Guess Who's Back?

Just in time for Easter! Here's my take on the 25 best films about Jesus: I thought it might be a bit of a weird one for Den of Geek but they're always game for something a bit quirky.Speaking of which, here's a shot from the surreal Der Jesus (1986). Enjoy!

The problem is not the teenage girls. The problem is your attitude about the teenage girls. Do you understand?

So, the latest blog to go viral is a missive from Kimberly Hall, a director of women’s ministry in Texas. She's written a helpful guide for teenage girls who have been taking "selfies" in their bedrooms: RUN to take down those doozies! The Halls won't be friends with you if you don't!

She begins by explaining "Last night, as we sometimes do, our family sat around the dining-room table and looked through the summer’s social media photos." (Wow. That doesn't sound creepy at all. We all stalk people we know on Facebook, but we don't TELL them about it. It's like, the first rule of the internet.) She then points out that an awful lot of teenage girls are posting pics of themselves in their "skimpy pj’s" (sic) and worse, they're adopting an unnatural "red carpet pose" with "extra-arched back, and the sultry pout".

Well, yes. Teenage (and older) girls are still labouring under the bizarre belief that it looks super-attractive to "duckface" in a series of self-obsessed pictures (occasionally with the added bonus of a toilet in the background). It's what they do. None of us like it, and we all kind of wish that these girls could really see what they look like and how much they're going to regret the shots in the future. (Except some of the girls doing it are 35, so I think the ship might have sailed on the "older and wiser" theory.) They have no idea how contrived those "spontaneous" shots look: 

However, we all have autonomy when it comes to the images we choose to represent us online: if girls want to look trashy rather than classy, it's up to them. What irks me about the blog (apart from the somewhat arrogant view that being blocked by the Hall family will be a "big bummer" for these unlucky girls) is the totally unchristian sentiment behind it. Yep, you heard me right. UNCHRISTIAN.

Why? Well, Hall claims "we are hoping to raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls." (Except when they're reviewing them for judgement purposes, obviously).

You know what else men of integrity do? They don't say "Hey, YOU need to change your behaviour so that I won't have any problems with it." Have a browse through the teachings of Jesus and you'll find an astonishing lack of instruction about how to control other people so they stop tempting you to sin. 

Matthew 5:27-28: "You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Wait, where's the part where he says it was her fault anyway for flaunting herself in front of you?

Yeah, remember the way Jesus treated prostitutes and adulterous women? 
He was really into slut-shaming! Oh...

Imagine if we all applied the sex rules to any other aspect of life. "It wasn't my fault I stole those cakes! The baker shouldn't have made them look so delicious and then displayed them in the window if he didn't expect people to just take them!"

If we're going to live with Christian values, we have no choice but to take responsibility for ourselves. The Hall boys are going to be seeing scantily-clad women everywhere from bars to billboards; the onus is on them to control their "impure" urges. As Al Franken said, “It's easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world.” 

Matthew 7: 1-4: “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? 

Well, yes. It probably wasn't the best idea for Mrs Hall to accompany her entire blog with lots of topless pictures of her sons and to describe how she fell for her husband when she spotted him half-naked. Unfortunately she took her own advice and deleted that post (which had pictures!) so we can't point and laugh at it anymore.

One commenter says "I see you have had some bashing here for the pics of your sons in swim trunks. I think we need to consider the different circumstances. They are playing at the beach. The poses are not provocative (arched back, pouty lips……we have all seen those teen girls and the pose I am refering to)... If the boys were posed in speedos on their beds with a come hither pouty bad boy look – then there would be something to throw rocks over"

Um yeah, you've kind of missed the point here haven't you? For boys, showing off their muscles IS the provocative pose. It may not be super-sexy to be snapped frolicking on the beach with your brothers when it's your mum taking the pictures, but they clearly revel in the bare-skinned freedom that only men can enjoy. After all, if they made the same kind of "sexy" poses girls do, they'd look stupid:

 
But this picture is fine, of course. They're totally not posing in a way that they hope will be sexually appealing:

 

Luckily, no teenage girls will ever see these pictures on the
 internet and be tempted to think lustful thoughts.

These poor kids are subject to their parents' mixed messages: as well as having their own poses recorded for posterity in a public blog, they have to deal with the madonna / whore complex that is apparently de rigueur in Texan churches this summer. As Mrs Hall puts it, "Did you know that once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t quickly un-see it?  You don’t want our boys to only think of you only in this sexual way, do you?" Yep, once he's seen you in skimpy attire, he can never go back to seeing you as the intelligent, thoughtful, well-rounded character that you were when you were covered up! Bad luck, Hall kids' future wives...

The Given Breath blog has done teenage girls a huge favour – if nothing else, they've learned that keeping your online profile set to "private" means nothing – you still don't know who might have access to your pictures. The second lesson is that there will be men out there who do see you as nothing more than an empty shell of sexuality if you so much as take one picture in your pyjamas; they have learned to see you this way because it's what their momma taught them.

Hands up who's zombie-proofing the house right now?

When I was a kid, my parents let me watch one of those horrendously low budget Christian films called A Thief in the Night, all about the "Rapture" – an event in which Christians will apparently fly up to Heaven*, avoiding the apocalyptic reign of Satan which will occur just prior to Jesus' second coming. As a child I found it terrifying (there was a lot of screaming when people’s clothes were left behind, signalling their ascension to Heaven, although I seem to remember there were a few false alarms where people had just stripped off their cardigans etc.) I'm pretty sure that if I watched it now, the comedy value would make it worth the price of the rental.

*I know regular churchgoers who have never even come across Rapture teaching, as it's more "American Evangelist" than Church of England. Apparently the predictions for the end of the world are in the book of Revelation, although there are as many interpretations of that bizarre chapter as there are Christians. If you're interested, the much-mocked Left Behind books are quite good yarns (if you fancy the equivalent of a Pentecostal Dan Brown novel). And if any self-proclaimed Christian ever tries to tell you that they know the date of the end of the world, you can remind them of Matthew 24:36 "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

It has been pointed out that “w” is the 6th letter of Arabic and Semetic alphabets, which casts an interestingly Omen-esque slant on the World Wide Web, doesn’t it? Much as I adore the interwebs and can't imagine how I ever coped without its many life-enhancing qualities, I can see it has some tricky loopholes. Just as Jeff Goldblum predicted in Jurassic park, we're doing things because we can, without asking if we should.

I just wanted an excuse to use this picture. *Girlish giggling*

People are always freaking out about privacy, for instance. There has been a disclaimer doing the rounds for AGES which we are encouraged to copy into our FB status. It says "In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, graphics, comics, paintings, photos and videos, etc. For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!" Of course, Snopes has the real low down – as you might expect, the message has as much power as signing a contract and then sticking on a post-it saying “Didn’t mean it!” 

But why all the fuss over FB? People tell me, wide-eyed with horror, that “Facebook officially owns all your photos!” Um, like any other website you’ve used to upload pictures? Once they're “out there”, ANYONE can save them to their own computers, thus “owning” them – not in a moral or legal sense, but in the sense that they can make a dartboard out of them, or photoshop them in any way they choose. Removing yourself from FB will not erase them – and even if you’re not there to be tagged, pictures of you can still be featured in your friends’ albums, open for all to see. The only way you can avoid this is to run and hide from any camera.

If you can.... Oh, the irony!

While the very name “Facebook” sounds like something George Orwell dreamt up, it’s not the only aspect of modern life we would associate with 1984. You'd have to be miles from civilisation before you could be sure there were no CCTV cameras nearby, and if you use an Oyster card, every tube stop you've made will have been tracked. Slightly creepy, yes – but as we've seen in murder cases, it’s actually really useful for police to be able to see where you have been. (Not to be morbid or anything.) Obviously, you'd have to avoid any kind of public places or transport if you were doing a fugitive-style flight from the FBI. (This is actually a long-held fantasy of mine. I just really like the idea of emerging from a public bathroom with a totally new hairstyle, you know?)

And it's one of my fave movies EVAH!

Another Facey B fact which has everyone in a panic: if you try to leave, your profile will remain, and can be re-activated at the flick of a switch. (Yikes! It never dies!) But isn’t this just a good business policy? I have friends who are forever declaring that they have had enough and are leaving FB forever – only to come crawling back in a matter of weeks or days. I can only imagine the level of moaning I’d have to listen to if they had to re-input all their info each time. While we all hum Hotel California, has anyone actually tried deleting all their information before attempting to duck out of the system? I haven’t, so I don’t know if it works, but it’s worth a try, no?

It used to be quite common to get messages threatening “Facebook is going to start charging you money! Copy this into your status!” although apparently now everyone has realised that it will always be free. This leaves us with the question: How does FB make any cash?

So, Facebook gets money from advertisers eager to know all about the habits and desires of their prey customers. But if people want to show me adverts, that’s their problem:

They cannot make me buy anything.

If it’s a well-chosen advert, it may benefit me, so it’s win-win. (I admit that I did find it a tad sinister the first time Boots sent me vouchers for THE VERY THINGS I’d been buying while diligently gathering points on my advantage card. But they were for things I wanted, so why complain? People whinge that offers like this are unfair to those vulnerable people who JUST CAN’T SAY NO, and will HAVE to use the vouchers even if they don’t want / can’t afford that product. But we’re all adults. (Except the kids whose parents let them fake their ages to have a FB account, obv.)

Finally, a lot of people were shrill and indignant about the fact that FB could use your picture “in adverts”. This is a little misleading – you’re not going to suddenly find your likeness quaffing beer on the telly – it just means that when you “like” something, that piece of information will show up on your friends’ newsfeeds, thus acting as a quasi-advertisement. (Of course there is always the embarrassment factor that you may have liked something uncool.)

This is why I love shopping in the run up to Christmas.You can pretend you're buying
for an elderly relative, when really, it's just that Neil Sedaka made some bangin' tunes.

But if you think about it, it’s a pretty reasonable exchange. Often the “liking” is what you have to do in order to enter a contest or get frequent updates. You could just go to the product’s website and sign up for email updates, or you could make a daily pilgrimage to check on the site. “Liking” on FB is simply the easiest and most convenient way to keep an eye on the latest developments. The price you pay is that people are informed that you like it. Is that so terrible? We’ve been doing it for years – every time we carry a bag with a shop’s logo on it, or clothing with a brand name. So why don’t we just enjoy all the ways FB makes our lives better, instead of whining like spoilt brats?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some shopping to do before the end of the world. We'll need plenty of tinned food, bottled water and ammo for when we're all, um, dead......

The trials of Lent, aka Bootcamp for Christians

I don’t always give up anything for Lent, as I'm generally quite rubbish at noticing when it starts (I forget to eat the pancakes, too). But so far, over the years I have managed to go the distance in a couple of different ways, starting with the sacrifice of tea. Not being able to take part in the ritual of the cuppa was surprisingly hard – as Mrs Doyle would say "You’ll feel left out!"

I recall only vaguely the Lent when I gave up chocolate – I figure I've mostly blanked it out. Strangely, I do remember that when the blessed day came, I WASN’T desperately shovelling chocolate into my mouth the moment I was "allowed" to. Many people claim that "a little bit of good quality chocolate is satisfying". I don’t know if they've been brainwashed by Green and Blacks, or are trying hard to convince themselves, but... a small piece of ANY  kind of chocolate does not leave me satisfied. "A little goes a  long way" may apply to ultra-rich, truffle fudge mocha cake with an inch of icing, but a square of chocolate? No. I want my mouth to be FULL of chocolate. I need MOUTH FEEL. It's the same delicious sensation that you get when biting into one of those ridiculously over-frosted cupcakes. The icing reaches the roof of your mouth and squidges as you bite down. Gah. I just made myself drool a little bit.

I also hit a mental brick wall when people say they don't like creme eggs, or "can only eat one, because they're so sickly". Well, gooey and cloying they may be, but teamed with a cup of tea to balance the super-sweetness, I can comfortably eat two on the trot, before decorum forces me to stop. However, if we ever start substituting drinking games with chocolate games, I am certain that I would be left standing while all around me were collapsing with sugar shock. A meagre talent, but there you go.

During last year's Lent I abstained from Facebook; this created a gap in my daily routine but it wasn’t agony. I was lucky in that I escaped being photographed during this period – I imagine it must be quite traumatic if you’re notified that you’ve been tagged and you’re unable to see the picture that's being flagrantly displayed in your absence. 

I'd say giving up something for Lent is a pretty good way of finding out if you want to make it a lifestyle change; you're got that safety net in the back of your mind that it's only for 6 weeks, yet it's long enough for any physical addiction to have gone, so you can think more objectively about whether you want to continue.

But this year has been my biggest challenge yet, as I have become vegetarian. I was a bit daunted at the idea and thought “Ooh, I couldn’t do that”, which of course made it into a challenge which I then had to take up. My fear was that I would have trouble balancing meals, and would either feel constantly hungry or constantly bloated from a carb overload.  But I have been ASTONISHED at how easy it's been. The hardest part is the lack of choice – when you pop out at lunchtime, instead of having twenty options, you have two.

Interestingly, I had a strange bitter/ sour taste in my mouth from about day 6 to day 15, which I am guessing was some sort of detox. (I generally cringe when I hear people talking about “detoxes” as I think it’s a fairly meaningless term which is bandied about to insult our livers and kidneys.)  But in this case... does this mean that a) meat is "toxic" and b) it was still only leaving my body weeks after I last ate it? Yuck.

I actually feel lighter and more energetic on the whole; I'm suddenly realising what people are talking about when they say that historically, humans have never eaten meat regularly: ie in "cave times" it would be a treat once in a while to catch an animal for food, and for much of the time we’d be surviving on the easier-to-catch diet of nuts and fruit.

Fire revolutionised the human lifestyle because it meant we could cook meat – thus making it easier to digest – and freeing up our time so that we could use our meat-fuelled brains to get on with doing art on our cave walls and drawing up blueprints for the wheel etc.

Despite this, there are those who claim that humans were never meant to eat meat. Physically, we have far more in common with herbivores than carnivores – check out the fascinating list at http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

We have a plant eater’s intestinal tract, which is several times the length of our bodies – while meat eaters have short ones to allow that festering flesh to pass through quickly. (Ah, my detox question answered. Lovely.)

One of the points made is that we don’t drool at the sight of a prey animal, the way that a true carnivore, eg a tiger, would. I would question this, as I have occasionally spied a fat little pigeon pecking on the lawn and contemplated just how plump and juicy it would look in a roasting tin. When watching Lambing Live (Kate Humble must be raking it in – she’s never off the telly!) with its array of incredibly adorable lambs, I said “Oh, I could just EAT them!” which was perhaps a little tactless. Also, I have a strange confession to make; my mouth waters if I spent several minutes looking at pictures of cute animals. Weird and slightly psychotic, I know. I have no idea if this has any origins in evolution, I’m pretty sure we have never, as a species, licked kittens. But I kind of want to.

 

Easter bunnies: Don't tell me these little pink noses 

don't make you salivate. I know I can't be the only one.

No matter how much you like your steaks and burgers, I think for most people, there is a part of the brain which "knows" that eating animals is wrong. Looking at the Bible, Jesus may have been a part-time fisherman, but in the original Genesis story, animals were just around for our companionship. It was only after "the fall" that everything went wrong and our symbiotic relationship turned a little one-sided. But according to Isaiah 11:7, there will come another time when the original plan will be restored, and "The cow and the bear will graze, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox."

In the meantime, I guess I justify my meat eating by singing "It's the circle of life....." and the fact that it’s only by purchasing ethically sourced meat that I can make any impact on the market. If everyone but the totally heartless opts out, battery eggs and Danish pork will be flying off the shelves and nobody will be monitoring standards at all. Not buying "happy meat" is like not voting – you may be making your point, but somebody still gets elected.

In a similar way, some of the nicest, most thoughtful and socially conscious people I know have made the decision not to have kids, because the world is over-populated enough. I can't help feeling this might be short-sighted; if the only people reproducing are those who really don't give the tiniest shit about society, it could create an underclass of chavs who become grandparents at the age of 26 and continue to ruin lives by weaving in and out of temporarily set up families. Oh, wait. That’s already happened.

Good lord, I’m right wing and feisty today. Must be all those pulses.

I believe in magic....

Every time you say that Santa doesn't exist, a puppy dies. Fact.

As I may have mentioned, at this time of year I love to waste hours watching dreadful cheesy Christmas movies. Seriously – quality is not an issue. I’ll watch them all.

Somehow it seems easier in December to suspend disbelief and get all sappy over the magic of flying reindeer and little bells you can only hear if you really and truly believe (Yep, Polar Express is one of my faves).

And it doesn’t take a Christmas pixie to spot the theme that emerges in these “Santa-in-peril-because-nobody-believes-except-one-small-child” tales. This benevolent, all-knowing father figure may hand out some gifts if we behave ourselves (he knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!) but in order to receive, we have to believe. A “Santa as God-lite” analogy, if you will. And if there’s one thing movies teach us (apart from the fact that New York is THE place to spend Christmas, not least because you can ice skate in central park with Cary Grant) it’s that faith is the cornerstone of the Santa religion. Kris Kringle is the real thing only because he is BELIEVED to be the real thing.

For some people, the idea of God is just as nonsensical as Père Noel; a fairy tale you outgrow. It’s easy to become disillusioned as you grow up – prayers and letters to Santa go unanswered, cracks appear in the stories, and magic is an illusion that only a fool would believe in.

Well, call me a fool, but I do believe in magic. It’s all around us. Take photographs, for instance. You can explain it to me in whatever scientific way you like, but the fact remains that the MAGIC BOX manages to suck in an image of whatever it is pointed at and record it forever. Likewise telephones – tell me about airwaves til the cows come home; the fact is, I can communicate with someone in another country via a tiny MAGIC TOOL. And don’t even get me started on CDs and the miracle that is music trapped in a tiny disc. It might just blow my mind.

 As Jostein Gaarder points out in his novel The Solitaire Mystery, “Nobody would believe this world if they hadn’t spent years getting used to it.”

The very fact that your mind controls your body is pretty stupendous when you think about it – not to mention the fact that your body can HEAL ITSELF of minor injuries. You cut your finger, a couple of days later there isn’t so much as a mark. You’re a freaking terminator!

I remember being astonished when I first realised that trees can heal themselves in a similar way – and it turns out they also talk to each other. Well, sort of – they can communicate via pheromones, managing to warn when a predatory insect is around so they can prepare themselves to make their leaves taste nasty. How clever is that! 

And those proponents of the Law of Attraction claim that every word we speak has a magical effect on our vibrations; anyone who’s ever read a self-help book will know the dangers of saying “I’m so sick and tired of x” until it becomes true, but who knew you could magically create your own reality by the power of your mind? (If you’re skeptical – well, just keep doing what you’re doing, if it’s working out for you...)

The Bard put it best; “There are more things in Heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

As for Jesus, well, I think it was C.S. Lewis (and do correct me if I’m wrong, because I now can’t find the quote) who said “Don’t knock the immaculate conception, because the normal method is strange enough.”

May I quote Jostein Gaarder one more time?

 “I have been in outer space many times,” bragged the cosmonaut, “but I have never seen any angels.” The brain surgeon stared in amazement, but then he said “and I have operated on many intelligent brains, but I have never seen a single thought.”

So, I think we can conclude that the world is a pretty wacky place. And we human beings, in our infinite wisdom, have decided what is possible and what is not. As this is based merely on what we have so far seen to be possible, it seems we may not have the exhaustive list worked out just yet.

Of course, nobody REALLY believes in old Saint Nick. (Not even the adults in the movies who apparently don’t notice the strange gifts appearing in their houses every year.) I do fervently wish he was real, though. I’ve always wanted to have an interviewer ask me what my dream job would be, so I could answer honestly “Being an elf in Santa’s workshop,” and I would sound far less bonkers if it was actually an option. 

Have yourself a merry little Christmas, y’all. xx

Candy and costumes? My kind of festival....

I grew up in a Christian family in the 1980s, a time when aromatherapy was feared, Child's Play was considered a video nasty, and acupuncture was the work of the devil. (Actually if you ask a Baptist, they would probably confirm that these are indeed gateways to hell.) Naturally, Halloween was deemed the very height of this worldly love of all things occult. (Of course, these days we also have Harry Potter.) 

I think many Christians have by now accepted the festival as a necessary “evil”. (In the US it has long been considered a harmless staple of the season by even the most God-fearin' folks.) But there's still a tendency among churches to throw “anti-Halloween” parties (with the enticing essentials of every Christian party: quiche and orange squash).

Is this really necessary? I find it kind of sad that so many Christians are so scared of everything. Yes, you should be on your guard against being be sucked into a non-Christian way of life. However, I don’t see Christians having "anti-porn parties," or publicly boycotting unethical companies – arguably far more harmful lures to the easily led. So why the obsession that we are all going to be converted over to the dark side?

Wiccans celebrate Samhain, which is considered to be the time of year when “the veil thins” between this world and the supernatural. As a festival of “darkness”, it’s balanced at the opposite point of the wheel by the spring festival of Beltane (a celebration of light and fertility).

The following day is considered by the church to be the Day of All Souls – in which we can pray for those who have departed, and who knows, maybe they'll pray for us too. In a similar vein, Mexican Catholics celebrate Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead). This involves making altars to honour dead relatives, with offerings of candy, flowers and their favourite foods. Maybe I’m turning into an emo in my old age, but this seems to me rather sweet. 

Halloween isn’t going to go away – in fact, its presence in the UK is increasing every year. So why don’t we just embrace it? In fact, if we take control now we can totally hijack it. Everyone complains that Christians nicked Yule, so we might as well just go for the full monty of pagan festivals – it’s already been commercialised beyond all recognition. Nobody said it has to be dark and disturbing. We can either use it to actually honour the dead – and our spirituality – or we can just eschew any spiritual aspect and turn it into the festival of dressing up and eating sweets. (In the US it's long been the tradition that the costume you wear can be anything that takes your fancy – while we're still lagging behind with rubber scream masks and severed hands.) In years to come, historians might be saying “Halloween was once considered to be a celebration of all that was occult and evil, then in the eary 21st century some Christians stole it..."

When in doubt, the answer is always Stevie Wonder

Can I get an "Amen"?

I hate “Christian music.” There, I’ve said it.

I hasten to add, I don’t hate ALL Christian music. I love proper gospel (not tuneless screeching, mind) and even the plain vanilla soft rock style that characterises most of this music has occasionally made enjoyable listening.

What really gets on my nerves, though, is the cynicism running through this lucrative industry. Some smart people have worked out that there is a little gap in the music industry which any old crap can squeeze through – as long as it’s “Christian”. The people involved know full well that what they're producing would never see the light of day if it was released in the normal, or as they call it, “secular” channels of the music business.

Of course, if it’s so bad that it actually slips into “audibly dreadful even to Christian ears that never hear popular music” territory, their defence will be “But actually, it’s all about the worship.” I used to go to a church which hosted many of the biggest writers and performers of Christian music, and thus felt almost guilty about their musical pedigree. But if it was really *just* about the worship, they’d have let me get up on stage and bang a triangle. Why not, if that was the expression of my heart? The fact that triangles remained undinged is the proof that at least a little bit of the worship sessions had to be dictated by the quality of performance. 

I don’t mean to have a pop at people who genuinely do wish to write meaningful songs which can then be released into the world so that others can find them helpful. Of course, it’s natural that those people who are massively talented should be given a role where they can use their gifts. I just resent the insistence that we're not allowed to judge them on musical merit, and if we voice any dislike, we are somehow betraying Jesus. 

There is some great Christian music out there – Audio Adrenaline and YFriday are just two of the contemporary bands who can stand alongside any mainstream group without needing to fall back on any weak defences. In the US especially, spiritual music spans many genres; so why are those compilation albums always so slavishly similar? 

(A popular worship leader once wrote that the Christian music album of “The most powerful worship songs ever!” was a bit cheeky and who were we to dictate which songs were most likely to get to God? You guessed it, none of his songs had made the cut. He did, however, have no complaints when his works was included on another album, the title of which was something along the lines of “Best worship songs ever.”)

I hate the way that Christian music doesn’t “count” if it isn’t the same bland type as all the others. One time the music group (in the church I mentioned earlier) played in a “country style.” The leader was furious and inevitably admonished the band with “It’s not a performance”. It was as if country music was somehow not as holy as rock. Why is a skiffle beat sinful? 

(While we’re on the subject, why are the really hard core “I hate god” bands always heavy/ death metal? How come you never get any easy listening bands called nunslaughter? Just wondering.)

If you ask a “Christian musician” why they don’t release music into the mainstream charts, the standard line is that they feel they are best serving the Christian market. A cynic might suggest that they like being a big fish in a small pond and they’re too mediocre to make it out there anyway. 

Some Christian acts get into the charts after prolonged internet campaigns in which Christians are pressured to support their “brothers” by buying and promoting their music, no matter how rubbish they think it is. Wouldn’t it be better if nobody bought music for any other reason than LIKING it? Do those bands a favour and refuse to give them a leg up. Force them to raise their game. In the long run, they will be happier, and so will our ears. 

In the meantime, if you're tired of breathy proclamations that God is “marvellous”, and album covers in which singers look away from the camera in a wistful, humble manner, there are numerous other gifted musicians who manage to incorporate Christianity into their art without 16 choruses of “na na na na...”  (You may need to have attended church in the 90s to really “get” my pain here.) 

You might like the following songs (which are unlikely to ever get played in church).

• See Me Through, by Ida Maria:  With a gentle chorus of “Oh God, I can’t believe in you... because I’m afraid you’re true,” this song might tug at your most cynical heartstrings.

• This Little Light of Mine. As far as I know, Joss Stone has no intention of releasing a gospel album, but she does us proud with this toe tapping duet with Buick Audra.

• Lauryn Hill’s “Unplugged” album, in its entirety.  She may have a slightly screwy life, but this girl can sing. And preach. All at the same time.

• Wayfaring Stranger, by Eva Cassidy or Jamie Woon. Although pretty much everyone has covered this classic, Eva’s note perfect rendition embodies spiritual passion.  

• Nobody’s Fault but Mine: Another standard covered by everyone from Blind Willie Johnson to (the fantastic) Sean Pinchin. Michael J. Sheehy and Beth Rowley have produced particularly good versions.

• Good old Christina Aguilera has made some forays into gospel (when she isn’t inviting you to put your lips on her hips) and Mercy on Me and Makes Me Wanna Pray are up there with Aretha.

• “Are you lonely up there all by yourself?” asks Kelly Clarkson in the somewhat heartrending Irvine. If she’d been around 2,000 years ago, surely this would have been added into Lamentations?

• The wonderful world of country music has many excellent tunes (the soundtrack for O Brother Where Art Thou proves this, yes?) and if you’re looking for an easy bridge from pop; Carrie Underwood and Miranda Lambert are your answer. (Particularly the latter’s Heart Like Mine.)

• Candi Staton (whose career began in gospel circles) has been bringing the word "saviour" onto the dance floor since the 80s – now I Got the Love has been given a boost by covers from Florence and the Machine and Joss Stone (again). 

• U2 have managed to straddle the secular and the religious pop worlds for some time, as has young Stacie Orrico, with three studio albums artfully mixing the two. 

• Macy Gray's Minnie Mouse vocals are mostly associated with late 90s pop, but "I'm looking forward to the day I die, Oh my lord, I can't wait to meetchu" is not really one for Top of the pops.

• Janis Joplin throaty cries of "Work Me Lord" are as heartfelt as any chorus of "Shine, Jesus shine". 

• I first came across Ain't No Grave (gonna hold my body down) on the brilliant True Blood. (Obviously the meaning becomes a little different when applied to vampires, but don't get me started on the spiritual symbolism of being dead for three days and emerging as an immortal being, we'd be here for weeks.) I particularly like Vanessa Torres' earthy folk version of this traditional gospel song.

This is just a teensy handful of the most unchurchy "Spiritual" tunes around; let's not forget that the soul star Al Green actually runs a church in Memphis, and hey, as long as there's money to be made from Christmas albums, there will always be a carol sung by a boyband in the offing. 

Traditional blues and gospel are virtually inseparable, growing as they did from the same origins. Even if you're not a fan, it's worth checking out sometimes just for the amusing names – Better Git it in Your Soul Charles Mingus) and the cheery Just As Well Get Ready, You Got to Die by Blind Willie McTell. Unbeknownst to me, Mahalia Jackson is considered one of the best gospel vocalists EVAH. (If you thought Mariah had lungs – check this lady out. You could also do a lot worse than checking out Pearly Brown of You're Gonna Need That Pure Religion fame. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles are also deservedly well known as gospel and soul virtuosos.

If you're still looking for inspiration I would definitely recommend the Bible-story-inspired folk of Sufjan Stevens, the old-school gospelly blues of Eric Bibb and the inspirational lyrics of Alicia Keys. 

And if all else fails, just listen to the dynamism of Jerry Lee Lewis's When the saints go marching in  and then try to sit through Generic Worship Vol 12. Bet you can't do it.