March 1, 2010

Mark Driscoll: Avatar "Most Satanic Movie I've Ever Seen"

Move over Rob Bell--Mark Driscoll has a new nemesis: Avatar. The blockbuster movie has been condemned by the pugnacious preacher as "demonic paganism" for it's portrayal of a "false Jesus" and a "false heaven." Driscoll said, "That any Christian could watch that without seeing the overt demonism is beyond me." He also blasts Christianity Today's (Out of Ur's parent company) review of Avatar.

Our colleague at CT Movies, Mark Moring, has reported on Driscoll's rant against the film, and he's summarized responses from thoughtful Christian bloggers. You should check out his post.

Do you think Driscoll's characterization of the film is accurate, or is he guilty of poor cultural exegesis? Should we be warning Christians about the demonic power behind the blue animists on the fictional planet of Pandora, or is this just another example of Christians fighting the wrong battles?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 1, 2010 | Comments (50) | TrackBack

February 26, 2010

A Christian Sexual Alternative?

by David Swanson

The title caught my eye: “Reverend reconciles sex and religion.” Was another church challenging married couples to make time for sexual intimacy for seven days straight? A pastor making headlines for an edgy sermon about the goodness of sex? A review of the latest book from a Christian relationship expert with new statistics about Christians’ sex lives?

Actually, the article was much less predictable than any of my guesses. The story’s focus, Debra Haffner, has the distinction of being both a reverend and a sexologist who believes her two professions “offer a unique insight into modern sexuality.” The Revered Haffner—who, by the way, won’t marry people who are virgins—thinks it necessary for “conservative religious leaders to reform their doctrines to fit modern times.” Such a shift includes focusing on the “quality of relationships” rather than on the morality of sexual practices.

As someone who falls within Haffner’s “conservative religious leader” category, it’s tempting to write her off. There’s little new in her claim that our sexual ethics need updating for a new day. Her reading of the Bible (“Genesis is full of affirmations of humans as sexual beings”) is certainly culturally bound and would likely confuse the Bible’s early interpreters. Frankly, it’s hard for me to take seriously any expert who doesn’t strongly consider the historic claims and traditions of the Church.

That’s why I also have trouble with much of the teaching and preaching about sexuality that originates closer to home.

The ways those of us with more traditional interpretations of the Bible interact with this subject aren’t much more helpful. Is our language any less culturally bound than Haffner’s? What about our theology and methodology?

For example, at a conference for church leaders I listened to a pastor tout his congregation’s recent advertising campaign. To promote a sermon series about sex, the church mass-mailed glossy postcards and purchased billboards, each with a suggestive bedroom photo. Acknowledging the complaints the church received from some in their town, the pastor said something to the effect of, “We’re willing to risk any method to get people to church on Sunday.”

And we’re probably all familiar with the stories of pastors who urged the married couples in their churches to have sex for multiple days in a row. With clever branding—“Seven Days of Sex” and “The Thirty Day Sex Challenge”—these campaigns informed the surrounding culture that Christians have sex, too. (Though they may have communicated that Christians need their pastor to remind them to have sex.) Through clever marketing, these churches attempted to show their relevancy while shedding any prudish reputation.

The Reverend/Sexologists and Pastor/Marketers are more closely related than they’d like to admit. In discussing and preaching about sexuality they both borrow from the enlightened and glitzy present while neglecting the alternative kingdom proclaimed by saints past. Such a move may enthrall for a time, but always leaves us hungry for something substantially different.

Last year my wife and I spoke about sexuality to a Christian fellowship at a nearby university. Our talk that night centered on one question: How does the Gospel of Jesus transform the way we think about sexuality? In other words, does the fact that Jesus was crucified and resurrected have any bearing on how we view the sexuality of others and ourselves? By evening’s end I was both hopeful and discouraged. Hopeful because we watched light bulbs turning on as students encountered a distinct way to interact with the complexities of sexuality on campus. As those pursued by God, hidden in Christ, and filled with the Holy Spirit, these young women and men have access to a Gospel that transcends the culturally captive methods and language of Reverend/Sexologists and Pastor/Marketers.

The experience also left me discouraged. In a room of bright college students, many who had been raised in the church, there was a palpable sense of frustration and helplessness at the prospect of experiencing a Christian sexual ethic. Why is this? Have Christian leaders neglected the counter-intuitive Gospel implications for our sexuality in order to portray a Christianity that is more culturally acceptable? While many of us would disagree with the Reverend Haffner’s theology, I’m not sure we’re offering a more genuinely liberating alternative.

For all our talk about sex, I wonder if we have forgotten the only distinct and life-giving thing we have to say on the subject: Jesus changes everything. As one student put it at the close of our evening, “This is really hard stuff….but it’s also really good news.” When it comes to the complexities of sexuality we don’t need more sexologists or marketers. We could, however, use more pastors and leaders willing to echo this student’s insight. The Gospel of Jesus is really hard and really good and offers entirely new ways to consider the mysteries and joys of our sexuality.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 26, 2010 | Comments (24) | TrackBack

October 14, 2009

The Hansen Report: Calling Out Counterfeit Gods

by Collin Hansen

There is nothing like a recession to put Americans in a reflective mood. Unemployment and a devalued stock market have led many to consider whether money is the pre-eminent form of American idolatry. New York Times columnist David Brooks has called for a new culture war, a “crusade for economic self-restraint” in a self-indulgent age. Adam Sternbergh wonders whether thrift is a virtue that can be developed or a trait that must be inherited. ABC’s Nightline invited Mark Driscoll to discuss the allure of celebrity and corporate idolatry. And Tim Keller has turned his attention to rooting out idolatry with his latest book, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters.

For Keller an idol is “anything more important to you than God, anything which absorbs your heart and imagination more than God, anything you seek to give you what only God can give.” Elaborating on the book’s title, Keller writes that a “counterfeit god is anything so central and essential to your life, that, should you lose it, your life would feel hardly worth living.” What does Keller have in mind? Well, everything: family, children, career, earning money, achievement, social status, relationships, beauty, brains, morality, political or social activism—even effective Christian ministry.

To make his point, Keller interweaves biblical stories with cultural discernment and illustrations drawn from his counseling ministry. He evokes deep emotion and insight from the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham recognized his debt of sin before the holy God, Keller explains, yet trusted in that same God of grace, so he could sacrifice his idol with the expectation that God would somehow keep his promise (Gen. 17:19). Keller ends his account of this story with a Christological interpretation. “The only way that God can be both ‘just’ (demanding payment of our debt of sin) and ‘justifier’ (providing salvation and grace) is because years later another Father went up another ‘mount’ called Calvary with his firstborn and offered him there for us all.”

In his chapter “Love Is Not All You Need,” Keller concentrates on Leah rather than her husband, Jacob, and better-known sister and rival, Rachel (Gen. 29–33). This subtle but significant shift recalls Keller’s counter-intuitive focus on the older brother in his last book, The Prodigal God. Once again Keller connects Leah to Christ. Leah gave birth to Judah, patriarch of Jesus’ tribe.

“God had come to the girl that nobody wanted, the unloved, and made her the mother of Jesus,” Keller writes. “Salvation came into the world, not through beautiful Rachel, but through the unwanted one, the unloved one.”

Turning to money, Keller explains the difference between surface and deep idols. Deep idols seek fulfillment through their public manifestation, surface idols. Deep idols can’t be removed. They can only be replaced, and only Christ can ultimately satisfy. Christ replaces deep idols when we consider his costly grace, how he poured himself out for the world. Keller offers several suggestions for rooting out idolatry. Simply identifying the idols is not enough. Only a lifestyle of worship brings transformation.

“Jesus must become more beautiful to your imagination, more attractive to your heart, than your idol,” Keller says. “If you uproot the idol and fail to ‘plant’ the love of Christ in its place, the idol will grow back.”

Counterfeit Gods offers much insight for shepherding local churches. Keller argues that Christians cannot understand themselves or their culture unless they discern the counterfeit gods. Keller’s tests for idolatry could be used personally or passed along in counseling sessions: (1) What do you daydream about? (2) How do you spend your money? (3) How do you respond when your prayers aren’t answered and your hopes are dashed?

Keller offers examples of what these tests might reveal about pastor’s idols.

“Another form of idolatry within religious communities turns spiritual gifts and ministry success into a counterfeit god,” Keller writes. “Even ministers who believe with the mind that ‘I am only saved by grace’ can come to feel in their heart their standing with God depends largely on how many lives they are changing.”

But ministry success wasn’t Jonah’s problem. In fact, the positive response to his preaching in Nineveh was the source of despair for this proud Israelite. Keller treats the reluctant prophet in a prolonged case study. Jonah's plea for death in Jonah 4:2–3 offers hope to idolatrous ministers today. Only someone saved by grace could have been courageous enough to give such a defamatory speech. Only someone whose love for God had replaced love of country could be so brutally honest. There is hope yet for all of us who bend the knee to counterfeit gods.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 14, 2009 | Comments (8) | TrackBack

October 7, 2009

Spiritual Formation and Counter-Formation

Darren Whitehead, teaching pastor and leader of Next Gen Ministries at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, teamed with his fellow Aussie Jon Tyson, lead pastor of Trinity Grace Church in New York City, to discuss spiritual formation--and counter-formation.

Darren is in a suburb at a megachurch; Jon is in a city at a church plant. "If we weren't friends, we'd be blogging against each other." But they've been friends for 20+ years, when they met at a camp in Australia.

Formation and Counter-Formation
The central purpose of the church is to form people into the image of Jesus. If you don't do that, it doesn't matter where you're located. Before you know how to form people, you have to know how the culture is forming people. Every culture forms you in its story. The American gods are the mall, the "temple of worship" at sporting events, and the story of "getting more with comfort." That's the defining narrative: you are special and you have the right to gain material blessings.

Romans was written to people who, everywhere they walked, saw graven idols of Caesar and passed the Colosseum and guilds where even to do your work involved worship of idols; what does Romans 12:1, 2 mean in that context?

Each cultural story is enshrined in institutions that take that story and enable that story to be embodied in the culture. e.g., colleges essentially give a secular mindset.

Then these become enshrined in mediums: e.g., you have a personal car, a personal cell phone, which enable individualism.

This is how you become you. Why did you wear the clothes you're wearing? They express your role in the story.

This is why Americans say they believe in God but are barely discernible from the culture. We need to reform people with the story of the gospel.

The Future & What We Imagine
My 3-year-old daughter dreamed about Elmo, the Sesame Street character. I realized she's dreaming about not her own characters but about someone else's. Her imagination has been "taken captive" by the world, in that sense.

If God gave people everything they ever dreamed of, what would that be? More money. Finding a great spouse. Good-looking children who are athletically gifted, academically strong, respectful. A nice home. A car that won't break down. People who don't go to church have the same dreams; have our imaginations been taken captive by the world?

In Ephesians 3, Paul is talking about "God doing immeasurably more than we can ask or imagine," and we don't know what to ask for or what to imagine. What to do?

The future of the church is in how willing we are to be counter-formed by the story of God, the full view of Gospel, so it unleashes in us "kingdom imagination."

Catalyst Leadership is a new digital magazine combining the wisdom of Leadership Journal with the innovation of the Catalyst Conference. Sign up for your free subscription today at CatalystLeadershipDigital.com/subscribe/

Posted by Kevin Miller at October 7, 2009 | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 21, 2009

Church Rater or Church Hater?

by Skye Jethani

I love rotten tomatoes. Not the produce—the website. RottenTomatoes.com is a movie ranking website that aggregates reviews from hundreds of journalists and movie reviewers, and then charts how “fresh” a film is based on the percentage of positive reviews. If a film only racks up 18 percent on the “Tomatometer,” I know it’s probably not worth my time or $20.

The collective wisdom of the masses may be a guide when selecting a movie, but what about when selecting a church? In a day when everything seems driven by polls, rankings, and consumer ratings, we shouldn’t be surprised that a new website has been created to rank churches based on customer—eh, congregational—feedback.

ChurchRater.com allows church seekers and members to rate and discuss their experiences at churches all across the country. It was created by Jim Henderson and Matt Casper—co-authors of Jim & Casper Go to Church. The popular book features conversations between Henderson, a pastor, and Casper, the atheist he paid to visit churches. Based on the success of the book, they’re now branching out by providing a service to both seekers and churches. But is ChurchRater.com just another slip down the slope of consumer Christianity?

From the press release:

ChurchRater "is a combination of things: it's 'Yelp' for churches where visitors can rate and discuss their experiences at church, but it's also a social network for church goers and seekers, too, a place where people can dialog about their faith and their lives," says Jim Henderson.

"It's been kind of a wild ride for me and Jim," says Casper. "We never expected the book to take off, but here it is a couple of years later and Jim and I have toured the country, spoken at dozens of churches and along the way discovered that we’ve become 'America's leading Church Raters!' And one thing we have learned is that talking about faith and church experiences is something people seem hungry to do, so we decided to kind of open the doors wide to our kind of dialog."

ChurchRater.com allows people to post ratings, comments and reviews on churches they visit. They will also be able to connect with other church seekers, and "best of all, they can find a church that’s close to their heart, not just their house," says Casper.

My brief exploration of the site uncovered a few concerns. For example, ChurchRater.com offers no criteria for determining what makes a church “good.” It is based solely on the opinions of those posting a ranking. Like RottenTomatoes.com, they seem to believe that the collective wisdom of the masses will reveal which churches are truly “5-star.” But should popularity really be the determining factor when looking for a church home?

Here’s another shortcoming. Each church’s ranking page offers no details about the church apart from its address, website URL, senior pastor, and denomination. To learn anything about the churches worship, doctrine, or philosophy of ministry one must read through the reviews. That’s not very helpful, IMHO.

But here’s the biggest problem I saw with ChurchRater.com—people are highly opinionated, and often nasty, about churches. For example, the thread of comments about Lakewood Church and Joel Osteen isn’t pretty. It’s a digital food fight with those denouncing Osteen as a prosperity preacher on one side and his defenders on the other.

The same can be said for other high-profile churches and pastors on ChurchRater.com. But you don’t have to be Osteen, Driscoll, or Hybels to get attention. Even small churches are airing their dirty laundry on the site. For example, this comes from the ranking of a church in Florida: “Years of attending and listening to a man that did not practice what he preached left me bitter.” The anonymous writer goes on to accuse the pastor of financial mismanagement, unfair firings, and other unethical behaviors. Whether true or not, is a public website the right place for Christians to be voicing these accusations? And who is responsible for guarding the site's comments to ensure they don't include slander? (Lawyers are probably circling the website like sharks.)

In the end, I’m not sure how helpful ChurchRater.com will be for those seeking a church. It may simply provide another forum for people to debate theology, vent their anger, and praise or pummel well known church leaders.

If there’s an upside, it may be that Jim and Casper have plans to allow followers of other faiths, and not merely Christians, to embarrass themselves and undermine their credibility online too. "We're even expanding to reach beyond Christianity,” says Casper, “with the upcoming launch of ShulRater, a site for the Jewish community."

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 21, 2009 | Comments (40) | TrackBack

September 11, 2009

Recession & Racial Integration

by Brandon O'Brien

A year or so ago, when gas prices were over $4 per gallon here in Chicagoland, something remarkable happened: people started driving the speed limit. Despite the threat of traffic tickets, commuters regularly speed by 20 miles per hour or more on our highways. But for that few months, people cruised at a modest and efficient 55. One of my colleagues put it this way: “What the law has been unable to do, high gas prices did overnight.”

I guess there are times when the promise of saving money gives us just the boost we need to do the right thing.

More recently, the current economic hard times have given a couple of churches in Louisville, Kentucky, a good excuse to do something they might not have done otherwise. St. Paul Missionary Baptist church, a predominantly African-American church, and the mostly white Shively Heights Baptist Church have merged.

Pastor Lincoln Bingham leads the lively and growing St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church. The church’s youth and senior adult ministries were flourishing, and as a result, they were running out of space. The congregation needed a larger facility to expand their mission. But they didn’t have the money to expand or relocate.

Meanwhile Bingham’s good friend Mark Payton was shepherding the mostly white, and mostly aging, Shively Heights Baptist Church. The congregation had plenty of space—maybe too much. With all their empty seats, they were worried about their future. Their mostly aging, mostly white congregation was having a hard time attracting young members. They, too, were strapped with a tight budget and dwindling funds. So Bingham’s St. Paul church family moved into Shively Heights’ facility, and the two congregations now worship together.

The financial benefits weren’t the pastors’ only motivation for the merger. The men have been good friends for 25 years. Payton says his friend Lincoln has preached in every church he’s served as pastor. But when both of their churches fell on hard times, it seemed like a prime opportunity for the congregations to make a radical move.

Pastor Bingham insists, “We are doing it because we feel like it's what God would have us to do.”

Congregants seem to agree. “We was kind of dull around here,” says one older woman from Shively Heights. “We needed something to lift us up.” They have certainly gotten that. The pastors share preaching responsibilities and the churches’ worship teams have blended. The new St. Paul Baptist Church at Shively Heights is a full and energetic place.

In that part of the United States, integrated worship is the exception, not the rule. But when an interviewer for NPR asked the pastors if they’ve met with any resistance, Pastor Payton said, “I think any time we try to do something for the glory of God you're going to have some resistance, but [we’ve had] very minimum resistance. All of my leadership from my Sunday school, from our active deacon body, all of them was 100 percent on board with this decision.” Pastor Bingham adds that they’ve received lots of positive feedback from area pastors, some of whom have suggested that they may follow suit and consider a similar merger in the future.

We’ve heard lots of talk in recent months about the hardships churches are facing amidst the current economic climate. Giving is down in places, because people have lost jobs. Churches have had to lay off staff and reduce programming. It would be easy to think of the recession primarily as curse for churches. But St. Paul Baptist Church at Shively Heights makes me think it might be a blessing in disguise. Budget shortages force us to reconsider our priorities; a shortfall gives us a great excuse to kill unnecessary programs and other initiatives. In the case of these two churches, the tough times encouraged two pastors to see where God was at work across town and consider cooperation for the Kingdom’s sake.

A congregant from St. Paul’s put the matter succinctly: “It’s God’s will,” she said. “Because if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t have happened.” She added, with perspective that can encourage all of us in these hard times, “It lets me know God is moving.”

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 11, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 8, 2009

Al Mohler Defends Obama...Sort of

Al Mohler, the outspoken president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written about the controversy surrounding President Barack Obama's address to school children today. Normally Out of Ur doesn't venture into the political fray, but in this case Mohler models a thoughtful and moderate response--one that might be helpful to other church leaders struggling to communicate with their congregations about the matter.

Here's an excerpt:

Much of the controversy is reckless, baseless, and plainly irrational. Some have called the speech an effort to recruit America's children into socialism. Others have argued that any presidential speech piped into classrooms is illegitimate. But a presidential speech to students is hardly unprecedented. This speech by this president has led to an unprecedented uproar.

At this level, the controversy is a national embarrassment. Conservatives must avoid jumping on every conspiracy theory and labeling every action by the Obama administration as sinister or socialist...

Furthermore, this controversy smacks of disrespect for the President and, by extension, disrespect for the presidency itself. Both fly in the face of Christian responsibility to pray for those in authority.

After reading President Obama's entire speech, Dr. Mohler concludes: "This message should be welcomed by America's parents, both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives."

However, Mohler doesn't place all of the blame for the controversy on conservatives. He believes the Obama administration's maneuvering and its stoking of Obama's iconic cultural power have led to the paranoia. Read Mohler's entire post on his blog.

In the end Mohler says:

Barack Obama is President of the United States. Christians must be the first to pray for this president and to model respect for the presidency, even when we must disagree with the President's policies and proposals. Given what this president intends to say tomorrow to America's students, count me as one who hopes many are listening. If even a few young hearts are encouraged, those moments will be worth all the controversy.

What do you think of the controversy? And how should pastors and church leaders direct their flocks?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 8, 2009 | Comments (17) | TrackBack

September 1, 2009

Ur Video: Drive-In Church

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 1, 2009 | Comments (13) | TrackBack

August 19, 2009

Skye Jethani: Generation of Sarcasm

by Skye Jethani

A poll conducted by Time has revealed that The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart is the most trusted news anchor in America. He beat Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, and Katie Couric. Walter Cronkite, having just entered his grave, must already be turning over in it. Stewart won with 44 percent of the vote. Brian Williams came in a distant second with 29 percent. See the results here.

Like many others of my generation, I enjoy The Daily Show. I find Jon Stewart to be intelligent and his irreverence is often refreshing, if occasionally too snarky or foul for my palate. Still, I wonder what it says about my generation when we vote someone like Stewart to be the most trusted voice in American news—especially when The Daily Show makes no claim of being a reputable journalistic enterprise.

When Stewart appeared on CNN’s Crossfire in 2004, an argument ensued with Tucker Carlson about The Daily Show’s lack of journalistic rigor. Stewart responded, “I didn’t realize that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their queues on integrity…. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?”

Indeed—what is wrong with us?

The popularity of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and The Onion reveals a core value of my generation. We thrive on sarcasm. It is our native tongue. Listen to a group of under 40s engaging in casual conversation. It’s nearly impossible for 30 seconds to elapse without a quip, a dig, or a dose of eye-rolling hyperbole. We especially like to cut down authorities—as Jon Stewart has perfected with his witty jabs at the mainstream news media and government leaders.

Sarcasm and irreverence are so popular that government officials clamor to get on The Daily Show to be mocked. They think they’ll be perceived as “good sports” for playing along, and somehow win the elusive support of sarcasm-soaked 18-35 year olds. (Silly politicians, has Rudy Giuliani’s SNL appearance in drag taught you nothing?) But they’re not alone. I have no quantifiable evidence, but my perception has been that more sarcasm is creeping into the church. I experience it more often at ministry conferences, in conversations with other church leaders, and without question on blogs. (Uh hum, are you listening, Url?)

My concern is not political integrity, the erosion of journalism in favor of amusement, or even ministry. My question is spiritual. Where does this deep reservoir of sarcasm come from? Why does it mark my generation the way a strong work ethic once marked the Greatest Generation or the way free-thinking branded the Boomers?

Phil Vischer, the creator of VeggieTales, gave a speech at Yale back in 2005 in which he unpacked the media values of our generation—the slow descent from our parents’ “dry, cocktail party wit of Johnny Carson,” to the “sarcasm and twisted humor” of David Letterman, and the emergence of the bottom-feeder humor that is “Beavis & Butthead” and “South Park.” In these shows, Vischer says, “we had found our voice. We were safe from the world, as long as everything was treated as a joke.” He continues:

Some folks believe Vietnam was the source of America’s modern cynicism. Others point to Watergate. But for me and for many others in my generation, the real root, I think, is much closer to home and much more personal. When we were very young, our parents broke their promises. Their promises to each other, and their promises to us. And millions of American kids in a very short period of time learned that the world isn’t a safe place; that there isn’t anyone who won’t let you down; that their hearts were much too fragile to leave exposed. And sarcasm, as CS Lewis put it, “builds up around a man the finest armor-plating… that I know.”

I agree with Vischer. I think the sarcasm of my generation is rooted in anger and fear. It is a socially acceptable defense mechanism; a way to vent the mountain of anger and fear we feel in a dangerous world where even the structures God has ordained for our safety (family, church, government) have failed to keep their promises.

We are the first generation born after the passage of no-fault-divorce. We are the product of broken homes.

We are the first generation born after Vietnam and Watergate. We are the product of a broken government.

We are the first generation born in the age of Consumer Christianity. We are the product of broken churches.

With no where to turn for safety, our fears ferment under the surface into anger. But this toxic brew cannot stay there. It must find a release. Some of us find very destructive ways to alleviate that pressure. The rest of us let it out by mocking things previous generations took seriously—government, work, family, relationships, leaders, and the future. We are a generation that believes nothing is sacred. And if nothing is sacred, everything becomes profane.

I’ve been much more aware of my own sarcasm lately. I’ve tried to keep it under control—especially in my preaching. (Have you noticed the way sarcasm laces even the sermons of our generation?) And I’m trying to be more reflective about where it’s coming from. Is it merely casual banter, or is there an angry truth, a hidden fear, behind that one-liner?

I don’t want to be a killjoy. I don’t believe all sarcasm is bad, and we even see biblical prophets and apostles using the rhetorical device from time to time. But given the latent anger and fear in our culture, is more sarcasm really helpful in the church? Or should we be doing more to unearth the fears and angers of our generation so that sarcasm might be pulled from our souls roots and all?

A few months ago I had the opportunity to interview Matt Chandler for a piece in the current issue of Leadership. He said something about spiritual growth that I won’t soon forget:

“We want our people to think beyond simply what’s right and wrong. We want them to fill their lives with the things that stir affections for Jesus Christ and, as best as they can, to walk away from things that rob those affections—even when they’re not immoral.”

A heavy diet of sarcasm, whether on television, the web, or even in church, may be what this generation is clamoring for, and it's not immoral, but it may also be robbing our affections for Christ. Rather then emulating the popularity of Jon Stewart, as leaders of the church let’s take up our spiritual calling to guide souls toward love rather than just levity.

As preachers of the Word, let’s put aside our impulse to be entertainers and heed our calling to nurture minds that dwell on “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, and whatever is commendable.”

As shepherds of God’s flock, let’s lead the effort to drain the stagnant reservoir of fear and anger that is polluting our generation by starting with the swamp in our own souls. And let’s pray for Living Waters to flow in the church once again.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 19, 2009 | Comments (26) | TrackBack

August 11, 2009

Ur Video: Chris Seay on Consumerism

Chris Seay is one of the featured speakers at the Story conference in October. Learn more and register for the event at www.storychicago.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 11, 2009 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 24, 2009

The Most Dangerous Place in America

The situations in Iran and North Korea continue to concern us and our government, but where is the most dangerous place in America?

New York City? Detroit? Baltimore? Chicago? Los Angeles?

Large cities such as these have received a lot of attention as havens of crime, disorder, and mayhem. Violent crimes and societal concerns seem common in our concrete jungles.

But what about cities like Irvine, California; Lake Forest, Illinois; Plano, Texas; and Ellicott City, Maryland?

Irvine, California, was given the title, "Safest City in America" (over 100,000 people) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on June 1, 2009. I would like to submit that suburbs just like this may actually be the most dangerous places in America.

The suburban enclaves - with their middle-class citizens and well- manicured lawns, gates and guards protecting their Orwellian lifestyle and toys, Starbucks a few minutes from each busy intersection, and some of the best schools in the country - may actually be the most dangerous places to live. We may not have the high murder counts or robberies that urban centers have, but I wonder if the suburbs have become breeding grounds for the accessible and shallow thrills of drugs and alcohol abuse, extravagant parties and proms, and mere facades of happiness and the American dream. Just ask your local city drug dealer about his primary consumers: suburban teenagers and college students.

I'm not a researcher, but my gut impression from my travels and interactions with youth in the major cities of the world, as well as in suburbs and rural communities, is that they are all equally dangerous, just in different ways.

The dangers of the suburbs entail the lack of imagination (where do you find real art museums, innovative music venues, and creative opportunities to explore nature?); materialism; greed; isolation behind cookie-cutter neighborhoods and homogeneous clubs and churches; boredom: apathy; fascination with the relevant more than the real; a love affair with popularity more than loving the poor; and a thirst for excitement superficially satisfied in the Friday night party. All this takes precedence over a dangerous ride with God on the frontlines of his movement.

Ironically, guess what consistently is the hottest selling type of music in the suburbs? Hip Hop! Check out this article from Wall Street Journal from June of 2005.

Why do you think Hip Hop is so popular among Suburban youth? Hip hop is a voice to which suburban kids want to relate. Perhaps some wannabe has some connection to reality through hip hop, while others envision radical change and revolution, inspired to be at the forefront of a new generation of leaders who will not remain silent. It's a type of music that breathes with the vibe of danger and rawness. Although you may not like the themes at times or the language, It's honest and from the soul.

My concern is that our children are missing out on one of the greatest moments to live in the history of humanity. These are the times of global shifts and crises and once-in-a-life time opportunities. Our generation and the next can be so focused on our own survival and satisfaction that we miss out on one of the wildest adventures. Hip hop music has become the voice of our youth. It describes a thirst for danger that is wild and out of control. It's filled with angst and pain. These elements are the seeds of revolution in the cities. My prayer is that the intrinsic frustration and boredom in the suburbs and rural cities of America will find its purpose in a radical revolution of love.

Perhaps instead of a one-week mission trip, the next generation will commit to a lifetime of roaming the earth in the power of the Holy Spirit such has never been seen before. Sure, our cities have been the focus of the church, but let's not forget the quiet suburbs - the current breeding ground of potential zealots who are looking for something more to awaken them out of their boredom.

In response to what I wrote above, my teammate, Dave Brubaker wrote:

The verse I love for this (if you want one) - Luke 12:13–21. It really could be about the suburbs. The guy is so rich, he's afforded the luxury of isolation. He's so alone in his gated community that when he needs financial council he has no one to confer with but himself (verse 17); he's so out of touch with the poor and needy, he can't think of a single person to share with when he's got extra. The only idea that comes to his mind is to make bigger barns (verse 18). Apparently God finds this so detestable, he kills the guy (verse 20) - the words "your life will be demanded from you" actually make up a financial term re: collecting a loan; in this case the "loan" that God is collecting is life.

Easy to judge this guy as a "fool," but the truth is he is awfully "successful" by suburban standards.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 24, 2009 | Comments (30) | TrackBack

July 20, 2009

Miss California and the Politics of Sexual Redemption

by David Fitch

I know this is little late, but for me, nothing illustrates the current state of the church's witness in regard to sexual issues in America better than the Ms. California/USA pageant episode a couple months ago. It was an embarrassing irruption of the Real that any follower of Christ has got to wince at (it's so embarrassing).

Here a woman prances before the media in a minuscule bikini (ironically designed by another ex-evangelical, Jessica Simpson), a woman who had ("sexually-enhancing") cosmetic surgery, who had been in a revealing photo shoot of some sort, and she is asked about her position on same sex unions. She responds by saying, "I think in my country, in my family, that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

The next day on the Today show, she said "I don't take back what I said." She added that she "had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God. It's not about being politically correct," she said. "For me, it's about being biblically correct." Using the "B" word - "biblical" - in front of the cameras makes her an evangelical stereotype. In the process she becomes a symbol of evangelicalism's lack of political (communal) credibility to witness to the gay/lesbian populations.

By saying what she said about gay unions moments after the swimsuit competition, Ms. California was basically telling the world, "We do the same things, but for gay people it's sin. Lust is good, objectifying my body is normal, the fulfillment of all desire is good." Then, on the other hand, she says to the gay and lesbian world, "But you can't do any of this, because you're different."

Such an episode reveals the inner contradiction of our own sexual life and politics as evangelicals. It reveals how pointing out someone else's sin allows us to ignore the empty frivolity of our own sexual lives. We do not need to fess up that our own sexual habits are so badly skewed, our desires so poorly oriented. We can keep ignoring the emptiness of our own sexual sanctification by displacing our lack of "enjoyment" onto "the others." This has become the nature of our witness in society.

I believe the gay, lesbian, bi and transsexual groups pose the defining test case of the decade for the witness of the church in the new post-Christendom contexts of North America. And we evangelicals are failing miserably. The broader evangelical church of my heritage has, generally speaking, not been capable of speaking (any kind of) truth into the sexual lives of anyone - nevermind the gay/lesbian community. We have been hitherto incapable (theologically) of embodying the sexual redemption made possible in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And until we get our own communities to line up with the sexual redemption in Christ, to the gay community we look like empty, judgmental, duplicitous fools who see everyone else as thieves stealing away our enjoyment.

We need to ask what kind of people we should be in order to welcome gay and lesbian people into the redemptive and healing salvation of God in Christ for sexuality. In my opinion, most evangelicals date and marry much like the rest of society, where an unexamined sexualized attraction is a guiding factor. We teach that lust before marriage is bad, yet lust after marriage is good (implicitly). In our practice of salvation, there is no formation of desire to be integrated and developed into a narrative of self-giving love and commitment to mutuality, self giving and procreation over time in marriage. Without a communal witness of love and redemptive sexual healing, our words are empty. And so we protest same sex marriage or institute some kind of legislative action. In so doing we reveal our fear for our children and our insecurity in our own sexual formation practices within our church communities.

I believe we need to become the kind of community that

a.) does not indulge hyper romanticist notions of sexuality that objectifies sexual attraction as the basis of heterosexual marriage,

b.) quits disembodying sexuality in the way we do whenever we make the Bible into moral propositions that should be enforced instead of a narrative world to be shaped and directed towards so as to live into.

c.) worships in a way that orders desires towards God and away from narcissism (feel-good pep-rallies), for any other kind of worship cannot train us out of our narcissistic obsessions with sex.

d.) stops acting like heterosexual marriage and sex itself are absolutely essential for a fulfilling Christian life. We should elevate celibacy/singleness as a vocation, testifying that sexual drive and all desire needs to be sub-ordered to God's purpose and mission for anything remotely fulfilling to take place in our lives.

e.) loves and nurtures the hurting souls and bruised lost ones who seriously desire to be shown another way but are too consumed at this moment to see anything else.

I've assumed a lot of things in this rant, including stuff in moral theology (hoping it was just intuitive). Sorry! For those who need to know, I do not affirm gay/lesbian sexual practice as normative for the Christian church. This makes communal, embodied, incarnational witness to our gay neighbors all the more indispensable. There's no way I could clarify all my positions concerning gay, lesbian sexuality etc. So I welcome questions and discussion.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 20, 2009 | Comments (22) | TrackBack

July 15, 2009

Beyond "Us versus Them"

When Andrew Marin's three best friends "came out" to him in three consecutive months, the self-proclaimed "Bible-banging homophobe" wanted desperately to understand his friends' experience. So he moved to Boystown, a Chicago neighborhood populated primarily by GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) folks. He founded The Marin Foundation in 2003, to build bridges between the GLBT and Christian communities. Leadership assistant editor Brandon O'Brien asked Andrew what his experience might mean for the local church.

Why should the average pastor care about improving the conversation between his or her church and the GLBT community?

We are currently running the largest national scientific research study ever conducted about in the GLBT community. Preliminary data reveals a statistic that stands out above all the others: eighty-six percent of the GLBT community was raised in a denominationally based religion. This tells me that the Christian community's mindset about gays and lesbians is often flawed. It's not an "us versus them" issue; it's actually "us versus us." Up to age 18, 86 percent of the GLBT community is in our churches, sharing our pews. And who knows how many future GLBT people are still in the "closet." We need to be asking, How can the church be a safe place for them to talk about their struggles and attractions.

Where is the best place for the church to address this issue?

The best way to keep these young people in the church is to address the issues on the home-front. Parents must learn how to talk about same-sex attraction and homosexuality and how to live in the tension that creates as a representative of Jesus Christ in their kids' lives.

The next best person is the youth pastor. I know hundreds of "out-and-proud" GLBT adults who wish they had felt safe enough to tell their youth pastor about the most important issue in their lives - their same-sex attractions.

Read the entire interview with Andrew Marin in this month's issue of our digital magazine, Catalyst Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 15, 2009 | Comments (16) | TrackBack

June 25, 2009

Ur Video: Consumerism and Church Buildings

Skye Jethani's new book, The Divine Commodity: Discovering a Faith Beyond Consumer Christianity, outlines what happens when the consumer worldview and the Christian worldview collide. In this video, Jethani is interviewed by Marian Liautaud from Your Church magazine about the impact of consumerism on ministry space design.

Hear more from Skye Jethani about overcoming Consumer Christianity at the STORY conference October 28-29 in Chicago. Learn more about the event at storychicago.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 25, 2009 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

May 14, 2009

Last Call: The Alcohol Brew-haha

The conversation based on Eric Reed's report, "Trouble Brewing," in the latest issue of Leadership has been...stimulating. What should church leaders be modeling for their flocks? Everyone agrees that sobriety is essential, but is enjoying an alcoholic beverage ever okay? Or should we prohibit ourselves and other leaders from drinking out of sensitivity to "the weaker brothers" among us?

We wrap up with two insights. First, a video depicting the era of Prohibition that shows how the church spoke about the issue in decades past.

And finally, a comment posted by "J. Joyce" from our previous post on the subject. Joyce has an interesting perspective on abstinence as it relates to other "sins":

It seems that we do not generalize abstinence in other behaviors. For example, we believe gays and lesbians should not have sex. But that's not because sex is wrong; it's because we believe their use of it is unhealthy. That's why we don't say married heterosexual couples shouldn't have sex.

Many Christians who believe gambling is reckless and irresponsible invest in the stock market. Clearly they don't think all gambling is wrong; just certain types for certain people.

I'm not sure how alcohol use is different from these examples. Christians in a loving heterosexual relationship can "cause their brother to stumble" when he wants companionship and finds it in another man; Christian businessmen can "cause their brother to stumble" when they say "we lost it all in the market" and another many says "why not lose it all at the track?"

The issue is personal responsibility. Some people shouldn't drink. Some people can--and perhaps some should.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 14, 2009 | Comments (29) | TrackBack

April 27, 2009

John Ortberg: Snapshots of Religious Life

by John Ortberg

Snapshot: The recently released American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) indicates that faith is going down across the board. The number of people who identify themselves as Christian has decreased by 11 percent in a generation. The single fastest-growing category when it comes to religious affiliation is "None," which grew from 8 percent to 15 percent since 1990.

The "Nones" are the single biggest group in the state of Vermont, at 34 percent of the state's population. And "None" was the only religious category to grow in all 50 states.
One of the other fastest growing categories is "Don't Know/confused." (You can supply your own mainline humor here. In fact, the "two-party system" of evangelical versus mainline Christianity that I grew up with is collapsing. In an ironic return to Reformation language, in the United States "evangelical" will soon be synonymous with "Protestant.")

Barry Kosmin, who co-authored the survey, commented that more than ever before "people are just making up their own stories of who they are. They say, ?I'm everything. I'm nothing. I believe in myself.'" He said that faith is increasingly treated as a fashion statement that serves as a vehicle for self-expression rather than a transcendent commitment which demands costly devotion.

One respondent to a version of the story in USA Today said: "None of my friends believe in God. When the subject of religion comes up around the table, we all just mock it. It's a source of ridicule." 27 percent of Americans do not even expect a religious funeral at their death. The survey doesn't indicate how many are hoping to skip death altogether.

Snapshot: In the entertainment section of The San Francisco Chronicle recently, someone asked Mick LaSalle, the movie critic, what kind of movie will never be re-made. He answered by pointing to films like Going My Way, and forties films that starred Bing Crosby as a young parish priest. Religion is simply no longer accepted as part of the national fabric, he said. The one kind of movie that is most unlikely to be re-made today is one that assumes faith as a kind of national backdrop.

Snapshot: I was talking to some young church leaders recently about how, twenty years ago, if someone wanted to look for a model of what an effective church might look like in the future, they would generally go to a place like Willow Creek or Saddleback. But these younger leaders said it was no longer apparent where they should go to see what church might look like in another twenty years.

Snapshot: Tom Klegg and Warren Bird noted that if the unchurched population in the US were its own nation, it would be the fifth most populated nation on the planet, after China, the former Soviet Union, India, and Brazil.

Snapshot: A religion reporter for the LA Times wrote an article, and later a book, describing how he lost his faith in the process of covering his beat. He said that article brought in exponentially more positive emails than anything else he'd ever written.

All of which leads me to ask: Are we witnessing the process of secularization here in America similar to what Europe experienced in the middle of the twentieth century?

It's not a matter of new evidence being introduced that makes the message of Jesus less likely to be true. What makes a living faith cease to be a live option is much more subtle and complex. It often has more to do with cultural shifts and attitudes that move gradually over time until a tipping point suddenly reveals them.

The question is not one of Kingdom Anxiety. The Kingdom of God has been doing very well, and will continue to flourish no matter the ebbs of flows from one century and continent to another. Phillip Jenkins has aptly chronicled how the explosion of the church in our day has shifted East and South.

He has also, in his most recent fascinating book, chronicled how Christianity was deeply rooted in much of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa for over 800 years, only to die out over centuries.

I hope what we are witnessing in the United States is not such a trend. I don't have any magic answers if it is. But it's a good thing to lift our heads up out of our own churches and projects, and look around the neighborhood.

By the way, if you're involved in helping to lead a church, and you wonder whether giving it the best you have to offer matters - it does.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 27, 2009 | Comments (36) | TrackBack

April 22, 2009

Live from Catalyst West and...

by Brandon O'Brien

Today Marshall Shelley and I were at Mariner's Church in Irvine, California, for the pregame show of the first ever Catalyst West Coast conference. Led by Erwin McManus and the rest of the Mosaic team, the Origins Labs (as they were called) were an opportunity for some smaller group, interactive sessions on topics related to engaging culture, reaching the hard to reach, and other perennial challenges. Catalyst West begins in earnest tomorrow, and you'll here more from us about that then.

Erwin used the opening session to explore a familiar story from Acts. For Erwin, Acts 17:16ff provides a framework for understanding the church's spheres of influence. In Athens, Paul first speaks "in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks." This is the "first space," where the church reaches religious people. Paul also speaks "in the marketplace day by day." Our marketplace is where we work, eat, and play. This "second space" is where we reach people most like us. Finally, Paul was invited to speak "to a meeting of the Areopagus." This, Erwin said, is the "third space." This is where you're reaching the world. Jesus thrives in third space.

Thursday will also be the day of unveiling for a new publication produced jointly by Leadership and Catalyst, the Catalyst Leadership digizine. This hybrid publication will (we hope) provide a blend of the very best of Leadership and the Catalyst experience. You can read it here.

When you've had a chance to read the digizine, come back here and let us know what you think.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 22, 2009 | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 7, 2009

The Wrong Boogeyman (Part 2)

How do we account for the dramatic doubling of the number of secular Americans over the last 18 years? And what are we to do about the exodus of young people from the church? These are important questions, and uncovering the causes may prove critical as we seek to develop a remedy. Al Mohler discusses these issues in his March 19 blog post based on an article in The Wall Street Journal by W. Bradford Wilcox which Mohler wholeheartedly endorses.

In part one, I discussed Wilcox's belief that increased dependency on government programs for education, healthcare, and retirement is fueling secularism and keeping people from the doors of the church. But Wilcox and Mohler don't see the government as the only culprit for the church's decline - they also point to single adults. Wilcox writes:

The most powerful force driving religious participation down is the nation's recent retreat from marriage?. Nothing brings women and especially men into the pews like marriage and parenthood, as they seek out the religious, moral and social support provided by a congregation upon starting a family of their own. But because growing numbers of young adults are now postponing or avoiding marriage and childbearing, they are also much less likely to end up in church on any given Sunday.

Mohler affirms this perspective in his blog post:

Adulthood is meant for adult responsibilities, and for the vast majority of young people that will mean marriage and parenthood. The extension of adolescence into the twenties (maybe now even the thirties) is highly correlated with the rise of secularism and with lower rates of church attendance.

First, let me outline where I agree with Mohler and Wilcox.

(1) There is no question that the average age of marriage in the U.S. has risen significantly in the last thirty years - from 22 in 1980 to about 28 today. More people are single and remain so for longer than ever before. (2) I also agree that our consumer culture has fostered the prolonging of adolescence and the delayed onset of adulthood. (This is brilliantly documented in Benjamin Barber's book Consumed, and less brilliantly discussed in chapter 6 of my book, The Divine Commodity.) This may be a factor leading to prolonged singleness, although it's certainly not the only factor given the large number of people who are not single by choice.

(3) I also agree that most churches are structured around the assumption of the Western nuclear family. Therefore, married couples with children are the most likely to engage the church, and single adults (or other non-nuclear family households) are less likely to connect with a congregation. Therefore, I agree that singleness is very likely a reason church attendance is declining.

It appears that Mohler and I agree on the diagnosis, but we part ways on the treatment.

In another blog post from January 24, 2005, Mohler discusses the delay of marriage as a symptom of a self-absorbed culture, but then he advocates marriage as the prescribed solution. He writes:

The experiences of marriage and raising children are important parts of learning the adult experience and finding one's way into the deep responsibilities and incalculable rewards of genuine adulthood.

From reading Mohler's numerous posts about singleness and delayed marriage, he appears to be saying that if immature, selfish, and lazy young adults (and many of us are) would just get married and have kids they'd be forced to "grow up." Unfortunately, my experience has proven the opposite. I've seen too many young families torn apart (both Christian and non) because a husband or wife proved to lack the maturity required for a stable marriage. Simply walking the aisle, saying the vows, and sharing a bed and bank account did not magically bring maturity. If marriage really is the prescribed avenue for maturity, as some have been promoting, then shouldn't the church be advocating more teen marriages?

The problem is confusing a symptom for a cause. Delaying marriage (for some) is a symptom of a culture that has made us immature and self-absorbed. But pushing these immature adults into marriage is only masking a symptom and may result in an even more devastating problem - a sharp increase in the divorce rate and more broken families. In my opinion encouraging immature young adults to marry does not honor the sanctity of marriage, but erodes it.

Addressing the real causes of immaturity and selfishness in our culture requires more than pushing young people down the aisle and into maternity wards. It means prophetically speaking about the consumer values that have formed us to think that the satisfaction of personal desire and immediate gratification are of paramount importance. And those are issues which transcend any political party's platform.

The second point of disagreement involves the church's missional strategy. Mohler and Wilcox suggest that the church should be advocating traditional, and early, marriage as a way of boosting church attendance. Wilcox even says that churches "would have about six million more regularly attending young adults if today's young men and women started families at the rate they did three decades ago."

But when did marriage become a prerequisite of the Christian life? Didn't the Apostle Paul proclaim the blessings of singleness and command believers to remain in the condition in which Christ first called them, whether single, married, circumcised, uncircumcised, or a slave? (See 1 Cor 7.) Paul seems to dismiss marital status as critical to mission and discipleship. While I believe in the blessing of marriage, and God has certainly used marriage in my life as an instrument of growth, I'm not ready to prescribe it as essential to the American church's mission.

I don't believe our core problem is the increasing number of single adults, but rather a church built upon the gospel of marriage and family rather than the gospel of Christ. If a church is too focused on the family, it risks alienating more than half of the households in the U.S. that are not traditional nuclear families. At some point we must adjust to the reality of our mission field rather than denounce it for not meeting our ideals.

Those who see singleness as an obstacle to the church's mission find themselves in a classic Constantinian trap. They see the culture becoming increasingly post-Christian, and they fear the church cannot survive or its mission advance in the new environment, therefore they strive to reverse the perceived causes. Rather than calling the church to adjust its strategy to the new realities of its mission field, they expect the mission field to adjust to the church's old methods of mission. It seems the real boogeyman isn't to be found in our secular culture- he's comfortably at home in the church itself.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 7, 2009 | Comments (38) | TrackBack

March 27, 2009

The Wrong Boogeyman (Part 1)

by Skye Jethani

Two weeks ago the American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS] released its findings and announced that "secular" Americans now account for 15 percent of the population. That is up from 8 percent in 1990 and just 2 percent in 1962. Among the young the trend is even higher. Only 25 percent of people between 21 and 45 years old regularly attend church.

Who is responsible for this dramatic downturn in commitment to church attendance? According to some church leaders it's the government.

In a blog post from March 19, Al Mohler discusses an article in The Wall Street Journal by W. Bradford Wilcox who believes "the expansion of the government sector to offer cradle-to-grave social services contributes to the secularization of society." According to Wilcox as people become increasingly dependent on government programs for their daily bread, they become less dependent upon the church.

Mr. Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, warns:

"A successful Obama revolution providing cradle-to-career education and cradle-to-grave health care would reduce the odds that Americans would turn to their local religious congregations and fellow believers for economic, social, emotional and spiritual aid."

Wilcox recognizes that many people engage religious institutions for reasons other than material aid, but then reminds his readers that "many of those who initially turn to religious organizations for mutual aid end up developing a faith that is as supernatural as it is material. But first they need to enter the door." Mohler shares this viewpoint saying that Wilcox's article "is not only an article that should be read, but an argument that must be heard."

Am I the only one who finds this line of reasoning dubious? Are we to believe that the number of secular Americans has nearly doubled in the last 18 years because of liberal government programs? The argument becomes even more incongruous when we remember that conservatives ran the Congress for 12 of those years and the White House for 10. And are we supposed to oppose health care reform and better schools because healthier, more educated Americans may be less likely to attend a worship service?

Government has always been a popular boogeyman for cultural crusaders, but this is downright bizarre. What if the exodus of young people from the church isn't the government's fault but ours? And what if the solution isn't opposing a certain political agenda, but working harder at building relational trust with the young adults in our churches, families, and neighborhoods?

It's time to stop blaming the big bad liberal wolf for the church's collapse, and start recognizing that we carry responsibility for building our houses out of hay and sticks.

In part two of the post, Jethani addresses the notion that the increase in the number of single adults is to blame for declining church attendance.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 27, 2009 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

March 17, 2009

Trouble Brewing

by Brandon O'Brien

In the upcoming issue of Leadership (in print mid April), we'll hear from a number of pastors - including Craig Gross, John Burke, and Matt Russell - who are committed to taking the gospel to people with addictions.

We're also featuring a couple of articles about how pastors can and should deal with their own addictions.

One article I suspect will get people talking is Eric Reed's report on clergy alcohol use. Here's a preview: Some younger pastors in traditionally teetotalling denominations are beginning to view bans on alcohol use as out of date. Is their so-called liberty in Christ simply an excuse for bad behavior? Or are the old timers adding laws to the gospel?

Mark Driscoll has thought the issue through (probably because the Pacific Northwest has more breweries than people) and argues that responsible alcohol use is thoroughly biblical.

John Piper disagrees. "I choose to oppose the carnage of alcohol abuse by boycotting the product. Is it really so prudish to renounce a highway killer, a home destroyer, and a business wrecker?"

No, I suppose not. But others see the issue as less cut-and-dried. More on that in April.

Our twin concerns of alcohol and addiction come together in a new online resource from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Rethinking Drinking is an interaction diagnostic tool that helps users determine whether they have a drinking problem. It presents lots of useful information in plain language and with pictures and graphs - information about the signs of alcohol abuse, resources for help, and even a "pros and cons" chart to help you decide whether to change your drinking habits. So if you're an imbiber, check it out here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 17, 2009 | Comments (42) | TrackBack

March 12, 2009

Mark Galli Weighs in on Evangelical Demise

Senior managing editor of our sister publication, Christianity Today, posted a response to iMonk's prophecies about the end of evangelicalism on the CT website Wednesday afternoon. Here's the first bit. You can read the rest there.

The Internet is abuzz with the latest prognostications about "the coming evangelical collapse." This is the substance of three blog posts over at Internet Monk (a.k.a. Michael Spencer), who predicts said collapse in ten years. When his thoughts got picked up and condensed by the Christian Science Monitor and then the Drudge Report - well, you can just imagine the electronic excitement.

The title of Spencer's posts spoils the ending; still, many of the details are interesting. I've made many of the same observations in this column. For example, Spencer writes, "Expect evangelicalism as a whole to look more and more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth-oriented megachurches that have defined success. The determination to follow in the methodological steps of numerically successful churches will be greater than ever. The result will be, in the main, a departure from doctrine to more and more emphasis on relevance, motivation and personal success." My only caveat here is to wonder if this is a future or present reality.

Finish here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 12, 2009 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 10, 2009

Goodbye, Evangelicalism

by Brandon O'Brien

In the last 24 hours, USA Today and The Christian Science Monitor have both released less than cheery articles on the future of faith in America.

"The percentage of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation," reports Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today. "The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers - or falling off the faith map completely."

The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) found that, "despite growth and immigration that has added nearly 50 million adults to the U.S. population, almost all religious denominations have lost ground since the first ARIS survey in 1990."

That means that religious people are not simply being redistributed from one religion or denomination to another, but that more and more people are abandoning all faith altogether.

According to ARIS findings, "So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists." (You can read the rest here.

Bleak news, perhaps. But not as bleak, or specific, as Michael Spencer's observations at The Christian Science Monitor. Spencer argues, "We are on the verge - within 10 years - of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West."

Spencer's predictions do not end with the fate of evangelicalism. He sees antagonistic political postures and declining public support of evangelical Christianity on the horizon. "This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West," he writes. "Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good."

According to Spencer, the result will be that "evangelicalism [will] look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success."

Spencer may show his cards when he prophesies the hope for the church's future: "We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century." (Read the rest here.)

Together these articles raise interesting questions. Is the decline of religious adherence in the U.S. a sign of the death of evangelicalism? Or is it an opportunity for the gospel? From where you stand, do you see evangelical Christianity on course to certain demise, or is there hope for maintaining the movement in its current form? What needs to change? What must we preserve? Remember, keep it short and keep it civil.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 10, 2009 | Comments (45) | TrackBack

March 3, 2009

Urban Exile: Whose History?

by David Swanson

I've been to a lot of potlucks. Growing up in church and being a pastor has meant many, many casseroles and Jell-O salads. After a recent preaching gig at a suburban church, I was treated to an entirely different version of the potluck: fried chicken, ribs, spaghetti, and kimchi-stuffed dumplings. Not a casserole or gelatin-inspired food product to be seen. The menu perfectly reflected the ethnically diverse congregation of students, families, and retired folks.

Contrast these eclectic culinary delights with the weeklong theology class I took earlier this year. The professor provided an overview of church history that hit all the high points: canon, creeds, schism, reformation, awakening, evangelicalism, and so on. Curiously, there was no mention Christianity's early spread to Africa and India and not a word about the faith's new center in the global south. In the past, both church and neighborhood reinforced this mostly European perspective on history. Of course I knew about the Middle-Eastern roots of and some of the global influences on Christianity, but didn't most of the important stuff happen to guys with vaguely European-sounding names? History and tradition through a Western lens made sense when I lived and worshiped with people whose great-great-grandparents came from Germany, England, and Sweden.

This description of church history is no longer adequate. My neighbor's names are mostly Hispanic, and the people I worship with have roots all over the world. Calvin and Luther still matter, but the predominance of European and majority-American historical facts and figures seem odd in a diverse community of people with little contact to this history. Dave Gibbons wrote on Out of Ur about America's rapidly changing demographics, changes that are leading to minority-majority cultures. He asks whether these developments have "affected the leadership of our denominations, businesses, churches, and non-profits." To his questions I would add another: In light of this rapidly shifting culture, are we willing to acknowledge and celebrate the vast diversity of our history and heritage?

In Disciples of All Nations, Yale professor Lamin Sanneh documents the hospitality of ancient Christianity to the diverse cultures through which it was transmitted. "Paul was determined that for those new Christians who were brought up as Hellenistic pagans, even the notion of adopting the lifestyle of very good, devout, observant Jewish believers should be rejected." It was critical to Paul that faith in Jesus be rooted within the cultures and traditions of the newly converted. "The gospel was not just about religion as ?the Way,' or as ?ethnic dressing' so that followers and adherents could parade in borrowed garb?but religion as a personal, faith-filled fellowship with God." The early church had to reject culturally irrelevant traditions in order to transmit the faith across cultures.

Some of us are keenly aware of the tensions that arise while transmitting the faith. A Korean congregation must decide how to reach the second and third generation who mostly speak English. A denomination that baptizes infants is faced with Hispanic congregations who embrace believer's baptism. A mostly White suburban church wonders how to respond to new minority residents who've been displaced from the city by gentrification. Paul's rejection of cultural monopoly seems downright impractical in these situations. Wouldn't it be simpler for new converts, new immigrants, and new generations to adapt to our established traditions?

The Western church has often chosen such simplicity, which has prompted the newly converted to ask difficult questions. Sanneh, an immigrant from Gambia, writes, "Africans asked whether apostolic witness required civilization as an alibi, and whether it was credible for the West to claim to be exclusive host of the things of God? Should John Calvin and John Wesley be the litmus test of Christian conversion?" These types of questions were not only asked on the 19th century African continent; today they are voiced by missiologists, church planters and youth pastors. Christian's on the leading edge of the church's advance face the most dissonance with accepted Christian history and tradition. Calvin and Wesley will always have a place in the Church's story, but are there not thinkers and saints who more genuinely relate to our increasingly minority-majority culture?

Born in Liberia in 1860, William Wad? Harris is one such overlooked figure. Harris was converted after an encounter with the angel Gabriel in which he was charged to preach the gospel and baptize African converts. Traveling throughout the Ivory Coast, this indigenous prophet resembled an African John the Baptist, "with a long graying beard, a flowing white robe with broad sleeves, sandals, and a white turban." According to Sanneh, "The unadorned bamboo cross in his right and the Bible in his left hand were symbols of hope and renewal." Less than two years after his ministry began, Harris was arrested by the French and banished from the Ivory Coast. The French were understandably nervous: in that short time 200,000 Africans converted to a Christianity that was independent of colonialism. While European missionaries lamented the snail's pace of their progress, Harris could not find enough churches for those who heeded his Gospel call.

With grievous results, the Western church has often chosen cultural hegemony over indigenous expressions of Christianity, even when the fruit of these expressions was unmistakable. "Converts were torn from their roots in their own society to wilt in an alien missionary environment," writes Sanneh. "They once had a home. Now, thanks to Christianity, they had none." It is no longer only the foreign missionary who faces these realities; as Gibbons points out these are now questions for our suburban and city churches. How will congregations respond to new immigrants, shifting demographics, and a generation influenced by post modernity?

I hope we welcome the changes brought by those of different cultures and histories. The church is a growing body made up of Believers with diverse traditions, worldviews, and artistic expressions; not a static reserve for theology and worship. Those of us who are used to comforting traditions and controlled worship are reticent to release control. Difficult though it may be, this is the vision of God's coming Kingdom, when all peoples and histories are enfolded into the reign of the world's Savior. Put another way, once you've feasted on fried chicken and kimchi-dumplings it's impossible to be satisfied with casserole and Jell-O.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 3, 2009 | Comments (18) | TrackBack

February 27, 2009

Shane Hipps on "Virtual Community"...Again

by Shane Hipps

This conversation got started with a short video of Shane Hipps at the National Pastors Convention discussing whether online community was really community. Scot McKnight posted his response a few days later. Earlier this week, Anne Jackson joined the discussion by asserting that what happens online is "connecting," not "community." Shane Hipps now returns to Out of Ur with his reflections.

Scott et. al, thanks for all your comments and push back. Always appreciated.

Clearly we're playing with semantics here. I don't say that dismissively. Semantics matter - sometimes more than other times. I'll let others judge whether it matters here. It may be that we agree after all.

First, my language in the video was less nuanced than it might have been in written form. That is my tendency in a spontaneous oral interview. I will try to be more precise here.

When I say that "virtual community" is not "community," that does not mean it has no value. As I indicated in the interview, I know that all kinds of deeply meaningful connections and interactions happen online all the time. I have experienced them myself. Some may want to call this "community." Fair enough. I just don't call it "community." That is not intended to dismiss or demean any one's experience online.

I play with semantics in an effort to help us see that "virtual community" and "unmediated community" are not interchangeable. In my opinion, one is actually better than the other. The reason is that "virtual community" occurs primarily on one frequency of the human experience: it is mostly a disembodied, and largely cognitive, connection. And that's wonderful; it's a good thing. It's just not as valuable as unmediated community, which involves the entire range of the human experience - physical, non-verbal, intuitive sense, subtle energies, visual cues, acoustic tones, etc. These are extremely powerful things that should not be quickly dismissed as "nice but not necessary."

Most of us see these ingredients as essential for healthy marriage and parenting. It's the reason no one extols the virtues of online parenting or the value of sex with your spouse in a chat room rather than a bedroom. The same is true of community. For me, community is a sacred and powerful institution, and I prefer to treat it in the same spirit as marriage or parenting.

I guess what I'm saying is that virtual community is like playing the guitar with one string. You can make music; it's just not as interesting or as good as music on a guitar with six strings.

To observe that "real" community is worth more than "virtual" community may seem rather obvious to some and thus not worth stating. However, there is a growing legion of young people who can scarcely tell the difference. A subsequent rift is emerging between parents and teens because of this very issue. It will only become more complex in the years to come. We gloss over this distinction at our own risk. I hope that putting words to these things is actually freeing for us.

I'm not against virtual community anymore than I'm against the wind and the tides; I'm just concerned that too many of us grant it virtues it does not possess. This undue esteem can undermine the profound and lasting impact of an incarnated and embodied Gospel. But it seems we agree on this point.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 27, 2009 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

February 24, 2009

The Facebook Fast

Blogging. Facebook. Twitter. Those three things are practically my middle name. I've been called a "social media butterfly" over the last four years.

The question of "Can community happen online?" which has been the topic of conversation on this blog recently, has also been asked wherever I go. At conferences, at churches, and yes, even at the local cafe where by chance, a Facebook friend recognizes me. Sorry. I have to admit. I usually don't know who you are.

Shane Hipps has spoken. Scot McKnight has spoken. And now, it's my turn to add another view into this virtual world.

During my four years as the leader of a very thriving blog (FlowerDust.net), I've seen many incredible things happen. I've seen believers and unbelievers unite in generously donating close to $200,000 to social justice and poverty. I've seen people openly discuss taboo subjects: pornography, depression, anxiety, gay lifestyles, and theologically grey topics.

In some instances, these online conversations have translated into personal communication (by email, chats, or phone) and some have even turned into face-to-face meetings. The platforms of social media certainly give these personal interactions a "jump start" so to speak, because you do, in some regard, know bits and pieces of the other person's life.

But this is where it gets muddy for me. Is it community?

Given my experience living in both worlds, it may be surprising to hear, but I am beginning to lean on the side of no - what happens online is not community. Before you send me an army of frowning emoticons, please hear me out:

I believe what happens online is connection - not community.

People can be vulnerable and honest online. And at times these online connections can be more life-giving than many of our offline relationships, but they are not the same.

During Lent, I am going to close my blog down. I am not going to Twitter, or update my Facebook profile. I'll still email people, and chat with my friends, but for those few weeks my social networking is getting put on hold. There are a variety of reasons, of which I'll detail on my personal blog shortly, but a small part of this is a personal social experiment. I want to discover whether my online life gets in the way of my offline life. And do others' online lives get in the way of their offline lives?

I'll leave you with a couple small, hypothetical examples. Let's say my friend (who lives in Nashville with me) puts a note on Twitter about having a girls' night. I miss the invitation because of my online Lenten fast, but since most of our "group" is plugged in, everyone else gets it. I'm at home cleaning my bathrooms, unaware of this event. In this case being online would have aided my offline relationships.

Or to take it one step further. Imagine I post about having dinner with a group of friends. Someone else in our online circle sees these updates and wonders why he or she wasn't invited. Although the uninvited person is internalizing the situation, it can still cause a serious sense of isolation and insecurity which then creates tension in our offline relationship. In this case my online life would be detrimental to my offline friendship.

I'm hoping my Lenten experiment will give me more clarity about whether my online life is benefiting my offline relationships.

Online connections are good. They can be deep and good for our souls. But when we turn them into an online community, they can, and do, impact our face-to-face interactions. When we spend more time staring at a glowing monitor than we do into the eyes of those we love, or need to love, it might be time to shut off the computer.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 24, 2009 | Comments (93) | TrackBack

February 16, 2009

Scot McKnight on "Virtual Community"

Thanks for your video, Shane. Your point about not equating virtual community (grant me the term for the moment) with real community is one that needs to be heard. But, I'm not so sure it is this simple...

First, as a blogger who has what I have sometimes called the Jesus Creed "community," I do think there are some senses in which community is apt. For some, this is about the only "community" with Christians they can right now have. I honor that. For others it is therapeutic to dance, as it were, at a distance -- not the complete thing, of course, but still participating in some dimensions of community. And there is another dimension: there are clearly dimensions of fellowship at work in blog communities. Never the whole, but some. And that needs to be considered for what it really is.

But now something perhaps more significant: by shrinking community to embodied community I wonder if we have written "communion of the saints" (a community) off the map. Isn't there something eternal, something spiritual, and something profoundly true that all Christians of all ages and of all locations are in communion with one another?

This means it may be appropriate to refer to internet communities as a participation in the communion of the saints (I have experienced this with some folks whom I've gotten to know at some levels via internet and via e-mails and via parcel post letters) and as virtual communities.

I would agree with you that some substitute virtual for real at their own loss; I would also agree that some think they are the same. But I wonder if it is not swinging too far the other way to deny the word community to what can happen -- palpably so for many -- in cyberspace.

Come to think of it, I wonder if you might just provide for us a full definition of "community." Do you mean "ecclesia" or "koininia" or something else?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 16, 2009 | Comments (17) | TrackBack

January 23, 2009

Welcome to a Third Culture World

by Dave Gibbons

It's just the beginning. With the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th president we are seeing what many consider a dream fulfilled. Of course there are still conflicts, and there still is racism, prejudice, and stereotyping - including in the church. But it is a new day when the most powerful political person on the earth is black. This is a historic moment for the world to celebrate, but before we simply see this as a race issue, or even just a political party's victory, we need to see it through the lens of culture - or rather cultures.

"Third culture" is used to describe the fusion of multiple cultures, the art of adaptation and dialogue rather than dictation. It's about diplomacy over strong arm tactics, and the embrace of discomfort as part of the journey toward real community. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, to a White mother from Kansas with has Irish and English roots, and a father, from Kenya. He studied in Indonesia, Hawaii, California, New York, and Boston. His experience has both urban and surburban, he's engaged cities and villages, he been both rich and poor.

While the church is still talking about diversity or homogeneity, city or suburban initiatives, rich or poor, post-modern or modern, Gen Y or Gen X, attractional or missional, the world has changed the conversation. The focus is no longer either/or but both/and. We're seeing the emergence of people and leaders who can live in the intersections between divergent ideas; people who understand the fringes and the margins yet can weave in and out of multiple cultures, honoring each context yet without alienating those on the fringes.

It's a third culture world. How are your third culture skills? President Obama is just the beginning of a whole new wave of leaders who will have significant impact in a world where the rules have changed and are changing. Is your church, your staff, your team ready?

Check out a video about 3rd Culture produced by Dave Gibbons and his team here.

You can read more from Dave Gibbons and adjusting to a Third Culture world by subscribing to the weekly Out of Ur e-newsletter. Sign up here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 23, 2009 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

January 15, 2009

Memory Loss Plagues Wall Street and Christians

By Collin Hansen

Over the holidays, you probably relished how gas prices largely returned to "normal." Prices higher than $2, $3, or even $4 per gallon just seems so un-American. So why are national opinion writers so diverse as Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Friedman pushing for increases in federal gas taxes?

It seems Americans have returned to their old habits. Friedman notes that more Americans purchased trucks and SUV's than cars in December. This reverses a trend toward more fuel-efficient vehicles that extended back to February 2008. You should be able to guess by now how this scenario will play out. Bigger vehicles means more demand for gas, which means gas prices will eventually return to the levels we saw in the summer of 2008. But by that time, the momentum for alternatives to gas-powered vehicles may have stalled yet again, leaving American consumers and their government at the mercy of foreign oil producers. "Have a nice day," Friedman writes. "It's morning again - in Saudi Arabia."

Krauthammer observes that Americans pay 18.4 cents per gallon in federal taxes. Drivers in Great Britain, like those in many other European countries, pay nearly $4 per gallon in taxes. Americans would hardly relish a new tax whose effect they would feel so directly. So Krauthammer and Friedman each suggest an offsetting cut in payroll taxes. But what's the point, if the federal government will reap no new revenue from the increased gas tax?

The columnists believe higher gas taxes would permanently shift consumption patterns. The American government might as well take the lead in manipulating gas prices. Otherwise America's so-called allies will continue to offer the carrot and wield the stick in order to control the U.S. economy.

Why can't we just remember this destructive pattern and resolve to break it?

Why do we forget that we'll be kicking ourselves for buying a pickup truck we don't need when gas prices inevitably spike again? The answer must be intrinsic to human nature. Recall Israel's fits and starts in their efforts to obey God's commandments. Again and again they failed to remember how God had delivered them from Egypt and how he had punished their forefathers in the wilderness for their disobedience. Remembrance does not come naturally to us.

The capitalistic system is so effective because it accounts for human nature, namely self-interest. But the lack of memory is a thorn in the side of the market economy. Henry Blodget, a onetime Wall Street wizard, explains how in the cover story of December's Atlantic. Blodget argues that we will never be able to excise the pattern of boom and bust from the system, because investors who argue that "it's different this time" will always ride the boom's tidal wave to the pinnacle of their profession. Bears who deliver a prophetic word against the bull market, remembering previous busts, will lose their jobs for failing to maximize profits in the short term.

"Those are said to be the most expensive words in the English language, by the way: it's different this time," Blodget writes. "You can't have a bubble without good explanations for why it's different this time. If everyone knew that this time wasn't different, the market would stop going up. But the future is always uncertain - and amid uncertainty, all sorts of faith-based theories can flourish, even on Wall Street."

It doesn't help that top financial professionals rarely last in the industry past age 40, due to the intense pressures of performing on Wall Street. Thus, Blodget explains, surprisingly few top financial experts have actually lived through both booms and busts. He writes, "The bottom line is that resisting the siren call of a boom is much easier when you have already been obliterated by one."

There is no substitute for experience. Surely the economy would retain a steadier course if firms took the longer view and retained managers who were willing to buck the moment's conventional wisdom. But is there hope for avoiding the pitfalls even if you haven't experienced them? This was the challenge for the generations that followed the Israelites whom God delivered from Egypt. So when God delivered the Shema (Deut. 6:4?5) he also taught Israel how to remember his commandments. "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates" (Deut. 6:7?9).

We could learn from fellow pastors who have taken this command to heart by implementing creative, tangible ways to help their congregations remember the gospel and apply it consistently. We need fellow members of the body of Christ who will preach the gospel to us when we forget God's sure promises. After all, God has initiated a new and better covenant with the church through Jesus Christ (Heb. 8:6?7). "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ?Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more" (Heb. 8:10?12, cited from Jer. 31:33?34).

If we forsake this promise, we abandon God's recovery plan for delivering us from spiritual recession. Thanks to Jesus, it really is different this time.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 15, 2009 | Comments (9) | TrackBack

November 11, 2008

John Ortberg's Lessons from the Election

by John Ortberg

My son has a bumper sticker on his car that reads: "I poke badgers with spoons." Its significance is not self-evident to everybody who reads it, so let me tell you the story.

It comes from a British stand-up named Eddie Izzard. Eddie grew up in the church, and heard early on about the doctrine of original sin, but was a little fuzzy on the concept. He assumed that it meant that priests get tired of hearing the same old boring confessions time after time - greed, lust, gluttony, and lying to the tax man. Eddie thought the priests wanted to hear some truly original sins.

So he came up with something he figured no one had ever confessed before: "I poke badgers with spoons." My wife thought it was so funny that she had it printed on a bumper sticker and placed it on my son's car. Oddly enough, he sometimes fails to appreciate that his parents are two of the funniest people in the world. But he wanted the car. So he gets the sticker that goes with it.

Debates have raged for centuries now over the phrase "original sin," which of course doesn't actually show up in the Bible. Augustine argued that there is a fundamental flaw, a bentness, that gets passed on to every human being before they are even born. (He believed it was intrinsic to the sex act, which may be part of why he never had a little Augustine, Jr.--at least not legitimately.) The classic counter-argument was raised by Pelagius, who claimed that each human being was a blank slate, a morally neutral free agent who had a clean shot at maintaining perfect innocence. Pelagius clearly never had children.

The church came down, with a few caveats, on the side of Augustine and not Pelagius. But Eddie Izzard gets a shout out now and then. The Vatican recently published a list of sins (such as environmental transgressions) which, if not completely original, at least give an updated twist to the old seven deadlies.

Which brings me to the election...

I am a political junkie. During a presidential campaign, I will often buy a couple of newspapers a day just to keep up. But it strikes me that presidential campaigns can often bring out the worst as well as the best in us.So I want to propose the "Seven Deadly Sins of Evangelicals and Politics." You may have a few of your own to add. But the spirit of such lists in the past was not to add to our store of information but to contrition. So feel free to confess while you read.

Messianism. The sin of believing that a merely human person or system can usher in the eschaton. This is often tipped off by phrases like: "The most important election of our lifetime" (which one wasn't?); or "God's man for the hour."

Selective Scripturization. The sin of using Scripture to reinforce whatever attitude toward the president you feel like holding, while shellacking it with a thin spiritual veneer. If the candidate you like holds office, you consistently point people toward Romans 13: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." If your candidate lost, you consistently point people to Acts 4:10 where Peter and John say to the Sanhedrin: "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God." It's just lucky for us the Bible is such a big book.

Easy Believism. This is the sin of believing the worst about a candidate you disagree with, because when you want them to lose you actually want to believe bad things about them. "Love is patient, love is kind," Paul said. "Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth." But in Paul's day nobody ran for Caesar. There was no talk radio.

Episodism. The sin of being engaged in civic life only on a random basis. The real issues never go away, but we're tempted to give them our attention only when the news about them is controversial, or simplistic, or emotionally charged. Sustained attention to vital but unsexy issues is not our strong suit.

Alarmism. A friend of mine used to work for an organization that claimed both Christian identity and a particular political orientation. They actually liked it when a president was elected of the opposite persuasion, because it meant they could raise a lot more money. It is in their financial interests to convince their constituents that the president is less sane than Jack Nicholson in The Shining. Alarmists on both sides of the spectrum make it sound like we're electing a Bogeyman-in-Chief every four years. I sometimes think we should move the election up a few days to October 31.

One Issue-ism. Justifying our intolerance of complexity and nuance by collapsing a decision into a simplistic and superficial framework.

Pride. I couldn't think of a snappy title for this one. But politics, after all, is largely about power. And power goes to the core of our issues of control and narcissism and need to be right and tendency to divide the human race into "us" vs. "them."

What might happen if the world were to see those of us who claim to be the church vote, and speak, and campaign, and respond to the results in a humble and repentant spirit?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 11, 2008 | Comments (50) | TrackBack

October 30, 2008

The Cult of Mac

by Skye Jethani

Many people feel that the greatest threat to Christianity today is postmodernity. Others zero in on relativism. Some believe the enemy is secular humanism. And others believe Islamic fascism is the boogey man. I disagree. In my view the greatest challenge facing the contemporary church is consumerism. By that I do not mean consumption. It's not wrong to consume things. In fact, as contingent beings we've been designed to consume for survival. The only human that doesn't consume is one that has reached room temperature, in which case they are now being consumed. (Do I hear "The Circle of Life" in the background?)

The consumerism I'm concerned with is the one that functions as a worldview. It forms the uncontested assumptions of our lives, and when it intersects our faith our perception of worship, mission, church, community, belief, and even God is fundamentally altered. These are all subject I tackle in my forthcoming book, The Divine Commodity (Zondervan, 2009).

One aspect of consumerism that is particularly powerful is branding. (Add to it commodification and alienation and you've got the unholy trinity of consumerism.) Douglas Atkins, author of The Culting of Brands: Turn Your Customers Into True Believers, says, "Brands are the new religion...They supply our modern metaphysics, imbuing the world with significance.... Brands function as complete meaning systems."

Without question one of the most potent brands in America today is Apple, and new research has shown that Apple has achieved the same impact on the human brain as religion.

Martin Lindstrom is the author of Buyology. He says:

"Apple is (as we've proven using neuroscience)...a religion. Not only that--it is a religion based on its communities. Without its core communities, Apple would die--it is already facing strong pressure as the brand simply is becoming too broad (losing) its magic. What's holding it all together is the hundreds if not thousands of communities across the world spreading the passion and creating the myths."

Check out this video based on Lindstrom's book:

Adding to the evidence that Apple is actually a religion, psychologist David Levine, a self-identified Mac nut, says:

For many Mac people, I think (the Mac community) has a religious feeling to it. For a lot of people who are not comfortable with religion, it provides a community and a common heritage. I think Mac users have a certain common way of thinking, a way of doing things, a certain mindset. People say they are a Buddhist or a Catholic. We say we're Mac users, and that means we have similar values.

For more about the religions (even cultic) power of Apple, I suggest reading this article by Wired which includes the messianic characteristics of Steve Jobs. There is also a documentary on the subject called Macheads. In the trailer the film declares, "It's more than a computer, it's a way of life."

One question I pose in The Divine Commodity is this: If brands have become religions, is the opposite also true? Have religions been reduced to brands? I believe the evidence suggests they have. Researchers like Barna, Gallop, and others are finding it increasingly difficult to differentiate the behaviors and values of self-identified Christians from non-Christians with one exception-what they buy. Total sales of religious goods in America is nearly $7 billion annually. That is a whole lot of Tommy Hellfighter t-shirts, Jesus is my Homeboy underwear, and Fruit of the Spirit energy drinks. Is Mark Riddle right:

"Conversion in the U.S. seems to mean we've exchanged some of our shopping at Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, and Borders for the Christian Bookstore down the street. We've taken our lack of purchasing control to God's store, where we buy our office supplies in Jesus' name."

What does this mean for the future of the church in America? I hear a lot on Christian radio and see a lot of Christian books fighting against postmodernism, relativism, and secularism. But if people are constructing their identities and lives around consumer brands like Apple, is the church fighting the wrong battle? And perhaps more disturbing, are we unknowingly contributing to the problem by encouraging Christians to construct and express their identities via Christ-branded merchandise rather than through characters transformed to reflect the values of Christ himself?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 30, 2008 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

October 20, 2008

Why I am Hopeful

Has the economy got you worried? When pundits are throwing around statements like, "The worst market since the Great Depression," it's natural to get concerned. But Andy Crouch has a different take. He's written a really insightful article for our friends at Books and Culture titled "Why I am Hopeful." Here's an excerpt:

I am not hopeful because I envision an easy way out of the current economic mess. We are entering into the Great Deleveraging, where an entire country of consumers will have to pare back their reliance on cheap mortgages and abundant credit cards. (Remember when your mailbox was stuffed with credit card offers? Seen any lately?) The national savings rate might even rise above 0% - yes, that is zero percent, the proportion Americans have been collectively saving for several years now. But that means that consumption, a major engine of our economy, will have to decline dramatically.

I am not hopeful because I have confidence in whoever will be elected president in 15 days. I have grave concerns, as a Christian and as a citizen, about both candidates and will in all likelihood vote for neither. (Not for the first time - in 2004 I wrote in Colin Powell.)

I am not hopeful because I think we are well prepared for what is ahead of us. We are not. We are a terrifyingly unserious people, our heads buzzing with trivia and noise. This is more true, if anything, of American Christians than the rest of our country. The stark contrast between what I experience among Christians anywhere else in the world - and not just the "Third World," because Canada and Germany and Britain and Singapore come to mind as quickly as Uganda and India - and American Christians is astonishing. We are preoccupied with fads intellectual, theological, technological, and sartorial. Vanishingly few of us have any serious discipline of silence, solitude, study, and fasting. We have, in the short run, very little to offer our culture, because we live in the short run.

I am not hopeful because I think life is going to get easier in America. I am hopeful because I think it is going to get harder, and in a very good way. And I am hopeful because I think this means my children and grandchildren will live in a deeply and truly better world than I would have thought possible a few years ago.

Read Crouch's entire article here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 20, 2008 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 2, 2008

The Hansen Report: Modern versus Postmodern Politics

by Collin Hansen

You can listen to every stump speech and read every position paper, but nothing compares to evaluating presidential candidates side-by-side during a debate. Their contrasting styles and views emerge in ways you hadn't noticed during the long primary season. The candidates practice their lines and prepare their strategies, but the format allows for precious moments of spontaneity and even humor. The best candidates deftly address issues in ways that lodge them in the public consciousness.

Perhaps the best example of this is President Reagan, who in 1984 famously said, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." His 56-year-old opponent, Walter Mondale, could only look on in laughter.

The first debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama provided no such memorable moments. But it did highlight important distinctions between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Namely, McCain and Obama represent key differences between modern and postmodern cultures. Analyzing their debate through this lens reveals similarities to the church's own debates about how to respond to shifting cultures.

Obama spoke with empathy about the personal effects of the current financial crisis on Main Street America. He advocated greater oversight for Wall Street. McCain, too, said he wants oversight, but he emphasized different reasons for the crisis. He spoke of individual greed and said the government needs to hold the failed executives accountable. As the debate progressed, McCain spoke passionately about members of Congress who perpetuate the "evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending." McCain underscored personal morals where Obama accentuated communal values.

Obama consistently drew attention to points of agreement with McCain. He credited McCain for opposing President Bush on torture, for example. By contrast, McCain chided Obama for not understanding the issues and for displaying naïveté. He perpetuated the Right vs. Left dichotomy by describing Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. While Obama sought to build consensus, McCain pointed out their differences.

The debate's most contentious moments came when Obama reiterated his intent to "meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing, if I think it's going to keep America safe." Despite taking a political beating for this view from Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama willingly contrasted himself with McCain:

But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran, and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain. This notion--by not talking to people we are punishing them--has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.

"So let me get this right," McCain responded. "We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, 'We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,' and we say, 'No, you're not'? Oh, please."

McCain is a man of action and frank talk. Obama sees intrinsic value in engagement, which may even produce unexpected tangible consensus. You could plug in certain pastors and see the same differences.

Nationalism is a key reality of the modern world. But postmodernism prioritizes the global community. McCain hammered Obama for advocating precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain said would result in a host of horrendous consequences for America and the Middle East. He promised to seek American "victory and honor." Obama was more concerned about America's global reputation. Near the end of the debate, he shared a story about his Kenyan father writing letters so he could attend an American college. At the time, Obama said, America offered hope that hard work could pay off. "The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world," Obama said. "I don't think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same."

In their exchanges, Obama called McCain by his first name, drawing attention to his personality. McCain never reciprocated, indicating respect for Obama's office but not necessarily for Obama himself. This difference highlighted Obama's preference to question McCain's judgment and prudence as McCain drew attention to his own experience and record. McCain even mocked intuition and President Bush when explaining his views on Russia.

"I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a 'K,' a 'G,' and a 'B,'" McCain said. "And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior."

Not everything in the debate can be framed as the difference between a modern and postmodern worldview. But like our church debates, a little awareness about perspective goes a long way toward understanding. The November election's results may help church leaders gauge the mood of their own constituencies. A tougher challenge is knowing when and how to confront those cultural assumptions for our own good and for the sake of the gospel.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 2, 2008 | Comments (13) | TrackBack

September 24, 2008

The Green-Letter Bible

by Brandon O'Brien

Late yesterday afternoon, I received a copy of The Green Bible (HarperOne), and I'm not sure what to make of it.

The Bible is "green" in composition, which I appreciate. Its pages are made of 10 percent post-consumer recycled paper, the words are printed with soy-based ink, and the binding is 100 percent cotton/linen. It is certainly a good-looking book (that marketing sleeve comes off). And it smells nice. I wouldn't mind if my bookshelves were lined with cotton covers.

But to put things in perspective, Thomas Nelson released a "green" Bible printed on recycled paper - the first of its kind - almost a year ago. So it's not the composition but the content of HarperOne's ecologically friendly canon that makes it unique.

Before they make it to Genesis, Green Bible readers encounter an impressive roll of contributors, each offering a sermon or article on some aspect of creation care: "Reading the Bible through a Green Lens" and "Knowing Our Place on Earth: Learning Environmental Responsibility from the Old Testament" for example. There's a foreword by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an introduction by Matthew Sleeth, poems by Francis of Assisi and Wendell Berry, and articles (mostly reprinted) by Brian McLaren, Barbara Brown Taylor, N. T. Wright, and the late Pope John Paul II, among others.

But what truly sets The Green Bible apart is that it's a "green-letter edition." It's akin to the New Testaments in which the words of Jesus are printed in red. Except in this case, "over a thousand references to the earth and caring for creation" appear in green ink. While there are certainly more instances besides the highlighted ones that would have applied, the editors tell us in the prefatory material, they have chosen only those "speaking directly to the project's core mission."

To meet their criteria for what makes it in green, a given biblical text must address:

? how God and Jesus interact with, care for, and are intimately involved with all of creation.
? how all the elements of creation - land, water, air, plants, animals, humans - are interdependent.
? how nature responds to God.
? how we are called to care for creation.

These criteria yield some obvious results. All of Genesis 1 and most of Genesis 2 is green-lettered, as is Romans 8:22: "We know that the whole of creation has been groaning in labor pains until now?" But there are some puzzling passages that make the cut. There's the final sentence of Revelation 19:20, for example: "These two [beasts] were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur." And Jesus' cursing of the fig tree is not green, even though it seems to describe "how God and Jesus interact with?all of creation."

The selection of passages aside, I have two concerns with this method of highlighting biblical text. The first is this: the implicit argument in the green lettering is that by sheer bulk of words in green print, the editors prove that creation care is a central concern of the Bible. But what if we tried a different subject - say, violence. A faculty of editors color-codes a Bible so that every passage that references an act of violence is printed in purple ink. Would that, by sheer bulk, prove conclusively that violence is at the center of God's plan of redemption? Or what about gold-lettering all the instances of sexual perversion? What I mean is this: frequency is not a compelling argument without context.

Speaking of context, I'm afraid the letter coloring will distract, in many places, from the actual theological significance of a passage. Take Genesis 2, for example. The majority of the chapter appears in green, except - oddly - a brief reference to the second river in Eden, Gihon (but the bit about Pishon is in green). The Lord's proclamation that it is not good for the man to be alone is in black, as is the great crescendo of the chapter: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh?" I can understand why the institution of marriage is not "green." But the predominance of green ink in that chapter diverts attention from the real significance of the passage - the completion of the creation of humankind.

I respect what the editors are trying to do here. We frequently need to be reminded that the Bible speaks to issues that we completely overlook for one reason or another. And I believe the Bible does challenge us to be better stewards of the planet. But I wonder if color-coding certain biblical themes disintegrates - rather than integrates - the unity of the gospel message by dividing the text into specialized issues. Does it help me understand the Bible to think of a passage about judging my neighbor as a "green" concern (Matthew 7:1-2 is green-lettered)? Or does it simply confuse matters? Does this advance the cause, or set it back a step?

Well, I guess I do know how I feel about it. For now, The Green Bible will have a place of honor beside my "Itty Bitty Bible" (the entire Scripture reduced to microscopic proportions so it fits on a single slide) and my talking Jesus action figure on the shelf of things I'm glad to have but don't have much use for.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 24, 2008 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

September 18, 2008

What the Unchurched See in a Building

On the heels of David Gibbons' interesting thoughts on the way many churches squander their resources on underutilized buildings, Matt Branaugh has this piece over at LeadershipJournal.net. Apparently, if you're going to throw your church's money into a building, make it a sacred one. -Url

Does "sacred" space appeal to or repel the unchurched? A recent survey probed 1,700 unchurched American adults, putting photos of four different church exteriors in front of them. Respondents indicated their preferences by allocating 100 points across the four images, based on the appeal of the appearance.

The Gothic look averaged 48 points, more than double the next-highest finisher, a white-steeple-and-pillar exterior that averaged about 19 points. The other two churches, with more contemporary looks, averaged 18 points and 16 points, according to the study, commissioned by Cornerstone Knowledge Network and conducted by LifeWay Research.

So should churches opt for the cathedral look as a way to attract the unchurched?

Not necessarily, says Jim Couchenour, director of marketing and ministry services at Cogun Inc., a church building design firm that co-founded Cornerstone with Aspen Group. Aesthetics are an important element to weigh, Couchenour says, but the building must reflect the values and integrity of the congregation in order to work.

"Buildings without relationships have no meaning," he says. "The vast majority of people will go to church based on an invitation from a friend or family member. A small minority of people will make a decision based on the way the building looks. If it were aesthetics alone, we'd have a lot of beautiful buildings in inner cities that are full. That's just not the case."

And one style that works for one church doesn't necessarily work for the next. Younger respondents in the study, for instance, rated exterior design as a higher priority, while older participants tended to prize a building's usefulness.

"The style is not as important as the integrity of the design," Couchenour says. Integrity starts with the church realizing what God has called it to be, what ministry needs it can meet, and how a building can help meet those needs. "People - churched or unchurched - can tell if it has integrity, if it feels right."

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 18, 2008 | Comments (9) | TrackBack

August 26, 2008

The Church & Politics Quiz

Where I grew up in the South, the three big holidays on the church calendar were Christmas, Easter, and Fourth of July Sunday. Now I live near Chicago, where many churches let Independence Day slip by without a word from the pulpit. There are, no doubt, historical and theological reasons why Christians in one part of the country (or in one denomination or another) are more inclined to link the church to the state in its worship. But in my experience, people simply don't give the issue a lot of thought; they just do what they've always done.

That's why I'm excited to introduce the Church and Politics Quiz, a tool designed to help you uncover your assumptions and blind spots regarding the role of the church in politics. How should the church relate to the state - as chaplain or prophet? Is it appropriate to display flags in the sanctuary? In the spirit of the Hermeneutics Quiz from earlier this year, there are no right or wrong answers. Rather, we hope this tool will help you think critically about the church's role and responsibility in this historic election year.

Take the quiz here, and then come back to Out of Ur to post your results and comments.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 26, 2008 | Comments (26) | TrackBack

August 22, 2008

Olympic Shifts

by Dave Gibbons

Shifts happen all the time - shifts in economics, politics, theology, church, and culture. But we usually don't comprehend the full nature of the shift until much later. One subtle shift happened in Beijing last week. You may have missed it amid the pageantry of the Olympic opening ceremonies.

Many consider it an historic event for modern China to host the Olympic Games, and the show proved to be amazing. It was an experiential canvas of creativity few have ever seen before on such a scale: techno-utopian shows, creative and innovative artistry, massive numbers of participants synchronizing poetry through dance and song. The opening ceremony masterfully put the world on notice: a shift has occurred. Here's what I saw communicated:

1. China is increasingly more open to the "barbarians"
In one of the most beautiful sequences in the ceremony, the dancers displayed the Great Wall reflecting one of the most notable metaphors of China. It was a reminder to the world that barbarians weren't welcomed. Things have changed. The dancers transformed the walls of China into a bridge of flowers. Sure, the doors may still be closed in many respects--human rights and religious freedoms are still lagging in China--but there seems to be a growing openness in the culture. This is probably the result of many who have prayed and fueled the movement of the Holy Spirit.

2. Skin color and racial stereotypes are becoming irrelevant
Did you see the group of children representing the 51 different cultures of China! China, like so many other places today, is multi-cultural. A group of young people is emerging that some call Third Culture - a wave of people who will lead the missiological movement because of their ability to adapt to different cultures. Being comfortable moving between cultures all of their lives, these people will be more equipped to become all things to all men.

3. China is not just about copying things
The Chinese have a heritage of being some of the most creative and artistic people on the planet. The opening ceremony showed that China wasn't content to copy what other countries have done in the past. They created an innovative experience unlike any before. New ideas are coming from Asia, and not just the West. Although most Christians see the West as the center of Christian activity and mission in the world, some are now predicting that Korea will soon outpace America when it comes to missiological initiative.

So what does this mean for the church? I believe an ecclesiastical and theological shift is happening too. An expanded and new wave of theological scholarship and creative ministry expressions will take shape and continue to fuel God's global movement, and these will increasingly come from outside Western cultures. The emergence of China and other Asian powers on the world stage parallels what's happening in the church.

How should we respond as Americans? One practical thing to do is experience what God is doing globally by reading a macro perspective of the shifts happening in Asia by authors like Fareed Zakaria. I highly recommend The Post-American World. It's an inexpensive trip to take a journey with your mind.

Secondly, I'd encourage you to take a vision trip overseas - not to serve as much as to learn. There are great partnership groups like World Vision, or you can email me at dave.gibbons@newsong.net and I will put you in touch with great groups I work with in Asia and beyond. There is no better way to experience a great move of God than by being in the middle of one. If you do that, watch out? you may never be the same. I know because it happened to me.

Read about Dave Gibbons' ministry-changing, and life-changing, experience as a pastor in Bangkok, Thailand in the summer issue of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 22, 2008 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

August 19, 2008

The Hansen Report: Warren, Obama, and McCain

by Collin Hansen

I'm not Rick Warren's biggest fan. Don't get me wrong; I admire his godly character and zeal to claim this world for Christ. But I could live without the hokey acronyms and, especially, his "felt needs" approach to evangelism.

That said, I was impressed with Warren's hosting skills at the Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday night. Warren is the only Christian leader in America who could pull off this event. Sen. Barack Obama wants to peel away more of the evangelical vote, and he trusts Warren not to play gotcha with him on the issues where he disagrees with evangelicals. Sen. John McCain needs to bolster his credibility with evangelicals, and he knows Warren harbors no long-standing vendetta against him for sometimes bucking conservative political orthodoxy.

Moreover, Warren gave conservatives what they wanted out of the event. He coaxed both candidates into sharing how they would compose the Supreme Court. He asked questions about personal morality, and both candidates shared their views on same-sex marriage and abortion. Obama certainly didn't impress by dodging Warren's question about when life begins. Granted, we can't expect our presidents to be experts on science or theology. But in formulating their policy positions on such a crucial issue as abortion, politicians necessarily draw on theology and science. They can't pretend to avoid the problem.

At the same time that he addressed standard conservative issues, Warren broached other topics important to evangelicals and nonbelievers alike. He asked about education, taxes, foreign military interventions, and so on. Rarely did the candidates break new ground. And yet this event somehow did.

For example, Warren introduced the forum saying, "We've got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other, and we need to restore civility?in our civil discourse, and that's the goal of the Saddleback Civil Forum." With this standard as his goal, Warren succeeded magnificently. The candidates' personalities emerged clearly as they responded specifically to an impressive array of questions. Anyone who watched the event got a real sense for the candidates' comparative strengths and weaknesses. Though Warren's event lacked the side-to-side comparison of presidential debates, it also avoided the stage theatrics that sidetrack them.

Let's give the pastor credit. Journalists are trained to distrust their interview subjects and try to outwit them into revealing something they didn't want to share. Pastors likewise harbor no illusions about human nature. But they also must navigate the choppy waters of church life where they try and convince clashing personalities to work together for the common good, a task they share with politicians. As a result, Warren shared evident rapport with the candidates, which put them at ease and made for a more substantial discourse. For so long, evangelicals have contributed to America's poisonous political climate. It's about time we became part of the solution.

Let me share one final concern, though. One of Rick Warren's heroes is Billy Graham - a great choice. I hope Warren's relationship with Graham and knowledge of his life will help Warren avoid the pitfalls of intervening in politics. Like Warren, Graham befriended the rich and powerful around the world. His two closest friends in the Oval Office were Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Only Graham could befriend two consecutive presidents who disagreed on so much. That's because Graham had his policy views, but he didn't let them get in the way of personal spiritual counsel.

So far so good, until you consider the outcome. Under Johnson and Nixon's leadership, the United States endured conflict over civil rights, Watergate, and Vietnam. Still today, we live with the fruit - both good and bad - of these painful controversies that split generations and communities. The evangelical track record during this period is spotty at best. Too often evangelicals on both the Right and Left failed to bring their faith to bear on the greatest questions of their generation. For the sake of the country and the church's faithfulness to God, evangelicals cannot afford to make the same mistakes today.

In its recent profile of Warren, Time magazine observed that he "may not aspire to global mogulhood, but he is clearly near giddy over occupying a globetrotting-catalyst status normally reserved for ex-Presidents." That sounds dangerously like the awe of political power that seduced Graham. As much as evangelicals need leaders who can encourage civil discourse, they desperately need leaders who will help them biblically discern where they must resist the prevailing culture. It's a tricky mix.

I will be praying that the God who has given Warren such influence with presidential candidates will help him resist the temptation to seek their approval.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 19, 2008 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

August 6, 2008

Audio Ur: Brandon O'Brien on the Masculinity Movement

Back in April, Leadership assistant editor Brandon O'Brien wrote an article in Christianity Today about the recent trend toward manly Christianity in some evangelical churches. The article generated quite a buzz on the website and in the blogosphere. Brandon was recently interviewed on the subject for an article in USA Today. Last week, Skye Jethani, Leadership managing editor, talked with Brandon about the articles and asked him a few hard questions. What really keeps men out of church? Where do our gender stereotypes come from? What's really at stake here?

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

P.S. For those wondering when Audio Ur will be on iTunes...we're working on it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 6, 2008 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 25, 2008

The First Church of Second Life

by Angie Ward

There is another life beyond this one: a realm where one's role on earth is a distant memory, where inhabitants have new bodies and can fly anywhere they like. It sounds a bit like heaven. But it's not. It's cyberspace.

Second Life is - well, for the uninitiated, it is hard to explain. Some call it a game, but in reality it is ultimate virtuality: a virtual, 3D, online world that is continually created and updated by its residents. Originally introduced to the public in 2003 by the company Linden Lab, Second Life now boasts over a million members from around the world.

These members, 50,000 or more of whom are online and "in-world" at any given time, create their own names and "avatars" (virtual identities with infinite combinations of customizable human and nonhuman "looks") that can own merchandise and property (bought with real U.S. dollars) and interact with any anyone else in-world via Second Life chat or instant messenger. Residents can walk, fly, or teleport to various destinations, including lush beaches, raucous dance clubs, trendy restaurants, seedy strip joints, bustling malls - and churches.

As of this writing, there were around 100 churches listed in Second Life. Some were obviously created as a joke (The Church of Apathy), but dozens of others advertise legitimate doctrine, membership, and church functions. But why would anyone start a church in a place that isn't real?

Because, for many of its residents, Second Life is real; more real - to them, at least - than their real-world existences. Some members spend entire days in-world at one time; they make friends, go to school, party, play, and sometimes even derive more income from their virtual enterprises than from their real-world ones. This is either cause for great alarm, or great opportunity for ministry.

Second Life resident "Emmanuel Hallard" believes the latter, and started the Christian Church of Second Life two and half years ago. "I felt that Jesus' saying, ?Go into all the world' included Second Life," explained Hallard, who in his "First Life" is Lee Wilson, a minister, author, and actor who works for the Family Dynamics Institute, a nonprofit marriage and family ministry located outside of Nashville.

Wilson/Hallard chose his Second Life first name, Emmanuel, because it means "God with us." "When I first joined Second Life I wanted that message to go with me - that God is everywhere," he said. "We can't hide from Him in the dark, in a voting booth, or in a virtual world." The Nashville minister says he spends around 10 hours per week in Second Life, communicating with his church's 1,000 members, developing the church "property," leading Bible discussions, talking with church visitors, and exploring new areas of the world. The church also has a donation box and accepts gifts that go toward the purchase of new property and the Second Life land ownership fee of $30 per month.

Other Second Life churches function in a similar manner, offering Bible studies and discussion groups. Some hold special events based on the liturgical calendar, such as Easter gatherings and special prayer services.

"Second Life in general lets you experience freedom you might not have in your everyday life," explained Wilson/Hallard.

And the freedom to be and do anything you want in-world is a two-edged sword. "Slappy Yering," another Christian who has spent significant time in Second Life, has observed the darker side of this freedom.

Yering, a church planter and telecom employee in his First Life, used to spend 8 to 16 hours per week in Second Life. He originally joined to get closer to a couple in his church that was very quiet in real life, but spent a lot of time in-world. "In the game they were just crazy," Yering explained. "The couple worked at a virtual strip club. He was a DJ and she was a dancer, and they owned a house in-world. Most of the time I was there, we were talking about life. I was a counselor to these people who had trouble dealing with each other in the real world.

"It was kind of a fun thing," Yering continued "You could be whoever you wanted and do whatever you wanted - no responsibility, because it's just a game. But that's the dangerous part. It crossed a line. The couple eventually divorced. They should really have never been married in the first place, but the game accelerated their downfall."

So, what is Second Life? A colossal time waster, a harmless (albeit elaborate) diversion, or evil escapism? From my own experience, the Second Life world is difficult to learn, yet potentially addicting. The virtual world is completely unreal, yet totally real at the same time. Dangers lurk, yet opportunities abound. What is the appropriate approach for a Christian? On the one hand, Scripture warns us of spending time in futile pursuits; on the other, we are to spread the Gospel to the unreached, using whatever means possible.

Personally, I am too busy in my First Life to spend time in Second Life. But I commend those who are thinking outside the box about how to engage a vast, unevangelized world that is actually contained inside a box.

For a brief glimpse of a Second Life church experience, check out this video, produced by Craig Groeschel's LifeChurch.tv.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 25, 2008 | Comments (21) | TrackBack

July 24, 2008

Is Manliness Next to Godliness?

Today you can read Leadership's own assistant editor, Brandon O'Brien, was in USA Today. The report by Cathy Lynn Grossman highlights the lengths churches are going to reach men. O'Brien wrote an article last spring for Christianity Today on the errors that plague some of these Christian masculinity movements. He was tapped by USA Today to comment on the trend. Here's an excerpt from the piece:

O'Brien says most of the "guy churches" don't go to the degree 121 has, "but much more prevalent and more alarming is the number of churches that promote a stereotype of muscular male behavior as the only correct godly way to be."

He describes a 2002 gathering of comedian Brad Stine's GodMen ministry, featuring videos of karate fights, car chases and a song with lyrics urging, "No more nice guy, timid and ashamed ? Grab a sword, don't be scared - be a man, grow a pair!"

O'Brien counter-punches that those who prefer lattes and books to bows and arrows are equally able to embody Christ-like qualities. "Guy church" pastors should not forget that "humanity in the image of Christ is not aggressive and combative; it is humble and poor."

Read the entire article here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 24, 2008 | Comments (19) | TrackBack

July 22, 2008

The Life You've Always Wanted (in Bed)

A number of churches are now preaching a message I never heard from the pulpit growing up: God wants you to have sex. Lots of sex. Great sex. All for his glory, of course.

In February 2008, Relevant Church of Tampa, Florida, issued a "30-Day Sex Challenge" during their sermon series on relationships. Married couples were exhorted to have some form of intercourse - and singles to abstain - every day for a month.

Last month, New Direction Christian Church (Memphis, Tennessee) conducted its own "40 Nights of Grrreat Sex" program. The pastoral staff handed out daily planners with suggestions for mixing things up. They set up a blog so members could ask questions - and presumably offer advice - anonymously. I hope they also have plans to increase their children's ministry budget in the coming months.

And it's not just churches. In the Christian publishing market, the body of explicit sex manuals for Christian couples is growing. Ironically, about the time secular commentators have begun to voice their concern that our culture is overstimulated, the Christian church says, "I've got an idea; let's have more sex."

Of course I understand the difference between casual sex and intimacy within a godly marriage. And in some ways, I find this trend toward openness about human sexuality to be encouraging. Having grown up in a conservative church in a conservative part of the country, I know Christians who feel guilty about having (not to mention enjoying) sex with their Christian spouses. This certainly should not be so.

On the other hand, where does "church as sex therapist" lead? In the upcoming issue of Leadership, Sam O'Neal reports that Relevant Church's sex campaign resulted in a 15 percent increase in attendance. Is that transfer growth or conversion growth, I wonder? (Not growth precisely, but you know what I mean.)

I don't mean to criticize either of the ministries above; there's certainly nothing wrong with churches celebrating sexual intimacy within marriage. And I don't know enough of the details to critique either of the "campaigns." But to comment on evangelicalism's apparently growing fascination with sex, I have to wonder what this looks like to nonbelievers.

For example, as I understand it, there is some disagreement among Taoists concerning the role of sex in spiritual development. Some say that sex uses up chi (which one must reserve in order to become immortal), so they abstain. Others say a person can actually gain chi during intercourse, so have all you want. From an outsider's perspective, if I were going to choose a form of Taoism ? well, it's a simple choice, isn't it?

There's a part of me that wonders whether nonbelievers will look on Christianity, from an outsider's perspective, and say, "Well, if my options are ?take up your cross and follow me' or ?have sex every day,' I'll take option two, please." What you win them with is what you win them to, or so they say.

I'm curious to hear what you think. Is this "tell 'em what they want to hear"? Or are we finally beginning to understand God's design for sex in marriage? Does an emphasis on sexual fulfillment (or financial security, or anger management, or ?) distract from the gospel? Or is satisfaction of all sorts an element of the gospel message of restoration? Let us know what you think. And remember--keep it short and keep it clean.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 22, 2008 | Comments (28) | TrackBack

July 9, 2008

Audio Ur: Dan Kimball on Gay Marriage

Last month the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Some are predicting that the California ruling will open the door to gay marriage throughout the country. How should church leaders respond? Skye Jethani, managing editor of Leadership, recently spoke with Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, about how his congregation is handling the controversial decision.

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

P.S. For those wondering when Audio Ur will be on iTunes...we're working on it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 9, 2008 | Comments (40) | TrackBack

June 27, 2008

Tuning Out Christian Radio

It's official: I'm tuning out of Christian radio.

When some of the Christian radio stations in my area shifted their play lists from Southern gospel, country Christian and syndicated preaching, I took notice. I was thrilled to have airwave access to what I considered great Christian music. And I found myself tuning in more often.

But even my favorite stations have started losing me in recent months. What led me to reprogram my car radio and cancel my monthly $10 pledges? Three things.

First, I've noticed a growing level of - how shall I say this? - sappiness. Yeah, that's the word. It's not so much the music that's sappy (some of it is); it's the commentary, news stories, and contests that combine to present Christianity as synonymous with sentimentality. I live in a real world that's not always positive and encouraging, so Christian radio's steady diet of sugary spirituality doesn't promote sustaining faith.

What's more, I've noticed Christian radio becoming, for me, a sort of faith vending machine. Need some encouragement? Just push a button! I suspect that too frequent exposure to otherwise fine music hackneys that music and causes spiritual satisfaction to become one more commodity in my life. This makes real corporate worship feel like an imitation of the canned radio versions of the songs. Plus, it keeps me from developing truly nourishing habits. After all, who needs real corporate worship and challenging formative disciplines when I can just tune my radio dial and get a quick God fix?

Most importantly, I detect Christian radio has succumbed to consumerism. An on-air promo for one station's Friends and Family Music Cruise pushed me over the edge. Here's an excerpt from their website:

This year, besides reserving the entire cruise for [our] listener family, everything's bigger and better - the ship, the exclusive music concerts, the comedy shows, the speakers, and the endless opportunities for having fun! Did someone say swim and spa? That's right, you'll have it all!

Is it just me, or are "bigger," "better," and "having it all" actually not congruent with the One who made Himself nothing and was obedient unto death? Plus, the station boasts that you can finance the cruise on your credit card. I'm a fun loving guy, but encouraging indebtedness for an experience that appeals to and promotes selfishness - under the guise of being a godly experience - is nothing to laugh at.

Buried beneath my growing dissatisfaction for Christian radio, I find four nuggets of caution for those of us responsible for ministry leadership.

First, Christianity is interesting, but it's not amusing. After all, "to amuse" basically means to divert and cause someone to not think. Church does not exist to take our minds off the real world, but to focus our attention on God, His plan for the world, and our place in His plan. It's an interesting plan requiring focus and attention. As a pastor, I often tried too hard to avoid being boring and (gasp!) irrelevant. But in avoiding those dangers, I sometimes fell into the ditch of mere amusement. Christian leaders need to take caution against spinning the gospel as a spectacle that holds our attention but does not hold us accountable.

Second, we must resist presenting immediate fixes for felt needs. After all, salvation and spiritual growth are not commodities that can be produced, marketed, promoted, and perfected for mass satisfaction. Jesus is not a hamburger, a snappy set of sandals, or an iPhone. Discipleship is a committed relationship with Jesus that gradually forms us into the likeness of our Creator. We must take care in how we present the gospel, lest Christ come off as a product we consume instead of the Lord we obey. While more people may buy into a Jesus who makes us happy, we are called to preach a Jesus who makes us holy.

Third, lowest common denominators tend to push us off course. Just because lots of church members (and would-be church members) believe God is for this or that political party, we cannot taint the gospel message with partisan political appeal in order to gain the masses. Likewise, just because obsessive parents demand a children's program that's on par with Disney doesn't mean allocation of tithes and offerings toward such a ministry is wise or warranted. "Give people what they want" makes a poor church motto.

Finally, it's all too easy to generate and get caught up in hype. We Christian leaders can get stoked about the "big" things we're doing and lose focus on our core purpose. Hype is not hope, and it is not a route to Christian hope. So when we build a bigger building, plan a super outreach event, orchestrate an awesome Easter service, or pull together a marvelous missionary experience, let's not get high on the hype that can take on a life of its own.

I'm humbled to realize that for all my critique of Christian radio, I've made many of the same mistakes in my own ministry. So while I may be tuning out of Christian radio for a while, I'm thankful that my departure reminds me how we can inadvertently do bad while aiming for good.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 27, 2008 | Comments (63)

May 14, 2008

From Useful Idiots to Political Misfits

What is an "evangelical"? According to almost 80 prominent pastors, theologians, and activists, the word "evangelical" has become "a term that, in recent years, has often been used politically, culturally, socially - and even as a marketing demographic."

The group signed and released a 19 page "Evangelical Manifesto" last week in Washington D.C. The goal of the document is to "reclaim the definition of what it means to be an Evangelical." They believe that theological, rather than political, principles should define evangelicalism, and they offer a strong rebuke to those who would equate the word with either end of the political spectrum. When evangelicalism is politically defined, they say, it makes Christians "useful idiots" for politicians and parties.

The manifesto's signers are a diverse bunch including Timothy George, dean, Beeson Divinity School; Os Guinness; Richard Mouw, president, Fuller Theological Seminary; David Neff, editor in chief of Christianity Today; and Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine. Absent are some high profile Religious Right folks like James Dobson. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has written about why he won't sign the manifesto even though he agrees with 90 percent of its content.

One commentator has noted that the manifesto represents a divide between the "old-style populist evangelicals" (think Religious Right, Moral Majority, pro-life, anti-gay marriage) and what he calls the increasing ranks of "cosmopolitan evangelicals" (think global awareness, social justice, poverty, AIDS). He says this bunch (shall we call them Cosmo-Christians?) are "the new public face of the evangelical movement."

It isn't that Cosmo-Christians don't care about abortion, sexuality, or marriage issues, they're simply acknowledging that there are other moral issues address by scripture and impacted by evangelical belief. A Seattle Times article this week reports on this trend:

Eugene Cho, a founder and lead pastor at Seattle's Quest Church, which caters to a predominantly under-35 crowd, urges young Christians to look beyond the two or three issues that have allowed Christians to be "manipulated by those that know the game or use it as their sole agenda." "While the issue of abortion - the sanctity of life - must always be a hugely important issue, we must juxtapose that with other issues that are also very important."

Polls have shown that young Christians aren't any less concerned about the "family values" issues that have traditionally driven Christians to the Republican camp?. It's just that they're also concerned about issues such as social justice and immigration, issues traditionally associated with Democrats.

Shane Claiborne calls these young evangelicals who don't feel at home in either party "political misfits" which, I suppose, is a step up from "useful idiots."

With the election driving political conversations in churches and among evangelicals, these trends are worth discussing. Do you think evangelicals have become useful idiots for the Republican Party? Are we in danger of becoming equally useful and idiotic tools for the Democrats? And do you resonate with Claiborne's label? Are you a political misfit?

Here are a few additional resources to check out. Then come back and share your comments.

"The Evangelical Manifesto: What It Means" (U.S. News & World Report)

Read the full manifesto here.

"Why I am not signing the 'Evangelical Manifesto'"by Richard Land

"Young, evangelical ... for Obama?" (Seattle Times)

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 14, 2008 | Comments (29)

May 13, 2008

Gordon MacDonald: Is Wright Really Wrong?

In Gordon MacDonald's monthly column at LeadershipJournal.net, he asks this provocative question:

Is there a significant difference between Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America," and the comment so oft-quoted in evangelical pulpits (attributed to a well known preacher who shall go unnamed): "If God does not judge America for its sins, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Don't quibble about word-choice; think substance. Is there a significant difference?

I figure Out of Ur is as good a place as any to answer MacDonald's question. Have at it.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 13, 2008 | Comments (41)

May 6, 2008

John Ortberg on Religion AND Politics

Anybody but me notice that this is an election year? I have loved politics since I was a kid; one of my first and favorite books was a little Cold War classic called Being an American Can Be Fun.

But it's an odd thing. The church - where we're supposed to be fearless; where we're supposed to challenge people on sin, and be prophetic, and face martyrdom - the church is also the place where we're told, "Don't talk about politics!" Or at least we're told that in the kind of churches where I grew up. Other traditions are different. In the African-American church, for instance, for decades church was the one place where politics could be safely talked about; leaving a legacy that is reverberating pretty loudly this year.

Here's the problem: politics is an important sphere of human activity, and as such God is keenly interested in it. It was the Dutch theologian and politician (why don't we have more of those?) Abraham Kuyper who famously said, "There is not one inch of creation about which Jesus Christ does not say: ?This is mine!'"

However, as soon as human beings (including church leaders) start assuming they are in a position to pronounce God's political leanings, things get a little dicey.

In Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, which remains the high water mark in presidential theological reflection, he notes that "Both (the North and the South) read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other." So maybe a way to place politics in its proper context is with a little thought experiment.

Imagine that we elected all the right people to all the right offices. President, Congress, governors, right down to the school board, city council members, and dog catcher (which, by the way, does anyone still get to vote for?) Let's imagine that all of these ideal office holders instituted all the right policies. Every piece of legislation - from zoning laws, to tax codes, to immigration policy, to crime bills - is just exactly the way you know it ought to be.

Would that usher in perfection?

Would the hearts of the parents be turned toward their children?
Would all marriages be models of faithful love?
Would greed and pride be legislated out of existence?
Would assistant pastors find senior pastors to be models of harmony and delight?
Would human beings now at last be able to master our impulses around sexuality, and anger, and narcissism?
Would you finally become the woman or man you know you ought to be?

In the words of theologian Macaulay Culkin: "I don't think so." Because no human system has the ability to change the human heart. Not even democracy, or capitalism, or post-modern-emergent-ancient-future-missionalism. T.S. Elliot summed up our quandary brilliantly: "We want a system of order so perfect that we do not have to be good."

Systems are important but they're also complicated. Historian Mark Noll notes that evangelicals often fail to add value in politics because we like simplicity: good vs. evil; right vs. wrong. Political and economic arrangements are full of complexity and nuance. Well-intended legislation may lead to poor results. When we condition people to think that every bill is a battle between the forces of righteousness versus the minions of darkness, we do not serve the process well. But we specialize in polarizing. No parachurch organization with a political agenda ever sent out a fund-raising letter noting that an upcoming bill was "likely to do 40 percent more good than harm."

We ought to be engaged in the political process. We ought to vote, be educated, be involved. We should do it in a way that is civil and respectful and redemptive. (I saw a cartoon recently where a guy showed up at the pearly gates to hear St. Peter say: "You were a believer, yes. But you skipped the not-being-a-jerk-about-it part.") But we should also remember that the church is not called to be one more political interest group.

The human race needs an administration of another kind. There is one possibility. Someone needs to be in a position to say: "The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe the Good News." Scholars like N.T. Wright remind us that these words were politically loaded. They deliberately echo or parody the claims of Rome - that Caesar was Savior, that his kingdom was Good News.

The Gospel of the early church was, among other things, a deliberate in-your-face to the empire. Pretty cheeky when you think that the church had a few thousand ragged cohorts and the Empire ruled sixty-five million hearts. It was pretty clear which horse to bet on. But here we are, two thousand years later, and we give our children names like Peter, Paul, and Mary; and we call our dogs Caesar and Nero.

These gospel words of the early church were deliberately politically loaded. But they were not to be co-opted. They are to stand above every human party and candidate and political platform. The church historically has not done well when it gets too closely associated with empires. The gospel words must transcend higher to go deeper.

My daughter got a CD for me recently from an old Broadway show called Camelot.
Richard Burton is singing at the end ad the dream of Camelot is about to perish in a great battle. He sings/speaks in a tone of unbearable wistfulness:

?Don't let it be forgot,
That once there was a spot,
For one brief shining moment?'

I wondered why that was so evocative. Until I remembered - there is a longing. But it is not really about Camelot, or King Arthur, or Shangri-la, or Constantine, or whoever your favorite candidate is. It's for a carpenter-turned-rabbi, who once ran for Messiah, and got crucified.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 6, 2008 | Comments (18)

May 2, 2008

The Passion of the Heist

I have a confession to make: I'm a thief and a murderer. I haven't actually killed a living, breathing human being (I have stolen a thing or two, though; mostly pens and pencils). But one summer in college, a roommate and I played Grand Theft Auto: Vice City until we'd both done pretty much every awful thing there is in the world to do, including killing and stealing.

And it was great fun.

The newest installment of the Grand Theft Auto series is anticipated to be dang near the most lucrative media release ever. Take-Two Interactive Software, the company that owns GTA creator Rockstar Games, expects to sell 9 million copies of the game by the end of their fiscal year in October. They expect sales to gross $400 million in its first week; that's a measly $1 million less than the top grossing movie of all time, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, made in its first week.

Together the series of three games has sold around 70 million copies so far, which puts it in competition with (and actually slightly ahead of) Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003). It will also be in league with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the last of Rowling's Harry Potter books, which sold 12 million copies in its first run in the U. S. Think of that: if the game's popularity is comparable to that of Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code, there's no doubt that people in your church will soon be stealing cars and chasing women. Virtually, of course.

Now that the Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter comparisons have been made, that makes me wonder, What is the church to do with Grand Theft Auto IV?

Do you suspect we'll see Christians picketing Game Stop and Wal-Mart for selling a game that celebrates violence, drunkenness, theft, prostitution, and heaven knows what else? Will we write books and Bible studies to refute the game's poor theology? I doubt it. I suspect we'll buy it. And play it. (Not all of us, of course. Females seem to be immune to these sorts of temptations. And since the church is made up mostly of women, then maybe it won't be any problem at all.)

I understand the temptation myself. It didn't take me long to overcome the queasiness I felt during my first exposure to Vice City. Sure, I have qualms about murder and carjacking, but only in real life. It turns out it's quite a lot of fun to pull someone out of their car and drive it around a while when there are no consequences (and no one really gets hurt). It's also great fun to run down pedestrians and take their pocket money or shoot a cop to instigate a high-speed chase. I had no problem preaching on Sunday morning (in real life, of course) and selling drugs from the back of an ice cream truck (in Vice City, of course) on Sunday afternoon.

We continued our killing spree through the summer, my roommate and I, our consciences relatively unscathed. The only thing that gave us pause (you're gonna laugh) was when we acquired, as the reward for completing one mission, a strip club called the Pole Position. Once a week (in Vice City time), one of us drove by the club to pick up our income. Our principles prevented us from going inside the club, where the scantily clad digital dancers made us feel dirty. Gratuitous violence and civil mayhem my evangelical conscience could bear, but the insinuation of sexual sin - that made us both uneasy.

In fact, it's the connection to virtual sexual sin that makes me think I ought to confess my GTA addiction at church. I mean, if you can kill a man in your heart (as Jesus seemed to think you could), then why should we expect God to excuse us for offing someone on a video game? We evangelicals are pretty sure we can commit adultery in our hearts, and we seem to agree that viewing pornography makes us guilty of that heart kind of adultery. If viewing pornography (which isn't a real affair, after all) makes us adulterers, then doesn't killing someone in a video game (which isn't a real crime, after all) make us murderers?

No, you'll object. It's different. Porn involves real people; video games don't. You have a point there. But then again, the deep tragedy of pornography is that it objectifies and dehumanizes women (and men). It completely ignores all the things beneath the skin that makes a human a human - the spirit and personality and whatever else. It presents us with a facsimile of a person. A video game starts with the facsimile and then adds spirit and personality to make it more human so that we find more satisfaction in killing it.

So what do you think? Am I guilty of sins I should confess to my church? Or am I within my liberties as a Christian? Tell us what you think and then take the poll on the left.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 2, 2008 | Comments (41)

April 10, 2008

Live from Shift: The Perfect Storm

The second day of the conference began with Brian McLaren's breakout session, "Onramp to the Postmodern Conversation." This was designed to help newcomers to the issue understand the shift that is happening in the culture. He compared this change to a hurricane that assaulted Honduras a number of years ago. 100 inches of rain fell in one week. The country was devastated. When the rain stopped the landscape of the country had been changed.

In one case, a bridge that had spanned a river was now on dry land. The river's course had completely shifted. To the bridge's credit it was still standing; it was very well built, but it was totally useless. This, says McLaren, is what the modern church is facing. The modern church was very well built and designed for stability, but the ground is shifting and it's no longer as effective.

A similar storm is hitting the world today. Brian covered western history in about fifteen minutes, revealing paradigm shifts that have occurred in the past - including the one that gave us modernity about 500 years ago.

We are experiencing another prefect storm today, says McLaren.

In the last century there have been unprecedented changes in communication, technology, transportation, and economics that has shifted how people think. And once again, Christianity needs to recognize how it has linked itself to an old world view and be prepared to make the shift as well. McLaren was mindful to say that the bible is not the problem, but the modern boundaries or "bands" that we've constrained it with.

Following the presentation he gave a generous amount of time to questions. This is where his pastoral sensitivity and pragmatism came through.

A 61 year-old gentlemen who works for Evangelism Explosion asked, "How do we keep current? Things are changing so fast."

Brian's answer - there are two big shifts every organization must recognize. First, that their current method isn't working. And second, that even the new method they develop won't work forever either. That's hard for modern institutions that value stasis.

A young pastor from west Texas shared his struggle with defining postmodernism for others in this church. He said it's really hard to talk with his senior pastor about these ideas. He asked Brian for his advice.

McLaren admitted that the word "postmodernism" is becoming problematic. Many people automatically associate it with evil, relativism, or some other heresy. He suggested avoiding the term. Instead, we ought to approach leaders in our churches from a place of humility rather than solutions. Let's talk about the problem together. Help them see the challenge you're facing with younger people. "If you rush at people with a solution before they feel the problem you'll have trouble," he said.

One inquisitor, an Anglican priest from Canada, said that his church has embraced many of these postmodern/post-Christian ideas for decades. But now they're not only wrestling with issue of homosexuality but also the resurrection and the deity of Christ. He wanted to know, what are the guards the boundaries to ensure that his conversation doesn't go outside of orthodoxy.

Brian said that the polarities his church is witnessing is the "residue of modernity." In modernity there were two ways of being Christian - the fundamentalist way and the liberal way. But both of these came from a modern world view, they just landed on different conclusions. When we see churches fighting between liberals and conservatives, that's a church still locked in modernity. McLaren says that in a postmodern paradigm he's finding liberal Christians who are open to the idea of miracles again, and fundamental Christians who are rethinking the way they read the bible.

Toward the end of the session, Brian talked about the challenges of taking a church in this new direction and the conflicts that can arise. He said we've got to remain focused on those who need a relationship with Christ. "It's heartbreaking to see Christians fighting and arguing with Christians about all of this stuff," he said. "The fighting is driving people away from Christ."

Rather than fighting with church leaders to make changes, Brian suggested finding more creative ways to live out the mission to reach people for Christ. He said, "If you wait for your religious organization to give you permission to do the things you know have to happen, then you'll never be faithful." If the kind of people you are called to reach won't be welcomed into your church then invite them in to your home, he said. This doesn't mean leaving the church, but for some people it might mean "getting out your resume."

That made me think - how much energy do we pour into helping our established institutional churches make the shift? Are we, in a sense, casting pearls before swine? And should more of us be working outside the boundaries of the institutions that pay our salaries in order to faithfully engage what Christ is calling us to?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 10, 2008 | Comments (6)

April 2, 2008

Book Review: Jesus for President (Part 2)

A few months ago, while visiting a church out of state, I had a moment of crisis. Just before the sermon, the pastor stood to give the announcements. After wrapping up, he invited a young man in military uniform to stand. The young officer had grown up in this church and had just returned from his first tour in Iraq. The pastor thanked the congregation for their prayers for the soldier and his family. The congregation responded with enthusiastic applause. So far so good.

But then the pastor reminded the church of the dangerous and noble work America's soldiers were doing in Iraq. He said they were protecting our American freedoms and that we should be grateful for their sacrifice. The congregation stood to their feet and began clapping?and clapping?and clapping. I have never experienced a more enthusiastic and prolonged standing ovation on a Sunday morning in my life.

What would you have done? I sat.

After the service I admitted to my wife that I was uncertain what the right response was in that situation. The tenor of the pastor's remarks and the zeal of the congregation's response did not seem to reflect Christ's call to love our enemies. I wondered how a brother or sister in the Iraqi church, which has come under increasing persecution, would have felt about this Sunday morning display of patriotism. At the same time, I felt like a total jerk for sitting while the rest of the congregation demonstrated their gratitude to the military. This experience and the questions it raised came to mind several times while I read Jesus for President.

In chapters one and two, Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw summarize the Biblical narrative. (I covered their perspective in my first post.) In chapter three they begin exploring the implications of this narrative for those of us living in the world's most powerful country. They describe America as an empire parallel to the Roman context the first Christians endured. They also believe Constantinianism was generally bad for the church, and that the book of Revelation is less about eschatology than living faithfully within a diabolical empire. Whether or not you agree with these assumptions, Claiborne and Haw make a compelling case that the church in America has become much to cozy with the state - a point that my Sunday morning experience seems to validate.

According to the authors, the great challenge facing the American church today is how to live faithfully as the distinct people of God within an empire that will preserve its interests at any cost. To press this point they quote often from the early Church Fathers who existed within the Roman Empire.

High treason is a crime of offense against the Roman religion. It is a crime of open irreligion, a raising of the hand to injure the deity? Christians are considered enemies of the State? we do not celebrate the festivals of the Caesars. ?Tertullian

We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for plowshares, our spears for farm tools? the more we are persecuted and martyred, the more do others in ever increasing numbers become believers. ?Justin

The authors point out that these earliest Christians fully expected to be persecuted by the empire. "The powers would drag them before governors and courts, beat them and insult them, feed them to beasts, and hang them on crosses. And hate his followers is what the world did- at least for the first couple of hundred years." Claiborne and Haw think American Christians have avoided persecution not because we live in a Christian nation, but because the church is content with the government's Christian veneer.

Jesus for President wonders if the reason the American church does not articulate a Christianity distinct from national citizenship is that we have lost our godly imagination. Or perhaps we have become so used to living with power and privilege that we are hesitant to articulate a different way of living. Let's assume these modern-day monks are on to something. What then? What is the role of the church within the empire?

Had I been in the pastor's shoes that Sunday morning a few months ago, I would like to think that I would have asked the congregation to pray just as diligently for the church in Iraq as for our troops. I would like to think that we would have mourned every life lost in the war - Iraqi and American. And I would like to think that we would have spent time praying for our enemies.

But maybe my courage would have failed me. After all, I too am a comfortable citizen of the empire.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 2, 2008 | Comments (31)

March 28, 2008

Book Review: Jesus for President (Part 1)

We are seeing more and more that the church has fallen in love with the state and that this love affair is killing the church's imagination. The powerful benefits and temptations of running the world's largest superpower have bent the church's identity. Having power at its fingertips, the church often finds "guiding the course of history" a more alluring goal than following the crucified Christ. Too often the patriotic values of pride and strength triumph over the spiritual virtues of humility, gentleness, and sacrificial love.

As you can tell, subtlety is not what Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw were aiming for when they co-wrote, Jesus for President. Apart from the provocative content - a mix of stories, biblical narrative, and political manifesto - even the look of the book provokes a reaction. The pages are filled with photography, artwork, doodles, and strange typesetting. Some will appreciate the book's creative format and others will find the style too different - not unlike the authors themselves.

For those unfamiliar with Claiborne and Haw, both are associated with what has been called the New Monasticism movement. Known for their emphasis on community, racial reconciliation, and peacemaking, many of these new monastics live and serve in what they call the "abandoned places of Empire."

Contradicting the popular image of monks as recluses, Claiborne seems to be everywhere these days. His first book, Irresistible Revolution, remains on Amazon's top 20 list of Christian Living books two years after publication. And in addition to regular speaking engagements, Claiborne and Haw are about to launch a nationwide tour in support of Jesus for President. In an evangelical subculture of bad suits and comb-overs on one end of the spectrum and techno-glitz on the other, you've got to wonder how these postmodern monks have found such a large audience. Jesus for President's combination of prophetic zeal and prankster's wit may be a clue.

The book is divided into four chapters, with the first two serving as a summary of the Scriptures, new monastic-style. A few tidbits:

-You can tell a true prophet because he or she will either get killed or get "a national holiday in their honor."

-Regarding Old Testament laws protecting strangers and aliens, "God would have some harsh things to say about laws prohibiting dumpster diving for food."

-Taking Jesus' yoke means we will be "liberated from the yoke of global capitalism [while] our sisters and brothers in Guatemala, Liberia, Iraq, and Sri Lanka will also be liberated."

As they recap the Biblical narrative, it is clear what Claiborne and Haw believe the church should be associated with. It is also clear that they believe the church's "love affair" with politics and the state has blinded us to the counter-cultural power of Jesus' teachings.

The Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes just don't seem like the best tools with which to lead an empire or a superpower. Jesus' truth is that if you want to save your life, you will lose it. It's a whole new way to view the age-old quest for success in the world. Giving your life away doesn't sound like a good plan for national security. I guess that's why we hear a lot about God's blessing and God expanding our territory, but very little about a cross or love for enemies.

While "expanding our territory" may be so 2001, it could be said that the church's preaching and writing often avoids the sacrificial themes found in much of Christ's teaching. Not only does the Sermon on the Mount not make for a good national security plan, apparently it doesn't make for a good sermon either.

But then maybe Jesus for President overstates the case. Perhaps the authors are reacting to their particular upbringing in the kind of church that neglected much of Jesus' teaching. Perhaps our churches really are committed to discipling citizens of the Kingdom of God rather than encouraging people to simply be good citizens of the state.

In parts two and three of this review I will look at some of the questions the second half of the book raises - particularly for those of us who lead churches of questionable morals enticed by the power of the state. For now, let's consider the big picture of Claiborne and Haw's thesis. Is it true that the church in America has fallen sway to the enticing promise of power and legitimacy from the state? According to the authors, this is not simply a matter of the church's having wandering eyes. It is a case of full-blown promiscuity. Is your congregation in bed with the state?

Reviewed by David Swanson. Come back next week for Part 2 of his review of Jesus for President.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 28, 2008 | Comments (32)

March 17, 2008

The Audacity of Rev. Jeremiah Wright

For months presidential hopeful Barack Obama has been trying to dispel rumors that he is a Muslim. The good news for the Illinois Senator is that virtually everyone in the country now knows he's a Christian. The bad news for Obama has been playing on YouTube and the cable news networks all week - video of his pastor condemning white America from the pulpit. The candidate's opponents have used his connection to the controversial pastor to question Obama's central message - that he can unite the country across racial and political lines.

Barack Obama has credited Reverend Jeremiah Wright for bringing him to faith in Christ. Wright has been his spiritual mentor for nearly 20 years, officiated at his wedding, and baptized his daughters. And until Friday, Wright had been serving as an advisor to the Obama presidential campaign. He left the campaign when his fiery statements from the pulpit brought too much heat on the senator. Some have called his remarks racist, un-American, and anti-Semitic. Barack Obama called them "completely unacceptable."

He told ABC News that Reverend Wright is like "an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with." And the candidate said Saturday, "I completely reject" the statements Wright made in those sermons.

Barack Obama's bestselling book, The Audacity of Hope, takes its title from one of Jeremiah Wright's sermons. We were surprised to discover the transcript of that message in our PreachingToday.com archives. We've posted the entire sermon for you to read here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 17, 2008 | Comments (31)

January 30, 2008

The God Strategy

With the presidential campaign in full swing, politics has been a more frequent issue on Out of Ur, but that does not fully account for our interest in the subject. This time around religion is playing a much more prominent role in the debate. Leading candidates for the GOP include a Baptist minister and a Mormon. And on the Democratic side, all of the candidates are speaking much more openly about their faith in hopes of attracting disenfranchised evangelicals. The use of religion as a political weapon is the subject of a new book, The God Strategy. Brandon O'Brien, Leadership's new assistant editor, gives us a brief review of the book, and wonders how church leaders can avoid being manipulated.

Given my age and childhood in the South, I cannot remember a time when being a good Christian did not require being a devout Republican. I accepted the situation as a matter of course until I realized that Republican politics has no corner on virtue. The Republican platform opposes abortion and defends family values. But the Democratic platform seems more sympathetic to the poor, orphans, and widows - as is God. As a result, until we vote on ballots that allow us to punch our position on issues, rather than select the name of a politician, I'm not sure whether to vote Republican or Democrat.

It may not be news to some of you, but I was encouraged to discover that my political confusion is representative of a historical confusion among Christians. According to David Domke and Kevin Coe, authors of The God Strategy (Oxford Press, 2008), it was only in the 1970s, after integration and Roe v. Wade, that Christians and Republicans began going steady. Since then, the authors argue, Republicans have had greater success than Democrats in employing the "God strategy" to curry the Christian vote.

The God strategy involves a

series of carefully crafted public communications employed by politicians to connect with religiously inclined voters?In combination, these approaches seek to entice both the many religious moderates who want leaders to be comfortable with faith, as well as devout Protestants and Catholics who desire a more intimate convergence of religion and politics.

Some politicians may use the God strategy because they are religious themselves. Regardless, the method is strategic and effective. Evangelicals are eager to endorse candidates who sound like one of them. The trouble is, we may indiscriminately endorse candidates - whether Republican or Democrat - who sound faithful enough, but are simply using Christian vocabulary as a smoke screen. If the conversation started by CT's recent interview with Barack Obama is indicative of a trend, when conservatives feel they're being misled, serious questions about issues are ignored and the debate devolves into an effort to determine whether a candidate is genuinely Christian.

In other words, we seem to either buy the God strategy and cozy up to a candidate or doubt a candidate's sincerity and oppose him or her. In either case, we avoid the issues and are swayed by the candidate's personality and appearance of authenticity.

Domke and Coe identify four strategies politicians use to win, or dupe, religious voters. These points are a basic summary of the God strategy:

1. Acting as political priests by speaking the language of the faithful
2. Fusing God and country by linking America with divine will
3. Embracing important religious symbols, practices, and rituals
4. Engaging in morality politics by trumpeting bellwether issues

Politicians can't take all the credit for the effectiveness of the God strategy. Ministers encourage their congregations to view politicians as priests when they imply that having the right president or the right party in control of Congress will result in legislation that will deliver our nation from its sin. Preachers fuse God and country by confusing gospel liberty with political liberty and by conflating the American narrative with the biblical one. Worship committees mingle sacred and secular symbols by hanging the American flag behind the baptistery and introducing psalms to the state among praises to Jesus. And all of us are guilty of welcoming "morality politics" when we reduce the gospel to dos and don'ts. In short, church leaders work the soil in which the God strategy eventually bears fruit.

So where do we begin in 2008? How do we vote if the "God strategy" is simply that - a tactic to trick the undiscerning into electing a candidate they wouldn't otherwise support? How does a younger generation of evangelicals vote the issues when it appears no one is giving us the truth? What advice do we offer our congregations?

Personally, I wouldn't be disappointed if the presidential campaign of 2008 undermined our hope in the political system. I'm not promoting cynicism; rather, just a simple reminder that while some trust in chariots, we trust in the name of Jesus our Lord.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 30, 2008 | Comments (18)

December 11, 2007

The Church of Stop Shopping

Last winter Pastor Dave Swanson was Out or Ur's man on the street at the Sundance Film Festival. His reports sparked an excellent discussion about the impact of films on culture and theology. Swanson is back with a review of a new documentary about the evils of consumerism, and he wonders - why isn't the church preaching about this?

I don't remember when or how I first stumbled onto the website for Reverend Billy's Church of Stop Shopping. After watching video clips online of the reverend preaching his anti-consumerism gospel, I wasn't sure what to make of this secular evangelist. The confusion was cleared up last Friday evening after watching the new documentary about Reverend Billy, What Would Jesus Buy?

The film raises important questions, but first a bit of context. Bill Talen was born into a Dutch Calvinist family in the Midwest. After moving to the west coast to pursue acting, Talen developed the Reverend Billy character before relocating to New York City where the character would reach maturity. While other street preachers were condemning the sex shops in Times Square, the Reverend Billy was using his pulpit to preach against consumerism.

Eventually his combination of street performance, activism, and evangelistic zeal attracted enough of a following to loosely form the Church of Stop Shopping complete with an energetic gospel choir. This is where the film picks up the story.

Director Rob VanAlkemade follows the Church of Stop Shopping as they pile into two buses for a cross-country tour of music, protest, and their unique and often hilarious stop-shopping gospel. Because the tour takes place in the frantic days leading up to Christmas, the tour's message takes on greater poignancy.

To be clear, Reverend Billy's "church" does not believe everyone in America should completely stop shopping. Rather, their hope is that the songs and lively message will cause shoppers to question the quantity and necessity of their purchases. Other important themes for the tour are rising consumer debt, the slow demise of small towns, the affect of our consumption on the developing world, and America's "death by consumption."

As a film, What Would Jesus Buy? is very well done. VanAlkemade is excellent at pulling together a compelling story from what must have been an unconventional filming experience. Halfway through the documentary, Reverend Billy's wife collapses on a hotel bed and wonders aloud whether they are making a difference. Has even one person scaled back his purchasing because of the Church of Stop Shopping? It's a tender moment, and one that every minister can relate to. By contrasting scenes like these with news footage of frenzied shoppers maxing out their credit cards, VanAlkemade effectively draws us into his story.

Beyond providing a great viewing experience, What Would Jesus Buy? raises a number of questions that are still rattling around in my head.

How is it that the Reverend Billy, who places himself outside the Christian faith, is one of the most intriguing and possibly prophetic voices regarding the affects of rampant consumerism in our culture today? Shouldn't the church in America be the one proclaiming this reality?

I also wondered about the title of the film given that it seldom refers to Christ. Over dinner after the film one friend suggested that the title was a shrewd marketing tool. I wonder if the producers are tapping into a cultural sentiment regarding the disconnect between the person of Christ and the often disappointing behavior of his church. It was not accidental that this documentary was filmed and released in the weeks prior to Christmas, a time we imagine to be about hope and expectation but which is often characterized by stress and consumer remorse.

Finally, could the occasionally abrasive, often humorous, sometimes profane, and generally earnest Reverend Billy have something to teach those of us who lead within our churches? There is much that his "church" proclaims that many us of would agree with, much they preach against that we too find appalling about our consumer culture. We are followers of Jesus, the one who taught, "Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes? Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out" (Luke 12). Have we traded this aspect of discipleship for comfort and cultural esteem? If so, perhaps our first response to the colorful Reverend Billy is to thank God that someone has the courage to speak prophetically to a society desperately in need of an alternative way of living.

David Swanson is the associate pastor of Parkview Community Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 11, 2007 | Comments (10)

December 7, 2007

Are You Ready for a Mormon President?

From time to time this blog has addressed issues of faith and politics. In September, Isaac Canales shared his views about the church's response to illegal immigration. Brian McLaren has spoken here about the demise of the Religious Right. And we've debated Greg Boyd's belief that America's status as a "Christian nation" is a myth.

Yesterday, a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination gave a speech concerning "faith in America." Mitt Romney's Mormon religion has increasingly become an issue in the campaign - particularly as his sizable lead in Iowa has been lost to Baptist pastor turned politician, Mike Huckabee. But what impact will Romney's speech have on the crucial conservative evangelical voters that populate the base of the Republican Party? Will they overlook his Mormon faith and focus on common ground values? Or will theological differences trump political ideology?

Our colleague at Christianity Today, David Neff, has analyzed Romney's speech. We encouraged you to read his article on the CT website and then share your impressions here. Below are a few excerpts from the article:

After promising, "I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law," Romney resisted those who would want him to put distance between himself and his faith. "That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it.

My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs. Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience."

Evangelicals will welcome Romney's appeal to common values in the political sphere. "It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course." He spoke of a common human dignity and the principles of freedom.

Romney offered a strong endorsement of the place of religion in American public life. "In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong." Romney went on to allude to the ceremonial expressions of religion in our public life, including the references to God on our currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Read David Neff's entire piece at ChristianityToday.com.

David Neff is editor-in-chief of the Christianity Today Media Group of Christianity Today International

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 7, 2007 | Comments (17)

October 23, 2007

The Alternative After-Lifestyle

In August, leaders at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, "cancelled a memorial service for a Navy veteran shortly before it was to start because the deceased was gay." That is how the event was described by the Associated Press. The report ignited a firestorm of bad press for the church with many accusing the congregation of homophobia.

Initially, High Point Church had volunteered to host the funeral because the dead man was the relative of a church employee. However, the church withdrew the offer when the family asked that a choir of homosexual men (Turtle Creek Chorale) perform at the funeral. In addition, they wanted a homosexual minister to officiate the service. The church's decision to cancel the funeral was "a slap in the face" according to the man's sister.

The Dallas Morning News reported that the church's reason for cancelling the funeral had nothing to do with the man's homosexuality but that "his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service." This contradicted the church's policy and beliefs.

A statement released by High Point Church said:

The issue was not whether we would hold a memorial service for someone in a lifestyle of sin. We have assisted many families in this regard. The issue was whether we would allow an openly homosexual service that celebrated and emphasized homosexuality in our church. We love the homosexual, but cannot condone the homosexual lifestyle. We could not allow homosexuality to be glorified in this house of worship.

Read the entire statement here.

April Steven, co-pastor of the High Point Church with her husband, Gary, is also the sister of Joel Osteen. When Osteen was asked about his sister's decision to cancel the funeral he said, "It's a management issue more than a moral issue." Defending his sister and brother-in-law, he continued:

We have buried and honored anybody from any walk of life, and, in defense of them, they have too. [The family] wanted their own officiants to come in there, their own pastors to come in there, and [my sister and her husband] didn't feel comfortable with turning their church over to somebody they didn't know. That's the difference. Gary, my brother-in-law, and my sister would do anybody's funeral in the world.

When the interviewer asked Osteen if he would have hosted the funeral if the family had not requested their own officiant he said, "We would do it. I'd take anybody." How would you have answered that question? Is there any funeral your church would refuse to host?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 23, 2007 | Comments (21)

July 23, 2007

Razzmatazz or Ragamuffins?

It's been done before. A non-Christian is paid to attend church and provide their honest feedback about the experience. The latest rendition of this experiment is occurring north of the border in Canada. Christian talk show host Drew Marshall has paid two college students, one male and one female, to attend five different churches in the Toronto area. Their observations can be read on Marshall's website, but below are a few highlights from their excursion into Christendom.

The two students visited one of the fastest growing mega-churches in Toronto. Like many megas it has positioned itself as "the church for people who aren't into church." On this Sunday the pastor spoke about wealth and possessions. What did Drew Marshall's guinea pigs think?

Why is it that I should not seek out possessions and money, but the church is permitted to do just that? Does taking 10% of every congregant's income not count as seeking out money? Why should the institution be rich, and the congregation not? If you really believe you should be living the aesthetic life led by Christ and his apostles, why aren't you doing it? If money and possessions aren't important, why aren't you meeting to discuss the meaning of Christ's ideas and life in the local park? Notwithstanding the need to broadcast to your rather large congregation, and obviously you'd have to come up with a solution during the winter months, but really: why the son et lumiere? I found the medium more than a bit out of whack with the message.

Which brings me to another point: all that razzmatazz kind of unsettles me. We live in a culture where distraction is often misdirection - like a magician who gets you to look at his left hand while he's disappearing something with his right. I found myself wondering why a group that liked its preacher so straightforward felt most at home in a medium of flashing lights and sound. Read more.

The paid church visitors also made a stop at the Sanctuary, a downtown congregation with deep involvement in the community - particularly with the homeless and poor. The Sanctuary provides free meals and cloths as well as medical care to those in need. One visitor's first impression was telling:

I could tell then and there we had found what this experiment was set out to accomplish, a church that saw past the money, power and the heighten sense of moral superiority that we have grown accustomed to. Charity, real charity. About time.

He continues?

I was floored, for close to a month now I have been told of all the wonderful things the Christian church provides without any physical evidence of its truth, but here it is, in the flesh. I have to smile, we have traveled to the city's massive churches where thousands worship and yet we find what we are looking for in a turnout of 35 on Sunday. Read more.

Overall, both Taylor and Sabrina (the non-Christians) gave the Sanctuary overwhelmingly positive marks - far more favorable than any other church they visited. Drew Marshall later tried to identify what set the Sanctuary apart. His conclusion:

This is the only Church where the majority of time, finances and energy is NOT spent on the Sunday service. At Sanctuary, it actually would have been unfair to only score them on their Sunday service, the smallest part of what they do. Read more.

What is the big lesson for church leaders? I'm not sure, and I'm hesitant to make any sweeping conclusions based on the opinion of just two people. However, Taylor and Sabrina do force us to ask an important question. Why does the majority of most churches' resources get funneled back into Sunday morning (facilities, staff, programs)? And, in a culture growing increasingly suspicious of "razzmatazz" is a spectacular worship production still the best way to draw people to God? (Has it ever been the best way?)

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 23, 2007 | Comments (21)

July 13, 2007

The Disappearing Middle

Leaders should be concerned about the disappearing middle, according to Chad Hall. That bulge in the middle of a bell-shaped curve that represents the great mass of consumers and citizens and churchgoers and volunteers is getting squeezed. The result is the shrinking of the middle and the swelling of the ends, and it's this growth of the extremes in all aspects of our society that has church planter and leader coach Hall intrigued. Here he offers some thoughts on its effects on money and manpower, faith and ministry.

A while back I heard Len Sweet say that our society is moving away from the "bell curve" and toward something called the "well curve." His comment got me doing some research on the topic and thinking about what all of this means for church leaders. Who knew that bells and wells were such important topics for church leaders to consider?

Since high school we've known all about the bell curve: that fundamental law of natural science and statistics that defines normal distribution as being massed near the middle while being low on the extremities. Represented on a graph, the distribution looks like a bell-shaped curve. The bell curve implies that most people gravitate toward the middle or average and avoid the extremes. For example, most people are of average height, have moderately sized families, and earn a "C" in statistics; few people are really tall or really short, few have very large or very small families, and few earn A's or F's.

But within the turbulent days we live, a new phenomenon is being recognized. The distribution for some of our choices is an inverted bell curve, or a well curve. In these cases, the population gravitates toward the ends or extremes and is lowest in the middle. The well curve describes many economic and social phenomena. For instance, television screens are simultaneously getting both larger (60" plasma!) and tinier (watch the latest episode of 24 on your i-pod!); stores are getting larger (Wal-Mart) and smaller (specialty boutique stores); people are eating more healthful foods (organic) and more fast foods (McDonald's).

Perhaps more significant than the rise in the extremes is the decline of the middle: consider the disappearance of the middle-class, the demise of mid-sized companies, the loss of status for anything considered average and the polarization of politics in America. Our tastes and choices are shifting away from the middle and toward the extremes. The well curve helps describe a number of interesting church trends going on these days...

...how the church is moving theologically liberal and conservative, with the disappearance of the moderate; how churchgoers increasingly prefer megachurches and microchurches but not mid-sized congregations; and how the church is both growing and losing prominence within the larger society.
On the local church level, pastors and other church leaders need to pay attention to the well curve for another important reason: it describes how churchgoers participate in the life of a given congregation.

The New Churchgoers: Very Active or Hardly Active
In a bell curve context, church leaders could expect most members to be moderately involved in the life of the congregation while the fringes were inhabited by the highly involved at one end and the minimally involved at the other end. But in a well curve context, leaders can expect few people to be moderately involved; instead folks will be either highly involved or barely involved.

The question is How can pastors and other church leaders deal effectively with the well-curve involvement of their church members?

As a coach to pastors and congregations, I've noticed four trends among churches that are adapting to this new context.

? Membership. Churches are rethinking membership in seismic ways. Some consider anyone on the mailing list to be a member or they drop membership altogether. Other congregations emphasize membership and heighten the bar of what it takes to join the church.

Church leaders who are embracing the well-curve reality allow for a sense of belonging at both ends of the spectrum. This often results in leadership strategies that make membership available at two polarities: membership that is quick and available to practically anyone, and a level of membership that signifies considerable choice and high expectation.

? Money. With the onset of well-curve participation patterns, church budgets must be adjusted because there are fewer and fewer "average givers" these days. The two (non-contradictory) messages being sent to the congregation are "don't feel pressured to give" and "give even more." Rather than rail against the old 80/20 principle of giving, some church leaders are adapting their stewardship strategies to take advantage of it. They increase overall giving by giving appropriate attention to the ends of the giving continuum.

As one pastor told me, "If I ask everyone to give 10 percent, the minimal giver stops giving or leaves the church altogether while the big giver obliges by giving less than he can. I'm finding it more helpful to talk about starting small or giving big. Those messages tend to hit home."

? Movement. When it comes to moving people into deeper spiritual waters, North Point church near Atlanta provides a great example of maximizing the extremities while giving fittingly minimal attention to the middle. They talk about moving people "from the foyer to the kitchen" which roughly means from large-scale worship experiences to small group participation, or from anonymous to intimate. The middle step (I believe they refer to it as "the living room") is an important one-time meeting that helps people consider and get started in a small group. Contrast this with typical Sunday school, a big middle strategy aimed at getting everyone to attend classes that avoid anonymity while rarely delivering intimacy.

? Manpower. In a well curve context, who is going to do all the work of the church? After all, there are classes to be taught, ministry to be done and good news to be spread. Some are finding the answer to be a shift in church staffing that emphasizes more volunteer and part-time personnel overseeing armies of workers.

Gone are the days of Mrs. Sally teaching the fourth graders 50 weeks each year for two decades. The newer paradigm is for two-thirds of the church to be involved as short-term or rotating workers, while a significant number of high capacity volunteers or part-time staffers bring continuity and oversight. In this paradigm, there is a shrinking role for the moderately involved volunteer.

What well curve trends have you noticed in your own congregation? And if the well curve trend continues or even increases, how will you respond?

Chad Hall serves as a coach/consultant to church leaders and is the co-author of Coaching for Christian Leaders: A Practical Guide (Chalice Press, 2007).

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 13, 2007 | Comments (19)

June 19, 2007

Faith & Politics After the Religious Right (Part 2)

Brian McLaren believes the Religious Right movement has lost credibility, but what will replace it? In part 1 of our interview McLaren called for a more mature Chrisitian engagement with politics, and warned about linking political ideology with our identity as followers of Christ.

In part two, he discusses the various models of Christian political engagement that have been attempted, and why a more imaginative model is needed.

You travel internationally quite a bit. Do you see a place where Christians are having that kind of positive impact on the government outside the United States?

Let me first say the same kind of religious right rhetoric happening here is being exported through religious broadcasting all over the world. I've been in countries where abortion is illegal and the church is constantly talking about it, even though it's already illegal, because they think this is what Christians are supposed to do because they hear it from the US. So it's strange. But to answer your question, yes, I do see it working out in powerful ways but most often in very local ways. In terms of national affairs I think it's a little harder to find, but that's also harder to do.

One of the issues I think we're really facing is that in the last sixteen hundred years we basically had three options. We've had the idea of the Holy Roman Empire where the church was the umbrella under which the state existed. And then in the Protestant era of civil religion the church existed to help the state achieve its goals. The third option makes the church into an isolated subculture where it withdraws from society and sees politics as dirty.

I think one of our great crises now is that we need a fourth option - a new option. It's an option that takes us back to the first three centuries of the church. I would call it more of a prophetic role. We often use prophetic to mean negative. It's thundering against sin. But the prophets were also poets, and a big part of what they did, as Walter Brueggemann says, is they funded the imagination with good possibilities. They created pictures ? like swords being beaten into plowshares ? that gave believers in God something to believe God for.

Prophets criticize and energize, I believe that's the way he put it.

Exactly. So we need that prophetic voice not just in the critical sense but also in the energizing sense. We have to imagine. We have to imagine what it would look like to have a nation where the gap between rich and poor was not so great. We have to imagine how that could that happen in an equitable way. I'm not saying in a painless way. The fact is we have a lot of pain now. You always have pain. But at any rate, that to me is the role that the church needs to have.

And I think one of our terrible realizations is that in the first three-quarters of the twentieth century mainline Protestants were the civil religion of America and evangelicals were more the isolated subculture. Then I think we had a shift. So now evangelicals have become the civil religion of America and mainline Protestants feel like the isolated subculture. And now the question is, are we willing to look for a new option, a better option beyond the either/or's we've been stuck with.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 19, 2007 | Comments (11)

June 14, 2007

Faith & Politics after the Religious Right

Last month the politically polarizing founder of the Moral Majority, Rev. Jerry Falwell, died. Falwell has been credited with mobilizing millions of evangelicals to engage the political process. The religious right, as the movement came to be called, has been a dominant political force ever since.

With the passing of Rev. Falwell, and with the 2008 presidential campaign gaining speed, some are wondering if the religious right will continue to hold its political power. Or, is a new form of Christian political engagement on the horizon. We sat down with Brian McLaren to discuss the political scene and how he believes the church should engage.

What encourages you, and discourages you, about the church and its involvement in the political realm?
My sense is that the religious right has hit its high tide. I think on a whole lot of levels it has been somewhat discredited. But I think the true believers in the religious right will go down with the ship, and I don’t think they’ll be willing to change their thinking no matter what happens. It’s become a sort of ideology that has been absolutized and equated with gospel in their minds. I meet a number of people like this, and I like them but I can’t imagine them changing. No amount of evidence will change them.

My big concern is that with the collapse of the religious right there isn’t a mature and responsible Christian response that will fill the gap in a constructive way.

And I’m also concerned that the religious right will have left such a bad taste in the mouth of both the political world and the culture at large that there will be a reaction against any expression of faith in the public sphere. So this to me is a danger, but we have to do what we can.

What we should be asking is, how do we help our government be the kind of government that is pleasing to God? What I would hope is that people who are in the Republican Party who are followers of Jesus would use every bit of their energy and power to help the Republican Party reflect more and more the values of Jesus. And that Democrats who follow Jesus would do everything in their power to help the Democratic party do the same thing more and more. Now in that way, you are actually more aligned, you’re a stronger ally, with your fellow Christian in another party than you are with the people in the same party who have no higher allegiance than their partisan agenda.

So there should be a hierarchy of identity.

Exactly. A beautiful way to put it. But the sad thing is that in many cases because of this polarization of red and blue, liberal and conservative, left and right, people have shifted the hierarchy. So being a follower of Christ has become, in a way, a subset of being conservative or liberal.

Continue reading Part 2 of the interview with Brian McLaren.em>

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 14, 2007 | Comments (24)

May 22, 2007

How Teenagers Transformed the Church (part 3)

Curious about the future values of the church? Tic Long says look at the teenagers today.

In this final installment of Angie Ward's report on the impact of youth ministry on the American church she talks more with Tic Long, Youth Specialties' president of events. Long shares his thoughts on the lasting impact youth ministry has had on the larger church, and what current trends among teens will continue to gain momentum among evangelicals in the decades ahead.

As youth ministry becomes firmly ensconced in middle age, it is appropriate as in any mid-life crisis to pause for reflection and evaluation. Indeed, youth ministry has made quite an impression on the American church landscape. Here are some of its greatest legacies thus far:

1. Better preaching and teaching.

"They're going to kill me for saying this," Tic Long said, "but youth workers are often better communicators than pastors. They may not be better preachers, but they know how to grab the attention of middle-school and high-school students pretty quickly; kids who aren't in the habit of being polite to just listen.

"As a youth worker, you learn to be a good communicator," he continued. "A lot of the good communicators today cut their teeth communicating to students."

In addition, youth workers such as Bill Hybels initiated the movement toward application-oriented communication. If God's word is not viewed as relevant, people will not be interested in hearing it.

2. Teenagers as catalysts instead of reactors.

Instead of waiting for teenagers to "grow up" before assuming leadership roles, youth culture and youth ministry emphasize the potential of young leaders. This emphasis has often trickled down (or up?) to the church as a whole, and entire churches can be inspired by a generation of young people who are desiring and daring to change the world.

"Working with teenagers is about more than telling them to not be on drugs and not have sex," Long said. "Youth workers want to see teenagers change their world. Sometimes that comes in conflict with an older generation, but when that moves up, that pushes the church outside its walls."

3. Indigenous ministry.

The United States is an extremely diverse collection of cultures. Whereas in the past, it was primarily foreign missionaries who spoke of an indigenous approach to evangelism, youth ministry has brought that philosophy home to the American church.

"We are in a culture that is just so diverse, and there have to and should be diverse expressions of faith," Long asserted. "What youth workers do on a smaller scale, and what we need to embrace, is that there are a number of different ways into a person's life....We get in trouble when we market and sell a certain way instead of letting things be organic."

So, what's next? Long believes that the larger church lags youth ministry trends by approximately 15-20 years. Regardless of the time delay, here's what it appears we can expect to see in the future of the church:

? An increase in social action and social justice. The emergent movement has called churches outside of their own walls and back into the community. This trend will continue, as indeed it is continuing among current teenagers who are far more globally aware and active than their parents.

? A continued emphasis on relationships over programs. "Good youth ministry is community and relationships," Long said. "It's creating this community where relationships can evolve. In essence, all good ministry should do that. People want to connect, they no longer want to just watch....even at Youth Specialties, I think the movement has healthily begun to de-emphasize programming."

? A movement toward intergenerational ministry. "Part of the adolescent thing is independence, but not completely. Youth ministry should be more purposeful and integrative, so that it is not just an appendage of the church, but is part and parcel of its identity," Long stated.

Only time of course will tell how or even whether these trends will impact the greater church, but if history is any indication, teenagers, and the people who minister to them, can change the course of history.

Angie Ward is a pastor's spouse, leadership coach, and founder of Forward Leadership. She lives with her family in Durham, North Carolina.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 22, 2007 | Comments (5)

May 18, 2007

How Teenagers Transformed the Church (Part 2)

In part 2, Angie Ward continues her reflection on the emergence of youth ministry and its impact on the church. The first generation of youth ministers, she points out, grew up to lead the seeker-driven movement that has dominated evangelicalism for 30 years. And now we are seeing the second generation of youth pastors bringing their own new ideas to the church. Although the seeker church movement and emerging church movement appear quite divergent, their common roots in youth ministry mean they share a common value - innovation.

"In youth ministry, you get permission to break the rules," explained Doug Pagitt, a former youth worker and now the founding pastor of Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis. "Youth pastors get to do things that other people don't get to do. Youth ministry requires that you break the conventions to connect with teenagers. If breaking the rules is permissible in youth ministry, then why is it not permissible in a broader scope of ministry?"

Tic Long agrees. "You experiment and question a lot in your teens and twenties, and a lot of youth workers are in their twenties," he said. "They don't have all the vested interests and encumbrances that the larger church or the senior pastor has. They're not running the budget; they're not responsible for the whole machine. I think it's a breeding ground for creativity."

In 1972, a college-aged youth worker named Bill Hybels started a youth program at South Park Church outside of Chicago. Similar to the para-church model popularized by Young Life and Youth for Christ, Son City featured high-energy games, skits, and a dynamic, engaging talk by the young Hybels. The idea was to make the program so good that Christians would invite their non-Christian friends to the event. It was Jim Rayburn's ministry philosophy, "It's a sin to bore a kid with the gospel," applied to the church. And it was a huge evangelistic success.

Three years later, Hybels took his idea of a "seeker service" and started Willow Creek Community Church. The rest, of course, is history. Willow Creek now ministers to nearly 20,000 attenders each weekend at a variety of services throughout the Chicagoland area. The seeker-driven movement has revolutionized the church. Even churches that are not explicitly seeker-focused have been challenged to give greater priority to evangelism in their ministries.

But Hybels is just one of many first-generation youth workers who went on to become senior pastors. Indeed, while one of Youth Specialties' founding beliefs was that youth ministry is more than just a stepping stone to the "real" pastorate, the reality is that many youth pastors did become senior leaders in the church ? and their churches are now among the largest, fastest growing, and most influential congregations in America.

Meanwhile, youth ministry was growing up. By the late 1980s, youth ministry was its own full-fledged profession, even an academic pursuit. Christian colleges and seminaries had begun to add youth ministry classes, majors, and degrees to their curricula. Professors of youth ministry, originally an affinity group meeting as part of the North American Professors of Christian Education conference, organized as the Association of Youth Ministry Educators, complete with their own professional journal and annual conference.

Youth Specialties also continued to expand, adding one-day training events and a book series to its menu of services to youth workers. But ironically, as the field of youth ministry continued to become more professionalized, Youth Specialties found itself becoming a grown-up institution. And some of the early leaders began to face criticism from a new generation of leaders who sat under the ministry of those first-generation youth workers.

Criticism generally followed two consistent themes. First, the rise of the mega-church in America meant the need for more programs and structures to support these large organizations, thus opening them to charges of becoming too institutional and program-driven at the expense of true spiritual maturation. Second, the focus on events sometimes led to an inward-focused approach that forgot the urgency of evangelism, rather than an indigenous, outward-focused ministry philosophy.

This new wave of thought came to be known as the emerging church movement and was (and is) espoused initially and primarily by baby busters, the generation born between 1965 and 1982 and sometimes referred to as Generation X.

Pagitt believes that these criticisms emerged because a formerly innovative approach had become the status quo. "Even though Youth Specialties had a programmatic approach, it was programmatic in a very rule-breaking way," Pagitt observed. "But some people had only grown up with those programmatic experiences, so those rule-breaking experiences became the norm."

Long agrees with some of the criticism, while also acknowledging that his counter-cultural organization has now become a cultural institution.

"In good youth ministry, you go where students are, you don't have students come to you," he said. "So many churches still operate on a model where, you try to do a really good program, so people will come to it. And there is still a portion of youth ministry that is very program-driven. It's not a bad thing, it's just a thing.

"The issue becomes when you stop at the program, or you think that by moving people through programs you have introduced them to Jesus or have impacted their life," Long continued. "Program should be a means, one of the steps, not the goal."

Angie Ward is a pastor's spouse, leadership coach, and founder of Forward Leadership. She lives with her family in Durham, North Carolina.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 18, 2007 | Comments (6)

May 14, 2007

How Teenagers Transformed the Church (Part 1)

The rise of youth culture 50 years ago explains the shape of the church today.

Seeker churches, emerging churches, ancient-future churches, mega-churches, house churches, Boomer churches, Gen-X churches. There is a debate occurring in American evangelicalism about the future of Christianity and what form the church should take within our culture. But is it possible that these divergent philosophies of ministry actually originated from the same source? In the coming days Angie Ward will be sharing multiple reports about the emergence of youth culture, and youth ministry, in recent American history and how this phenomenon gave rise to both the seeker movement and later the emerging church.

The end of World War II ushered in the beginning of the baby boom: 76 million American babies born between 1946 and 1964. As these baby boomers grew up, they gave birth to their own youth culture. The advent of youth culture gave rise to a new profession: youth ministry.

Fast forward nearly 40 years. Some of those youth leaders have become some of the nation's most influential pastors. Meanwhile, many of their former students have themselves gone into ministry, not without their own adolescent rebellion in the form of a movement toward ecclesiological deconstruction. And now a third generation of youth, the millennials, is just beginning to make their mark on the church.

Youth ministry has significantly altered the course of American church history. The youth group of today is the church, and its leaders, of tomorrow. How did this shift occur, and what can we infer about the future of the church based on current trends in youth ministry?

By the mid-1950s, the first wave of baby boomers was nearing adolescence. In 1955, Warner Bros. Pictures released Rebel Without a Cause, the landmark film featuring misunderstood teenager Jim Stark, played by James Dean. If Rebel launched the youth culture, Elvis Presley solidified it a year later when "Heartbreak Hotel" sold 300,000 records in its first week.

Meanwhile, innovative Christian leaders were expanding the boundaries of traditional ministry through the inception of organizations which sought to reach teenagers outside the walls of the church. In 1938, a young seminary student in Texas named Jim Rayburn began a weekly club for high school students who had no interest in church. Three years later, Young Life was born.

Rayburn is perhaps best remembered for his assertion, "It's a sin to bore a kid with the gospel." Young Life club meetings featured singing, a skit or two, and a simple message about Jesus Christ. The idea was that faith could be life-changing and fun.

Over the next three decades, dozens of para-church ministries sprang up across the country. Christian camps emphasized the adventure of the Christian life. Radio ministries took advantage of the technology's expanded popularity to spread the gospel over the airwaves. Saturday night evangelistic rallies challenged young people to commit their lives to Christ. These rallies then spawned local youth clubs, which provided regular spiritual follow-up and encouragement. Preachers such as Billy Graham (Youth for Christ), Jack Wyrtzen (Word of Life), and Percy Crawford (Young People's Church of the Air, Pinebrook Camp) became household names to Christian teenagers of the era.

Yet while these para-church organizations flourished from 1935 to 1967, the church was not ready for the shift toward a youth-driven culture. "The post-war baby boom caught the church without a strategy for dealing with the sudden influx of people whom the media began to call ?teenagers,'" writes Mark Senter in his book, The Coming Revolution in Youth Ministry. And when the church finally did begin to change, it was through the influence of para-church leaders.

In the late 1960s, two Youth for Christ youth workers, Jim Burns and Mike Yaconelli, realized the tremendous untapped potential of churches to reach teenagers for Christ. Burns and Yaconelli borrowed money from their relatives and self-published their first Ideas book for youth workers. In addition to selling the books, they began holding seminars to show leaders how to use them. Youth Specialties was born in 1969.

At the time, only a few large and usually urban churches even hired youth directors. At best, youth ministry in the church was seen as a stepping stone to "real" pastoral ministry, usually a senior pastorate and one's own pulpit.

The founders of Youth Specialties worked to convince church boards and senior pastors that youth ministry was vital to the health and future of the church. As a result, over the last 38 years Youth Specialties has been almost singularly responsible for the professionalization of the field of youth ministry in the church.

Tic Long, Youth Specialties' President of Events, has been with the ministry since its early days and remembers its first National Youth Workers Convention in 1970. "When youth workers used to get together before then, it was always at camps. When we did the first convention, we said, ?Let's go to a hotel, let youth workers get a mint on their pillow, and tell them, you are in a profession that is not just a stepping stone.'"

In the early days, Long remembers, Youth Specialties' focus was youth programming: "How do you develop a program, how do you get people resources, how do you run a meeting, how do you lead discussions and do special events?" Long said.

The efforts of youth ministry pioneers like Yaconelli, Burns, and Long began to bear fruit in the local church as youth ministry rose in importance in many churches. But the first generation of church youth workers also began to have a noticeable impact on the Church at large, as they began to take their innovative approaches beyond the walls of the youth room and into the sanctuary.

Angie Ward is a pastor's spouse, leadership coach, and founder of Forward Leadership. She lives with her family in Durham, North Carolina.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 14, 2007 | Comments (14)

May 1, 2007

Lights…Camera…MISSION!

The pros and cons of Hollywood marketing more movies at Christians.

Films have been a popular subject on Out of Ur. That might seem odd for a blog devoted to issues facing church leaders. But in recent years films have become a testing ground for evangelical engagement with popular culture - a topic ripe with implications for our philosophy of ministry and approach to mission.

Our colleagues at Christianity Today Movies have a thought provoking article about the lucrative niche market for Christian films. Some of Hollywood's evangelical insiders gathered for a conference in Los Angeles recently to discuss the trend, and CT's Jeffery Overstreet was there. His full report can be read on the CT Movies site, but we've included a few excerpts below.

It is a complicated, difficult, exciting time for Christians involved in movies, TV, and digital media. As Hollywood rushes to capitalize on money to be made in the "faith market," each of the panel's experts has been caught up in the action.

The panelists agreed that Christians must overcome many challenges in order to make faith an acceptable topic in American art and entertainment again. But how should Christians go about that? And are these new "faith-based entertainment" divisions at major studios going to help us?

Some envision the Christian film industry following the trend of Christian music - an industry whose products are largely produced by Christians, for Christians.

Even if Christian filmmakers produce powerful movies, they face difficult choices about how to proceed. Should they allow their projects to be swept up by the new faith-based media divisions and marketed primarily to churchgoers? Or do they want to fight for a mainstream spotlight alongside Hollywood's heavy hitters?

The idea of marketing "faith-based" entertainment specifically to Christians has inspired a wave of new "niche market" ideas, many of which were discussed by conference guests. Some even spoke about the possibility of a new movie theater chain: separate cinemas for Christians, built within churches.

This would represent an interesting shift for Hollywood. Up to now big-budget productions have been marketed through churches as an outreach tool. Films like The Passion of the Christ, Narnia, and even The DaVinci Code were pushed on pastors with the promise that the church could leverage the film to advance its own mission to spread the good news. But films developed strictly for Christians - do we need that? Apparently we do.

"We live in a world of niche content," says Cooke. "We have outdoors channels, gay channels, women's channels, men's channels, sports channels, movie channels. There's no reason in the world that the Christian audience should not be a niche market. If people feel called to make stuff for an explicitly Christian audience, I say 'Go for it.'"

McKay sees value in entertainment designed specifically for the churchgoing audience. "There's still a market to write movies that only Christians will enjoy. And what's wrong with that? Christians need entertainment, too."

Read the rest of "Christians as a 'Niche' Market?" here, and share your thoughts with us.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 1, 2007 | Comments (10)

April 20, 2007

Dancing with Consumerism

Shane Hipps on moving toward, against, and away from the culture.

Url: You moved from a career in advertising to pastor a Mennonite church. Is that reflective of a generation that's reacting against consumerism? Do you see a trend of younger people preferring smaller, less market driven, ministries?

Hipps: We are a consumer culture. I am a consumer. I understand that it's insidious and dangerous, but I am still a consumer. That's just how we're shaped. That's the cultural currency. And so mega-churches will thrive. They will always thrive. The emerging church used to say mega-churches are going away. They're not going away. They're predicated on the metaphor of consumerism. And as long as consumerism is the dominant mode of our culture mega-churches will always thrive. Some are saying that this next generation hates that. They don't. They love it.

So if the younger generation is not reacting against consumer church, what are they reacting to?

I make a distinction between three different kinds of consumerism. One is mainstream consumerism; the dominant hegemony that happens in our culture. Mainstream consumerism is mega. Walmart exemplifies this kind of consumerism, as does the mega-church. Boomer consumerism is mainstream consumerism.

Then you have counter consumerism, which is savviness. They are aware that Walmart and [Microsoft] Windows are trying to dominate, and they resist just like they resist mega-churches. But the odd thing is they're no less consumers. They're just counter consumers. A counter consumer buys Apple. It is absolutely consumer driven. They are consuming an identity that says we're different; an alternative from the rest of you.

It's youth rebellion. A reaction against what you're parents like.

Yep. Instead of Starbucks you'll go to the independent coffee shops. But it's still coffee shops and it's still consuming to form an identity. The emerging church is largely counter consumer. It's really edgy, hip and trendy. But it's no less consumeristic.

The third type is anti-consumerism. That is what I would call my context. Mennonites resist both the hip Apples and the hegemonic Windows. They would rather not have a computer. They'd rather make their own clothes, sow their own quilts, build their own homes. They're very, very, very careful not to consume. That's anti-consumer.

What is the impact of being anti-consumer?

They are irrelevant. And, frankly, I'm not convinced it's the greatest thing. If the dominant cultural currency is consumerism and consumerism is insidious, how do you engage it? That is an important question, and simply withdrawing isn't the best answer.

So what is the answer?

The way that I think about engaging it is?well, let's look at how Jesus interacted with his culture. Jesus used three primary movements in every context. The first movement is towards. So he was incarnational. He entered. People like to use the word relevant for this. But Jesus also moved against the culture, he was resistant. He overturned tables in the temple and said "You brood of vipers." So he was both relevant and resistant. And third, Jesus withdrew to quiet places. He was also distant, he moved away. So you have three rhythmic movements of toward, against, and away - relevance, resistance, and distance. And none of those can be static. They always have to be happening.

Shane Hipps serves as the Lead Pastor of Trinity Mennonite Church in Phoenix, Arizona, and the author of The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, The Gospel, And Church (Zondervan, 2006).

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 20, 2007 | Comments (29)

April 18, 2007

Death in the Morning

Pastor and professor Scott Wenig understands the profound responsibility church leaders face in the aftermath of a tragedy. Nine years ago his community was devastated when two teenage gunmen entered Columbine High School. Wenig shares the wisdom he gained after that heartbreaking event with church leaders now struggling to respond to the murders at Virginia Tech.

"Death in the morning," the eighteenth century lexicographer Dr. Johnson said, "powerfully clears the mind." Just as they did nine years ago at Columbine, our minds once again got tragically cleared this past Monday with the dreadful slaughter of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech. In light of this horrendous event, pastors, teachers and other Christian leaders will seek to provide some words of comfort and understanding to those under their spiritual care. What can they affirm that might supply some solace? And what should they avoid lest they unwittingly hurt rather than help?

First, I would suggest that we avoid well meaning words of unintentional foolishness. Telling our listeners that those who were murdered are now "in a better place," or that "God needed him or her for a job up there" or that "Someday we'll know why this happened" may not be true and almost certainly cannot heal hurting hearts. In our desire to minister, let us be pastorally reflective rather than theologically sentimental.

Second, I would suggest that we avoid any sort of theological pontification.

As evangelicals, we're heavily influenced by the Puritan tradition (which I personally admire) but that can sometimes tempt us to provide a jeremiad whenever evil rears its hideous head in public. Confusing America with ancient Israel, we occasionally wonder if, in some strange way, God is judging us in events such as Oklahoma City, Columbine, 9/11, and now the slaughter in western Virginia just as He did those disobedient Hebrews. And while that could be true, how would we ever know for sure? And if so, what does that imply about the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, the ongoing slaughter of Sudanese Christians, or the Rwandan genocide of the early 1990s?

Third, I would suggest that we recognize the reality of evil in the hearts of men and women. In doing so, however, I believe our focus should be as much on ourselves as on anyone else, including unbelievers. When word was brought to Jesus about the slaughter of some innocent men by Pilate and the corresponding death of others by a falling tower, he told his audience to repent ?lest you too?perish' (Luke 13:3,5). Evil needs to be named ? both in the world and in our own hearts.

Fourth, I would suggest that we encourage people to grieve. Standing outside Lazarus' tomb, Jesus wept at the ugliness of death, and we must allow others, especially those who feel the pain of such horrendous losses, to do the same. The fact that Jesus wept not only reveals that God understands and cares about our pain but it also shows that it's good for us to grieve, to acknowledge that things in this world are not as they're supposed to be.

Fifth, I would suggest that we strongly affirm God's gracious and sovereign power. Certainly He saw this tragic event from eternity past and could have done something to stop it but mysteriously, He chose to not too. Apart from the fact that He allows a certain degree of freedom to fallen human beings, we may never know why. But we do know that He is already working in and through this excruciating episode to bring about redemption because that is what He does! As Joseph was finally able to tell his brothers, ?You meant it for evil but God meant it for good that the lives of many might be saved' (Genesis 50:20). In the midst of enormous suffering, we need to look upwards in faith and boldly proclaim His redemptive power.

Sixth, I would suggest that we act in accord with the apostle's admonition to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21). Just as happened in the days following the devastation wrought by Katrina, the loss of life at Virginia Tech serves as an opportunity for the evangelical community to once again visibly show our love to those in need. Obviously, what that looks like will depend on the needs of families in that community as well as on the level of our own personal and parish resources. But following Columbine, I can attest that there are innumerable emotional, physical and spiritual needs which God's people can certainly meet. No doubt this is true among the survivors at Virginia Tech as well.

Spurgeon once told his congregation about some visitors observing two sets of paintings in the Palace of Versailles. Bored by the one set of portraits, their sagging interest was revived when they saw the second because those pictures depicted people in action. As he noted, ?[It is] not the people but their actions that engross attention?If we would impress, we must act. The dignity of standing still will never win the prize?.' Given the horrendous events of this past Monday, now is the time to act with the love of Christ. May we proclaim that to our people and then, together, practice it with them.

Scott Wenig is the Haddon Robinson Professor of Applied Theology at Denver Seminary and the Lead Pastor of Aspen Grove Community Church in Littleton, Colorado.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 18, 2007 | Comments (10)

April 13, 2007

Imus's Scarring Words: An opportunity to learn

LaTonya Taylor is an editor with Ignite Your Faith magazine. Here she offers perspective as a Christian, an African-American, and a woman.

The maelstrom radio shock jock Don Imus started when he referred to members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" is winding down. The Scarlet Knights issued a statement accepting Imus's apology for words he called "insensitive and ill-conceived."

I find this outcome so far only partially satisfying. People heard something outrageous and were outraged. They understood Imus's words were both racist and sexist, attacking the Rutgers players' beauty as people of color, as well as their stewardship of their sexuality. And the market spoke. After initially suspending Imus in the Morning for two weeks, CBS canceled the radio show, and NBC Universal canceled his TV simulcast on MSNBC's cable channel.

But part of me hopes that Imus's remarks also lead to a redemptive conversation within the Christian community. I hope we can move from satisfaction over Imus's punishment to think about ways we can redeem his situation--and others like it.

Some commenters in the blogosphere, on message boards, and in the mainstream media have raised some important questions: What's the big deal? Some shock jock said something kind of rude, but sticks and stones, right? Don't rappers say worse things every day? Isn't Imus's real mistake mocking the wrong group? And wasn't one of the players overreacting by saying his comments had made her "scarred for life"?

All good questions. It's possible the "scarred" comment was the statement of an overwrought college student. But I don't think so. At one of the most important moments of her life, a moment she and her teammates had striven to reach, a moment culminating years of positive choices, she realized that some will still view her negatively because she is a woman--and an African-American. That's a startling realization, particularly for those of us who've been insulated from some of the struggles of our forebears.

Are Imus's words the final words on this woman's identity? No, and I think she knows that. Is she the only person forced to realize that others may see her through a cloudy, limited lens? Again, no. Should those issues still give people of good will pause? Yes. We can grieve that her moment was marred, and mourn the loss of innocence.

Imus's ugly words also give us an opportunity to learn. I'm convinced part of the reason so much misunderstanding about issues of race and gender exists is that we know so little about one another. I'm pretty sure Imus knew he was out of line when he made that statement. But I'm not sure most of his listeners knew, or understood why the phrase "nappy-headed ho" was so offensive.

I heard his words as a woman who's aware of historical periods when white men felt free to appropriate the bodies of black women--to decide their identity, to judge their beauty, and to determine their uses, not only during slavery, but beyond. And I'm aware of ways our culture, directly or indirectly, pressures people of color to look less like themselves and more like white people: straighten that hair, lighten that skin, fix those eyes, starve off that booty and those thighs.

I heard Imus as one who notes ways our culture pressures women: be pretty, but not so pretty that people think you're dumb; smart, but not so smart that you're intimidating; assertive, but not aggressive; girlish, but not wimpy; flirty, but not a... well, you know.

Given my cultural location, I heard Imus's remarks as something worse than "a joke gone too far." They sounded like the words of someone who considered himself privileged to judge the beauty, acceptability, and worth of women and people of color.

That's why one man's defense of free speech and desire to stick it to the PC crowd can raise this woman's concern about being spoken of politely and viewed accurately. Perhaps learning each others' histories--and treating one another respectfully--will provide an example to a world that seems befuddled by these issues.

My hope is that, when it comes to issues of race and gender, Christians find ways of acting out righteousness. Of not limiting this discussion--and the larger issues it raises—to the voices of African-Americans, or women, or Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, or white men who feel attacked, or those in the hip-hop community who defend the use of this kind of language. I hope listening to all these voices--and, most important, God's voice--will lead toward creative action.

If you're like me, reconciliation and redemption challenge you on the most personal of levels. I think that's why we desperately need the larger body to talk about these kinds of issues--because they do affect us--and to press toward solutions that work in our families and communities and churches. To find ways to act and find ways to redeem, rather than to simply punish people like Don Imus. Or like you, or like me.

At the Rutgers press conference, one woman started by claiming her ability to name herself, and her identification centered in community: "I'm not a ho," she said. "I'm a woman and somebody's child." Although she couldn't be my child—she's closer in age to my sister—this woman belongs to me. She belongs to the beloved community. Her triumphs are ours. Her pain, and the responsibility to defend her, is ours.

So, too, is the opportunity to find God-centered ways to live out the truths rooted in our identities as individuals, and collectively, as the body of Christ.

LaTonya Taylor is a writer and editor in the Chicagoland area.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 13, 2007 | Comments (20)

March 6, 2007

Gordon MacDonald's 2008 Questions

A bumper sticker I saw the other day asked, "Is it 2008 yet?" From the other stickers on the car, I surmised the political change the driver wanted - and soon. My reaction, after the chuckle, was the desire to skip a year of pointless arguing and name-calling. Can we simply hit fast-forward, and cut out the campaigning and haranguing by 12 or 14 months? Umm, no.

Gordon MacDonald's desire for the next year would appear to be the commitment by Christians to true scrutiny of the candidates, a year of asking hard questions about what really matters. His insight is below.

The other day I read this headline in our newspaper: "Christian Right Leaders Struggle to Find a Strong Candidate for President in '08."

It turns out that, a few weeks ago, there was an unpublicized meeting in Florida at a five-star hotel during which "Christian leaders" discussed who they would support in the upcoming presidential race. I worry about a situation in which a few people who are very adroit at seizing the microphone presume to make a movement out of all of us and then speak on our behalf.

I was not raised (by parents or mentors) to think politically or to participate in public political dialogue. My generation of men and women who felt called to the Christian ministry were told that our task was to develop deeply rooted Christians who would transform our discipleship into action items such as work ethics, family strength, financial responsibility, moral choices in entertainment, and responsible political decisions. It was not "ours," we were taught, to form or join political organizations and use our privilege as Christian influencers to pick and tout candidates from our pulpits or TV/radio shows or print publications.

But the rules seem to have changed.

And people like myself who are a bit unhappy about this may have to speak up a bit more. Thus, in an idle moment I imagined myself invited to the Florida meetings, and I began writing down issues and questions I would like to have raised had I been there. I am somewhat confident I know what others who did go would have talked about. So on my list I went in other directions.

As the various names would have been raised at the table in Florida (Clinton, Romney, Obama, McCain, Edwards, Giuliani - please note the randomized sample offered without prejudice), these are the questions I would have raised:

1. Can he/she give us a government that will recoup our reputation in the world as a generous and compassionate nation? And could he/she take more seriously the fact that a large part of this world now finds our country distasteful? And this goes for Christians in other lands also. (I'm embarrassed every time I go abroad.)

2. Is there a candidate brave enough to influence the formulation of bold new initiatives regarding energy-consumption, health-care, and Social Security? (If there isn't, the year 2030 isn't going to be a good year.)

3. Does he/she think they could stop putting our grandchildren in hock with hideous deficits? (Isn't being debt-free a Christian value?)

4. Would he/she take the issue of climate change and environmental care seriously? (It is God's creation, and some more generations may have to share it.)

5. Would he/she pledge to be so truthful with the American people that no reasonable person would question their integrity? Let's describe this as being Lincoln-esque. (I'm tired of spin.)

6. Would he/she renounce all forms of torture in the treatment of prisoners? (I'm ashamed that this is even an issue in America.)

7. Is he/she concerned about the growing social crisis of the separation between the rich and the poor? (It's becoming a gated world out there and one day there may be a new kind of homegrown terrorism.)

8. Does he/she think they might rethink the exporting of billions upon billions of dollars to places like Iraq when a few billion would make a lot of difference in the education of American children and the absurdly rising costs of college education? (I can't believe we are so silent on matters like this.)

9. Might he/she intend to offer any form of moral influence that would raise the tastes of our nation in its choices of entertainment, the spending of its money, and its growing addiction to sports? (Or does Rome live again?)

10. If there is ever again a justifiable reason to take this nation to war, could he/she make sure that everyone becomes involved in the sacrifice that war requires? To date the burden or war seems to be on a relatively small percentage of Americans while everyone else goes on living the so-called "good life?" (You destroy a nation by doing it the way we've been doing it. How did we forget Viet Nam so easily?)

11. Could he/she see themselves being as turned on by the dream of alleviating diseases, suppressing genocide, and rescuing the dying nations (debt forgiveness comes to mind) as America once was about getting someone to the moon?

These are all questions with an admitted political ring to them. But each arises from my convictions as a biblical person.

If I'd been invited to Florida to ask my questions, I would liked to have described an experience I had the other day while waiting at an airport gate for a plane. I found myself seated across the aisle from a young couple in their early twenties. He was suited up in army fatigues, a duffle bag in front of him. It was clear that he was headed for Iraq or Afghanistan. Next to him was his girlfriend or his wife (I couldn't tell).

I watched as she virtually connected herself to him from head to toe, trying every other minute to get even closer. The look of anguish on her face as she came nearer and nearer to the moment of their final goodbye was the look of one facing death. And I said to myself - as I watched youth in all of its idealism and romance about to be wrenched apart by forces over which they had no control - this isn't the way it was suppose to be. Somebody please change this!

Thus my final question for candidate: are they willing to do so?

Author and pastor Gordon MacDonald is chair of World Relief and editor at large for Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 6, 2007 | Comments (72)

January 25, 2007

Sundance Film Festival: Report 2

The pastoral call to "interpretive leadership."

David Swanson, associate pastor of Parkview Community Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, is back with his second report from Park City, Utah. In this post he questions our assumptions about church and culture, and asks leaders to consider a new posture toward films.

It's day 4 of the Windrider Film Forum at the Sundance Film Festival and so far I've seen 4 dramatic features, 4 documentaries, and a set of short experimental music videos. I find this funny since I don't generally watch this many films in a year! Some of the films we've seen have been purchased by production companies and will soon be coming to a theatre near you. Others will be seen by very few people after this festival ends in a few days.

Our days at the Windrider Film Forum begin each morning with a teaching session at Mountain Vineyard Christian Fellowship facilitated by Fuller professor, Craig Detweiler. Craig has asked us to view each film with an open mind, expecting to catch glimpses of the Kingdom of God. This quote from C.S. Lewis has served as one of our starting points:

We sit down before the picture in order to have something done to us, not that we may do things with it. The first demand any work of art makes upon us is surrender. Look. Listen. Receive. Get yourself out of the way. There is no good asking first whether the work before you deserves such a surrender, for until you have surrendered you cannot possibly find out.

This week we've been asked to "get ourselves out of the way" as we show up to these films and pay attention to what the filmmakers are attempting to tell us about our world. It's been a fascinating experience.

For example, yesterday we saw a gritty film about sex trafficking called Trade . Surrendering to this film means watching some horrific realities about our world. Looking, listening, and receiving from the filmmakers meant paying attention to the stories of depravity and redemption they chose to tell. This film raised questions for me about the presence of God in the darkest places in our world, and encouraged me to pray for the people found in those dark places.

Another take-away from our morning sessions with Craig came from our conversations about how ministry leaders should think about the role films play in our culture. How are we to lead within a culture that is looking increasingly to films for ways to understand how the world works? For those of us in pastoral leadership this means accepting the reality that most folks in our churches watch a lot of films. Much of our tradition has been to tell people to abstain from films, to only watch films with certain ratings, or to sponsor screenings of explicitly "Christian" films.

But this week Craig Detweiler is proposing another response to the pervasive presence of films. He calls us to engage in "interpretive leadership." In other words, rather than asking people to distance themselves from some of the most significant stories our culture is telling, equip people in our churches to come to films prepared to engage significantly with these stories.

I'm finding Craig's idea of "interpretive leadership" to be very helpful and applicable beyond films. Many of us in pastoral ministry are growing in our awareness of the disconnect between our evangelical subculture and the culture at large. Rather than feeding that disconnect I'd like to suggest that ministry leaders wade into the thick of our culture and begin interpreting what we find and equipping our people to do the same. If the Kingdom of God can be found in a field, I'm guessing it can be found in a film.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 25, 2007 | Comments (27)

January 22, 2007

Sundance Film Festival: Report 1

For ten days each winter filmmakers and film-lovers descend upon Park City, Utah, for a movie-watching frenzy. The Sundance Film Festival has been taking place since 1978 and has evolved into one of the premier independent film festivals in the world. Our man on the scene is David Swanson, associate pastor of Parkview Community Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. This week he's attending Sundance with students from Fuller Seminary in conjunction with the Windrider Film Forum to explore the intersection of faith and culture.

After settling in with our host family from Mountain Vineyard Christian Fellowship, a few of us set out to explore the town. On the bus ride into Park City, we interacted with an actress from England, a film music coordinator from New York, and a bunch of high school students from L.A. Later that evening we watched War/Dance, a tragically beautiful and redemptive documentary about refugee children in Uganda.

After a quick night's sleep, we lined up for a 9:00 AM screening of Save Me, a film about a young man's journey through a Christian "ex-gay" 12-step ministry. This was a hard film to see and one I would only recommend sparingly. I left the theatre completely wrecked - my head spinning.

The film portrays the struggles of gay men convinced their behavior is sinful and the attempts to restore them by a husband and wife who believe faith in Jesus is the only way these men will experience wholeness.

One of the things that struck me about this film was how the filmmakers (some who are themselves gay as we learned during the question and answer time following the screening) portrayed the motives and stories of the conservative Christians who lead the ex-gay ministry with tenderness and grace. Is it possible that many in the gay community are more gracious in their understanding of Evangelical Christians than we are towards them?

Even more striking were the numerous men in the theatre who wept during the most poignant moments of the film, usually when the men in the 12-step program described the pain and brokenness in their pasts. How well, I wondered when leaving the theatre, is the church prepared to really understand this type of brokenness and this amount of pain? And how willing are we to acknowledge our own role in much of that painful memory?

At most of the ministry conferences I've attended I've known what to expect, and I usually feel satisfied by the things I've learned. This week is completely different; I have no idea what to expect. I certainly couldn't predict that this post would center on the topic of the church and the gay community! But I will tell you this, despite the lack of sleep, the jet lag, and the heavy film this morning, I feel encouraged.

Here in Park City, in the thick of a sub-culture many of us have written off, I sense the Spirit moving. The stories in the two films we've seen so far are crystal-clear in their themes of redemption, hope, and healing. I think the church knows a little something about these themes. The question is, do we know our culture well enough to tell our story with the grace exhibited by these filmmakers?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 22, 2007 | Comments (22)

January 5, 2007

Have We Become Crypto-Christians?

History reveals the hidden dangers of always seeking relevancy.

To my knowledge this blog hasn't tackled too many issues of church history, so this post may be more "Out of Place" than "Out of Ur." Still, I have found that the past often illuminates my understanding of my faith and the times we all inhabit. In fact, I often use historical illustrations in my sermons. Not long ago, while doing some sermon prep, I was researching Christianity in 16th century Japan (stop yawning). The story of a small group of underground believers caught my attention.

In 1549 the Jesuit missionary Xavier introduced Christianity to Japan. As the church grew rapidly to 300,000 the shoguns became uneasy with the European influence over their country. In 1641, the missionaries were expelled from Japan and Christians were required to register as Buddhists or Shintoists. Those who refused were pursued and executed. The brutal persecution cleansed Japan from virtually all Western influence.

Unknown to the shoguns, however, some continued to hold to their Christian faith. Known as Crypto-Christians, or Kakure, their external lives were indistinguishable from other Japanese. They adopted the practices, forms, and appearances of non-Christians to ensure survival. The Crypto-Christians even constructed Buddhist shrines in their homes with secret compartments where Christian icons and statues were hidden and prayers were offered to the "closet god."

The strategy of adopting Japanese cultural forms to mask their Christian faith continued for 240 years, but this survival plan backfired.

Over time the Crypto-Christians confused their Christian beliefs and their Japanese disguises. The result was the emergence of a hybrid religion no longer resembling the orthodox faith of the missionaries. When Europeans regained entrance to Japan in the 19th Century they were astonished to see communities of hidden Christians returning from the hills around Nagasaki.

This amazement waned, however, when they discovered the faith of these forgotten Christians was hardly Christianity. As one historian notes, "Although the faith followed by the underground Christians had the outward appearances of Christianity, the vital content and spirit of the religion evolved into something entirely different?It would be more accurate to call it a folk religion altogether Japanese in spirit and content."

Thousands of Kakure still exist in Japan today, and at least 80 house churches continue to worship the "closet god" by reciting rituals in an indecipherable amalgam of Japanese and Latin. When Pope John Paul II visited Japan in 1981 he met with the leaders of the Kakure community to welcome them back into the fold of the Catholic Church. "We have no interest in joining his church," one Crypto-Christian said; "We, and nobody else, are true Christians."

Ironically, it is often our zeal to protect our faith that leads to its loss. Abram was called to leave his country and follow the alternative ways of God. But when feeling threatened Abram disguised himself with the ways of Egypt, allowing his wife to be taken into Pharaoh's house. Later, God called Israel to be separate from the nations - an alternative people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood. But in time they felt threatened and asked God for a king (a leadership model employed by their enemies) to protect them. The peoples' desire was innocent enough. They still wanted to follow God, they just wanted to do it in a way more "like the nations around them." The Lord warned that a king would rule over them just as Pharaoh had in Egypt, but the people refused to listen.

The record of the Old Testament affirms God's prediction was correct. By adopting the forms of the nations God's people opened the door to their values as well. Ultimately the prophets denounced the people for becoming indistinguishable from their neighbors - not caring for aliens, orphans and widows, failing to act justly, cheating their countrymen, amassing gold and silver, exploiting the poor, and all the while hypocritically honoring God with their festivals and songs. Over time, almost imperceptibly, they had become Crypto-Israelites.

These meandering history lessons have led me to this question: Have we, like our processors, become Crypto-Christians? Seeking survival and fearing irrelevance, have we clothed our faith with the forms of our American culture to the point that our Christianity has morphed into something entirely different - a folk religion altogether consumerist in spirit and content? Like the Kakure of Japan, are we holding so tightly to our faith we cannot sense that it is already slipping between our fingers?

By replicating the practices of the nations has the church, like ancient Israel, yielded its imagination to the idols of our day? By heavily adopting cultural forms, like the Kakure, have we forgotten the central teachings and practices of the apostles? Was Walter Brueggemann correct when he wrote, "The contemporary American church is so largely enculturated to the American ethos of consumerism that is has little power to believe or to act."?

Posted by Skye Jethani at January 5, 2007 | Comments (31)

December 22, 2006

Product Placement in the Pews—Part 2

Secular corporations have discovered churches are heaven sent, but can pastors serve both God and marketers?

The Wharton School of Business has posted an article on their online journal, Knowledge@Wharton, about the growing trend of marketing products through churches. In part 2 of the article we hear from some critics of linking business practices and ministry including Jim Collins, author of the business best-seller Good to Great.

The overlap between commerce and Christianity also leaves some churches vulnerable to purely commercial marketing, says Moore, director of the American Studies program at Cornell University. "When you have churches thinking along business lines, receptiveness to sales pitches is just the direction that things go." Megachurches are particularly vulnerable because they are so intent on growth. "Religious organizations actively seeking to grow and expand - raise money, reach new members - do things that are as much secular as religious," Moore notes. "When you have megachurches with huge auditoriums, and lots of stores and schools and gymnasiums inside, it begins to look less and less like a religious place."

Growth is key to megachurch success because large, enthusiastic congregations are what megachurches "sell" to potential members, according to James Twitchell, author of the forthcoming Shopping for God: How Christianity Went from In Your Heart to In Your Face.

The first thing you hear at a megachurch these days "is how many new members they have. Churches used to be politely non-competitive," says Twitchell, professor of English and advertising at the University of Florida. But since so many megachurches are now independent or quasi-independent of centralized denominations, they aggressively compete with other churches for members. Maintaining rapid growth is tough, and when churches falter, that's when corporations spot an entryway, Twitchell adds. "Advertisers can go to the heart of your mission - in the case of megachurches, that's evangelism - and underwrite it."

Even business guru Jim Collins, best-selling author of Good to Great and Built to Last, has an opinion on the topic. Growth for the sake of growth is potentially destructive, warns Collins, who spoke this summer to a megachurch leadership conference about his new publication applying Good to Great concepts to "social sector" organizations like churches. The key question for churches, he says, is, "Do they have the discipline to say 'no' to any resources that will drive them away from their fundamental mission?"

For some churches, using corporate sponsorships might be a great opportunity; for others it might lead them astray, Collins suggests. "It would be too broad a brush to say it's all good or bad for churches, just as it's too broad to say debt is all good or bad for companies. Churches need clarity to decide what's right for their financing."
But why is it many feel, instinctively, that the market and the church should inhabit distinct spheres? The Constitution mandates the separation of church and state, but the relationship between church and commerce is largely unregulated.

One answer may lie in the gospels themselves, where Jesus spoke frequently about the dangers of wealth, warning that "you cannot serve both God and mammon." More dramatically, he overturned the tables of businessmen inside the Jewish temple and drove them out with a whip, saying "Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise."

To some Christian critics, the analogy could not be more direct. Isn't having Chrysler or Chevrolet vehicles parked in the foyer of a church "a little too much like putting the tables back inside the temple?" asks Skye Jethani, associate editor of Leadership, a journal for church pastors published by Christianity Today.

The dangers of commerce intruding -- or being invited -- into churches are "infinite" from a religious point of view, says Jethani, who is one of two pastors at an "accessibly-sized" congregation of 400 in Wheaton, Ill. "Christianity comes to be viewed, not as submission to Christ and love of your neighbor, but an identity like any other, defined by what you buy, who you vote for, what entertainment you consume. Becoming so cozy with the methodology of business completely warps the message of the New Testament."

Ad experts like Twitchell, however, predict that advertising will increasingly appear "inside the frame" of church experience. Look next for corporate sponsorship advertisements in church bulletins or on walls and windows of church buildings, he says. Yet Caldwell, head of the massive Windsor Village church in Houston, cautions that churches should be thoughtful about when to partner with corporations. "At the end of the day, we don't want the church to become a prostitute of business."

You can find the full version of "Product Placement in the Pews" at the Knowledge@Wharton website.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 22, 2006 | Comments (13)

December 20, 2006

Product Placement in the Pews

Secular companies want to market their products through your church. Will you let them?

A reoccurring issue on Out of Ur has been the effort of secular corporations to market to and through the church. But Leadership hasn't been the only one to notice the trend. The Wharton School of Business recently published an article outlining why companies are adding churches to their marketing strategies. Wharton's online journal, Knowledge@Wharton, was kind enough to allow us to repost the article for church leaders to discuss.

Church pastors last year had a chance to win a free trip to London and $1,000 cash - if they mentioned Disney's film "The Chronicles of Narnia" in their sermons. Chrysler, hoping to target affluent African Americans with its new luxury SUV, is currently sponsoring a Patti LaBelle gospel music tour through African-American megachurches nationwide.

Advertising has begun to seep into churches, and the phenomenon shows no signs of slowing down, say academic, religious and marketing experts. Among the wave of early adopters: the Republican Party, which successfully sold its platform to church-goers in the 2000 and 2004 elections; Hollywood, which discovered the economic power of faith when Mel Gibson's church-marketed film "The Passion of the Christ" became a blockbuster; and publishing, with Rick Warren's best-selling The Purpose-Driven Life, heavily marketed by a Christian publishing house.

Megachurches offer a particularly tantalizing opportunity for those intent on network or "word-of-mouth" marketing, a strategy that capitalizes on social relationships to spread product information and influence purchasing, according to Wharton marketing professor Patti Williams. "Megachurch members are drawn together by a strong common bond. Networks that exist naturally facilitate word-of-mouth marketing, because people tend to share information with those they are close to," she says.

Pastors make "great connectors," adds Wharton marketing professor Christophe Van den Bulte, "because they reach a large audience once a week, and their words carry extra weight." But the real potential for word-of-mouth marketing, he notes, lies in megachurches' micro social networks.

In order to create the intimate feel of fellowship in the midst of massive congregations, megachurches channel members into small groups. The affiliation groups can be based on any commonality, such as church-going neighbors, widowers, teens with divorced parents, home-schooling mothers and everything in between. In a weekly prayer group, says Van den Bulte, "you have the reinforcement of a dense social network. It's one thing to have a pastor saying something on screen, but it's a real turbocharger if you have a small group discussing it as well."

There is no doubt that megachurches - defined as churches with weekly attendances of over 2,000 people - offer advertisers some huge enticements. They reach more than seven million people every Sunday morning, an aggregation of potential consumers that secular advertisers have ignored until recently, according to Scott Thumma, an expert on megachurches at the Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Conn.

Christian companies have long marketed through churches, but Thumma agrees that mainstream marketers are beginning to catch on. Every week now he fields calls from companies who want to buy access to his database of megachurches. (His list, though publicly available, is not for sale.) "For a long time, companies marketed to the ideal of American culture, which didn't have anything to do with Christianity or religion," he adds. But marketers paying more attention to cultural subgroups see that "conservative Christians represent a very large group, and if they want to appeal to them, they have to go directly to the source."

Outreach Media Group, a Christian marketing firm founded in 1996 to help churches reach potential members, receives "repeated requests from organizations wishing to get their message to pastors and churches," according to its website. While the firm was helping churches market to the unchurched, outside companies realized the process could be reverse engineered to reach pastors and church members. Though the majority of Outreach clients are companies selling faith-related products - like church insurance policies or donor management software - the list also includes Disney, DaimlerChrysler and other secular corporations.

Outreach's sermoncentral.com was the group that sponsored last year's sweepstakes offering $1,000 and a London trip to the lucky pastor who submitted proof of mentioning Disney's "Narnia" movie in a sermon. And as part of its promotion of New Line Cinema's 2006 church-targeted movie, "The Nativity Story," sermoncentral.com offers free sermons, PowerPoint presentations and outreach ideas based on the film. The website also allows pastors to sign up for free screenings of the film in 45 cities.

The Narnia sermon sweepstakes, first reported last December by the Philadelphia Inquirer, gave rise to the new term "sermo-mercial" - along with concerns expressed by blogging Christians that the pulpit was now open for product placement.

While the Narnia example struck many as crass commercialism, however, the concept of harnessing sermons for sales was not new. The engine driving the runaway sales of The Purpose-Driven Life was the "40 Days of Purpose" campaign, in which author Rick Warren signed up 1,200 churches to devote six sermons to the content of the book, while church members read a chapter every day for 40 days, says Stielstra, who was senior marketing director at Christian publisher Zondervan when it published the book.

"That simple process created an army of 400,000 customer evangelists whose word-of-mouth recommendations sold 18 million copies in 18 months without a national advertising campaign," Stielstra says. His 2005 book, Pyromarketing: The Four-Step Strategy to Ignite Customer Evangelists and Keep Them for Life, describes how non-religious companies can use similar sales campaigns.

Part 2 of "Product Placement in the Pews" will be posted soon for discussion. You may also read the entire article at the Knowledge@Wharton website.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 20, 2006 | Comments (23)

December 14, 2006

Nudity in Church 2: The Wrap-Up

On Sunday morning Pastor Dan Kimball of Vintage Faith Church arrived at the coffeehouse where his congregation worships to discover three of the three hundred sketches decorating the space were nude drawings. After debating the nature of art, holiness, and the church's responsibility, Dan had to make a decision - flash the flesh or lose the nudes? Dan's first post outlined the nature of his deliberations. Here is the rest of the story.

The nude drawings were very tastefully done, classical and artistic, it was not erotica. But we took them down. I felt keeping them up would cause more questions than it was worth. Additionally, there was no time to warn parents about the nudes on the walls of the coffeehouse before our worship gathering.

I found the artist of the nudes and explained why we were taking them down. She was totally understanding. Each of the nude drawings had art on the other side of the paper, so we flipped the pages over and used what was on the other side instead.

It was an interesting decision to think through. You may conclude that I am a legalist for taking the art down. Maybe you think I am too conservative. Or, you may think the fact that we wrestled with the decision at all means we are far too liberal. As I said before, they don't teach you how to handle these types of things in seminary. So we must learn as we go.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 14, 2006 | Comments (34) | TrackBack

December 11, 2006

Nudity in Church

One of the most famous churches in the world, the Sistine Chapel in Rome, was originally decorated with dozens of nude figures on the ceiling. Painted by Michelangelo, the chapel is considered one of the greatest masterpieces of Western art. However, a later Pope was uncomfortable with the nudity and hired another artist to paint loincloths over Michelangelo's nudes. For centuries people have debated the pope's actions. Was he advancing holiness or desecrating art? Not long ago Pastor Dan Kimball from Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, faced a similar decision.

I got a call Sunday morning as I was driving to our worship gathering. A friend informed me that the coffeehouse our church worshiped in had new artwork displayed including a number of nude drawings. He asked what we should do? No one taught me how to handle this in seminary.

We recently opened the coffeehouse as phase one of our building plan. We are using it for worship until we develop a business plan that allows us to open the coffeehouse to the neighborhood every day like a normal coffee shop. The mission of the coffeehouse is to be a place where those outside the church can meet us, develop friendships, and hear and experience the gospel in a variety of ways.

The coffeehouse has an art theme that changes every 6 to 8 weeks. We recently asked people from inside and outside the church to submit art from their sketchbooks. Our art team strung cords all around the room like a spider web, and the artwork was fastened to the cords. A local tattoo artist submitted beautiful tattoo sketches. Another artist created landscapes. But among the three hundred sketches submitted were three nudes.

There were two female nudes and one male. The male nude was drawn from the torso down, so there was definitely a focal point on that one. The females were both half body and full body drawings, and very realistic looking. So, we stood there and had quite a fun discussion about what to do. It raised some really interesting questions such as:

1) What defines art?
2) What should be hung in a coffeehouse that is part of a church?
3) Michelangelo painted and sculpted nudes. Would we hang a Michelangelo in the coffee house?
4) What art is considered "holy" or "unholy"?
5) What about violence in art? Of course no one would object to a crucifixion piece being hung. So, why not another violent scene from the Bible? Would we hang that up?

We stood there in front of the nudes and debated for a while. How will parents react? This isn't a museum where you might take your children and expect to see nudity in classical art. One person was arguing that the nudes should be left up. They believed the church should redeem the beauty of art and teach that the human body should not always be seen sexually.

After a long discussion, I had to make the final decision.

Before revealing Dan Kimball's decision, let us know what you would have done. What factors would you have considered in making the decision? And how would you answer the questions raised by Dan and his leaders? In a few days we'll post the rest of the story.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 11, 2006 | Comments (92) | TrackBack

November 22, 2006

Who Will Save Thanksgiving?

This Holy Day is trampled in the Christmas rush.

Wal-Mart announced this week they will return the word "Christmas" to their seasonal greetings. Good move, especially given their faithful hick-hop constituency. No more generic salutations that so many of us carped about last year, when many merchants dropped Christ from his own holy day so as not to offend non-believers.

We still have a way to go. The nearby nursery is advertising "Holiday Trees" and the local school is staging a "Winter Pageant" with small children singing, "We wish you a Merry Sparkle Season!" But before we restart the campaign to reChristianize Christmas, would someone please save Thanksgiving?

I thought we had made some progress a couple of years ago when retailer Macy's repented of renaming their annual streetside festival "The Macy's Day Parade," abandoning thanks altogether. But now, it seems to me the beachhead is slipping. This year the radio station in my city that plays wall-to-wall Christmas music plugged in Rudolph earlier than ever. The station manager saw two snowflakes outside his office window at 10 a.m. on November 2 and by noon had switched the format to 24-hour Christmas tunes. True story. Chalk one up for Santa. And the advertising department.

We're losing Thanksgiving.

I don't mean to sound like Chicken Little (or Turkey Lurkey?), but the one day set aside to contemplate our blessings and their divine origin has, in one generation, been reduced to a football orgy and now, for football widows, a jumpstart on the biggest shopping day of the year as more stores open on the sacred Thursday.

In years past, I have always looked forward to the annual recitation of things we're thankful for, both around my own table and in the public discourse. Chicago Tribune columnist Joan Beck captured it so well with her annual and often alliterative Thanksgiving prayer:

"Our Father's God to Thee, author of Liberty, we thank you for fathers and founding fathers and father figures, for the Internet if we can figure it out and interactive TV if we can manage it, for sundaes and Saturdays and TGIF, for DNA and AZT and CD-ROM, for a port in the storm and a bridge over trouble, for cocoa after caroling and dawn after dark, for healing after hurt and rest after work, and blessed promise of life after life forevermore" (from her 1994 column).

But dear Joan Beck is dead. Santa is seizing November. And Pilgrims, once champions of religious freedom, are being sacrificed as bigots on the altar of political correctness. So who's calling us all to give thanks now?

The pastor of an Atlanta church told us that Thanksgiving was becoming for them the new seeker's holiday. They found that people curious about faith would attend thanks-themed worship services with their believing friends. For seekers, Thanksgiving is a less demanding holiday than Christmas, which requires belief in the improbable (a Virgin birth?), or Easter, with its claims to exclusivity (must Christ be the only Way?). Everyone has something to be thankful for, and most people recognize that something beyond themselves must be credited with their blessings.

A Kansas City church we know holds a day-long prayer vigil at Thanksgiving, inviting people to bring family and friends to the sanctuary to give voice to their gratitude. And they do. In droves.

And there are the congregations in every city where families skip their own dinners to serve the hungry and homeless in packed-out fellowship halls.

But are these exceptions in a thankless society? In times of disaster or famine or war, people are more likely to turn their searching faces heavenward. As we mop up after disasters, however, and as war (God forbid) becomes routine, will people respond to the call to thanks? The Civil War was two years old when Abraham Lincoln issued his national call for a Thanksgiving day. His admonition still applies:

"The year that is drawing towards its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

"In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. …

"No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. …

"I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union."

If thanks could help save the Union, can we now save the holiday it inspired?

Posted by Eric Reed at November 22, 2006 | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 20, 2006

Burned by Branding

What churches can learn from the anti-Starbucks movement.

Believe it or not, not everyone loves Starbucks. The Wall Street Journal's Janet Adamy has written about the growing resistance the Seattle-based coffee cartel is facing in many communities. The issue - Starbucks ignores local culture in favor of maintaining its brand-identity.

The already omnipresent Starbucks has plans to triple its locations worldwide to 40,000, but Adamy says the plan has alarmed some communities. "The proliferation of [Starbucks] stores has prompted a small number of cities to block it from opening out of concern the chain will erode the local character."

I've attended a number of conferences and read many reports in recent years about the popular multi-site church model. Invariably these sources will reference Starbucks as an example for churches who wish to establish themselves in multiple communities. But what should the church be learning from the rising anti-Starbucks sentiment?

During my first year of church ministry the two more experienced pastors on staff took me to "the Oracle." The old man lived in a bungalow not far from our church. I entered the house rather nervously. The 60's era furniture was covered in plastic, and every horizontal surface I could see was stacked with books. The Oracle looked to be in his 70's, he was unshaven, his trousers held to his belly by suspenders. He wore only a tight-fitting undershirt (popularly called a "wife-beater" thanks to the TV show "COPS").

The Oracle (aka, church consultant) sat in his recliner studying our numbers. He had requested detailed records of our church attendance, service schedule, and giving trends. He wanted nothing else. We sat in nervous silence waiting for the wise man to speak. After a few minutes of the old man saying "Hmmm," "Ahhh," and clearing his phlegm, he finally spoke. Without taking his eyes off the papers he started to tell a story.
"A few weeks ago I had a leaky pipe in the kitchen. Nasty things, leaky pipes. We used to have a very nice little hardware store up the street. It was small, but it was all we had. It's gone now." I looked at the two older pastors that had brought me here. Is this guy nuts? I asked with my eyes. Why have we come to an old man with dementia for advice about our church? The Oracle kept talking.

"So, I got in my car and went to the new place. They built a new Home Depot not far from here. You know the one. It's orange. You can't miss it. Sure enough, Home Depot had the part I needed. They have every part anyone could ever need." He paused for a moment, then started up again. "I like to drive," he said. Oh no, I thought, he's lost it.

"I drive all over the place. And you know what? There are Home Depots everywhere. And they always look the same. Orange. I say to my wife, ?Look another Home Depot' and she laughs at me. And when you go inside they are the same too. The plumbing aisle is always the plumbing aisle."

The Oracle finally put the papers down and looked at us. "You need to become Home Depot," he said very seriously. I felt like Luke Skywalker in Yoda's hut. I wanted to check behind the old man's chair to see if Frank Oz was controlling him.

The consultant went on to say the era of small churches was ending. The future was in mega franchised churches. The most important element, the Oracle said, was "brand identity." No matter where your church locations are, they must all be the same. Like Home Depot, or McDonalds, or Starbucks, people must know exactly what they are going to get from your church in any location.

That was my introduction to multi-site ministry.

But the Oracle didn't have the clairvoyance to see what Starbucks is now facing. Its strategy of vigorous brand management is no longer working. In fact, the coffee giant is now learning from the little guys' play book. New Starbucks stores are opening that do not reflect its well-established corporate identity. They are trying to personalize their stores to resemble local caf?s that fit in with the community. One Starbucks in Denver has even abandoned the green mermaid logo of the brand.

The lesson - people don't necessarily want to be connected to a massive corporate identity. An increasing number want to identify with local, accessible, and human-scaled institutions. My own experience affirms this. I am writing this post in a local coffee shop. At 8am there is not an empty table in the house. This is where community happens in my town. Directly across the street is a Starbucks. That store sees a steady stream of people pass through to get their morning fix. But the tables are empty. It isn't a place people gather, converse, or write blog posts.

What is the church to learn? That's what the comment section is for, but I'll start with this thought. If the church is to be merely a dispenser of spiritual goods and advice, a place people pass through to get their religion fix, then we should follow the example of brand-driven corporate giants. But, if we hope to form meaningful communities of Christ-followers we shouldn't neglect the power of being local. Rather than reading the latest branding book, why not gather mature leaders and listen for the Holy Spirit? How is he advising us to be the community of Christ in this unique place at this unique time?

Posted by Skye Jethani at November 20, 2006 | Comments (46) | TrackBack

November 1, 2006

The Body Politic

Our of Ur�s best faith & politics posts from 2006

Last night I received an automated phone call warning that the Democrat running for Congress in my district wants to take my house and give it to illegal immigrants. I've received similarly ridiculous calls about the Republican candidate - apparently he wants to ban Dr. Seuss from the public schools. With mid-term elections just a week away, and the rhetoric speeding toward absurdity, we thought this would be a good time for a more intelligent political discussion. Here are some of the most popular posts from the last year about the intersection of faith, politics, and ministry.

From: Kingdom Confusion: Is the quest for political power destroying the church?
by Greg Boyd
I believe a significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry. To a frightful degree, I think, evangelicals fuse the kingdom of God with a preferred version of the kingdom of the world (whether it's our national interests, a particular form of government, a particular political program, or so on). Rather than focusing our understanding of God's kingdom on the person of Jesus - who, incidentally, never allowed himself to get pulled into the political disputes of his day - I believe many of us American evangelicals have allowed our understanding of the kingdom of God to be polluted with political ideals, agendas, and issues. Read more.

From: Kingdom Confusion 2: The danger of believing in a Christian America
by Greg Boyd
The myth of America as a Christian nation, with the church as its guardian, has been, and continues to be, damaging both to the church and to the advancement of God's kingdom.

Among other things, this nationalistic myth blinds us to the way in which our most basic and most cherished cultural assumptions are diametrically opposed to the kingdom way of life taught by Jesus and his disciples. Read more.

From: Reaching the Liberal Next Door: Are conservative politics a barrier to the gospel?
by Wes Haddaway
Two years ago our church was growing at the rate of about a hundred people per year and we were all very excited about what God was doing. As the pastor responsible for evangelism and assimilation, I had a unique perspective. One night after visiting a family that was new to our church, it occurred to me that no matter what walk of life a person came from to our church, there was one thing that I could be sure of; they had all watched the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News within the last week. They all voted for the same candidates and had conservative social views. Read more.

From: Is Emergent the New Christian Left? Tony Jones responds to the critics
by Tony Jones
If the mainstream media is a harbinger, then I'd say that recent columns by Gary Wills and Andrew Sullivan show that a tipping point is just around the corner. Jesus really wasn't a Democrat or a Republican, and he won't be domesticated by political agendas. I do, however, believe that he will inhabit the robust and respectful dialogue about ideas that matter. Read more.

From: Preventing the End of the World: A pastor's perspective on the Clinton Global Initiative Conference
by Gordon MacDonald
I know, all too well, that Bill Clinton is a polarizing name among many Christians. My association with him over these years has lost me any number of friends. Personally, I grew to love him and greatly care for him in the years that I served as a personal adviser. I recall many conversations we had about his post-presidency and the priorities for this period of his life. Since leaving office he has used his amazing ability to convince people of wealth to see their social responsibilities. Read more.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 1, 2006 | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 22, 2006

Who’s More Spiritual: Emergent or Traditional Evangelicals?

Okay, so no one's had the chutzpah to frame the question so baldly. But each group seems to assume the answer in its favor--at least, that's the impression you'd get from some emergent critiques of traditional evangelicals and from some traditional-evangelical critiques of emergents. But what if we asked the question directly, and tried to answer it just as directly: Who is more spiritually mature? On the whole, are emergent believers or traditional evangelicals more faithful in their following of Christ?

To answer, we need a clear standard for measuring Christian spirituality. The best one is given by Jesus (Mark 12:29-31), but presumably both emergents and traditionals have already read that and used that for their critiques of the other. Could we find a standard of Christian spirituality that encompasses Jesus' teaching yet offers fresh points of differentiation? We might consider the four "nonnegotiable essentials" of Christian spirituality laid out by Ronald Rolheiser in The Holy Longing:

1. Private prayer and private morality: "In many of the spiritual classics of Christian literature, the writers ? suggest that we will make progress in the spiritual life only if we, daily, do an extended period of private prayer, and only if we practice a scrupulous vigilance in regards to all the moral areas within our private lives. In essence, that is the first nonnegotiable within the spiritual life."

2. Social justice: "? according to the Jewish prophets, where we stand with God depends not just upon prayer and sincerity of heart but also on where we stand with the poor. ? All Christian churches have always taught this, in one way or the other, and they have also always, in their best expressions, lived it out."

3. Mellowness of heart and spirit: "Both as liberals and conservatives we too easily write off this third prong of the spiritual life, rationalizing that our causes are so urgent, we are so wounded, and our world is so bad, that, in our situation, anger and bitterness are justified. But we are wrong?"

4. Community as a constitutive element of true worship: "? anyone who claims to love God who is invisible but refuses to deal with a visible neighbor is a liar, for one can only really love a God who is love if one is concretely involved with a real community (ultimately an ?ecclesial community') on earth."

Being fool enough to set out on a fool's errand, I now offer my thoughts as to whether traditionals or emergents better capture these essentials.

On "private prayer and private morality," I give the nod to traditionals, who have strongly emphasized daily "quiet times" and published multitudinous devotional books and guides, as well as scrupulously observed not swearing, not watching movies that might incline one to lust, and so on. Score so far: Traditionals 1, Emergents 0.

On "social justice," I give the nod to emergents, who from the beginning have emphasized the missio dei, the mission of God to the world in compassion and justice, and who have called congregations not so much to church growth as to church giving. Emergents have also readily and in widespread ways engaged the problems of AIDS, global warming, and Darfur. Score so far: Traditionals 1, Emergents 1.

The category "mellowness of heart and spirit" does not play to traditionals' strengths, given their more immediate descent from fundamentalism, which needed to oppose the corrosive effects of modernism, plus traditionals' many parachurch ministries, which require fundraising appeals to survive. The Emergents move ahead, 2-1.

In the final category, "Community as a constitutive element of true worship," however, traditionals lead. Though emergents desire authenticity and community, several emergent-flavored books (like this one) make it seem like you can set up your own organic alternatives to a local church that has pastoral oversight, a connection to tradition, and the sacraments. Bad idea. Traditionals tie it up in the fourth quarter: 2-2.

A tie. Hmmm.

If this assessment has any value (and many, I'm sure, will say it doesn't), it would say the following:
? If traditional evangelicals want to grow in the areas of social justice and "mellowness of heart and spirit," one of their best teachers would be emergents.
? Conversely, if emergents want to grow in the area of private prayer and private morality, and "community as a constitutive element of true worship," they might find tutoring at the knee of traditionals.
? Therefore, if we were to redo this assessment in five years, the group that will be "most spiritual" will be the one who learns the most from the other.

Posted by Kevin Miller at October 22, 2006 | Comments (31) | TrackBack

October 20, 2006

Cars, Cup Holders, & Complaining

Chrysler has announced it will be showcasing their new cars and SUVs at mega-churches in a strategy to reach more African-American consumers. Chevy used a similar marketing ploy back in 2002 with their trucks. Remember "Chevrolet presents the Come Together and Worship Tour"? What's next, Hyundais at Korean Presbyterian churches? Hybrids at Episcopal churches? BMWs at Joel Osteen's church?

In other news, Eagle Brook Church in Lino Lakes, Minnesota has designed their new auditorium with theater-style cup holders. "Coffee is such a part of our church culture," director of operations Scott Anderson said. "If they're gonna bring it in, they need a place to put it. It was a logistical decision." However, not everyone is excited about the new convenience. Anderson admits that to some in the local press "it doesn't seem very spiritual."

Finally, Rev. Will Bowen of Christ Church Unity in Kansas City, has challenged his congregation to go 21 days without complaining. To help overcome the urge to whine, Bowman has given out 230 purple elastic wristbands. If you complain, the band is switched to the other wrist and you try again. After two months, and to no one's surprise, only one person at the church has achieved the goal - Rev. Bowman.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 20, 2006 | Comments (16) | TrackBack

August 30, 2006

Praise the Lord, Pass the Ammo: A new video game uses violence and murder to spread the love of Christ

One of the reoccurring debates on this blog has been whether cultural forms used in ministry are neutral, or do forms possess inherent value that may or may not be compatible with God's kingdom. For example, Andy Stanley shared his conviction that all leadership principles are created by God, and are therefore available for use in the church. I disagreed, arguing that some popular leadership models contradict biblical values. And Shane Hipps has written about the way technology and video preaching impacts the message we are seeking to convey.

Invariably, when the debate over the neutrality of cultural forms arises many people quote 1 Corinthians 9:22 ("I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some"). Well, a video game producer is poised to test your utilitarian philosophy of ministry.

The game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces, is set for release in October, and its already coming under fire from both conservative and liberal Christians. Set in present-day New York City, the game pits the army of the Antichrist against born again Christians. Players are rewarded for winning converts or killing those who ally with the Antichrist.

Players may also switch sides and fight for the Antichrist with an army of cloven-hoofed demons that feast on the faithful. One of the game's creators finds the "prayer button" particularly nifty. Before going into holy war, a Christian may pray to boost their "Spirit Points." Honestly, I'm not making this up - I wish I was.

Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind books, says the video game was created to reach a new population with the gospel. "We hope teenagers like the game," he said. "Our real goal is to have no one left behind." So far Christian video games have been unsuccessful at breaking into the very lucrative youth gaming market, but Eternal Forces' co-creator Jeffery S. Frichner is hopeful. "It's got all the Christian stuff, and it's still got all the cool stuff."

Troy Lyndon, the CEO of Left Behind Games, who licensed the trademark from Tyndale House Publishers, says the game will probably appeal to the same audience that was undisturbed by the violence and gore in "The Passion of the Christ." Lyndon says he anticipates those on the liberal left will criticize Left Behind: Eternal Forces, "but megachurches are very likely to embrace this game." And they will be the main marketing outlets for the product.

Another spokesperson from Left Behind Games, Greg Bauman, says the company's goal is to "become the world's leading independent developer and publisher of quality interactive entertainment products that appeal to mainstream gamers and perpetuate Christian values" [empasis added].

Mark Taylor, president on Tyndale House, publisher of the Left Behind books, says: "We are careful to guard the content of our own products, and we are working with LBG to ensure that the content of their game is appropriate. For example, there is no blood and gore in Left Behind: Eternal Forces. There is a certain level of violence inherent in the story, just as there is a certain level of violence in the Left Behind books.... The game is designed to be a classic battle between good and evil, but it does not gratuitously depict violence or death."

Although the game's violence is not gory Jack Thompson, a Miami attorney and critic of video game violence, is quoted in a Washington Post article. He says the game "breaks my heart." He continues, "The game is about killing people for their lack of faith in Jesus. The Gospel is not about killing people in the name of the Lord, and Jesus made that very clear."

The same article quotes Heath Summerlin, a Christian gamer who believes Eternal Forces "could reach a broad spectrum of people who wouldn't necessarily be exposed to the [Left Behind] books or go to church." Yes, but reach them with what message? Convert or we'll kill you? The message is more al Qaeda than agape; more Bin Laden than Bible. It makes me wonder if anyone who developed the game has ever actually read the New Testament.

The popular notion that forms are neutral, that the medium can change as long as the message is the same, that we can and should use any means necessary to spread the gospel - has finally reached the level of absurdity. Did anyone stop and consider that maybe packaging the gospel of love in the form of a murderous video game is poor brand management? Or was the game produced simply with profitability and nothing else in mind?

Perhaps this is the wake-up call the church in America has needed. The ends don't justify the means. The medium does impact the message. And proof texting 1 Corinthians 9:22 is a sad excuse for a philosophy of ministry.

Posted by Skye Jethani at August 30, 2006 | Comments (35) | TrackBack

July 10, 2006

From Lord to Label: how consumerism undermines our faith

Christian critiques of consumerism usually focus on the dangers of idolatry - the temptation to make material goods the center of life rather than God. This, however, misses the real threat consumerism poses. My concern is not materialism, strictly speaking, or even the consumption of goods - as contingent beings, we must consume resources to survive. The problem is not consuming to live, but rather living to consume.

We find ourselves in a culture that defines our relationships and actions primarily through a matrix of consumption. As the philosopher Baudrillard explains, "Consumption is a system of meaning." We assign value to ourselves and others based on the goods we purchase. One's identity is now constructed by the clothes you wear, the vehicle you drive, and the music on your iPod. In short, you are what you consume.

This explains why shopping is the number one leisure activity of Americans. It occupies a role in society that once belonged only to religion - the power to give meaning and construct identity. Consumerism, as Pete Ward correctly concludes, "represents an alternative source of meaning to the Christian gospel." No longer merely an economic system, consumerism has become the American worldview - the framework through which we interpret everything else, including God, the gospel, and church.

When we approach Christianity as consumers rather than seeing it as a comprehensive way of life, an interpretive set of beliefs and values, Christianity becomes just one more brand we consume along with Gap, Apple, and Starbucks to express identity. And the demotion of Jesus Christ from Lord to label means to live as a Christian no longer carries an expectation of obedience and good works, but rather the perpetual consumption of Christian merchandise and experiences - music, books, t-shirts, conferences, and jewelry.

Approaching Christianity as a brand (rather than a worldview) explains why the majority of people who identify themselves as born-again Christians live no differently than other Americans. According to George Barna, most churchgoers have not adopted a biblical worldview, they have simply added a Jesus fish on the bumper of their unregenerate consumer identities. As Mark Riddle observes, "Conversion in the U.S. seems to mean we've exchanged some of our shopping at Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, and Borders for the Christian bookstore down the street. We've taken our lack of purchasing control to God's store, where we buy our office supplies in Jesus name."

Ultimately we shouldn't be surprised that American Christianity has succumbed to the pervasive power of consumerism. Alan Wolf, a leading sociologist and the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life, has concluded that, "In the United States culture has transformed Christ, as well as all other religions found within these shores. In every aspect of the religious life, American faith has met American culture - and American culture has triumphed."

To validate Wolf's belief one need only look at religious traditions more recently introduced to popular consumer culture. Last month The New York Times ran an article about the first Indian megatemple (the Hindu equivalent of the American megachurch). The enormous building is designed to attract and entertain the un-templed with a large-format movie screen, an indoor boat ride, and even a hall of animatronic characters. The temple's public relation's director proudly admits, "There is no doubt about it - we have taken the concept from Disneyland." Similarly, Times writer Laurie Goodstein has reported on the struggle of American Muslim clerics to protect their faith from the influence of materialism and consumerism.

Indications are that over time American Hindu and Muslim leaders will follow their Christian counterparts in succumbing to the siren song of consumerism. Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, co-authors of The Churching of America, 1776-1990, argue that ministry in the U.S. is modeled primarily on capitalism with pastors functioning as a church's sales force, and evangelism as its marketing strategy. Our willing indoctrination into this economic view of ministry is so complete that most pastors never question its validity or recognize how unprecedented it is within Christian history.

According to Finke and Stark, the American church adopted a consumer-driven model because the First Amendment prohibited state-sanctioned religion. Therefore, faith, like the buying of material goods, became a matter of individual choice and self-expression. And "where religious affiliation is a matter of choice, religious organizations must compete for members and . . . the ?invisible hand' of the marketplace is as unforgiving of ineffective religious firms as it is of their commercial counterparts."

This explains why corporate models, marketing strategies, and secular business values are pervasive in American ministry - we are in competition with other churches, and other providers of identity and meaning, for survival. To appeal to religious consumers we must commodify our congregations - slapping our church's logo on shirts, coffee mugs, and bible covers. And we strive to convince a sustainable segment of the religious marketplace that our church is "relevant," "comfortable," or "exciting."

As a result, choosing a church today isn't merely about finding a community to learn and live out the Christian faith. It's about "church shopping" to find the congregation that best expresses my identity. This drives Christian leaders to differentiate their church by providing more of the features and services people want. After all, in a consumer culture the customer, not Christ, is king.

This post is an excerpt from the article "All We Like Sheep: Is our insistence on choices leading us astray?" You can read the full article, along with others on the issue of consumerism, in the summer issue of Leadership Journal.

Posted by Skye Jethani at July 10, 2006 | Comments (36)

July 6, 2006

Protesting, Pirates, and Potter: our inconsistent outrage toward Hollywood

The summer movie season continues. First Elizabeth Diffin confessed her affection for da Vinci. Then Skye Jethani thanked Hollywood for not marketing Superman to churches. And now Johnny Depp and crew blur the line between character and criminality. In this post Dave Terpstra, pastor of The Next Level Church in Denver and frequent contributor to Ur, wonders why so many Christians protest Harry Potter but seem passively accepting of Pirates of the Caribbean.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is opening in theaters this week and I haven't heard a peep from concerned Christian parents. Yet anytime a Harry Potter film comes up on the screen many Christians are quick to condemn it. So I have wondered, why the inconsistency?

The similarity in material between the two movies that should concern parents is amazing. First, both films focus on activities contrary to the teachings Scripture, piracy and witchcraft. Second, the hero of Pirates, like the hero of Potter, is practicing what is considered evil - not just battling against those who practice it. Third, there are dark forces involved in both. Harry Potter films are amuck with sorcery and the like. Pirates of the Caribbean films are full of curses and the undead. The list could go on.

So where is the outrage? I wondered if the issue was simply one of popularity. Was Pirates just not big enough to condemn publicly? But I checked the records. Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl grossed only $12 million dollars less than the best-selling Harry Potter movie so far. And it beat the other three. With all of the hype for the Pirates sequel, this new movie might gross more still.

So where is the outrage, I wonder? Is there another issue here? I believe there is.

Because most followers of Christ are unfamiliar with the occult, anything that looks like it or hints at it is suspect. We simply don't know that much about the spirit world. Scripture speaks of it, but not in a highly detailed way. So when we see children casting spells on the big screen, we ban our little ones from watching it because we know that witchcraft is bad.

But for some reason the swashbuckling comedy of Captain Jack Sparrow doesn't draw the same ire. I believe Captain Jack could be far more corrupting to youth. In the first movie, when asked about his plans by two bumbling members of the British Navy he confessed it is his intention to "raid, pillage, plunder and otherwise pilfer my weasely black guts out." Not exactly Christian virtues. Harry Potter would never stoop to that sort of behavior.

One of the themes of Pirates is that a man can be honorable and a criminal. But, pirates by definition cannot be good. Or can they? In the first Pirates movie, Captain Jack Sparrow really was a hero. He stopped other pirates who where doing all of the terrible things that pirates typically do. He helped people who were in real need. Even though he said he was going to act like a pirate, he really didn't. Ultimately, greater good was done.

Likewise, in Harry Potter movies, Harry, Hermione, and Ron are true heroes as well. There is real evil in their world, and Harry, more than any other wizard or muggle (non-magical human) battles against it.

So, I wonder if fictional pirates and wizards really can be good. The issue is whether the phenomenon of heroes emerging among pirates and wizards is truly corrupting and dangerous to our youth, or if it's simply good storytelling. I suppose each parent needs to make up their mind on that issue.

Nevertheless, in my mind, if we are going to pick on Potter, we must pick on Pirates. Otherwise, perhaps Christians should keep their mouth shut about both.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 6, 2006 | Comments (35)

June 19, 2006

The Second Coming of Superman: Finally, a "Christian" movie not marketed to churches

Thank you Hollywood. Thank you Warner Brothers. Thank you director Brian Singer. Thank you for leaving me and my church alone!

Next week the highly anticipated film "Superman Returns" debuts in theaters. Early reviews are incredibly positive, and some are predicting the return of the original superhero to the silver screen will break box office records. But the web is also chatting about the movie's apparently overt Christian themes. That made me wonder - why didn't I receive any marketing materials at my church? Why no posters, toys for the children's ministry, or helpful super-sermon ideas? Why wasn't America's comic book messiah marketed to Christians?

CNN's entertainment page is running an article titled "Jesus Christ Superman" that discusses the film's Christian credentials. Billed as a sequel to the original movie directed by Richard Donner in 1978, "Superman Returns" has a digitally resurrected Marlon Brando playing Superman's "heavenly" father that has sent is only son to earth as a "light to show the way."

In the new film, directed by Brian Singer, Superman returns to Metropolis after an absence of five years just in time to rescue humanity from cataclysmic destruction - a story line that could be seen as symbolic of Jesus' death and resurrection or his eschatological second advent. In one scene the man of steel is stabbed in the side with a kryptonite shard just as Christ was pierced by the Roman's spear. And another scene shows Superman with outstretched arms reminiscent of Jesus' crucifixion.

Finding messianic overtones in the Superman mythology is nothing new. As the CNN article points out:

[Superman's] comparison to Jesus is one that's been made almost since the character's origin in 1938, said Skelton, author of "The Gospel According to the World's Greatest Superhero."

Many simply see the story of a hero sent to Earth by his father to serve mankind as having clear enough New Testament overtones. Others have taken the comparison even further, reading the "El" in Superman's original name "Kal-El" and that of his father "Jor-El" as the Hebrew word for "God," among other theological interpretations.

The Time article, "The Gospel of Superman" by Richard Corliss, says that Brian Singer's new movie emphasizes the character's similarities to Jesus even more than previous incarnations:

Earlier versions of Superman stressed the hero's humanity: his attachment to his Earth parents, his country-boy clumsiness around Lois. The Singer version emphasizes his divinity. He is not a super man; he is a god (named Kal-El), sent by his heavenly father (Jor-El) to protect Earth. That is a mission that takes more than muscles; it requires sacrifice, perhaps of his own life. So he is no simple comic-book hunk. He is Earth's savior: Jesus Christ Superman.

We shouldn't over look Superman's wholesome alter ego, Clark Kent, either. Raised in the conservative Midwest with red-state family values like truth, justice, and the American way - one could imagine mild mannered Clark Kent attending a church potluck after leaving the newsroom at the Daily Planet.

With so many biblical and conservative values to exploit, why didn't Superman Returns' producers market the film more directly at evangelical Christians? In the last two years Hollywood has enthusiastically used the church to advertise family-friendly and biblically meaningful movies. "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe," are the most obvious examples. Last December my mailbox was bombarded with Narnia merchandise, pastor promotions, and sermon ideas.

Granted, Narnia was written by C.S. Lewis with intentional Christian symbolism. But even less overtly Christian films have also been marketed to pastors and church leaders like "Cinderella Man," and the heretical "Da Vinci Code." (This Spring I couldn't read a Christian journal or webpage without Mona Lisa or Leonardo himself staring back at me.)

Having suffered financially in recent years, Hollywood seems eager to win the evangelical market with family-friendly, wholesome, biblically illustrative films. This looks like a job for Superman! But, strangely, Warner Brothers has chosen to ignore churches and pastors in their marketing campaign for "Superman Returns." And for this I say to Warner Brothers, Brian Singer, and everyone responsible for creating and distributing the movie, THANK YOU!

Thank you for not using the church as a money-making vehicle.

Thank you for not hijacking my church's mission to make disciples by using it to make consumers.

Thank you for not replacing Christian art, symbols, and icons with movie posters and advertisements.

Thank you for not trying to interfere with the ministry of preaching God's Word by offering pastors rewards for mentioning your film in a sermon.

Thank you for not filling our children's ministry with Superman plush toys and kryptonite bracelets.

Thank you for not telling me "Superman Returns" is the greatest outreach opportunity in the galaxy.

Thank you for not asking me to rent an entire theater so our members can invite non-Christians to see the film.

Thank you for respecting the integrity of my faith.

And thank you for letting me enjoy "Superman Returns" simply for what it is - a good night at the movies.

Posted by Skye Jethani at June 19, 2006 | Comments (27)

May 30, 2006

The Gospel According to Electronic Culture: What if the medium really is the message?

Before entering ministry, Shane Hipps had a career in advertising developing multimillion dollar communication plans for brands like Porsche. It was during his time in advertising that Hipps gained expertise in understanding the power of media, technology, and culture. He left his lucrative career abruptly when he saw it as promoting a counterfeit gospel. Today, Shane Hipps serves as the Lead Pastor of Trinity Mennonite Church in Phoenix, Arizona. His new book, The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, The Gospel, And Church (Zondervan, 2006) is the confluence of his two professions.

Whenever we in the church debate new methods of communicating the gospel, or alternative ways of doing church it ends in a predictable turn. There is a point in these conversations when a person, hoping to end the debate once and for all, says "The methods must change as long as the message stays the same." So it would seem as long as we preserve the unchanging message, any method is fair game. This serves as a kind of evangelical rally cry for methodological innovation.

If they are feeling particularly sophisticated, they may go on to explain that, "Our methods, in and of themselves, are neither good nor evil, it is how we use them that determines their value."

Meaning, if we pipe pornography through the Internet it's bad, but if we post the Four Spiritual Laws there the Internet is good. We assume that any medium is simply a neutral conduit for information, like the plumbing in our house. The tubes are of little consequence unless they spring a leak. So as long as we are communicating the unchanging message of the gospel, every technology or method can be good. This tends to be our most nuanced conclusion.

Unfortunately, it fails to account for what our media and methods truly have the capacity to do and undo. And so we encounter them with the proverbial slip on the banana peel. We remain quite oblivious to the ways our message and our minds are being shaped by our methods and media.

The reality is, our methods are in no way "neutral," they have a staggering, yet hidden power to shape us regardless of their content. This is what Marshall McLuhan meant when he observed "The medium is the message." And it stands in direct contradiction to our evangelical rally cry. In other words, our media and methods have an inherent bias and a message of their own that has little or nothing to do with their content.

Consider the medium of the printed word. It is not coincidental that modernity and the "Age of Reason," (i.e. A celebration of linear thinking and rational argument) came about just after the printing revolution. The relentlessly linear, sequential, uniform medium of print inevitably gave rise to the same patterns in our thinking-- we become what we behold. Thus modernity celebrated syllogism, systematization, and reason above all else. And the modern church followed suit by unconsciously offering an "unchanging" gospel pressed into a linear, sequential, and reasonable formula:

Apologies for your sins + Believe in Jesus = Go to heaven.

As the print era wanes and electronic culture reigns, we are witnessing a morphing of modernity's "unchanging" gospel. Something as simple as communicating with images and icons has changed the way we conceive of the gospel. Images, regardless of their content, erode our capacity for abstract thought and linear reasoning; while at the same time reviving our preference for narrative, concrete experience, and mystery.

The result is a gospel according to electronic culture, which is often carried by the emerging church. This budding approach to faith embodies the bias of images (just as Eastern Orthodoxy has for centuries). It is a gospel encountered through iconic story, mystery, and experiential ritual, rather than linear proposition and reasoned argument. It is a gospel bathed in the mystery of God's Kingdom. It is elusive, deliberately defying categorization.

The most disconcerting part of it all is not that changes are happening - that is inevitable. It is that we stand oblivious to the magician's sleight-of-hand as a trick is played on our mind. And so we repeatedly seek to use our new methods only to be used by them.

This is not simply another call for a Luddite resistance to technology or new methods. Such a strategy is like trying to resist the wind and the tides; never mind that the Bible itself is a technology - a printed book. This is a call to take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 30, 2006 | Comments (16)

May 18, 2006

Liking Da Vinci, Loving Jesus: confessions from a Christian fan of "The Code"

Unless you've living in a cave in Tora Bora you know that The Da Vinci Code movie opens this week. Early reviews have not been kind, but that hasn't deflated Leadership editorial coordinator Elizabeth Diffin's excitement. Elizabeth believes enjoying Dan Brown's novel is not contrary to her faith, and asserts that The Code has actually strengthened it.

I have a confession to make: I am a Christian and I liked The Da Vinci Code. At the risk of being called a heretic, I'll admit I'm a fan of the novel.

I read The Da Vinci Code last fall, and although it was recommended to me by a strong Christian friend, I can't claim any holy motivations for reading it. I was looking for an entertaining and quick read; Da Vinci fulfilled those needs. No, The Da Vinci Code is not a great work of literature. It obviously doesn't measure up to Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky. It's pop-fiction, an amusing book for when you're at the beach or working a slow bank window (as I was).

The thing is, The Da Vinci Code is fiction. Dan Brown's cryptic statements at the beginning of the book notwithstanding. It's right there on the cover in all caps: A NOVEL.

No one is trying to trick us into thinking it is true, any more than E.B. White tried to convince us that pigs can talk. That's the nature of fiction: you suspend reality for a couple of hours and experience another world. And I found Brown's world to be a great ride.

Personally, I give kudos to Brown. Not only did he write a hefty volume (a feat in-and-of itself), he wrote a book that millions of people bought, and it has been discussed in workplaces and gyms and coffee shops across the country. Now it's even being debated on CNN and at Christianity Today, of all places.

It's not that Brown came up with these ideas on his own. The Gnostic Gospels have been around since shortly after Matthew and Luke wrote theirs. Other books have already dealt with this controversial subject matter (such as The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the 1982 book whose authors recently had Dan Brown in a British court). Brown, I would argue, committed the very great sin of writing a book that a lot of people read. He didn't invent new ideas, or even a radical new take on an old idea. But since a lot of people read his book and discussed it, it became "dangerous."

The Da Vinci Code didn't rock my world much, to be quite honest. It had some interesting ideas ? Brown claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, in case you missed that ? and it taught me some things I didn't know. I had never heard of Opus Dei or the Cult of the Feminine in my pre-Da Vinci days. And even if Brown sensationalized them, which I'm sure he did for the sake of the plot, I was interested and able to do research and became more aware of the world. In the process, I reaffirmed my belief on certain topics, such as Christ's divinity. It took some thought and prayer, and yes, it took some questioning. But eventually I arrived at sound and better informed conclusions.

I guess that is the basis of most of the complaints about The Da Vinci Code. It causes people to doubt their faith, to reconsider what orthodox Christianity teaches. Ultimately, I think that's the great thing about Da Vinci. I recently interviewed a self-described atheist for an upcoming issue of Leadership. His final exhortation to me was to never be afraid to ask the questions. His exact words: "Keep having questions and don't rest until you get answers. If you get a good answer, that makes you stronger in your faith. But if you don't get a good answer, you have no reason to believe in that stuff."

If Christianity can't stand up to questioning, it's not worth believing. I want to have a faith that is worth believing. If Jesus Christ is truly "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," then Christianity will be able to withstand the questions and the doubt and the outright blasphemy. In the past 2000 years, Christianity has faced bigger obstacles than a fanciful novel. The Da Vinci Code might have been a New York Times bestseller, but The Holy Bible is the bestseller of the ages.

So, when The Da Vinci Code hits theaters this week, look out for me. Despite poor initial reviews, I'm excited to see how Tom Hanks and Ron Howard were able to adapt the book to the big screen. The debate over The Da Vinci Code may be huge, but as a Christian, it's my prerogative to like Da Vinci and still love Jesus Christ.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 18, 2006 | Comments (45) | TrackBack

May 15, 2006

Donald Miller Isn’t Hip: a gospel for people tired of trying to be cool

In recent posts we have debated the importance of "image" in advancing the ministry of the Gospel. Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz and other books seeking to build a bridge between Christianity and those raised in a post-Christian context, was interviewed by Leadership last year. Miller is unimpressed by attempts to spin the faith as "cool" and how our culture has turned love into a commodity.

How do you react to ministries that try to present Christianity as being cool and hip?

Miller: There are many problems with trying to market the gospel of Jesus, not the least of which is that, in itself, it is not a cool or fashionable idea. It isn't supposed to be. It is supposed to be revolutionary. It's for people who are tired of trying to be cool, tired of trying to get the world to redeem them.

I attended the Dove Awards and was brokenhearted. I saw all these beautiful Christians, wonderful people, with this wonderful, revolutionary message of Jesus, who, instead of saying, "Look, fashion doesn't matter, hip doesn't matter," were saying "World, please accept us, we can be just as hip as you, just as fashionable, only in a religious way."

I would say we need to choose our God, choose our redeemer.

You've said that the church "uses love as a commodity." What do you mean?

Miller: We sometimes take a Darwinian approach with love - if we are against somebody's ideas, we starve them out. If we disagree with somebody's political ideas, or sexual identity, we just don't "pay" them. We refuse to "condone the behavior" by offering any love.

This approach has created a Christian culture that is completely unaware what the greater culture thinks of us. We don't interact with people who don't validate our ideas. There is nothing revolutionary here. This mindset is hardly a breath of fresh air to a world that uses the exact same kinds of techniques.

What's the alternative?

Miller: The opposite is biblical love, which loves even enemies, loves unconditionally, and loves liberally. Loving selectively is worldly; giving it freely is miraculous.

If love isn't a commodity, what is it?

Miller: I think of love like a magnet. When people see it given in the name of God, they're drawn to it. If I withhold love, then people believe I have met a God that makes me a hateful and vicious person. And they're repelled.

I have two responsibilities to this world, the first is to love; the second is to speak the truth. I can tell somebody such and such a behavior is sin, and still love them. Why not? Why not bring them food, why not hug them, why not have them over to the house? Won't this only help them understand the truth?

Tell us about your church, Imago Dei, and how love is expressed there.

Miller: Imago has saved me in so many ways. Rick, my pastor, is a perfect example of somebody who speaks the truth in love. He is a genius at saying such and such an idea is true, and it is hard, and sometimes I don't like it, but we must trust that God is good, we must help each other, and we must obey. People feel loved at Imago, but they also feel instructed, guided, and that God is not just a Diety who is there to give them whatever they want.

Imago makes me feel parented and not alone. I spoke at Imago right after the election, and a woman, a homosexual, was sitting on the front row with a giant sign that said, among other things, that she hopes our children die, that the legacy of hate will end.

At the end of the service, her sign was laid down in front of the communion table, and she was being held by me, and many others, sobbing as she had never heard truth being presented in love. She had not known the difference between a parental communication of truth and a judgmental, hate-filled communication of truth.

It is a very beautiful community, and I am honored they would accept me and love me.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 15, 2006 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

May 3, 2006

Spencer Burke on the Church that Consumerism Built--and Why I Fled

The upcoming issue of Leadership deals with "Consumerism and the Church It Creates." We asked Spencer Burke to write about his journey from being a megachurch pastor to spiritual guide of an online community (TheOOZE.com). Below is a brief excerpt. The full article will appear in Leadership's July issue, along with some of the best of your comments about how we live out the nature of the church today.

When I gave up being a teaching pastor at a Southern California megachurch eight years ago, people around me were perplexed. After all, as jobs in professional ministry go, working at Mariners was a dream--big building, big budget, big salary. What wasn't to like?

Maybe I was burned out, they reasoned, but I'd be back. I was bound to get over my ministry midlife crisis eventually, right? But when months turned into years and I still hadn't been added to anyone's payroll, more than a few eyebrows went up. I kept talking about this online community, TheOoze.com. Sure, it was an interesting idea, but hardly a career move.

When I was leaving Mariners, the buzzword was relevant. It's what every church was striving to be, by changing their music, their marketing, even their ministry philosophy. Today, church leaders are still pursuing relevancy in order to reach more people. When those efforts don't pan out as expected, church leaders are quick to blame "consumerism." The problem? People. They want too much, and they're never satisfied.

But is that really it?

Is the problem that people in the pews keep upping the ante on their demands, or is it that church leaders don't comprehend the real source of their discontent? Is it that people want too much, or that they just don't want what the church is currently selling?

Right now churches are focusing on one product to the exclusion of others. Most often, it's teaching, a 60- to 90-minute event held at a particular time, at a particular physical address. It's basically the same product we've been selling since the Renaissance. People sit in a room and listen to someone talk.

But here's the thing: back then, it made sense for people to travel miles to hear someone talk about God. After all, people were mostly illiterate, Bibles were expensive, and Sunday morning was often the only time people could expand their horizons. Teaching was a rare commodity.

That's no longer true today. Teaching is available everywhere - on television, radio, online. The local church no longer has the corner on the market.

The situation reminds of the banking industry. At one time, if you wanted to deposit or withdraw money, you had to go to the bank and stand in line. You had to fill out a slip and wait for someone to serve you. Today, there are independent ATMs capable of instantly dispensing cash everywhere - from grocery stores and restaurants, to sports stadiums and bars. I can't remember the last time I actually "went to the bank." It's not that I've stopped needing money; it's just that I choose to get it in other ways.

But the church seems largely oblivious to this trend toward flexible, on-demand service in our culture. We still expect people to come to us, at our buildings, to do transactions with God or make deposits in their spiritual account. When congregants complain about pastors and churches not fitting their lifestyle, the church cries foul in the form of "consumer!" But does anyone ask whether the church is delivering what the market needs?

Imagine if people were encouraged to do their spiritual banking in ways that fit their lifestyle. They could watch some of the world's best speakers on TiVo, DVDs or download resources for their iPod, then gather in smaller groups to discuss and apply what they've heard. A church wouldn't necessarily need its own teaching pastor on the payroll anymore, and people wouldn't need to leave their community in search of better teaching.

We need to see teaching not as our core product, but as one part of a line of products that also includes community, service, and worship.

Let's move beyond the blame game and look at the church with a fresh perspective. Let's start our conversation with the mission of the church, not about any particular tools or methods. Let's let function drive form, and be willing to follow Jesus even if it means re-tooling everything we do.

Posted by Marshall Shelley at May 3, 2006 | Comments (32) | TrackBack

April 19, 2006

The eBay Atheist: musings about the Christian media

Are you looking for new people to attend your church? Try eBay. In January, DePaul University graduate student, and committed atheist, Hemant Mehta listed his services on the auction site. Mehta promised to attend one hour of church for every ten dollars of the final bid.

Off the Map.org purchased the atheist's services for $504 and sent Mehta on his assignment to attend churches throughout the Chicago area. With an open mind, an outsider's perspective, and a dose of humor, Hemant has been reporting his findings on Off the Map's "Atheist Blog."

In a recent post, Mehta explained why he's addicted to Christian media. He began with his musings about TV preacher and megachurch pastor Joel Osteen:

I enjoy watching Joel [Osteen] for the same reason many Christians don't watch him? it's Christian-lite!

He's not solely dependent on the Bible to make a point. Instead of using the Bible to write a sermon, it always seems to me that he wrote the sermon with a life lesson in mind, and then consulted the Bible to back up his points. And I walk away from watching him thinking, "I do need to make better use of my time!" instead of "I should read Mark because Chapter 2 (or whatever) said some interesting things about Jesus." Obviously, the former sits better with Atheists.

Reflecting on the print media, Mehta noticed the many conferences marketed in Christian magazines:

I enjoy the advertising of the (approximately) 23128937182 conferences going on each month, hosted by the same pastor husbands with their big-blonde-haired wives. I'm not ripping on them at all (I'm sure Atheist conventions wish they had just a fraction of the attendees of any of these Christian conventions)?it all just seems so homogenous. Even the ads for the conventions are all the same. The inset Glamour-Shot poses of the hosts, the globe in the background, and the Photoshopped image of all the speakers together in a row.

The eBay atheist summarizes his observations:

Moral of the story: Christianity works best for non-believers when we hear stories that sound like something we would see or do. Joel tells me to not be dishonest by telling a story from his college days (Hey, I went to college, too!) and then supports his message with a story from the Bible. Dobson tells me I shouldn't be dishonest because Proverbs 6:16-19 says so (as he does in the April issue of Charisma). Period. Who would I be more inclined to listen to?

Read the full post here. And for more insights from Hemant Mehta, the eBay atheist, visit Off-the-Map.org.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 19, 2006 | Comments (23)

April 17, 2006

The Brutal 'Burbs: how the suburban lifestyle undermines our mission

A surge of new books have hit store shelves about the challenges facing followers of Christ who live in the suburbs. Many voices are beginning to say that the lifestyle of the affluent suburbanite, while heralded for 50 years as the fulfillment of the American dream, may actually be detrimental to the Christian life and mission. In this post David Fitch, a pastor and professor in suburban Chicago, and a regular contributor to Out of Ur, addresses the difficulty of practicing the biblical discipline of hospitality in the isolation of the 'burbs.

My church is very much in the suburbs. Specifically, the northwest suburbs of Chicago. Strangely as these suburbs have become more diverse (conspicuously more Hispanic, Asian, as well as other ethnicities) they have become more starkly spatialized. Each family unit is isolated in its own house with fenced in yard and automatically-opening garage that can be driven into permitting all contact with the outside world to be avoided.

David Matzko McCarthy in his wonderful book, Sex and Love in the Home, describes the myth of this suburbia:

The dream of the suburbs is a self-sufficient home, inhabited by affable kin and grace with plenty of yard to provide a buffer between neighbors. The aim of suburban life is to choose a home and neighborhood where we can be happy, where people work hard and respect the ways of others, and where families get along on their own and come together for recreation and leisure?.The great pleasure of home ownership is freedom and autonomy.

McCarthy proceeds to describe how the suburbs are built for the idolization of the affectionate family as the end and purpose of all life. The problem? When the family becomes another form of life separated from God and the church, it too becomes another form of self-imploding narcissism.

By idolizing the family, suburbanites may become focused on consuming more stuff to create the perfect home and family. There is nothing but contrived affection left to keep the home together. And children who learn they are the center of this universe from parents actually develop characters that believe they really are the center of the universe.

After decades of this suburban lifestyle America is left with families split by divorce, kids leaving in rebellion, and millions on various drugs to relieve the emptiness as the idolized family turns out to be a myth. Apart from the personal destruction the suburbs can bring, suburban isolation also poses a real problem for the spreading of the gospel.

If hospitality is to be a central way of life for the spreading of the gospel, the alienation of the suburbs is a condition of our exile we must overcome. Elsewhere I have said:

? evangelical Christians must consistently invite our neighbors into our homes for dinner, sitting around laughing, talking, listening and asking questions of each other. The home is where we live, where we converse and settle conflict, where we raise children. We arrange our furniture and set forth our priorities in the home. We pray for each other there. We share hospitality out of His blessings there. In our homes then, strangers get full view of the message of our life. Inviting someone into our home for dinner says "here, take a look, I am taking a risk and inviting you into my life." By inviting strangers over for dinner, we resist the fragmenting isolating forces of late capitalism in America. It is so exceedingly rare, that just doing it speaks volumes as to what it means to be a Christian in a world of strangers.

And yet this has proved so much harder than we ever expected for the reasons I've stated in this post. Inviting someone over for dinner in the hostile suburbs is regularly considered pathological. Suburban people are either too busy, too self-protected, or too worried what your agenda might be to ever come over. Likewise, I as a pastor and others in our church are regularly so busy, it hardly seems possible.

Do I believe it is impossible? No. We must continue to pursue a relentless practice of being hospitable as a distinctive subversive Christian act in the suburbs. I must change my life to live more simply, have more time and practice neighborhood acts of cooperative living. I must ask my neighbor, co-worker or friend in the park over for dinner "70 times 7" times if that is what it takes.

The city seems less afflicted with the problems of the suburbs. So they say? Yet I lived there for many years and I cannot say there is too much difference in at least the increasingly wealthier gentrified parts of the city (where many of the emerging churches are camped out). What worries me is that the inner city has become the hip place to live as more people reverse commute in Chicago. Just as the rich fled the city 40 years ago, now they are fleeing the suburbs for the inner city. And of course emergent churches seem to be more attracted to the hip of the city.

However, I plead for a truly subversive Christianity that practices hospitality in the hostile world of the white washed suburbs. I plead for more emerging communities of faith in the suburbs. Let us seek to be faithfully combating the overwhelming Walmartization of Christianity by a vigorous and relentless practice of hospitality.

David Fitch is pastor of Life on the Vine Christian Community in Long Grove, Illinois, a professor of ministry, theology, and ethics at Northern Seminary, and author of The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies (Baker 2006).

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 17, 2006 | Comments (18) | TrackBack

April 4, 2006

A "Different" Kind of Church: how secular marketing is fueling church competition

General Motors launched its Saturn brand in 1990 with the tag line, "A different kind of company, a different kind of car." GM believed they could carve out a market niche by addressing the collective American psyche's negative view of car dealers. They were right. Saturn's "no-haggle" sales policy earned it awards for customer satisfaction. In the car business, it pays to be different.

Dave Terpstra, pastor of The Next Level Church in Denver and a regular contributor to Out of Ur, has observed that many churches are adopting the "different is good" marketing strategy used by secular companies. (Who can forget, "Little. Yellow. Different."?) But by championing our differences, are we treating other churches like fellow communities of Christ, or like competitors?

Because my church's primary service is on Tuesday nights, I have the opportunity to visit other area churches at least once a month. I call it my church-of-the-month club. This past Sunday I read this in the bulletin of the church I visited: "[Church Name] is a different kind of church." They went on to explain how their church is for those who don't like organized religion or for people who have not had their needs met by a traditional church.

Another church I have visited was "different" because it was a place where there's "no pressure or guilt." Still another church I know claims to be different because it is for a new generation. I searched Google for "a different kind of church." Here are a few examples of what I found:

"Your first impression of [church name] may be, "This doesn't seem like a typical church." And we think that's good."

"[Church name] is a different kind of church, making a difference."

"Even if you didn't think you would ever feel comfortable in church, this is a different kind of church. We want to be your church."

Google returned 924 results. It seems "different" churches may not be so different after all. But that got me wondering - why do church leaders feel the need to advertise how different their church is from others? Admittedly, I have used this terminology when talking about my church. And it was in the not-too-distant past that our church used similar terminology very regularly.

The simplest answer is that we are marketing to Christians. If we are targeting the "already convinced," and if our growth is from transfers and people new in town, then we need to distinguish our product from the neighboring churches' product. That's not a new idea. In the past Protestant churches in America used to make distinctions based on theology. Now we do it with our ethos - captured in a snappy catch phrase.

In previous generations we advertised our theology - like infant baptism, or entire sanctification, or speaking in tongues, or making it clear we didn't believe in those things. Now we make sure the world knows our ethos - we care about families, or we stand for truth, or we are young, or we are accepting.

None of the new statements are necessarily bad. My problem is when they are attached to the phrase "a different kind of church." When we say we are different because we [fill in the blank]; what we are really doing is making a judgment about the churches around us. I hope your church does care about families. I hope you do stand for truth. I hope you are accepting. But the moment those ideas are labeled as "differences," you have condemned other churches by making the assumption that they do not do these things.

If your church is a place where there is no pressure or guilt, just say that. Why do you need to imply that my church has pressure and guilt? If your church is for a new generation - great! Let everyone know. Just don't imply that other churches are not for a new generation.

If we were selling Pepsi, I would tell you to attack Coke. But we are in the business of Christ and His Kingdom, and there is no benefit in smearing one expression of the Bride of Christ to make our version look more appealing to religious consumers.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 4, 2006 | Comments (18) | TrackBack

March 17, 2006

Pimping Jesus: consumerism and the red-light gospel

Jesus' image can now be found on every imaginable commodity from t-shirts to poker chips. But has our material culture made Jesus' invitation to "new life" itself into a consumable product? Jonathan Yarboro, a church planter from Boone, North Carolina, explores the influence of consumerism on our understanding of the gospel and conversion.

I was standing before 200 people at church when I said it: "Salvation is not a walk down the aisle, a prayer, and wham bam, thank you ma'am, you're done." Jaws dropped; some faces turned white; some turned red. I was clueless, so I just kept teaching. It turns out that the phrase, "wham bam, thank you ma'am," meant something different to me than it did to the rest of the world. Afterward some of my listeners enlightened me. I was embarrassed. I didn't intend to equate one's conversion experience to some sort of sexual encounter in the red light district.

Over the last few years, I have pondered the statement, and despite the fact that I originally meant nothing so profound, I believe the statement to be true - we are tempted to turn conversion into something of an act of prostitution. We are the consumers, and we might as well say it - we've turned Jesus' invitation into a seductive, greasy, trick-turning lifestyle. Doesn't that make your blood boil?

The Bible, especially the Old Testament (see Hosea), is full of prostitution language. But don't make the mistake of thinking that I am calling the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus who ate and drank with sinners, the Jesus who was executed on a Roman cross, and the Jesus who rose on the third day, a whore. There is another Jesus, one we have created, who is a seductive, slick-talking, trick-turning object of our self-pleasure. This is the Jesus that I, along with countless others, assumed I'd met when I was 14 years old. But it was only a wham bam, thank you ma'am gospel.

When you get past the initial response of derogatory disgust, the phrase can shed light on how our consumerist culture has even changed how we think about the gospel. We have changed the life-changing act of introducing people to the real Jesus into an act of prostitution.

We've all seen it numerous times. The guy walks into your worship gathering. His life is falling apart. He has no meaningful relationships. He has given his life to foreign substances. He is in touch with nothing good. He comes to your community because he has nowhere else to go. He is looking for something. He begins to reveal the horrible hell he has been living through. He knows his life is going nowhere, and that's when we speak up.

"Say this prayer and you'll be saved." He may continue to live in hell, but at least he won't die in hell. He can't believe it's so simple. He can't believe it's so quick. He jumps at the opportunity. He says the prayer/incantation and walks out thinking his life is transformed. Wham bam, thank you ma'am, he's done. Everyone feels better. He's finally gotten his big break, and you've just brought another one into the Kingdom. Or have you? What if you just sold him a false gospel? What if the reason he couldn't believe it was so simple and quick was because it's not? What if you just pimped out Jesus, a false Jesus that you brought out to provide a quick answer?

Prostitutes fulfill a need. It's a primal need. It's not something that we've made up. They are a solid, sure answer to a real longing. The customer wants sex; the prostitute gives sex. The wham bam, thank you ma'am gospel does the same thing. Someone comes with a real longing: a new life of forgiveness, belonging, purpose, absolution, strength, or sympathy. We pimp out a fake Jesus to meet the need. The problem is that it is the wrong answer.

There is an underlying need for intimacy behind the need for sex, and the need for intimacy can't be met with a casual, impersonal romp. There has to be something more. Specifically, there has to be relationship and commitment. A prostitute doesn't want intimacy, she wants you to give her the cash, and get back to your life. The wham bam, thank you ma'am gospel wants the same thing. Make your confession, say your prayer, and maybe pay some dues, then get back to your life.

While we've been pimping out the gospel, the real Jesus is weeping because he wants a lifelong relationship that includes joy, forgiveness, brokenness, hardship, and intimacy.

When I was 14, I had a need - I was afraid of spending eternity in hell. So, I paid my dues, I recited the prayer, but I was essentially just paying for a service--a service of self-protection. It wasn't a real relationship. It was the Jesus created by a gospel of consumerism. The real Jesus isn't so cheap. He will not accept a one-time payment for his services or cater to my consumer needs. He makes real demands, and he wants nothing less than an eternal relationship. The red lights have no more allure now that I've found the real Jesus - the Jesus who has called me into his eternal Kingdom.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 17, 2006 | Comments (31) | TrackBack

March 14, 2006

Really Old School: What 1st Century Judaism Says About the Public/Private/Home School Dilemma

Some congregations experience doctrinal divides. Others wage worship wars. But an increasing number are experiencing schooling squalls. Public school, private school, or home school - how should followers of Christ educate their children? And what does the answer reveal about our belief in mission, culture, and the nature of the gospel? Dave Terpstra, pastor of The Next Level Church in Denver and the father of young children, has been wrestling with these questions and looking to an unlikely source for clarity - first century Judaism.

My oldest child is only two and half, but already my wife and I are having conversations about where we will send our kids to school. The more we discuss the issue the more I realize that where followers of Christ send their children to school says more about their perspective on the interaction of Christianity and culture than any other issue I've encountered.

Where I live, the Denver metro area, there is a full spectrum of educational options for my family: public, private, charter, homeschool, Protestant, Catholic, etc. There are certainly varying degrees of excellence among the teachers and administrations of these schools; but for the sake of argument, let's say all things are equal as far as talent is concerned. How is a Christian parent to choose?

I'm not sure our school choices today are all that different than the religious options of 1st century Jews. I'd like to draw some parallels. There were four major sects in 1st century Judaism: the Essenes, the Sadducees, the Zealots, and the Pharisees. Each of these sects interacted with the Roman culture differently. I see a similar pattern in how families interact with the educational options of metropolitan America.

The Essenes lived in communes away from the influence of the Roman occupiers. Their philosophy of cultural interaction was to stay as far away from the surrounding culture as they could. They simply didn't like what they saw. The parallel I see is with parents who choose to homeschool their children. They have looked at the options, and they have chosen to exclude their families from that aspect of cultural interaction.

The Sadducees seemed similar to the Essenes in that they didn't try to change the culture. However, they chose to live right in the middle of it. They embraced their Roman occupiers (for the most part) and were rewarded for their loyalty. The parallel for the Christian parent is of those who choose to send their kids off to public school without thinking twice. They don't interact with teachers, PTA meetings, or even inquire about what's in the textbooks their kids read. After all, it's a government approved curriculum.

The Zealots were similar to the Sadducees in that they existed right in the middle of the Roman culture, but unbeknownst to the Romans, they were trying to take down their government from the inside. The parallel I see is to the Christian parents who use their children's presence in public schools to affect change on the system. While the Zealots of the 1st century used guerrilla tactics, these parents quote scripture at PTA meetings and try to get evolution out of the classroom (or at least intelligent design in).

The Pharisees shared the Zealots disdain for the culture, but not their hostile attitudes. They wanted to separate themselves, but not to the same extreme degree as the Essenes. The Pharisees tried a balancing act and they almost succeeded. They embraced some realities of the Roman culture, but they really were living in a subculture of their own. I see a parallel to parents who send their kids to private Christian schools. There is some separation, but not as much as the home schoolers. There is some embrace of "the system" since their kids still attend the same grades, learn the same subjects, and play the same sports. Yet having attended private Christian schools my whole life, I can attest to its sub-culture nature.

So my problem is this: Jesus was born into a four sect system in the 1st century world. And instead of embracing any of the systems that already existed, he rejected them all. As a parent I am equally discontent with each of my education options, even in an affluent metropolitan area like Denver. So what's a Christian parent to do?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 14, 2006 | Comments (43) | TrackBack

February 13, 2006

Leadership’s Cover Exposed: Is partially disrobed a total disgrace?

We've gotten an interesting response to the current issue of Leadership, which deals with ministry amid a sexually charged culture, and which we titled "The Drive." Those who claim to get the journal for its articles have been overwhelmingly positive. But a number of subscribers can't get past the cover. Leadership's editor Marshall Shelley has some explaining to do.

The cover photo is a detail from the famous statue of Pallas-Athena that stands in front of the Parlament building in Vienna. Athena was the war goddess of ancient Greece, but also worshiped as the goddess of wisdom. The Viennese statue was erected as a tribute not only to Athena but also the four rivers that were once a part of the Austrian Empire: the Danube, Elbe, Po, and Vistula.

But it was neither the pagan inspiration nor the implied endorsement of Austrian imperialism that caused some of our readers to object. It was a bared marble breast that was visible on the statue.

"For those of us who have trouble with visual stimulation, what should I do with the cover of your magazine?" wrote one subscriber. "Consider also, where I should keep my magazine out of view of my 8 sons. . . . ?I will set no vile thing before my eyes.' You might do better leaving pictures out and sticking to articles."

Wow. I can assure you that when our editorial team brainstormed cover possibilities, we weren't looking for creative ways to be vile. We were trying to communicate at a glance several things:

1. Christian leadership has always been practiced amid sexually charged cultures.
2. Interest in sex is common ground between Christians and non-Christians.
3. The gospel has important things to say about sex, but we need help articulating them in a way the culture can appreciate.

We didn't see a marble bosom a particularly erotic form. But not everyone saw what we hoped for in the cover image. Art is, after all, ambiguous, able to be taken on multiple levels. That's what makes it art, not science. Those multiple levels of meaning are also the difference between art and pornography. But those hoped-for levels were overwhelmed by the one, at least in the eyes of a few people who saw our journal. This came to us from the wife of one of our subscribers:

"I just went thumbing through the magazine. Guess what I found? The cover picture was also in the magazine on page 39! Good thing I found it before my husband did. I just used my own artistic ability, and painted some white-out on in a strategic place. ?She' is now more appropriately covered. (And no, I did not give her a high neckline and long sleeves.) Did the same to the cover."

With art critics like that, maybe we should call it Leadership's "partial cover."

Posted by Marshall Shelley at February 13, 2006 | Comments (46) | TrackBack

February 6, 2006

The Hidden Blessing of Brokeback Mountain

Last week the Oscar nominations were announced and Brokeback Mountain, popularly known as the "gay cowboy movie," has been nominated for more awards than any other film. Although not a financial blockbuster, the film has been heralded by critics as a cinematic triumph. Newsweek's Sean Smith wrote, "Brokeback feels like a landmark film. No American film before has portrayed love between two men as something this pure and sacred. As such, it has the potential to change the national conversation and to challenge people's ideas about the value and validity of same-sex relationships."

Despite Hollywood's growing appreciation for evangelical viewers (and evangelical money), Brokeback Mountain was not marketed to church-goers. However, after reviewing Brokeback on ChristianityTodayMovies.com we received the following letter from Dennis Belkofer of Chicago. He is one Christian who saw Brokeback Mountain, and believes there may be a hidden blessing in this film for the church.

Thank you for your honest review of Brokeback Mountain. First, I want to point out that I am a born-again believer who has known the Lord for many years. I have also struggled with homosexuality most of my life. Because I accept the written word of God as truth, and because it teaches that homosexuality is sin, I have never accepted homosexuality as an acceptable orientation and lifestyle. For obvious reasons, I wasn't sure if seeing Brokeback Mountain would be good for me. But, I saw the film anyway and I am glad that I did.

Watching Ennis shut down emotionally over the course of his relationship with Jack was like watching myself. But it didn't depress me. Instead, I walked away from the movie with even a deeper love for Jesus because of how he has stuck with me during life and for the role that the body of Christ has played as my family.

As I walked out of the movie, a young man commented to me and two women standing nearby that he thought the film was going to be more about tolerance. Without thinking about it, I blurted, "No, it wasn't about tolerance. It was about life." Then I turned to the two women and said, "I have lived what we just saw on the screen. But, I have been saved by Jesus Christ and, even though he has more work to do, he has changed my life." I'm not sure if they were Christians, but both replied, "Thank God!"

Yesterday, my pastor began a series on biblical prosperity - not the "let's get rich and store up possessions" kind. But rather the prosperity that comes by surrendering to the Lord and allowing him to conform us to the image of Christ. That prosperity brings peace, joy, and contentment regardless of our state in life. Pastor made it clear that the prosperity that comes from God requires that we allow him to clean out areas in us that prevent his blessing.

Later that afternoon, several of my Christian friends and I met for lunch, and I shared with them my struggle with homosexuality and desire to be totally freed of it. I told them that I couldn't do it alone and needed their love and support. They affirmed their love for me and promised to walk through the process with me. Seeing how Ennis ended up isolated and empty helped me to tell them of my struggle and ask for help. I don't want to end up like Ennis. Neither does God!

Gay militants greatly over-exaggerate the number of people that are exclusively homosexual. However, there are far more people like Jack and Ennis than we imagine ? many of whom are Christians like myself. I hope that Leadership and Christianity Today will turn around what Satan means for evil through Brokeback Mountain and use it as a backdrop to write about sexual addiction in the church. It could help others find the same forgiveness and healing that I am experiencing.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 6, 2006 | Comments (32) | TrackBack

December 20, 2005

Closed for Christmas 3: Scot McKnight's Good Will Toward Megachurches