Stupid Things “Christian” Kids Say

Today at lunch I was sitting in class listening to the Gay Straight Alliance meeting.  They were a bit upset because the club apparently has some lack of direction so they got to discussing what they see as some of the biggest issues on campus they could try to address.  I paid extra attention to listen to what they brought up and the results were unsurprising but disappointing nonetheless.

The first girl to speak said she was having some trouble with something her best friend said.  She was vague at first about what her friend had said and just remarked that she wished her friend would have worded it differently.  The club president pushed a bit to hear what exactly her friend had said.  The girl started with “Well, she’s very religious, Christian.”  The response was a chorus of understanding “ooohhhhs” and an “enough said.”

When pressed further she revealed that her Christian friend said “why should I care about homosexuals when they’re all going to burn in hell anyway?”

Who the crap is raising their kids to talk this way?  The next thing the girl said about her friend sounded a lot more like something you’d hear out of Jesus’ mouth than what the supposedly Christian kid said:

“It’s okay if she believes something different.  I mean, I don’t like it but I need to accept that about her and be her friend.  That’s what this club is about – acceptance.  So I know I need to accept her.  I just wish she would have used different words.”

I know I butcher the message of Jesus in my daily life plenty to others and I do plenty of harm to the gospel with my actions.  I can sit in judgment of no one.  But I think the first girl is closer to the heart of Jesus than the one who wears the Christian label. 

How sad that a club trying to stand up for a group that often gets made fun of and ostracized has this experience with Christians.  How sad that we followers of Christ are not known for our love but instead for our hatreds.

Sermon / Podcast Recommendation

This won’t be useful to many of you but some of you should appreciate it.  I’m always on the lookout for good podcasts to listen to while I’m driving or working out.  Many churches are now podcasting their sermons.  I wanted to recommend one particular sermon podcast to those of you who might benefit from such a thing – that of the Village Church in Texas.  Matt Chandler is their lead pastor and the guy who preaches most of the time, but I’ve heard one sermon from another guy and enjoyed what he had to say too.

They’re a Reformed church and I’m not Reformed (that means they believe in Predestination and are Calvinist) but I still greatly enjoy the preaching and think it is some of the best I’ve heard.  The focus on God’s grace, preaching the Gospel, and the lack of moralism is awesome.  It enriches me and if you’re looking for something worthwhile to listen to on your mp3 player give it a try. 

Following this link will take you to the Sermons page where you can download them individually, subscribe to the podcast, and even get study guides related to each of the sermons.  If you do a search in the iTunes store for “The Village Podcast” or “Matt Chandler The Village” you should find the podcast and be able to subscribe to it.

Check out this Birth Control Book

I was just alerted to the presence of this book on birth control, available at Amazon.  The entire title is: BIRTH CONTROL IS SINFUL IN THE CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES and also ROBBING GOD OF PRIESTHOOD CHILDREN!!  Yes, it is in caps.  Yes, the two exclamation points are part of the title.  And in case you are wondering: yes, this book was inspired by the Holy Spirit.  The author said so.  She uses Bible verses so you know everything she says is legit.  In addition, the book itself is written in all caps.    You need to read it.  You can get it here.

Osteen and Pork

Yikes. At first I thought for sure he was joking but sadly it doesn't sound like it. Let this be Exhibit A that simply reading the Bible with good intentions and bad hermeneutics can lead to all sorts of whack.

Interpreting the Bible

This is the post I have been wanting to write for a long time about interpreting the Bible.  I think it is useful reading both for those who believe the Bible is God’s Word and those who remain unconvinced.  I think sometimes Christians like myself forget what a big thing it is to say “God says” XYZ, and then quote Bible verses for it.  Everything we say about what the Bible says is an interpretation of what it says.  So how do we properly interpret what it is saying, so we can get at the message the Bible is communicating rather than the message we want to put into it?

In some previous posts and comment threads, questions have arisen as to how it is that we arrive at interpretations of particular verses – how do we decide what they say?  I plan on doing a short series of posts with some basic hermeneutical and exegetical guidelines to help shed some light on that process – but for now, check out what the internet monk has to say.  Here’s a little of it:

In all seriousness, evangelicals have a remarkable problem when it comes to treating the scriptures with respect. It’s astounding how many Christians tend to act as if any thought that comes into their head pertaining to the Bible is de facto true because they believe the Spirit is guiding them. If your use of the Bible were like handling a gun, you might have shot several people by now. Put that thing down and learn some basics on using the weapon.

Click here to read the rest.  I would recommend different books than the iMonk when it comes to learning about hermeneutics but I think he has a lot of good stuff to say about the importance of realizing just what we are doing when we go at interpreting scripture.  Understanding Biblical interpretation is important both for those who accept and those who do not accept the Bible as something special.  Those who criticize the message of the Bible while not understanding how to read it are as mistaken as those who use the Bible as a club claiming divine authority all the while using terrible hermeneutical and exegetical processes. 

People You Will Meet in a Prayer Circle

Some of you won’t be able to identify with this, but some of you will.  In Christian circles (no pun intended) we tend to pray a lot.  The manners and social aspect of prayer with others have always been interesting to me.  It took me a long time to be comfortable praying out loud in front of others, but I eventually got over that.  That was a good thing, because once I started working at a church I was the Official Prayer at every family gathering.  Every time a prayer was called for it was assumed I’d do the praying.  But that’s not the point of this post.

One of the more common ways Christians pray is in a prayer circle, where everyone stands around (handholding optional) and takes turns praying out loud.  Today I came across this hilarious list that anyone who has been involved in your standard evangelical Christian prayer circle will be able to relate to.  It’s a list of people you will meet in a prayer circle – and it is wonderfully accurate.  Here’s a taste:

2. The Almost-er
This is the person sitting near you that is constantly on the verge of praying. You can hear them doing that little breath thing, that small inhale that occurs a split second before someone speaks. And you can hear it because it's loud in the deafening silence of the prayer circle. Every time you are about to say a prayer you hear the Almost-er and you stop out of courtesy. And then they don't pray. So you start again and an inhale from the Almost-er stops you again. It's quite a little dance.

 

Click here to read the rest of that article.

Pray at the Golden Bull for Money

Some of you may be aware of stories in the Bible that center around God’s people turning away from Him and worshipping idols instead.  One of the more famous idols is that of a Golden Calf (read here for the story).

I know I’ve been hard on “Christians” (I use the quotes because that’s sort of how I’ve been phrasing it) here lately and I don’t want to pile on.  I am going to be more positive soon, I swear.  But I came across this and almost couldn’t believe it.

Apparently last week a bunch of Christians got together to pray at the big gold bull on Wall Street to ask God to save our economy.  There are so many things jacked up about this I won’t bother to delineate them.  I’d think this was some kind of big joke mocking Christians but sadly it seems true.

They even brought a freaking shofar, man.  Argh.

Go check out the pics, a video, and the perspective of someone who is not a Christian here.   Be warned, there is some profanity there, if that offends you.  But if you’re looking to be offended I think there are some better candidates in that link.

Christians and Halloween

Growing up, my brother Dave and I were not allowed to dress up in costumes for Halloween.  My parents (or at least my Mom, I don’t know how my Dad felt about it) thought Halloween had some occult influence that we would be subject to if we were to dress up.  Every year our elementary school would have a Halloween Parade, where everybody could dress up and march around the campus to show off their costumes.  Each year Dave and I would tell people we forgot our costumes because we didn’t want to explain it all to them. 

At some point my parents relented – I believe it was around the time they split up and we stopped going to church at all.  I had a few years of trick-or-treating while I was in high school, at that borderline age where you probably shouldn’t go trick or treating anymore.  I didn’t really care about that because I’d never gone as a kid so I was going to get mine.

You may or may not know this but the point of view my parents had regarding Halloween is still somewhat prevalent among some groups of Christians.  It’s why lots of churches host “Harvest Festivals” in the suburbs where we have no idea what a harvest is.  Some churches try to get into the spirit of Halloween by putting together “haunted houses” that are actually a tour of the eternal torments of Hell (as imagined by them).

I know there are many well-meaning Christians who think this way, and I know my Mom was just trying to do what she thought was right.  But man if Evangelicals can’t find a way to suck the fun out of everything.  There is such a reluctance to break from the established (church) social norm and engage the brain to consider what Scripture really does say about something.  Oftentimes instead of listening to Scripture, we listen to the “tradition” that’s been established by other Evangelicals and what they say the Bible says.  All the while we claim “we’re just doing what the Bible says” but in reality we’re just doing what someone has told us the Bible says.  That’s another post, which I think I’ll be doing in the near future.

I recently read a great post about this perspective some Christians have on Halloween, over at the Internet Monk.  Here’s a little bit of what he has to say about it:

It bothers me that any lie, exaggeration or fiction will find thousands of eager believers to pass it along.

It bothers me that the Biblical message about Satan would be co-opted by the fear-mongering and manipulation of the hucksters. (Read The Screwtape Letters for some real Satanism.)

It bothers me that such a wonderful part of my childhood and of American life has been turned into an example of evangelical paranoia and gullibility. We ruined something good, and everyone knows it but us.

I know all about the sophisticated responses thoughtful Christians have about Reformation day and All Saints Day. That’s fine, but it’s not the same. I just want my grandkids to be able to dress up in cute outfits and trick or treat without the local church designating them for exorcism.

Shame on those of us–evangelicals–who allowed Halloween to be taken away from families and many communities, all because we prefer to believe that life is a Frank Paretti novel.

Click here to read his entire post.

My (unexpected) take on Prop 8 – Part Two

Here’s the conclusion of my take on Prop 8.  Read the first post for context, or else this post won’t make much sense to you.

Despite all I’ve written so far, I'm voting No on Prop 8.  I'm not happy with where the situation is as a whole, and I would prefer "marriage" be a term reserved for what it has historically/traditionally been - a relationship between a man and a woman.  I don't think it should be changed.  A gay couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple.  They are of the same value, they are no less human, they are equal.  It is not discrimination to recognize that the relationships are of a different type.  But as long as the government is in the "marriage" business and that word is an important part of guaranteeing the equal rights gays deserve, then I think gay marriage should be legalized.  This is a problem Christians created for themselves by trying to make America into a "Christian nation" and trying to use the system to legitimize their way of living.  Christians made this bed and now they need to sleep in it.  By making marriage an issue of the state in a state governed by the Constitution, which guarantees equal rights for all, Christians have made marriage subject to the Constitution.  There are lots of things bound up legally with “marriage” and it doesn’t appear that simply having “civil unions” will guarantee the exact same rights for gays, and that’s not right.

I think Constantine's declaration of Christianity as legitimate/official was one of the biggest blows to the message and movement of Jesus.  Instead of continuing Jesus' radical anti-establishment movement of love, Christians fell in love with becoming the dominant power and abused that power.  Today Christians are largely more concerned, I think, with maintaining power and making Christian culture the same as American culture - and that's a problem.  Instead of being seen as people radically in favor of love and acceptance and the gospel, Christians are seen as agents of the old, agents of hatred and discrimination.  It should not be this way.  If years ago Christians had tried to find another way to secure equal rights for gays rather than criticize and hate on them, things might be different.   But that's a fantasy land.  I think Christians have sort of made their own beds on this one and it's time to sleep in it.  By making marriage an issue of the state in a state governed by the Constitution I don't think we have any choice at this point but to allow gay marriage.

I hope I've explained and nuanced my view enough.  This started as a post explaining why I was voting Yes on Prop 8 but as I thought about it and worked through my view I changed my mind.  My guess is this will upset many of you on both sides - those of you who are strongly "Yes" will consider me a prodigal, and those who are strongly "No" will consider me only slightly better than a segregationist.  But still, it's where I am.

My (unexpected) take on Prop 8 – Part One

This post started out as something else and evolved as I thought through it.  I’m still a little surprised at my conclusion but I think it’s the right one.  This is long so I’ve split it into two posts.  The second post will have my conclusion and what I’m planning on voting. 

As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about and figuring out how to communicate, I think words are important.  Words are symbols that communicate commonly shared meaning and ideas.  Words mean what they mean because we agree they do, and they carry certain connotations/things with them. This is why some words are considered inappropriate to say, like the n-word.  Words are powerful.  When it comes to marriage, I think the word should be reserved for what marriage has historically been - a relationship between a man and a woman.

This isn't based in religion or bigotry.  In fact I believe the insistence on using the term "marriage" for gay marriage is an example of cultural intolerance and insensitivity, which are generally considered cardinal sins by those who call themselves progressive.  Let me see if I can explain it this way with a hypothetical scenario.  Given the time and energy I have this is the best I could do, as inadequate as it is.

Let's say there's a group of people who do this particular dance.  The dance requires three people, and it involves certain steps.  This dance is a big part of their culture and it tells the story of their people.  Children are taught about the dance from a young age, and most children take it up when they grow older.  Sometimes the people mess up the steps, sometimes they screw up the dance and quit in the middle of it - but it always has three people.  That's what the dance is.   A new group of people come in and they hear about the dance.  They like the dance and think it's cool, but instead of 3 people they want to do the dance with two.  This means some of the steps change, and the story that's communicated by the dance changes - but the new group likes to do the dance and thinks it's fun.  They're not really doing the same dance - but they're doing a dance that sort of looks like the other dance, but it's different and communicates something different.

The original group of people have always called their dance "Jaje."  To them, "Jaje" carries with it meaning and it's something that has been a cornerstone of their culture for a long time.  They would admit they haven't always done it right and sometimes they mess up, but they still value it and the story it tells.  The new group wants to call their dance by the same name.  They like the fact that Jaje is a respected and honored tradition - and while they don't want to dance the Jaje, they want to do a dance and they want everyone else to call it Jaje.  This new dance is different from the historic, traditional Jaje but the new group still thinks they should have the right to be considered equal even if their dance is different.  The original group suggests the new group call their dance something else, but the new group says that's hate and discrimination.  The old group says they are trying to hold on to their traditions and culture, and "Jaje" is part of that.  The new group says that times have changed, and Jaje doesn't mean that anymore; besides, if the original group cared about Jaje so much they'd never mess the steps up or quit dancing in the middle of it.

I think any anthropologist looking at this scenario would see the new group as overtaking the culture of the old group.  The old group would necessarily feel threatened, and while they can still do their Jaje dance, it seems like a bit of a jerk move by the new group to insist their new, different, inspired-by-the-original-Jaje dance be called the same thing even though it isn't the same thing.  I'm sure if Americans went over to some other country and started co-opting their cultural traditions we'd be considered "ugly Americans."  I obviously use this as an analogue to the gay marriage movement of today.

I think gays should enjoy all the same rights as heterosexual couples.  The government should not discriminate based on sexual orientation when it comes to the benefits of domestic partnerships.  Truth be told, I would be happiest with the government getting out of the "marriage" business in the first place.  I wish the government could just have "domestic partnerships" that bestow the legal benefits of marriage, and both hetero and gay couples would apply for them.  The government should not be in the marriage business at all.  This is where the complexity comes in.  More on this with my next post, which will complete my thoughts on Prop 8 and tell you my vote.

Thought for today

Too often in my life and heart God is an idea, a concept, a belief, an argument, a system of thought, a set of rules, a religion - too seldom is He God.  I would be nowhere without grace.

What is Biblical Authority

The other day I finished reading The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture by N.T. Wright.  I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.  It's fairly short, coming in around 120 pages, but Wright is able to communicate a lot in that time.  He goes through a quick history of how "authority of scripture" has been used and understood.  There are chapters on "Scripture and Jesus," "the 'Word of God' in the Apostolic Church," The Enlightenment, and so on.

There's a lot of argument about how we are to understand and figure out what the Bible has to say, and what we're to do about it (in the Christian and non-Christian communities).  In my experience many of the criticisms of the Bible, and many of the seemingly stupid opinions Christians have, are largely attributable to a misunderstanding of what the Bible is in the first place.  We misunderstand what it is and then we misunderstand how to get information from it or what it's trying to say - then we make it say things it doesn't say and criticize it for things it doesn't say because we think it says those things. (Got that?)

Several worthwhile quotes present themselves in the book, but I'll just put one or two down here that I found helpful and that characterize some of his points in the book.

Here we have the roots of a fully Christian theology of scriptural authority: planted firmly in the soil of the missionary community, confronting the powers of the world with the news of the Kingdom of God, refreshed and invigorated by the Spirit, growing particularly through the preaching and teaching of the apostles, and bearing fruit in the transformation of human lives as the start of God's project to put the whole cosmos to rights. (p. 50)

The above quote comes from Wright discussing the use of scripture in the Early Church.  The Bible is more than just an encyclopedia of religious factoids - it's one of the ways God has decided to work in the world and through people.

Once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion.  It is no longer "authoritative" in any strict sense; that is, it may be cited as though in "proof" of some point or other, but it is not leading the way, energizing the church with the fresh breath of God himself. The question must always be asked, whether scripture is being used to serve and existing theology or vice versa. (p. 70)

Here Wright discusses how it's important for us to try to find the message within the Bible instead of putting our own meaning onto it.  If God has used the Bible to speak, then what's important is hearing the message, not inventing it.  There is a definite message in there to be found.  Our method of discerning the message is what often leads to conflict.  I like Wright's suggestions in this area.  Historically Christians have put the sources of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience at odds.  We say "my tradition values scripture, while this other tradition values reason."  It's a way of considering what our final authority will be - is our authority scripture or is it reason?  I think Wright has good stuff to say about how to move past that often unhelpful model:

To change the picture, scripture, tradition, and reason are not like three different bookshelves, each of which can be ransacked for answers to key questions.  Rather, scripture is the bookshelf; tradition is the memory of what people in the house have read and understood (or perhaps misunderstood) from that shelf; and reason is the set of spectacles that people wear in order to make sense of what they read - though, worryingly, the spectacles have varied over time, and there are signs that some readers, using the "reason" available to them, have severely distorted the texts they were reading. 'Experience' is something different again, referring to the effect on readers of what they read, and/or the worldview, the life experience, the political circumstances, and so on, within which that reading takes place. (p. 101-102)

This post has already gone on too long.  Suffice it to say if you want to consider some more mature ways of looking at what the Bible has to say or if you're at all interested in the current discourse on Biblical interpretation, I suggest you take a look at this book.  Whether you think the Bible is the Word of God or you think it's a book of fairy tales, this is a way to seriously interact with some of the more thoughtful ways Christians are looking at the Bible.  I think it's useful for either group.

sorry to see

Unless you've been completely ignoring the news over the past few days you've heard about Ted Haggard, the prominent evangelical Christian leader who has experience a massive impact between the fecal matter and the proverbial fan. He's a very political figure, well-known for his opposition to things like gay marriage. If the accusations are to be believed, he has carried on a relationship with a male prostitute/meth dealer for the past few years. The prostitute didn't know who this guy was until he saw Haggard denouncing gay marriage on TV one day. Apparently this horrendous hypocrisy prompted the man to go public.

I'm not entirely sure what the facts of the matter are. Jones (the male prostitute in question) failed a polygraph test about the alleged sexual nature of their relationship. Today, however, Haggard's church fired him, citing "sexually immoral conduct." As far as I know Haggard has publicly admitted to purchasing meth from Jones but says he didn't use it. Haggard also admitted contacting Jones in order to get a massage. The whole thing is pretty shady.

I have to wonder what Haggard is thinking. Politically I am not quite a member of the so-called Religious Right and was only vaguely aware of who Haggard was before this. This almost seems fake. I mean, one of the most influential anti-gay-marriage political figures is patronizing male prostitutes for gay sex and crystal meth? It's so bizarre. I think the biggest victims here are Haggard's family, who have to be absolutely devastated. Of course there is collateral damage to things like the message of Christianity, the integrity of Christian leaders, Haggard's disillusioned followers, and so on.

I don't suppose I have any original thoughts on this. It sucks for Haggard and his family. It's also pretty weaksauce that someone would work so hard to keep gay marriage illegal while at the same time carrying on this kind of relationship with a guy (if the allegations are true). I'm personally of the opinion that gay people should have the same legal rights as others. I do think that marriage is something between a man and a woman but that others should be allowed the same legal status and perks and all that.

But anyway, this Haggard thing is a reminder that if you let some little secret thing linger it can grow into a monster that destroys your life, and you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.