September 29, 2010
More Evidence of Religious and Biblical Illiteracy
New survey finds atheists know more about religion and the Bible than evangelicals.
The results of a Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life survey have been widely reported this week. Pew asked 3,400 Americans 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity, and other world religions. The results were surprising. It turns out that on average atheists answered more questions correctly than evangelicals.
Average number of questions answered correctly, out of 32:
Atheist/agnostic: 20.9
Jewish: 20.5
Mormon: 20.3
White evangelical: 17.6
White Catholic: 16.0
White mainline Protestant: 15.8
Black Protestant: 13.4
Hispanic Catholic: 11.6
Pew has posted an online version of the survey. Take the quiz and see if you average better than other Americans.
There has been an outcry for years about Biblical ignorance in the church, and this latest survey only adds fuel to that fire. But how do we reconcile the continuing decline in biblical knowledge with the fact that we have access to more Bible teaching than any Christians in history. According to figures in 2005, Americans spent nearly $7 billion on Christians books and merchandise. There are also more Christian radio stations, websites, podcasts, conferences, events, (and 24-hour sermon webcasts) than ever. With this flood of resources why aren’t more evangelicals actually learning the Bible?
If there was a bright spot in the research, it did uncover that those who attended worship services weekly performed better on the survey. It appears something is sticking.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 29, 2010 | Comments (9) | TrackBack
September 27, 2010
Furtick Uses 24-Hour Sermon to "Pimp" Book
When did ministry simply become a tool for marketing?
On September 21-22, Steven Furtick preached for 24 hours for an online audience of thousands. The senior pastor of Elevation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, focused his hermeneutic marathon on the topic of “audacious faith.” And it’s not a coincidence that audacious faith is also the theme of his new book, Sun Stand Still: What Happens When You Dare to Ask God for the Impossible, which debuted the same day.
In a report at The Christian Post Furtick initially stressed that the online preaching marathon was not a gimmick. “he acknowledged he wasn’t a TV preacher or ‘the LaBron James of pastors.’” But the report’s next paragraph says:
Responding to criticisms that he was merely "pimping" his book all day, Furtick admitted he was. But he said he was doing it because he truly believes the message – God's message – in the book will change people's lives.
Furtick, who says he was reluctant to write a book, came to the attention of many about five years ago when he planted Elevation Church in Charlotte at age 25. The church reports that over 8,000 people have come to faith in Christ since it launched.
The 24 hour online event started on noon on Tuesday. Furtick didn’t actually preach continually for 24 hours—a pastor must answer nature’s call and not just God’s. The time was punctuated with music and short films as well. Furtick kept himself going with Diet Coke and Starbucks. We don’t know if the product placement helped Coca Cola or Starbuck’s bottom line, but Furtick’s new book reached No. 28 on Amazon’s sales rankings on Wednesday.
Last week Brandon O’Brien wrote a post about celebrity conversions. When an actor or recording artist converts is it really a “big win” for God? But the evangelical captivation with celebrities goes well beyond pop icons. Furtick is the quintessential pastoral celebrity. He’s got a large, rapidly growing church. He’s young, hip, and a fashion chameleon with ever-changing clothes and hair. He’s a powerful communicator with self-confidence wafting from him like pheromones. And he’s savvy enough to utilize media and technology to inflate his brand far beyond the confines of Charlotte, North Carolina.
But Furtick’s 24 hour preaching marathon, and the existence of celebrity pastors in general, raises a question: When did ministry become a vehicle for marketing?
I’m at a loss for how to wrap up this post. I’d simply like to hear your reactions to the news. Does this bother you? Are you indifferent? Is Furtick simply doing what many other pastors do but in a more effective way? And when does ministry devolve into marketing in God's name?
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 27, 2010 | Comments (32) | TrackBack
September 24, 2010
Ur Cartoon: Anglican Ignorance
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 24, 2010 | Comments (6) | TrackBack
September 22, 2010
Augustine on Celebrity Conversions
Is there such a thing as a “big win” for God?
One of the constant pleasures of studying Christian history is being reminded again and again that Qoheleth was right: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
American Christians have a complicated relationship with celebrities. On the one hand, we have a tendency to blame Hollywood and rock music for corrupting our youth. On the other, there are few things we like more than discovering that one of these entertainment insiders is a Believer. What could be more exciting than finding out we have a “secret agent” on the inside?
Well, it turns out this uneasy relationship with the famous is nothing new. In his Confessions (written around 397 AD), Augustine tells the story of a fellow named Victorinus, a notable Roman philosopher and rhetorician who becomes a Christian (Book 8, chapter 2). Victorinus was famous—so famous, in fact, that the Romans erected a statue of him in the Forum.
After years of educating senators and wooing the public, Victorinus became a Christian. When he finally decided to make his conversion public and join the church in Rome, the Christians there went berserk. Here joining the church was a real live celebrity:
Finally, when the hour arrived for him to make a public profession of faith…everyone, as they recognized him, whispered his name one to the other, in tones of jubilation. Who was there among them that did not know him? And a low murmur ran through the mouths of all the rejoicing multitude: “Victorinus! Victorinus!” There was a sudden burst of exaltation at the sight of him…and they received him with loving and joyful hands.
Augustine spends the next couple chapters trying to decide whether it’s appropriate that the congregation rejoiced more when Victorinus became a Christian than they did when normal folk—like you and me—joined the flock. It’s not as if Victorinus were the worst of sinners: “Are there not many men who, out of a deeper pit of darkness than that of Victorinus, return to thee…?” Sure. But they don’t get the same attention, for “if [the converts] are less well-known, even those who know them rejoice less for them.” This didn’t settle well with Augustine.
In the end, though, Augustine decides that—in this case, at least—the church’s enthusiasm was justified. For Augustine, the issue was influence. Before, the famous philosopher was using his power for evil (so to speak); now that he had become a Christian, he had the opportunity to use it for good.
The more, therefore, the world prized the heart of Victorinus (which the devil had held in an impregnable stronghold) and the tongue of Victorinus (that sharp, strong weapon with which the devil had slain so many), all the more exultantly should Thy sons rejoice because our King hath bound the strong man, and they saw his vessels taken from him and cleansed, and made fit for thy honor and “profitable to the Lord for every good work.”
In other words, Augustine thought Victorinus was a “big win”—if not for God, then at least for the church. What I find interesting is Augustine’s justification. He feels free to celebrate the conversion of this celebrity not because he is famous, but because he is influential. The distinction is important. Sometimes I suspect that the reason we rejoice when celebrities convert (or we find out that a certain celebrity is a Christian. These are different issues, I know, but it’s tempting to talk about them together) is because we hope their identification with the faith will validate us in some way. It’s as if celebrity Christians have a certain PR value.
Perhaps there should be a special celebration when a notable person becomes a Christian, if we suspect they will use their special influence for the kingdom’s sake. I think of Anne Rice, for example. For years she used her considerable writing talents to undermine the Christian faith. Since her conversion, she has put those talents in the Lord’s service by writing powerful novels about the life of Christ. Maybe she is our Victorinus.
For the record, I’m not sure I agree with Augustine on this point. Just because a person is influential before their conversion doesn’t mean they will continue to be afterward. More importantly, history is full of people who were veritable nobodies before they met the Living Savior and yet became invaluable servants in the Lord’s service. Take the apostles, for example. Before they met Jesus, they were fisherman. Afterward, they became messengers of the gospel, propagators of the world’s largest religion. Maybe instead of rejoicing specially for the influential who begin to use their power for good, we should reserve special celebration for those whom God calls out of obscurity to be his special messengers.
Either way, I’m curious to hear what y’all think about celebrity conversions. Any thoughts? Let’s hear them.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 22, 2010 | Comments (36) | TrackBack
September 20, 2010
Ending Age-Segmented Worship
Is age-segmentation the same as racial segregation?
Last month Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale ended its model of offering multiple worship services designed to appeal to different ages, likes, and styles. Tullian Tchividjian, senior pastor and a contributing editor to Leadership Journal, said "The best way a church can demonstrate unifying power of the Gospel before our very segregated world is to maintain a community that transcends cultural barriers," Tchividjian said in a sermon last month. "The church should be the one institution, the one community – this countercultural community – in our world that breaks barriers down."
An article at The Christian Post reports:
[Tchividjian] listed some of the drawbacks of segregated worship. In a traditional worship service, the church inadvertently communicates that God was more active in the past that He is in the present, he said. In a contemporary service, the church communicates that God is more active in the present than He was in the past. But a church must communicate God's "timeless activity," he indicated. The megachurch pastor also said he doesn't view separate worship services by style or age as any different from racial segregation, except that it's more subtle.
LJ has been reporting on the trend away from age-segmented ministries and worship in recent years, but its difficult to know if this trend has staying power. It seems that Coral Ridge is going in this direction for philosophical and theological reasons and not merely pragmatic. Time will tell if they stay the course.
What do you think about the decision? And what do you think will happen if the church grows and requires more space- is multiple services the only answer?
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 20, 2010 | Comments (13) | TrackBack
September 17, 2010
Ur Video: Why Did Francis Chan Leave?
Driscoll says Chan is "coo-coo for Coco Puffs" for leaving his church. Is he right?
Earlier this year we ran an interview with Francis Chan in Leadership journal about the significant shifts he's led at his church in Simi Valley, California. Just as that issue of LJ when to print word leaked that Chan had resigned from his role as senior pastor. Usually news of a sudden resignation is quickly followed by rumors of a scandal. Not so with Chan. But that left everyone wondering--why did he leave?
This video features Joshua Harris, Mark Driscoll, and Francis Chan. In it Driscoll (true to his reputation) asks what many have been thinking but unwilling to say. He wants to know why Chan decided to leave a thriving church.
What do you think of Chan's response? Would have left if you were in his shoes?
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 17, 2010 | Comments (43) | TrackBack
September 15, 2010
What Did Jesus Mean by "Judge Not"?
Nine out of ten young people say Christians are judgmental, but are they right?
What did Jesus mean when he said, “Judge not, and you will not be judged.” It’s one of the most commonly quoted verses from the bible (Luke 6:37). Many of us, and not merely politicians, invoke the verse as a first defense when accused of wrong. It is also a favorite stone thrown by those outside the church to accuse Christians of hypocrisy.
In 2007 a book was published called UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity. It’s based on research done among non-Christian 20-somethings. One of their core findings was that nearly nine out of ten young people view Christians as “judgmental.” And given the prohibition against judging issued by Jesus, this would mean most people view Christians as hypocrites.
Given these findings, it’s pretty important that both Christians and non-Christians understand what Jesus means when he says “judge not.” The key is recognizing that the word judge can be used in two different ways in the New Testament. Sometimes judge is used to mean “judge between things,” to differentiate, or discern. In this case we judge between right and wrong, good and evil, righteous and unrighteous.
But this kind of judging-the act of discernment-is not what Jesus is forbidding. In fact throughout the Bible we are commanded to discern. In the same chapter of Luke 6 and in the very same discourse as the famous “judge not” statement, Jesus talks about having the discernment to see the difference between good people and evil people (Luke 6:43-45). He compares them to trees. Good trees, he says, produce good fruit and bad trees produce bad fruit. The call to differentiate good from evil is to judge, to discern, correctly.
This is often what get’s Christians into hot water in our uber-tolerant and increasingly diverse culture. When a Christian labels something as “wrong” or “evil” they are often pounced upon as being judgmental and out of step with Jesus. Sometimes this is the case, as I will discuss below, but very often the accusation is the result of a culture that no longer understands the difference between discernment and condemnation.
F.F. Bruce, a New Testament scholar, explains the linguistic dilemma this way:
“Judgment is an ambiguous word, in Greek as in English: it may mean exercising a proper discernment, or it may mean sitting in judgment on people (or even condemning them).”
It is this second definition, to condemn, that Jesus forbids and he makes that clear when the whole sentence in Luke 6 is read: “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned.” Jesus is saying the same thing in two ways-a common rabbinical device at the time.
He’s calling us to not condemn people, to not pass final judgment and declare them irretrievably guilty. This is an incredibly important idea if you understand the context in which Jesus was speaking. The entire culture of his day was predicated on the notion that some people were acceptable and others were not. And the way you defined yourself, your identity and place in the world, was by comparing and contrasting yourself with others.
So, for example, at that time Jews saw themselves as inherently better or more acceptable to God then non-Jews. They commonly referred to gentiles (non-Jews) as “dogs.” And many Romans had equally dismissive views of the Jews. And these judgments continued even within the each community. Rich people were seen as more blessed and acceptable to God than poor people. The healthy were seen as righteous, and those with diseases or disabilities were judged to be sinners receiving their due.
This is the judgment that Jesus says is absolutely wrong. When we judge/condemn someone we are declaring that they have no value; no worth-that they do not matter to us or God. And we do this as a means of elevating ourselves. The more people pushed below us, the higher in value we must be. Greg Boyd captures the problem of judging really well. He says: “You can’t love and judge at the same time,” because “It’s impossible to ascribe unsurpassable worth to others when you’re using others to ascribe worth to yourself.”
This is the problem Jesus is addressing-the idea that our worth requires someone else’s condemnation.
Of course this wasn’t just a problem in 1st century Judea. Consider what Martin Luther King Jr. said in one of his sermons. He describes why segregation (a form of exclusion and judgment) is so wrong:
Segregation is not only inconvenient-that isn’t what makes it wrong. Segregation is not only sociologically untenable-that isn’t what makes it wrong. Segregation is not only politically and economically unsound-that is not what makes it wrong. Ultimately, segregation is morally wrong and sinful. … “It’s wrong because it substitutes an ‘I-It’ relationship for the ‘I-Thou’ relationship and relegates persons to the status of things.
Judgment causes us to see the other not as a person, but as a thing-as less human and therefore less valuable. And once we do that to a person, or a group of people, it opens the door to all kinds of terrible evil-segregation, injustice, abuse, even genocide. Jesus is warning us about excluding anyone, or seeing ourselves or our group as inherently better than any other. We may disagree and discern another person or group to be wrong-but when that discernment causes us to value another person or group less, then we’ve crossed the line into judgment, condemnation, and exclusion.
Obviously there are, and always will be, people and groups that we disagree with theologically, socially, or politically. But we seem to cross that line between discernment and judgment so easily today. In present political rhetoric, or in descriptions of other faiths and nationalities, we quickly devalue or write off “those people” as less valuable. We exclude them from the status that we feel privileged alone to occupy.
This seems to be the accepted posture on many political television and radio programs. Sometimes these talk show hosts speak about “liberals” as if they’re demonic. Of course many liberal blogs caricature conservatives in equally disturbing ways. If you have strong political views, that’s just fine. Defend your views, disagree with others, engage on the level of ideas-but when we start to condemn those who disagree with our politics, when we see them as intrinsically interferer, we enter dangerous and decidedly unchristian territory.
I wonder what constant exposure to this kind of rhetoric-from either side of the political spectrum-does to our souls. How it can warp our perception of other people and groups. If you engage these programs regularly, I would encourage you to use discernment (the good kind of judgment) to determine whether constantly exposing yourself to that kind of vitriol is helping you love others. Or, is it teaching you to judge and condemn in order to elevate your own sense of worth and rightness.
When we see other people as wrong, not just about what they believe, but in their core identity as people-then it’s easy to convince ourselves that we don’t have to love them; we don’t have to serve them; we don’t have to respect them. This exclusion and condemnation of others fuels so much of what’s broken in our world today. It’s what convinces one group to kill another; or one person to abuse another.
But Jesus says, not so with you. Not among my people. The Christian is never to judge, never condemn, never exclude, never to see anyone as without value or dignity-even the person we disagree with most. To quote Greg Boyd again, “The Christian’s job is to agree with God that every person you meet was worth Jesus dying for.” We cannot ascribe that kind of value and dignity to a person and condemn them as worthless at the same time. It’s just not possible.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 15, 2010 | Comments (14) | TrackBack
September 13, 2010
One Church, Many Congregations
How a group of pastors is reaching a region as Christ Together.
In late April 2010, more than 50 pastors crowded into a hotel conference room in Hampton Roads, Virginia. The event organizers, a small group of pastors from Chicagoland, were expecting 25 colleagues to turn out for the meeting. But when news got out about their visit, area pastors got excited. Scott Chapman, pastor of a multi-site church called The Chapel in Chicago's northern suburbs and president of the Christ Together network, shared with the Virginia pastors how Christ Together is helping churches across denominational and ethnic lines unite in service and evangelism to carry the gospel into their neighborhoods. He described a "sustained Christ awakening" that includes churches working together as the One Body of Christ to restore the reputation of Jesus in their area.
After the meeting, Scott Gifford, national director of Christ Together, attended two worship services that convinced him that this vision was taking root in Virginia.
The first was a Saturday night worship event in a predominately African-American Cornerstone Assembly of God in Hampton, Virginia. During the service, Pastor Gerard Duff preached from the Christ Together brochure.
The next morning, at Church of the Ascension in Virginia Beach, Virginia, during Father Jim Park's homily, the 71-year-old priest pulled out the same brochure and described the movement to his congregation.
"I was stirred by that," says Gifford. Now these two churches are leading other area churches in an effort to spread the vision for collaborative ministry in their city.
Becoming Christ Together
This activity in Virginia signals the expansion of a network of pastors called Christ Together, which began meeting informally in the Chicago suburbs almost a decade ago. Scott Chapman has been part of this group from the beginning, when he began to feel his church was called to make a greater impact among its neighboring communities.
Around 2002, Chapman explains, "The Chapel began to understand that we were supposed to live like Jesus: to go into our community, feed the hungry, comfort the hurting, and lead the lost back to him. In other words, we were not called to be a church in our community so much as to be a church for our community." The trouble was, the church quickly became overwhelmed by the need they encountered. With 6,000 people meeting in several locations, The Chapel is a large church with substantial resources. But it wasn't enough. Chapman soon realized that "no one church, no matter how large and influential, can reach their community alone." To truly reach the entire city with the Good News, it would take more than one church. It would take the Church.
As Chapman became increasingly aware of The Chapel's limitations, he began sharing his concerns with other area pastors. To his surprise, he found many of his colleagues were coming to similar conclusions. Together they wondered, What if instead of viewing ourselves as individual churches, we started thinking of ourselves as part of a mosaic that makes up the one Church of Christ in Chicago? To begin answering that question, a group of about a dozen pastors from Lake County, Illinois, began meeting together for prayer in order to seek God's vision for their area, moving slowly toward collaborative ministry. The network grew organically.
Christ Together pastors partnered with a county school district to rehab an older school building, replacing the roof and floors and installing new plumbing and HVAC systems. Other area pastors began to take note of the synergy some of their colleagues were experiencing. Soon there were nearly 80 local pastors committed to working together. By 2004 the movement had grown too large to be maintained by volunteers and full-time pastors alone.
Continue reading the full article at LeadershipJournal.net.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 13, 2010 | Comments (4) | TrackBack
September 10, 2010
Ur Video: Skye Jethani from "The Nines"
Are we inoculating people to the gospel by talking more about living FOR God rather than WITH him?
Yesterday Leadership Network hosted their very popular online conference "The Nines." 6 minute videos ran all day featuring church leaders discussing "game changing" insights. Skye Jethani, senior editor of Leadership Journal and Out of Ur, used his 6 minutes to highlight a turning point in his ministry when he realized much of what we do "inoculates" people to the gospel because we emphasize living FOR God rather than living WITH him.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 10, 2010 | Comments (6) | TrackBack
September 9, 2010
The Dangerous Pursuit of "Cool" (Part 2)
There is an alternative to being cool...the cultivation of authentic taste.
Read part 1 of Brett McCracken's post.
Perhaps pastors and church leaders should focus their energies more on understanding and valuing culture for itself instead of always trying to use it to bolster their church's insider credibility, suggests James Harleman, a pastor at Seattle's Mars Hill Church:
Instead of trying to be cool, we should seek out and support the places in culture that we believe are hitting the nail on the head. We need to re-train our minds in how we engage culture. Why do we listen to the music that we do? Why do we like the films that we like? Rather than force ourselves to like what is cool, we should seek to understand better why we like what we like. Be authentic to what you like.
The problem with the wannabe cool, "inner ringer" mindset is that it blinds us to our true desires and true enjoyments, replacing them with an overarching desire—pervasive and deeply ingrained in humanity—to want to be in the know. But being “in the know” is never as fulfilling or respectable as being in tune with what we’re truly passionate about.
Pastors and Christian leaders need to focus on cultivating taste rather than trying to be relevant or cool. They should take a look at culture and figure out what it is they already like, becoming aware of what moves them, engages them, and why. Only after you’ve developed a sense of aesthetic appreciation and personal taste will you be able to escape the temptation to simply do or like the things the “cool kids” are doing and liking.
In his book, Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste, author Frank Burch Brown argues that cultivating taste is an essential aspect of Christian formation—that “certain dimensions of theological and spiritual maturity… cannot be attained apart from cultivated aesthetic imagination and mature taste that rejoices in crossing the boundaries of the predictable and of conventional delights.”
Being cool is not a bad thing. Living authentically, loving things genuinely and passionately… this often ends up looking pretty cool. It’s only when one strives to be cool, when the end goal is cool as such, that there’s a problem.
If Christians are to be cool, it will not be because of focus groups, market research or strategic trend-spotting. It will not be a result of any cool handbooks or hip “how-tos.” Rather, it will be a result of a diligent cultivation of aesthetic taste and personal cultural appreciation, learning to love things not because they are cool, but because they are good.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 9, 2010 | Comments (9) | TrackBack
September 7, 2010
Ur Video: Dever and Wallis on Justice and the Gospel (Part 5)
Do we have a communal, and not merely an individual, responsibility to engage in mission and justice?
In the final installment of Skye Jethani's interview with Jim Wallis and Mark Dever, they discuss the role of local congregations in God's mission of reconciliation. Dever and Wallis agree that Americans are too individualistic and that Scripture calls for a communal witness of God's power and love. The two leaders disagree, however, on whether or not evangelicals should partner with mainline liberal churches.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 7, 2010 | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 3, 2010
The Real Threat of Pagan Christianity
Attempts to control God with our behaviors, prayers, and theology reveals how pagan the church can be.
This year I have begun making the transition from student to teacher by teaching an introductory course on World Religions at a local college (while I’m still taking doctoral classes myself). We’re a couple weeks into our journey, and earlier this week we talked about indigenous (“pagan”) religions. One aspect of pagan religions that strikes me is that the relationships between the adherents and their gods is most often manipulative. When the gods are happy, the rains come, the crops grow, people have babies, people stay healthy. When the gods are unhappy, the land is blighted by drought, famine, barrenness, and disease. In order to set things right, the people have to make sacrifices, perform rituals, or repeat incantations to appease the gods. The system is set up to control the power of the deities. (Forgive me: this is an oversimplification, but we don’t have a lot of space.)
Biblical Christianity is essentially the opposite: the relationship between God and humans is not based on rites, rituals, and incantations; it is not a religion of manipulation. Instead, the relationship between God and God’s people is based on covenant and, first and foremost, on God’s gracious desire to love us in Christ.
That’s easy to say. But I’m ashamed to say that I catch myself from time to time beginning to think about my personal relationship with God in pagan terms.
Here’s an example: My wife and I are nearly three years into a painful and spiritually disorienting struggle with infertility. “Delight yourself in the Lord,” says Psalm 37, “and he will give you the desires of your heart.” The one desire of our heart left unfilled at the moment is the blessing of children. So we have prayed fervently for the Lord’s favor.
In light of James’ teaching that the “prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective,” it has been easy for us to feel as if God is unhappy and is punishing us for something. Each of us at one time or another has thought, If we could just figure out what we’re doing wrong, we could fix it and then we’d get pregnant. We’ve been tempted to think that if we could just figure out how to please God enough, if we appeased his anger over some offense, whether real or imagined, that he’d finally behave the way we want him to. That’s pagan Christianity.
This impulse to manipulate God can show up in our preaching, too. I heard a preacher not long ago quote the passage from Proverbs, “Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when is old he will not depart from it.” This verse is a promise, the preacher said. If we raise our children in the faith, God has no choice but to honor his promise. If we do our part, God does his. Friends, anytime we start talking about our relationship with God in terms of what God must do in response to our words, service, or obedience, we’ve drifted into pagan Christianity.
Maybe that’s obvious. Maybe less obvious is the temptation to turn our doctrine into a means of controlling God and his interactions with us. It’s very easy for us to find safety in our doctrine, to begin to believe that because we know the right formulations and the proper ways of thinking about things, we can predict and even prescribe who will receive grace, and precisely how. In some churches (I’ve been in a few) people are told that in order to be sure that they are saved, they need to say the right words in the right order. We wouldn’t call them “magic words,” but we put our confidence in the procedure and in the soundness of our system. That’s paganism, like it or not. When we put our confidence in our human formulations regarding how God acts in the world, it’s easy to start thinking in terms of how we can be sure he’ll behave the way we need him to. Anything that hinders us from recognizing that God acts freely out of love for his creation is dangerous, pagan Christianity.
At the heart of all this, I think, is the matter of control. There are a few things in my life that I hope go a certain way: I want to have kids; when I do, I want them to be healthy. I want my career to be successful and my ministry fruitful. And it’s so easy for me to think that God will make those things happen—increase my tribe, expand my territory, and grow my church–—if I just do the right things. Biblical Christianity is trusting that God will make those things happen (or he won’t) not because of what I do, but because of his love for me in Christ. And that’s something I can’t manipulate.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 3, 2010 | Comments (26) | TrackBack
September 1, 2010
The Dangerous Pursuit of "Cool"
Why are evangelical pastors relentlessly seeking to be cultural insiders?
At various times in my evangelical youth group upbringing, I remember looking at youth pastors or church leaders and feeling either endeared (by how nerdy and yet believable they were) or repulsed (by how phony their attempts to be “culturally relevant” often seemed). Looking back, it’s very clear to me that the teachers and leaders I most respected and learned from were not the ones who were trying to be “cool,” but rather the ones who were honest about who they were and willing to learn about who I was.
But I don’t begrudge any youth pastor for trying to be cool. We all try to be cool. We all want to be insiders rather than outsiders. We want to be “in the know” rather than “out of the loop.” It’s a natural human tendency, as basic as our drive to want love or to conquer something. And because the temptation is so constant, it’s easy to take this pursuit-of-cool mindset for granted and not see it for the negative, does-more-harm-than-good endeavor that it often is.
In his lecture "The Inner Ring," delivered to university students in 1944, C.S. Lewis described this pursuit of cool as being the desire to be in the “inner ring.” He spoke about the dangers of letting ourselves fall prey to the allure of the "inner ring" for the sake of being an insider, noting that "in many men's lives at all periods between infancy and extreme old age, one of the most dominant elements is the desire to be inside the local Ring and the terror of being left outside."
It's not that what's inside of inner rings is necessarily bad, Lewis is careful to point out. Rather, the problem is that the inner ring desire is often not as much for the good things that made the inner ring cool in the first place, but rather for the "delicious sense of secret intimacy" that comes with being on the inside.
Unfortunately, this motivation—to be an "inner ringer"—is widespread in the evangelical church today. So many pastors, youth pastors, and church leaders are terrified of being excluded or left behind. They want to be relevant. Do they have the right music on their iPods? Do they keep up with shows like Mad Men? Do they own a pair of Clarks Desert Boots? It’s so often just a game of catch up, of frantically maneuvering to be in the inner rings of culture and fashion rather than the dreaded periphery, where no 15-year-old churchgoer would ever be attracted, right?
Are you a wannabe cool pastor, reading all the right magazines and resources to stay up on the latest trends, or are you truly seeking to understand and appreciate what makes trends trendy in the first place? Churches today that are developing arts or film ministries, for example, should ask themselves: Do they really value the arts and film for their own sake? Or is it mostly a means to a "relevant church" end?
In McCracken's second post, coming soon, he outlines the difference between cultivating authentic taste rather then mimicking what's cool.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 1, 2010 | Comments (25) | TrackBack
