it’s believable or not is another matter): spiritual forces manifest themselves in culture, and certain cultural artifacts can render one’s spiritual self vulnerable to corruption. But, nobody could really pinpoint this for me. What do these demonic forces look like? How can I tell what I’m supposed to avoid? The answer was usually to pray and let God guide me. But, how?


The result ended me being terrified to enjoy certain things. The biggest one was music. I’ve always enjoyed playing music and listening to music and all that, and I liked a lot of unusual music. Prog rock, extreme heavy metal, punk rock, modern classical. I watched a miniseries someone made about satanic influence in popular music, and it shook me. It was pretty obvious that I had to re-examine what I listened to.


One by one, however, it became less and less clear what was “satanic” or not. Slayer and Ozzy Osbourne were obviously out. “King Crimson'' was originally a moniker coined to refer to Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub/whatever, so that was out. What about Yes? Their members dabbled in some new age stuff, and albums like Tales from Topographical Oceans were explicitly based on Eastern spiritualism. But what about “Roundabout?” It’s just a catchy rock song about fog lifting from a mountain lake. I erred on the side of discarding most of it. You can imagine my confusion and frustration when I met other Evangelicalists (even pastors!) who were just fine listening to Yes or Black Sabbath or Stravinsky.


(There are other things, too, especially including the “Problem” stuff I’ve been alluding to. That will have to wait for another blog post.)


I may be using the term “gaslighting” harshly here. I believe that a lot of Evangelicalist leaders genuinely believe the things they preach. I also believe that some of them know that it’s all nonsense, and they’re just cynically profiting off selling snake oil to ease people’s trauma. But I guarantee that a lot of them are somewhere in between. Maybe they truly believe in the Resurrection, but they preach the doctrine of the Trinity out of duty. Maybe they truly believe that most of the Bible is true, but they’re not sure about LGBT+ issues. I don’t know how genuine most leaders are in their teachings.


I’m not sure it really matters, though. The experience of it is real to me. I experienced the whole thing as though it were gaslighting abuse. The things I was taught and led to believe hurt me, and undoing this learning was a painful process of facing the bad doctrine, and allowing myself to let go.

Self-Denial

Everything comes back to the idea of denying one’s self. I heard a great analogy recently: the problem with being a cookie-cutter Christian is that you have to cut off pieces of yourself to conform to the mold. I came to the Church as an adult, and I had to reconform a lot of myself and my personality to this mold. I never really felt comfortable being who I was supposed to be, despite going through all of the correct motions. There were pieces of myself that I had removed, or were suppressing in various, often harmful ways.


Wrapping Up

So that was an overview of my experience with Evangelicalism. Neat, huh?


I’m tempted to end with some form of “I don’t hate the church, I just hate what it did to me” or whatever. But it would be misleading. I have a lot of conflicting feelings about the church, about Jesus, and religion … everything. I have fond memories, but also cringey memories. I’m angry (even bitter!) about a lot of things, but I miss certain church friends. I miss having a spiritual life, but I don’t miss religion. It’s complicated, and I think I’ll leave it at that for now.


Thanks for reading.


Sunday, December 13, 2020

Genesis (the band) - An Overview

This and other images linked from Wikipedia.

I. Intro

People who know me know, I love progressive rock. It started when I became a Rush fan in the late 90s, then found out about the greater genre of "prog rock." Genesis was one of the first bands I checked out along those lines. I was familiar with them from the radio, but wasn't really aware of anything "prog" they'd done. Over the next few years, I delved into their catalog, pretty deeply. Although I never quite reached the same levels of fandom as Rush, I ended up absorbing most of their back catalog, and way too much trivia.

Fast forward to 2020, when The Kids are continuing to re-discover all this music. I've been active on the Discord server of Prog Notes, a new-ish podcast where they discuss and review prog rock records of old and new. The demographic of that community skews pretty young (I'm one of the oldest regulars there), and a lot of them have only heard one or two Genesis records. I realized I was yet again typing out my thoughts on each of their couple-dozen records every time someone asked for a recommendation. I thought to myself, I should write all this out and post it on my blog. And here we are!

II. Overview

Genesis was a band from England, active from the late 60s into the late 90s, and again for a reunion in the late 2000s. Being together for that long, you can imagine they went through a number of stylistic changes, and they sure did. They achieved international stardom in the 80s with their brand of synth-driven power pop, but in the 70s, they were one of the leading figures in progressive rock. By the time the 90s rolled around, they had a difficult time reinventing themselves yet again, and more or less called it quits. But their legacy looms large over both pop music and progressive rock.

tl;dr - If you're interested in the "prog" side of Genesis, I recommend starting with Selling England by the Pound and Trick of the Tail or Wind and Wuthering. If you like it, check out the next and/or previous records, and repeat until you get to one you don't like.

If you're more interested in the "pop" side of Genesis, pick up a compilation album, e.g., Turn It on Again: The Hits (the second disc of the 2-CD version of  this one has some deeper cuts that can also serve as an introduction to Genesis's "prog years"). From there, check out more Genesis records featuring songs you liked (or see above for proggier stuff), and/or Phil Collins's and Peter Gabriel's solo work from the 80s.

III. Studio Albums

From Genesis to Revelation, 1969


Their debut album shows a group of youngsters trying to find their voice. At the time, their sound was steeped in acoustic hippie folk stuff. They added some orchestral arrangements, but the songs themselves were .. I dunno. Unremarkable.

My rating: For completionists only. 1/5

Trespass, 1970


Despite the first album not really going anywhere commercially, the band went pro, bought "real" instruments, and started gigging. They departed with their first manager/producer, and started finding their own sound. The resulting album is more identifiably Genesis, mixing pastoral acoustic bits with harder rock, driven by Anthony Phillips's distorted guitar and Tony Banks's Hammond organ. They ventured further into unusual lyrical territory with Peter Gabriel's burgeoning theatrical style. Songs were allowed to stretch out, no longer confined to narrow goals of being successful as singles.

My rating: Good stuff. 3/5

Nursery Cryme, 1971


Gigging proved to stressful for Phillips, and he ended up leaving. They cemented the guitarist and drummer positions with Steve Hackett and Phil Collins, respectively. Hackett brought in innovative playing and imaginative songwriting, and Collins brought a competent groove. As a band, they pushed their sound and creativity even further, with more theatrical story songs, elaborate and dynamic compositions, and more varied sounds.

My rating: Prog rock AF. 3.5/5

Foxtrot, 1972


The band were getting more confident in their abilities, and more comfortable with each other, and pursued their emerging prog-rock sound even further. From majestic Mellotron swells, to gentle acoustic bits, to widdly organ riffing, to literally apocalyptic musical climaxes, to extremely detailed and layered playing, this is peak Prog Rock. Peter Gabriel went all-in on the theatrics at this point, adding a new dimension to their live shows. The (mostly) side-long epic "Supper's Ready" is a bona-fide prog-rock classic.

My rating: PROG ROCK AF. 4/5

Selling England by the Pound, 1973


The band started seeing some commercial success, having broken through States-side, and kept pursuing their symphonic rock sound. Englishness permeates much of the record, in sound and in subject matter. Again, their sound varies from acoustic-driven passages, to jammy tradeoffs between Hackett's guitar and Banks's various keyboards, to theatrical silliness. "Firth of Fifth" features a classic Banks piano intro and a classic Hackett guitar solo.

My rating: Recommended. 4/5

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, 1974


Double albums were kind of a thing, and this is their big concept record. The concept isn't easily grokked at first (or twelfth) listen, but it's basically about a character named Rael and a surreal spiritual journey through various battles with himself and his base instincts. Musically, it's a little disjointed, with a lot of random interludes and tangents between the various scenes. I think a lot of the music and lyrics got written separately, and were coupled together later in the process of making the record. Some folks really like this record a lot, and others (like me), don't. A lot of the musical ideas just don't really connect with me, and the lyrics often don't pair well with the music. Some good moments of proggy symphonic rock, but (IMO) a bit too much filler.

My rating: A slog. 2.5/5

A Trick of the Tail, 1976


Gabriel left Genesis after the tensions of recording and touring The Lamb and his personal life became too much. The band soldiered on, writing new material. After failing to find a satisfactory new full-time singer, Collins was persuaded to lay down some vocals, and ... the rest is history.

Musically, there aren't any huge epic ideas, but they were still exploring a similar symphonic rock space, with plenty of complexity to nerd out about. Overally, the sound is similar to Selling England, but "bigger" overall, more lush and/or bombastic. Songs like "Entangled" and "Ripples..." show them still capable of gorgeous pastorality. A couple of the tracks don't do much for me, but the good stuff is good.

My rating: Recommended. 4/5

Wind & Wuthering, 1977


After Trick and the subsequent tour (with Bill Bruford filling in on drums) were well received, they kept on going--there were no brakes the Genesis train, though plenty of Banks, gahaha~. Though they continued in the symphonic rock direction as the previous record, the album is a bit more dynamic and varied, despite the monochromatic cover art. It has a very "romantic" and "English" feel to it. Despite Hackett's decreasing creative influence, it's one of my favorite Genesis records.

My rating: Recommended. 4/5

...And Then There Were Three..., 1978


Hackett left after the Wind & Wuthering tour to pursue a solo career (and greater creative freedom), and the other three guys weren't terribly heartbroken over it. Their first album as a three-piece shows them iterating on their bombastic symphonic rock sound. Mike Rutherford took over on guitar, handling rhythm duties admirably, but struggling playing convincing leads. They also intentionally kept arrangements simple, so as not to retread previous "epic" ground. The resulting album is .. fine. There are some good moments, and a lot of audible growing pains. Most notably, though, there's a bonafide Hit Single to close out the record, the gorgeously sweet "Follow You Follow Me."

My rating: A mixed bag. 2.5/5

Duke, 1980


The process of writing and recording material for Duke came easily, with the band members feeling refreshed from personal and creative rest. Ideas were freely shared and elaborated upon, and the result is a much more confident record. Rutherford found his voice as a lead guitarist, and Collins was finding his voice (literally and figuratively) as a lead singer. Banks continued to supply the bigger ideas and creative will to put it all together.

Musically, they continued to dial back some of the "progginess," phasing out the Mellotron and 12-string guitars. However, many of the songs still have that bombastic grandiosity they had mastered. In addition, they hadn't ruled out doing more conceptual stuff. On this record, six of the songs scattered throughout the album make up a "suite," dealing with fame and stardom and the trappings thereof. The last two tracks, "Duke's Travels" and "Duke's End" make up an aboslutely killer duology of bombastic symphonic rock, and might be my favorite Genesis material. Some of the material is kind of bland and unmemorable not unlike Three..., but the good parts show a band having success transitioning from a pretentious prog-rock band to a capable arena-rock band. More hit singles ("Turn It on Again," "Misunderstanding") certainly didn't hurt.

My rating: Another mixed bag, but better overall. 3.5/5

Abacab, 1981

The core three members of Genesis found a stable and productive core, and continued challenging themselves not to repeat their past. With this record, they made it even more of a point to avoid retreading old ground. As a result, Abacab leans more toward synth-driven pop-rock. They even brought in Earth, Wind, and Fire's horn section to add some funkiness to "No Reply at All" (and the B-side "Paperlate"). Again, the band refused to completely disavow their prog past, resulting in the lucid-dream-like "Me & Sarah Jane," the bombastically ambiguous "Dodo/Lurker" duology, and the extended indulgent instrumental outro on the title track.

A lot of fans of Genesis's proggier stuff, especially folks who grew up in the 70s, get off the bandwagon at this point. Me, I grew up in the 80s, and the synth-pop of Genesis is the sound of my childhood. I'm a fan.

Also, content warning for what might be Genesis's most hated song ever recorded, an incredibly goofy "Who Dunnit?" It started with Tony Banks messing with his new synth toy, grimacing at the awfulness of it, and the rest of band going all-in on it. It's really quite .. remarkable.

My rating: More pop than prog, but I like it. 4/5

Genesis, 1983


By now, the band had become very comfortable writing and collaborating as a three piece, and they continued pursuing their maturing synth-pop sound. By now, Collins had gotten a taste of solo success, but unlike Hackett, was still able to work compatibly with the other members of his "main" band. The overall sound is a bit darker than the previous two records, where even the more upbeat tracks have a sinister quality to them. The obligatory mini-epic comes in the form of the "Home by the Sea" duology, and features some great broody atmospheres between dark, but catchy synth-pop choruses and verses.

They continued to have commercial success, with multiple singles getting significant air play. Again, I grew up on this stuff, so I enjoy it. Unfortunately, the passage of time has not been kind to the well-intentioned, but stereotypical characterizations of Mexican immigration on "Illegal Alien." Either way, I recommend that anti-fans of the poppier side of Genesis steer clear.

My rating: Solid, moody dark-pop. 4/5

Invisible Touch, 1986


Listening to this back-to-back with something like Foxtrot or The Lamb might raise the question, is this even the same band anymore? Their synth-pop style had matured at exactly the right time for this to be a huge international success, resulting in a Side One of nothing but huge commercial hits, with the title track reaching actual #1 on the actual Billboard "Hot 100" chart.

A couple of deeper cuts, though, show the band still refusing to let go of their progressive past. "Domino" is creepy and apocalyptic, and "The Brazilian" is catchy and bombastic at the same time. Even "Tonight, Tonight, Tonight" has a nice atmospheric bridge with a huge build in the full album version.

I personally like the whole thing, though I acknowledge nostalgia and imprinting as significant factors. "Land of Confusion," though, in my opinion, is an objectively good rock song.

My rating: Pinnacle pop-Genesis. 4.5/5

We Can't Dance, 1991


The 80s closed out with Genesis having huge international success, as a band, and in Collins and Rutherford's case, also with solo/side projects. But as a band, they had a process that worked, and sessions 1991 produced more than enough material for a new album. They mixed things up on the production side with a new producer, but having mastered their particular brand of slightly off-beat dark-pop, the result isn't terribly dissimilar from the previous records. Some of the material is a little more sprawling, a little more atmospheric, but there's plenty of catchy radio fare as well. More commercial success resulted, with multiple singles getting significant airplay.

Personally, I feel like the overall quality isn't quite on par with the best of their 80s pop stuff. There are some great pop songs, and I even enjoy the campy "I Can't Dance" and the syrupy sweet ballad "Hold on My Heart." "Jesus He Knows Me" is a bouncy and biting satire of American televangelism, and "No Son of Mine" is effectively dark and creepy. The longer songs and the deep cuts, though, don't do as much for me. They're not bad, per se, just not quite as interesting as previous efforts.

My rating: More pop, but inconsistent. 3/5 (Yes, I like this record more than The Lamb.)

Calling All Stations, 1997


This time, it was Collins's turn to pour more of his creative self into solo efforts, leaving Banks and Rutherford to soldier on. They wrote some stuff, recruited a new singer, and released this record in 1997. Similar to Three..., this feels like a transitional album--a band feeling its way in search of a new sound. Personally, I like the sound they achieved, a dark atmospheric sound similar to the darker moments of their synth-pop days. Unfortunately, the songs themselves feel like they're missing something, and similar to the boring parts of We Can't Dance, just kinda wander aimlessly and unmemorably.

My rating: Unrealized promise. 2/5

Aftermath

Sadly, the album and subsequent tour were very unsuccessful. It did okay in Europe, but the entire American leg had to be cancelled due to lack of interest. Banks and Rutherford were apparently uninterested in scaling back to medium size, and let the band die silently and unceremoniously. I'd have been curious to hear what the band could have done to expand their smoky dark-pop sound from Calling All Stations, but given Banks and Rutherford's disappointment and resulting disinterest, it's probably for the best. I did come across a Youtube upload of an album's worth of B-sides from this period, and I do enjoy those quite a bit.

The band has reunited to varying degrees since then, but only as a touring entity. The other members have all remained active musically, releasing lots of music under various solo and side projects.

IV. Live Albums

Genesis Live, 1973


Kind of a stop-gap, commercially speaking, to capitalize on Genesis's growing popularity. The sound quality is a little rough, but it captures the band's live energy and immense sonic presence. From the creepy Mellotron beginnings of "Watcher of the Skies," to the huge walls of sound of "Return of the Giant Hogweed," to the pin-drop dynamics of "The Musical Box," this shows that the band could deliver the goods live. I like it a lot.

My rating: One of my favorites, even if it's "not for everyone." 4.5/5

Seconds Out, 1977


This one pulls mostly from the Wind & Wuthering tour, with one song from the Trick of the Tail tour. There's quite a bit of Gabriel-era Genesis showcased here, including all of side three devoted to "Supper's Ready." It shows that Collins was very much up to the task of taking on frontman duties, including Gabriel's vocal parts, though some of Gabriel's more idiosyncratic theatrical parts don't work quite as well. Though touring member Chester Thompson handles most of the drum duties, Collins adds some additional drums to the longer instrumental passages, which adds another level of bombast to pieces like "Los Endos" and "Cinema Show," the latter of which features the previous touring drummer, Bill Bruford (of Yes and King Crimson fame). Overall, this is a cleaner-sounding recording than Genesis Live, but to me, it sounds a bit more sterile too. This one's a favorite for a lot of fans, though.

My rating: Sides three and four are amazing. The rest, meh. 3.5/5

Three Sides Live, 1982

This one mostly covers the Abacab tour, but certain selections span all the way back to the Trick tour. It documents the peak of their bombastic symphonic rock period, as they were becoming a huge commercial success, and on the cusp of transitioning into a more full-time, radio-friendly synth-pop band. There are several recognizable radio hits, performed competently and engagingly, as well as lengthier incursions into their proggier recent past. The sound is clean, like Seconds Out, but with the band's confidence and energy intact. Touring guitarist/bassist Daryl Stuermer, a highly jazz and studio muscian, does a fantastic job filling out the sound, and permanent part-time touring drummer Chester Thompson keeps a solid groove going throughout.

The title refers to the original North American vinyl double-LP, where the fourth side consisted of B-sides and outtakes from Abacab and Duke. Other versions, including most CD reissues, replaces the studio tracks with a "fourth side live." There's a lot of good stuff, and captures a lot of what I love about this band. Probably my single favorite Genesis record. I even enjoy Phil's vocal .. thing .. on "Misunderstanding."

Side note: A few years ago, I stumbled on a fan-recreation called Three Sides Live Re-Sequenced, that expands this into somewhere around Seven Sides Live with additional high-quality bootleg-ish material from other early 80s concerts. Kinda really wish this could have been an official release, it's good stuff.

My rating: [CD reissue "fourth side live" version] A near-perfect record. 4.9/5


The Way We Walk, 1992



This was originally released as two separate albums, subtitled Volume One: The Shorts and Volume Two: The Longs. The reissue from the Live 1973-2007 box set resequences them as a single live double album, and I'm reviewing it as such. Either way, there's just not much to recommend about this. It's strange, I tend to like Genesis's live records overall more than their studio counterparts; e.g., Genesis Live and Three Sides Live are two of my favorite Genesis records, period. And I love 80s (and to a lesser extend, early 90s) pop-Genesis. But these records just feel bland to me. I think a big part of Genesis's engaging, arena-filling sound, Phil Collins's vocals, sound pretty weak compared to his performances from the 80s. Songs like "Land of Confusion" and "Invisible Touch" aren't nearly as catchy and engaging when the vocals sound tired. 

My rating: Meh. 2/5

Live Over Europe 2007


The band originally wanted to reunite to do The Lamb live, but when Gabriel wasn't able to commit, they decided to "Turn It on Again" with the 80s touring lineup of Banks/Collins/Rutherford/Thompson/Stuermer. Collins's voice and drumming chops were pretty out-of-shape, and they had a difficult time constructing a proper Genesis show. They made it work, but they had to tune down almost every song to accommodate Collins's decreasing ability to hit higher notes. As a result, this one sounds even more tired than The Way We Walk. I've tried to revisit it a couple of times over the years, but ... I just can't. It's like watching a tired old dog that can barely walk .. but, more pathetic than endearing.

My rating: I don't even own this record. 1/5

V. Odds and Ends

Genesis has a lot of officially released non-album material, including demos, EPs, B-sides, outtakes, live tracks, remixes, etc. To try to catalog everything is a huge task for someone other than me. I like Genesis, but I'm nowhere near a completionist. I'll list some highlights below.

Singles, EPs, B-sides

We're getting into completionist territory here. There's a smattering of officially-released studio material that didn't make it onto proper albums. Some of these became their own standalone singles, like "Happy the Man," and "Paperlate," some of them were collected into standalone EPs, like Spot the Pigeon and 3x3 (the latter of which was released in North America as the "fourth side" of Three Sides Live). Many non-album studio tracks were released as B-sides to singles.

Several of these aren't necessarily bad songs, but didn't necessarily fit on the albums they were originally recorded for. "Do the Neurotic," a sweet instrumental, and "Feeding the Fire," a bombastic prog-pop tune, were recorded during the Invisible Touch sessions, but it's not clear which songs these would replace on the album proper. If Invisible Touch were released past the vinyl-LP era, these tracks would have made it, but alas.

Thankfully, most of these have been released as parts of various collections and box sets. See below!

Archive Box Sets


There were two Archives box released in 1998 and 2000. The first one is, to me, the more interesting of the two. The first two discs are a complete live performance of The Lamb, with some overdubs from Gabriel and Hackett. I actually enjoy this more than the original studio album, but maybe that's just me.

Disc three has some spicy live material from the Selling England tour, and a couple of early B-sides. The fourth disc mostly old demos and alternate takes, and pretty much solely for fans who really want to delve into the band's formative years. The booklet has lots of sweet liner notes and old photos.

The second Archive set covers the Phil Collins-led years, and is loaded with B-sides, random live tracks, and, for some reason, 12-inch dance remixes. Notably absent is anything from the Ray Wilson band.

Late 2000s remastered Box Sets

Coinciding with the 2007 reunion tour, We Can't Dance producer Nick Davis undertook the task of remixing and remastering most of Genesis's back catalog. The result was a series of box sets covering three periods of studio albums (Trespass through Lamb, Trick through Abacab, and Genesis through Stations), a live box containing the officially released live albums plus the 1973 set from the Archives box set, and a box set of concert videos.

The remixes are overall quite good. The older material especially benefits from greater higher-end clarity, making Collins's drums sound really snappy. However, the mastering often suffers from overcompression due to the Loudness Wars, and it's occasionally distracting.

There's a ton of bonus material, including most of the non-album tracks and B-sides, and lots of extra live material. Notable exclusions are the Lamb live performance and fourth disc of very early stuff from Archive #1. The studio albums also have bonus DVDs with music videos, live clips, interviews, tour booklets, and other random fan goodies.

VI. Solo and other Side Projects

The primary members of Genesis have all had prolific careers outside of the main band, with varying degrees of commercial and/or artistic success. I'm not familiar with everything everyone has ever done (another huge task for someone other than me), but what I'll do my best to list some highlights.

Anthony Phillips



A founding member, and one of the key members of the original band, returned to music in the mid-70s with his own solo project, assisted by former bandmate and long-time friend Mike Rutherford. The Geese & the Ghost is pretty well regarded as an extension of the pastoral sound Phillips brought to the early band, though I haven't heard it personally. He's also produced quite a few more albums over the years and decades. Again, I'm not familiar with any of it, but I know he's got his fans.

Peter Gabriel



It took him a couple years after leaving Genesis, but once he found his musical legs, he came into his own as a solo artist. He developed his own brand of somewhat-twisted dark pop, but also incorporated a lot of world music influence. A lot of his material is ... well ... horny. But a lot of is very mature and socially aware. He also achieved massive international commercial success in the 80s, to the point where his single "Sledgehammer" knocked off "Invisible Touch" off the top of the US charts. He's also produced some movie sound tracks and had a lot of success as a touring musician.

Steve Hackett


My personal favorite of the ex-Genesis solo acts. His first record,
Voyage of the Acolyte features Phil Collins and Mike Rutherford on several tracks, and thus sounds like it could have been a proper Genesis record. It's apparent, though, that a lot of his ideas were a bit .. weirder .. than the other guys. Freed from strong arm of, well, Tony Banks, he became extremely prolific as a solo artist, chasing all manner of musical horizons. In addition to the gentle acoustic stuff and soaring prog-rock, he also dabbled in poppier and more experimental stuff. Spectral Mornings (pictured above) is a personal favorite of mine.

In the 2000s, he became a de facto flag-bearer of prog-Genesis, with a series of Genesis Revisited tours and live albums. His live band reproduces a lot of Genesis material very meticulously, and with a lot of spirit. He remains very prolific as a recording musician, releasing albums of new material on a very regular basis. And personally, I think most of it is solid. He has evolved a kind of dreamy lush sound, a kinda more mature version of 70s Genesis. Recommended.

Phil Collins


Yeah, this guy. He broke out as a solo artist with "In the Air Tonight" in the early 80s, and achieved *HUGE* international stardom as a result of success as a solo musician and as Genesis's frontman. His solo albums in the 80s are pretty solid R&B-influenced pop affair, with regular delvings into darker territory not unlike the dark-pop of 80s Genesis a la "Mama" or "Tonight, Tonight, Tonight." Yeah, there's also syrupy ballads, but .. Yeah. If you like middle-of-the-road pop music with heart and groove, though, his 80s albums are all worth a listen.

He's also been very prolific as a guest musician and sideman, sometimes as a one-off guest drummer, sometimes as producer and collaborator, sometimes as a co-performer, sometimes as a full band member. Lots of prog-heads swear by his work with Brand X, though I remain woefully unfamiliar.

Mike Rutherford


I'm significantly less familiar with Rutherford's solo work. He released a couple of albums under his own name in the 70s/80s, to modest success. Apparently his album Smallcreep's Day is pretty well regarded among some Genesis fans, though I haven't heard it personally.

He achieved commercial success in the late 80s with Mike + the Mechanics, which became his main side project.

Tony Banks


I'm least of all familiar with Tony Bank's side projects, but I feel like I should change that. His first solo album, A Curious Feeling is supposedly more of the romantic pop-prog stuff Genesis was doing in the late 70s. He tried his hand at solo-pop-stuff in the late 80s as Phil Collins and Mike + the Mechanics were charting, but, though it was apparently critically decently well received, didn't quite bust the charts like "One More Night" or "All I Need Is a Miracle" did. Oh well.

More recently, he's tried his hand at composing proper classical music. I think he's done three albums in that vein. I have no idea if they're any good or not. But they keep coming out, so apparently at least somebody likes them?

Daryl Stuermer


My favorite underrated Genesis kinda-member. After cutting his teeth gigging around Milwaukee, WI (not far from where I was born and raised!), he was noticed by Zappa alum George Duke, who recommended him to fusion violinist Jean-Luc Ponty. From there his connections led him to Genesis's live guitarist/bassist position vacated by Steve Hackett. He was tagged by Phil Collins early in his solo career, and has been a regular live member of both bands since.

Stuermer has remained active as a live musician, living mostly in a melodic fusion, or "smooth jazz" style. He has a regular live band of highly skilled musicians, but the focus is on Stuermer's fluid, melodic lead playing. Some of it can sound kinda muzak-y, but I enjoy it.

He achieved some modest commercial success with an album of Genesis reinterpretations, Another Side of Genesis. Musically it continues in the muzak/smooth jazz vein, with Stuermer's guitar leads taking the place of Collins's vocals. I enjoy it, but I like smooth jazz, so... Yeah.

Fun side note: I was living in the Milwaukee area at the time, and "Follow You Follow Me" got a lot of airplay on the local smooth jazz station. When I went to see him live around the time the CD came out, the venue was packed with retirees, and I was easily the youngest person there.

VII. Conclusion

Holy knuckles I wrote a lot.





The Evangelicalist Church Still Doesn't Get It

 ... a response to an article entitled " Here's what's troubling about the exvangelical #LeaveLoud movement " A lot of exv...