Collapsible Lung Revisited

As many Relient K fan friends of mine may know, I wrote a review in September depicting my distaste for the lyrical content of their newest album, Collapsible Lung.

I am mistaken in my opinion.

Jon tried to tell me the whole point of the album, but it was too soon for me to hear. I wasn't ready to listen. My idea of what Relient K is supposed to be was not being filled. My expectations weren't being met and how dare they deviate from my scheme of what a "secretly Christian" band should be.

Hmmm. Let me expand on that. In my mind, there are two kinds of Christian bands: openly Christian and secretly Christian. Openly Christian bands are supposed to produce nice worship music for all the Christian radio stations to blare like they actually mean it. Words like "glory," "fire," and "reign" are supposed to be thrown around frequently in the lyrics.

Secretly Christian bands (like Relient K) have a special place in my heart. They are supposed to write about whatever they want, as long as the undertones are always Christian. They're supposed to trick non-Christians into listening to their stuff because it's "cool" so that listeners somehow magically discover Jesus through the subtlety. You know, for example, This may sound like a love song to you, but really it's about our love for Jesus. Gotcha!

In fact, when Jon told me what he had read in a positive review, I said, "That's not how people get reached." I'm an idiot.

To make myself look really hypocritical, I'll have you know that when many RK fans were critiquing the album for its pop sound (the band having been historically more of a rock band), I thought they were just being so dumb for their closed-minded opinion. The musicality of the album is fantastic. The sound is great.

It's been years and several albums since Relient K has stuck to that old school rock sound they once had. People in their early- to mid-twenties love RK because they listened to them in middle school and going to concerts is like reliving the good ol' days. But when they hear newer (much improved) music by them, they say it's just not the same.

I totally judge(d) people for this. Relient K's sound gets better and more refined with each album. And they know how to mix things up. So people who think they need to stay forever the same are dumb, obviously.

But, like I said in my post in September, the lyrics were shallow and empty and stupid and didn't sound Christian to me, so of course I highly disapproved. Pardon me while I throw up.

Then I finally accidentally found Stephen Shutter's review (which had Jon semi-quoted to me) and I saw the Collapsible Lung in a new light. I highly recommend you read review this for the full effect of what I am about to say.

Here's why I was wrong:

First of all, the shallowness was not an accident or a sign that Matt Thiessen had reached moral ruin and was no longer worthy of my listening ears. They did it on purpose. To actually make a point. Realizing this was the difference between me disgustedly hearing, Look at me! I'm sinning! Wheeeee! and compassionately hearing, I'm a sinner. Look at my sin. I'm pathetic.

As Mr. Shutters says in his review, the album tells a continuation of the story of Matt Thiessen's fiancé leaving him and how he dealt with the heartbreak and the inability to find as much meaning in his life. As depicted in Collapsible Lung, he turned to things other than God and finally realized that those things got him nowhere; it was ultimately God who was his only source of joy and meaning.

Yeah, I failed to pick up on that. I have never been one to listen to an album as a whole. I never cared to try and nail down the story laced through the songs. And I certainly never cared too much about the lives or even the names of the artists themselves. But does that mean they're not living their lives? That they're just supposed to be little worship machines (because that's glorifying to God)? And does that mean that they aren't struggling with things on a daily basis that compulsively end up reflected in the lyrics?

Relient K did something artful. Read Mr. Shutter's review to know what that was. I fully support his analysis. Just because I was too dense to pick up on it doesn't mean it wasn't beautiful, creative, or glorifying to God.

Besides, who am I to put Relient K, of all bands, into a box? Shame on me.

They've gotten a lot of crap for their album from many of their fans. But I need to finally acknowledge that as artists, they had every right to write and produce what they did, whether I like it or not. They did it for a reason.

The day this finally hit me felt like a few weeks ago when I finally reconciled my friendship with Max. Basically, our friendship had been put on hold for a time while I sorted through things, but my need for that withholding passed long before I dared to say "time in." When I finally did, I felt slightly ashamed, but mostly relieved that we could be friends again. After we finally had an "it's all okay now" conversation, we hugged.

Re-listening to Collapsible Lung with fresh ears felt like that hard conversation. Listening to the album again felt like the long-awaited hug.

Relient K... will you be my friend again?

Me and Matt Thiessen, May 2013

God bless.

Locks of Love

I have donated hair four times in my life, and all four times my ponytails were sent to Locks of Love.

Over a period of six years, I underwent a cycle of growing my hair out and cutting it short, growing it out, cutting it short. In fact, the biggest thing holding me back from getting dreadlocks when I was 19 was the fact that it would halt my giving.

And now that my dreads are gone and my hair is growing out again, I have every intention of going back to my cycle of growing and cutting.

Except this time, I won't be giving to Locks of Love.

Many people are aware of the sketchiness of Locks of Love. But not enough. A lot of my friends donate their hair, and half of them say, "No, I would never donate to Locks of Love. I know better than that," while the other half are still saying, "Yeah, I gave to Locks of Love, why?"

I don't need to copy and paste statistics for you. The data is already out there:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/17/report-locks-of-love-lost-6-6-million-worth-of-donated-hair/
http://badhairday.typepad.com/bad_hair_day/2006/07/locks_of_love_i.html
http://www.lovelyish.com/2013/05/17/locks-of-love-tangled-in-scandal/

However, just to sum up:
Locks of Love sells many of their hair donations.
They allegedly do not keep track of donations.
Although much hair they receive is unusable, there are still way too many hair donations unaccounted for.
They do not give charitably to children who need wigs, but rather sell wigs to children with diseases such as alopecia areata. They also may or may not sell donated hair to other organizations for a profit.
In other words, their intake of hair and monetary donations is high, but their output of wigs to needy children is low.

I don't know how much of this is true. In fact, Locks of Love says on their website, "In no way is Locks of Love associated with or an affiliate of any for-profit hair replacement business." They also began listing documents of their finances on their website.

But I still don't trust Locks of Love. Although I learned of this "scandal" not long after my last hair donation, I have seen many women give to them since. The news isn't getting out there fast enough, so I just wanted people to hear it from me.

Remember that hair donation is good, and there are several great, trustworthy organizations out there, such as Pantene Beautiful Lengths and Wigs for Kids (among others) that will accept hair donations and that we know will responsibly do with them what they promise.

For funsies, before and after donation pictures at age 16:

God bless.

Tired Introverts

I was going to make a graph depicting what I am about to explain (like I did a couple posts ago), but the process of creating and explaining the graph itself may be more trouble than it's worth. I am a words person, not a graph person, anyway, right?

Look, I'm an introvert. A lot of my close friends know this; a lot of acquaintances do not.

There's a whole movement of introverts quietly taking a stand for who they are and how they ought to be treated, yada, yada, yada.

I am going to unoriginally add to that movement.

I just finished a personality psychology course in which I discovered that almost every major personality test includes an introversion/extraversion spectrum and on almost every spectrum, introversion is described or viewed negatively. I'd give you some examples, but my brain rejected them so much that I can't recall any. I think being an introvert is wonderful.

MYTH: Introverts hate people.
FACT: People make introverts tired.

We are not a bunch of lethargics because of this, of course. We just manage our time spent with people differently than most extraverts.

There are two basic factors that determine how tired I am at the end of a social interaction: number of people and how well I know the people I am interacting with. The dependent variable, so to speak, is how quickly I tire.

Here are a few samples:

 I am able to spend long hours (the whole day, in fact) with a close friend and not tire or wish to escape and be alone. Why? Because she is only one person at a time, and because I know her quite well. The same applies to my future husband or close family members. Even still, there is some relief when I am left alone after spending time with people like this.

A large group of people where I hardly know anyone is, of course, the opposite. I tire very quickly and it doesn't take long in those situations for me to have the desire to run away and have some peace. If I can't escape, I zone out and get the alone time in my own head; I become a wallflower. I'm not against new people. I'm not against making friends. I just don't have the stamina to take all that in all at once. I can maybe go an hour before I start shutting down.

Then there are the happy mediums. The smallish groups of people where I know everyone moderately well, the one person whom I've just met, and the large group of people where I know everyone very well, all tire me eventually: much sooner than a close friend and much more slowly than a roomful of unfamiliar faces.

And that's basically it. I probably haven't told you anything you didn't already know about introverts, so you're welcome for wasting your time.

Also, I don't hate you, and I do get tired of being alone sometimes, so please be my friend. My primary "love language" is quality time, so time spent with people I care about, even if I get tired, is valuable to me.


God bless.

The Right Way to Date

Dating is an art, a dance, okay, we all know that. Women and men alike should have high standards; that's okay.

But I see young women (girls, really) posting things like this all the time:

Yeah, because there is a formula for true love, don't you know?

Is that so?

Because if a guy can't read your mind, he's basically as worthless as your communication skills.

Frankly, these girls will probably get over their weird expectations as they mature (hopefully). But my problem with this is more that they profess there is one right way to date.

In my experience, many Christian men and women alike, have this problem. They think they've "figured it out" (even though God's will can't/shouldn't be boxed like that).

There are two main mindsets that Christians have on dating: The first is the anti-dating mindset. Now, these people aren't entirely anti-dating, but if you're going to date somebody, you better darn-well know they're your future spouse before you do. Why? Because God has someone picked out for you, is in control, and cares about this area of your life and we would be remiss if we submitted to our cultural norms instead of insisting on being "set apart" in this way. I see this, for example, in the book I just read, Sacred Singleness, and in music lyrics that proclaim, "No more dating, I'm just waiting. Like Sleeping Beauty, my prince will come for me."

The other mindset is the pro-dating mindset. There's a book out there (which I admittedly have not read, but have read many online articles about dating by the same author) called True Love Dates. The idea here is that the "anti-dating" dating world is a minefield and therefore we should reject it and not make it such a bizarre jeopardy. They say, "Why can't we just date?"and encourage young singles to get out there and get coffee with each other and ask each other on dates with no strings attached. Just getting to know each other and see where it leads. Why? Because there is no such thing as soul-mates and God allows us to make our own decisions as mature, adult Christians.

I disagree with both mindsets, not because I believe either side is inherently wrong, but because I just don't think there's one strict cookie-cutter way for people to do things like this. 

There are some (like me) that date around, make mistakes, and learn lessons. I made a decision this summer to stop pursuing men, as I have sinned in this way in the past.

There are others that are overly cautious and have never dated and refuse to date because they simply haven't found "the one." These people will hopefully come to the conclusion that they need to loosen up a little and realize that it's okay for relationships to come and go. If you think you have found "the one," it's also really not the end of the world if you and that person eventually break up (which I also have experienced).

The thing is, not only does every relationship look different, but every healthy relationship looks different.

Another thing that I've noticed women talking about is the standard that guys should always be clear with where they're at in the relationship and not leave women wondering. This pops up a lot in both Christian and "secular" dating literature. I've heard things said like, "If you have to DTR (define the relationship), then there's a problem because there should never be any question about where either of you stand." But to claim that the need for a DTR is a sign of poor communication is to deny that the essence of a DTR is communication!

I hear people say that a guy should be upfront and ask women on dates instead of having a misty "hanging out" period that leaves girls wondering. He should bring her flowers and she should not think it's creepy or too forward. 

There is a ton of criticism for the "steps" people have in this culture's dating world. First you're "hanging out." Then you're "talking." Then you profess that you like each other (maybe). Then you're "dating but not really." Then you're "officially dating." Then you're "getting serious." Then you're "talking about marriage." Then you're "waiting for him to pop the question." Then you're engaged. Then you're married. Phew!

Then again... so what? Why does that need to be criticized? It's a lot to keep track of, maybe, but is there really a problem here? On the other hand, does it really matter if a couple decides to deviate from this standard progression? My grandparents met on a blind date and were engaged six weeks later. Why does there have to be a "right way"?

Here is what I am currently learning: Transitional periods are okay. Gray area is okay. Dating is okay, and refraining from dating is okay. Lack of communication is not okay. Being overly communicative is not okay (if anyone wants to know what I mean by that, ask me and I will write you a whole 'nother blog post about it...). There are many wrong ways to date, but there are also many right ways to date.

God bless.

Facebook > Pinterest

This websites are not novel. Everyone has known about them for a while now. It's not super-trendy anymore to say, "Like our company/band/nonprofit on Facebook!" It's just standard. The concept of social media is old news, normal life. But I feel the need to talk about these two: Facebook and Pinterest again.

I've been addicted to Facebook for the last five years.
My profile picture has gone from looking like this:

To this:

To this:

There's been times when it's been terrible for me, this addiction, but most of the time I don't think it's even really a problem. There have been times when Facebook has been such a blessing, in fact.

1) Facebook people share all kinds of articles that I can read. Sometimes they're just stupid time-wasting buzzfeeds, but other times they shine a bit of wisdom or insight into my life, which I love to just soak up. I also learn a little bit about the person who posted it.

2) Connections with old friends, relatives, whatever, are priceless. Nobody has the time to talk on the phone or write letters anymore (quite unfortunately, although the latter I still make an effort to do sometimes), and even texting isn't something you normally do with people you aren't already in contact with on a daily basis. However, when that person you haven't heard from in a while but still care about posts something on Facebook, you get a glimpse into their life. You can leave a comment. You can simply "like" it. Boom, done. Connection made. Maybe it's a cheap connection, but it's still a connection that wouldn't have been made at all if not for Facebook, and that's worth something to me.

3) Following that up, conversations--yes, actual (albeit digital) conversations--pop up all the time if you're trying to make it happen. If my friend posts a status about how they're not having a good day, it doesn't take much for me to message them and ask them about it. I've made friends this way. Friends I've never met in real life but have an invaluable relationship with over Facebook. (Don't worry; I'm wary of creepers.) Maybe this isn't really all that different from texting, but sometimes it's easier.

Facebook is, I believe, good for me overall. I have thought about getting off before, because I truly believe it's an addiction sometimes. I'm not really afraid of "radical" life change, remember? But I legitimately think the pros outweigh the cons.


Pinterest, on the other hand. Wow. How can any modern lady not love Pinterest, right? DIYs, ideas for snacks and our hair and our future wedding and entertainment for our future kiddos. It's seriously the best thing ever. At first glance.

But then, for me, the longing starts. I start hating my life and everything in it because it's not as picture-perfect as Pinterest tells me it can be.

I don't have gorgeous long hair that I can braid and try all these adorable fancy up-dos on. My hair is short and straight and looks the same almost every day.

I'm not actually planning a wedding, and even if I were, a day is only 24 hours and a party's just a party. In fact, marriage is not even a first priority for me right now (until I see all those pretty wedding dresses on Pinterest, am I right?).

I can't just make an sweet potato avocado burger, even if I want to. I just can't. I don't even have my own kitchen yet.

I can't just pack it all up and go on a month-long backpacking trip in the mountains of Ireland like the pictures tell me I can. I have real-life duties, even if those duties are still just going to class.

I can't actually have a house with a backyard patio that somehow magically turns into a swimming pool or have a huge entertainment center with a rustic fireplace and ombré pink walls for the baby's room.

And I really just can't make 90% of the adorable DIYs that they say are easy-peasy and cheap. I literally lack the creative capacity, finances, and time to do them.

When I look at all these pictures, I get jealous. A lot of people experience Facebook envy, but not me; for me it's Pinterest. I don't even have a one person to be jealous of. I'm just jealous of an ideal. I become dissatisfied. It's disgusting. Not only is it one of the biggest time-wasters ever, it's one of the biggest breeders of discontent. Awesome.

Then again, when I go home (and have a kitchen at my disposal) and think, "Hmm, what should I make for breakfast?", I will know exactly where to find a recipe for homemade strawberry nutella poptarts. And...is that really so wrong??

Be cognizant of your use of social media.


God bless.

The Emotions (or Categories) of Music

I apologize for my alarming lack of blog posts in November. It seems I have been overrun with school work and have not had the time to write. I have come up with many ideas for posts this month, but simply had no time to actually write them. This post is a product of this brainstorming period. I anticipate posting a lot this month, as I will have more time to do so, and have so many posts stewing in my head already.


I have always been baffled by the way people say they can derive emotion from music, or even write emotion into music. Call me a bad musician, but when I listen to music, although I may hear anger, heart-brokenness, light-heartedness, etc., I rarely ever feel those things as a result of hearing the music (unless the words themselves drive me to such an emotional state).

I thought about this as I listened to a concert several weeks ago. I thought, well, what do I experience when I listen to music?

I decided that for me, there are two main categories that music can be under, and three subcategories.

The two main categories are: meaningful and non-meaningful. Meaningful music means that there are probably words, and that those words hold a certain weight to them that I can connect with and that may induce further emotions in me. Non-meaningful music may or may not have words, but if it does, those words hold no significant emotional weight to them to me. It is rare that a wordless song is meaningful to me. (One that is, for example, is The Crisis by Ennio Morricone. Don't ask.) All music falls under one of these two categories.

The three subcategories, each which can and must fall under either meaningful or non-meaningful music, are: cool, beautiful, and boring. Any given piece of music must fit into one or some combination of two of these three categories, but it cannot fit into all three.

Here are two almost identical charts which should help illustrate what I am trying to say. All music falls into one of these two charts for me. (Please disregard the 33.3333s. Those are just there because I wanted the three subcategories to be of the same size.)

Although these graphs show the three subcategories as three distinct categories, think of the categories as more like a spectrum that wraps around into a circle-shape. Any given song can fall anywhere in or between these three categories. Placing a piece of music more toward the center or more toward the edge has no significant meaning to me as of yet. That is to say that degrees of each trait creates too complicated of a system for me to really assess music that way.

To help you understand, I'll give you a few examples of what songs might fall where. The song Babies by The 1900s just came onto my iTunes. I barely know this song and I don't know any of the words, so I would put it into the non-meaningful category, but it sounds pretty cool. It is not boring and it is not beautiful. It's kind of dead-center cool.

The song Oceans (Where Feet May Fail) by Hillsong United would be meaningful to me, and is beautiful but not cool. It is slightly boring because it is long and repetitive, but it is mostly beautiful.

In case you were wondering if there's such a thing as a meaningful, boring-sounding song, I Could Sing of Your Love Forever by Delirious? is a good example. Meaningful and little beautiful, but mostly boring.

My ideal song is, not surprisingly, a meaningful song with some combination of cool and beautiful. A good example of that is Dry Bones by Gungor or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.

This is, I guess, how I experience music. Now you know.


God bless.