the parish

Meant to Be and an Apology

It's the end of the semester, and I'm barely surviving. I have a half dozen emails that relate to this blog in my inbox that I simply can't answer right now. Others have called and asked for time. Dear friends, please be patient with me. After Tuesday, when final grades are filed, I will be free 'til June 2, when summer term begins. (And, yes, I will be at Radiohead in Dallas next weekend.) For now, I'm posting excerpts from an interview I did with Holocaust survivor Eliezer Ayalon. He was in town last weekend to speak at the Yom HaShoah program, and I did an advance on the event for the Gazette. This is material that didn't make the final story. As he mentions, his story is available in A Cup of Honey: The Story of a Young Holocaust Survivor; Eliezer Ayalon, by Neile Sue Friedman.

A side note: These are the kinds of stories that convince me that we need a new concept of God. I'm still not an atheist, but there aren't any God-stories out there I buy right now.

"I came to be part of the remembrance in OKC as a result of  meeting a UJC mission with Edie Roodman the Executive Director of the Jewish Federation of Greater OKC, whom I guided in June 2007 at Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum in Jerusalem.

"During my guiding through the museum, it seems that I touched the mission participants, especially Edie Roodman, by sharing with them segments of my personal experiences as a young boy who lived and survived the Holocaust. In the end of the museum tour I stood on a balcony with the mission, my arms open wide toward Jerusalem exclaiming: 'Out of ashes, behold this Majesty.' This was the favorite moment to Edie after coming out from 'destruction to rebirth.' While having lunch together after touring the museum, an idea came up to bring a piece of that moment and my poignant story to OKC  and share it with the people living in the Community.

"That is how Edie Roodman with the Jewish Federation of Greater OKC  initiated to bring me with my wife from Israel for a two week tour in order to share my first hand testimony and to speak in schools, universities and civic meetings, as well as participating in the Holocaust Remembrance Day and the festivities of (the anniversary of) Israel's 60th (year of) Independence with the people of OKC.

"The parts of my story that I intend to highlight: My miraculous survival, (the single one of my entire family) during the horrors of the Holocaust. Beginning with the story of the separation from the family, especially from my mother who saved my life from the deportation of my hometown ghetto to the Treblinka extermination camp where all my family—parents, brothers and sister—died in the gas chambers. At the age of 14, and for the next three years, I spent my childhood in five Nazi concentration and forced labor camps in Poland and Austria until the liberation by the US Army on May 5, 1945, in a death camp in Ebense, Austria.

"I think what people of OKC, in particular the young generation, should know is the struggle for my survival, a young boy who lived in Europe in those terrible days during the Holocaust. My faith, my hopes, my dreams which enable me to continue to live. They should learn about a Jewish boy born in Radom, Poland, where he was brought up in a Jewish religious and traditional home, the youngest of four children in the family, happy and protected. My life was joyful; I loved studying the Bible, singing in our Synagogue choir and playing soccer. With the German occupation of Poland and my home town in 1939, my life changed dramatically.

"Events began to happen so quickly that I ran out of time to be afraid. In 1941, I was compelled with my family to leave my home in which I was born and raised and forced to live in a Jewish ghetto that the Germans established for the 30.000 Jews of Radom. I survived the ghetto deportation thanks to my dear mother who succeeded to save one of her children, that was me. I can never forget that eve of our separation and how my mother handed me a cup filled with honey with a blessing that I will survive and will have a sweet life because everything is 'beshert', a word in Yiddish that literally means 'meant to be.'

"I survived  five Nazi concentration and death camps, among them Plaszow, which was filmed in Schindlers' List by Steven Spielberg, and Mauthasen in Austria. By the end of April 1945, I was in a stage of protracted starvation (such) that I could touch and feel my ribs on each side of my body.    
But I didn't want to die. I was still young. I remembered my mother's last words: 'You will survive and will have a sweet life.'

"One week later on May 5, 1945, I was liberated by the US Army with 18,000 other inmates in Ebense. Six months later I immigrated to the Land of Israel, our homeland. I was 17 years old when I arrived in the Land of Israel which looked like heaven. Here begins my new life with the Jewish people; I felt that I'm saved. Two and a half years later, the State of Israel was established. On this day I felt that I'm coming back to normal life.

"During all those years of the Nazi horrors and my suffering in concentration camps, I remember one thing: I never gave up hope, never stopped hoping. My willpower to remain on the side of the living helped me to overcome the suffering; the will to survive was always there; without it I wouldn't make it.

"To conclude my story: After my arrival in Israel, I was anxious to tell my story, but I realized that people really didn't believe us. Our stories were so incredible and in addition, sometimes you could hear like a hint that maybe I did something wrong to survive. This tension forced me to a stance of silence which I maintained for 37 years before I was able to express myself publicly, but above that to be able to tell my story to my own children, who knew very little about my life during the Holocaust.  Eventually, I began to speak because I felt that time is running out if I don't tell my story and this important part of my life will be lost forever.

"Consequently, I decided to put my story in writing and published a book in English entitled A Cup of Honey that became a symbol of my survival and the beginning of my new life. I'm part of the last generation of the firsthand witnesses of the horrors of the Holocaust which places a heavy burden on our shoulders to impart the story to the future generations. I will continue to tell the story as long as I stand on my feet. Our numbers are dwindling, and after we disappear, there will be no one who can utter those simple words: 'I was there! I experienced it! I remember!'  Therefore, for we survivors, participating in memorial ceremonies and telling our stories and educating the young in the lesson of history is like doing a Holy Labor.
   
"My wounds have healed, but scars remained. I accomplished what I wanted. This year I will turn 82. I'm married happily for 59 years. I have two wonderful children, five grandchildren and one great-grandson; the second is on his way. Three generations born and raised from the ashes of the Holocaust. Today I'm the happiest man in the world. My life is a continuing defeat for Hitler and the Nazis who hoped to destroy the entire Jewish people, but they did not succeed, because 'Am Israel Chai'—The Jewish nation is alive."  Eliezer Ayalon

Vegas and Wine and Wine

The hot, spa-loving hairdresser wife and I are off to Vegas today. We're staying at the Venetian, where the hottie will spend most of her time by the pool or in the spa. Wine Spectator magazine's Grand Tour is in Vegas tomorrow night. 200 of the world's best wines in one room. Unfortunately, I only have three hours to sample the wines, so I'll need to carry a little vomit bucket with me to binge and purge on the go. We'll gamble a little, not much. We're not big gamblers. We went to Vegas about four years ago to see O. The slot-loving hairdresser wife nearly hit triple 7's on a machine at the Golden Nugget. It was enough to get her to pump $200 into the machine in less than 15 minutes. She won exactly nothing. Our gambling addiction was broken before it matured.

I was practicing biting my tongue...

...but I'm done with that. Listening to CNN, not FixedNews, today about Wright and Obama. Have no idea what the name of the talking head was they were interviewing but he said working class Americans don't care about Obama's race. CNN helped by trotting out a statistic. Only one in five non-college educated, white Democrats in Pennsylvania said race was an issue. This leads to a few extrapolations.

1. CNN believes everything white people say.
2. College-educated whites of the Democratic party are so notoriously liberal-minded that it was too much trouble to ask them.
3. One in five non-college educated, white Democrats in Pennsylvania are racists.

That was not the angle of the story though. It should have been At Least 20% of Pa. White Folk Confess to being Bigots. (Never mind the percentage if you count the Republicans.) Nope. The story was that race was not Obama's problem. The talking head told CNN that Obama's problem was his "elitist values." That's right, folks. White America doesn't like Obama because he's an elitist, not because he's black. Thank God. Now I can vote for Hilary with a clear conscience—after all, CNN said she champions the little guy and she said her campaign was about "jobs, jobs, jobs." So glad we don't have a race problem in America anymore.

Azariah Southworth is gay. No, not like junior high insult gay. Really gay.

Azariah Southworth not only has the coolest name in Christian TV, he also has the coolest name of any gay guy who used to be in Christian TV. Southworth announced yesterday that he is gay. I know many of you think Christian TV is gay, but this is different; this is homosexual gay. This is Azariah outing himself. In a statement for the press, he said, "This has been a long time coming. I’m in a place where I’m at peace with my faith, friends, family and more importantly myself. I know this will end my career in Christian television, but I must now live my life openly and honestly with everyone. This is my reason for doing this."

Southworth's television show, The Remix, was seen on DirecTV channel 378: nrbnetwork.tv. I checked the site, and as of 6:30 p.m. CST, there was still no statement about Southworth's statement. I suspect that he is correct though; his show probably won't be airing again, even in reruns. However, you totally have to check out this page on the nrb site. The page explains that all programming will present a "solid Biblical worldview." (Oh, that Francis Schaeffer had never introduced Christendom to that word...) Apparently, solid biblical worldview includes creationism, factual history, and moral absoluteness. Delightful. Sign me up for DirecTV today!

Why is this story a big deal? I mean, it's just another Christian guy associated with music admitting that he's gay. Like we haven't met hundreds of Baptist and Pentecostal music ministers over the years who qualified, but who had managed to marry a portly woman who resembled the gay guy's mom long enough to get ordained, squeeze out some kids, and then have an affair with the tenor in the Gaither Vocal Band knock-off group after the church potluck. Turns out that Southwork's program was seen by about 200,000 viewers per week, mostly fundangelical teens and young adults. The Remix took viewers into the day to day lives of Christian music artists like Jars, Building 429, and Shane and Shane. In addition to its airing on NRB Network, The Remix was also seen on JCTV, TBN's youth-oriented affiliate. (By the way, I think jctv stands for Jesus Christ Television.) Can't wait to hear the Crouches address this one.

Hopefully Southworth will be able to avoid Haggard's restoration program and get on with his life. I wish him well, and since the SBC is headquartered in Nashville where Southworth lives, he should have plenty of music ministers to choose from for dates. Here's to people who have the courage to tell the truth. Peace to you, Azariah.

There is more on the story here and here, and thanks to Mohon for sending it along. By the way, Mohon's straight, so I think he read it on the Huffington Post not on Out and About.

The New Country: Inarticulate Bimbos, Snoop Dogg, Screeching Cats, and Texting

I listen to country music occasionally, primarily because of the fond memories I have of driving through the southern and western U.S. as a kid, when the only stations available at 2:00 a.m. between Oklahoma City and Albuquerque were AM stations that played Freddy Fender, Hank Williams, Tammy Wynette, Charlie Pride, and the country greats from before the destruction wrought by FM country stations. The hot, Conway Twitty-loving hairdresser wife and I still listen to classic country on long road trips, but we disagree about the new country. Last night I got to revel in being right about the utter craptasticness of the new country during the CMT Awards. (These should NEVER be confused with the CMA's, which still retain some dignity and some connection to the tradition of country music.)

Country Music Television has a video awards ceremony every year. I've never watched it before, but I will never miss it again, as it's not often that anyone gets to feel so spectacularly and horribly correct for three straight hours. Billy Ray and Miley Cyrus were hosting. Billy Ray looked like the love child of Crispin Glover, Steven Pearcy, and Don Johnson (ca. 1985). Not sure how it's an improvement to exchange a mullet for an about-to-be-led-away-to-the-death-chamber 'do. Miley was so chirpy I thought my molars wouldn't survive the night. However, chirpy was preferable to the killer bimbo duo of Taylor Swift and Kellie Pickler. Both won awards and both managed to say absolutely nothing. In most award shows, when a dimwit, near talent-free hack beats out some of the great stars of their trade, they have the great good sense to say what an honor it is to be included in that company. Not with the southern bimbo squad though. We had IM jokes, "oh my goshes", and thanks for the fans in abundance, but not one nod to the people who carved out the tradition in which these American Idol cast-offs are now swimming.

Elitist side note: when fans are allowed to vote online for winners, it almost guarantees that the majority of votes will be from teenagers who are too stupid to know who they ought to vote for. Case in point: when Taylor Swift, for whom the concepts of pitch and key are as unattainable as a unicorn sighting, beats out Martina McBride and LeAnn Rimes, the world is about to explode. Fan voting is a stupid idea, which is why almost no one ever watched the People's Choice Awards.

Rascal Flatts. I should just be able to type that and people who love country music will vomit on cue. Alas...these knuckleheads, who sound like cats being raped or nails on a chalkboard during a cat rape, have won a Grammy. So much for the fans being the only stupid ones... Last night they sang a song about bobbing your head and flashing rock signs. These lyrical gems were in the middle of what can only be described as bad, white, country rap. Let's see: banging your head (Quiet Riot), bad white rap (Vanilla Ice), sappy pop/rock country (Alabama), il cornuto devil sign (Hell's Bells: The Dangers of Rock and Roll). Yeah, we've seen these guys before. Why do we have to listen to them in a different iteration? Notice I didn't go for the easy sex joke here.

Toby Keith. The song is She's a Hottie. Great title! Try these lyrics: "She's a hottie and just a little bit naughty...Ki yi diggy diggy, Ki yi diggy diggy, yay HEY hey hey HEY." Surely there's a Grammy in this for the king of mediocre, redneck pandering.

Snoop Dogg. His new single is out. He was there to announce that. Joint marketing. How long before rap, pop, rock, and pop country all merge into one horrifically trite genre? Has it already happened and CMT presented it last night? I think so.

Paula Abdul. She was gushing about the Idol alum, of whom only Carrie Underwood sang well, when she turned and said something bizarre to someone in the audience. Still haven't found a blogger who knows what was going on. I think it's just Paula on Vicodin again.

Anyway, those are the lowlights. Basically, it appears that CMT is attempting to reach the valuable teen demographic. That means that people who love country music should probably stay way away from any CMT programming. I'll still be listening to Ryan Adams, Mando Saenz, Kathleen Edwards, and Carrie Rodriguez, praying that country makes a comeback.

A Simple Test of the Bible

In the spirit of II Timothy 3:16 (All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...), the parish offers you the Parish Power Verse of the Day!

Isaiah 3:21: "the rings and nose jewels"

Cry aloud, children of inerrancy, for here is a word from the LORD! Or, as Delmar said, "C'mon in, boys, the water's fine!"

That fine lesson about devotional reading and the nonsense attendant to it was first pointed out to me by my good friend Curt. He was living with me after his wife booted him for being gay. He was also a music minister and a damn fine human being. Anyway, Curt used to bring this verse up in Bible studies and small groups to torment the kookier among the faithful. You know...the ones who were forever hearing a word from the lord, the ones who always had a verse for you--kinda like KLOVE does now. Reading the comment thread on the previous post, once again derailed into a discussion of biblical authority, although, as April pointed out, I don't even mention the Bible in the post except by way of allusion, made me remember Curt and this story. So, enjoy your power verse friends.

Silence and Absence

A good friend emailed me this weekend to ask for some clarity about where I am theologically. She's one of my oldest friends, so I take her seriously when she voices concerns about my well-being, attitude, choices, etc. In the course of my correspondence with her, I wrote this sentence about theology, sermons, and faith talk: "They are words strung together to explain the silence and absence of God." I think she helped me finally identify the problem I've had since taking graduate classes in linguistics: faith talk, in the strictest sense, is a collection of words with no meaning. Here's what I mean.

If God were present with us, we would not need to construct elaborate theories about her activity, her choices, her existence, her motivations, her feelings, etc. We could simply ask. It is all together possible that she would refuse to answer, but the larger questions could still be answered by watching the way she behaves as she lives and gods (from the OE "to god"--I god, you god, he/she/it gods) among us. Most especially the question of existence. Even if she refused to answer, the theories we concocted would be based on actual experience with a god we observe, interact with, speak to, and know. If she did answer the questions, depending upon whether or not we found her to be trustworthy, we would know why she did what she did. (People seem to forget that belief that god is good and honest and loving is an assumption based upon a preference as to how we would prefer god to be; those assumptions don't stand up to scrutiny if sacred texts are taken seriously.) In other words, having god among us wouldn't solve all our problems related to faith and doubt, but it would solve some of the big ones.

However, in the real world, God seems to have absented herself. I've found no good reason for this, even after seven years of college wherein I studied god and godstuff. All of the explanations I've heard to explain this are constructs designed to let god off the hook or to say we're worms and she's not. This is a very simple question: why does god not show godself? Why did she allegedly do so thousands of years ago and then apparently turn back into a pumpkin or something? Why so much activity with Moses and Elijah and Jesus and the early church and then nothing? Every religion that I know of stipulates that faith is a requirement. Why? Because god seems uninterested in showing up anymore. There is simply no good reason for god to create a world and people and then not choose to interact with those people.

Here's where theology comes in. "The heavens declare the glory of God." Great. Maybe god could declare his presence in some less abstract way? "People being kind to each other manifests the grace of God." Wonderful. Apparently atheists and heathens don't know they're being godly when they do what people do to get along and when they have any sort of moral sense. "God is in the whirlwind and the gentle whisper." Fantastic. Never met anyone who knew how to sort god's voice from the cacophony in our heads. In fact, most everyone I know has said god told them to do something, only to change their minds a few weeks or months later. Since no one seems to be getting better at this, it's probably best to say that sometimes we make good choices and sometimes we make bad ones and leave god out of it. In other words, god is an unnecessary proposition in every human action.

If god isn't available, and god isn't talking, and god doesn't intervene, why do we justify our decisions as if god had anything to do with them? It's a way of talking that brings god into the equation, but we can work through the situations without reference to god. Unless god actually says to do something by means of showing up and telling us what to do, all references to god's activity are wish projection or justification. Nonsense talk. Talk that can't be verified is nonsense. No, I'm not talking about referential language; I'm not a logical positivist. I'm saying that we need to explain things or promise things with the least amount of complexity that the situation demands. Why tell people that god is with them if we don't know god is with them and if god's presence with them (in our understanding) doesn't change anything? It's no comfort if god is with someone while they are raped or tortured or molested. Why tell people that Jesus died for the sins of the world when it seems far more obvious that the sins of the world are piling up at a furious rate and people don't seem to behave any differently once they know that this probably historical event, the metaphysical and theological benefits of which can't be proven or demonstrated, allegedly applies to them by means of a simple confession? Why not tell them Jesus died because of the sins of the world, so people should try to act differently no matter what they believe? Why tell people to pray when it seems apparent that prayer solves nothing and is less reliable than chance when specific things are requested? Why not just say, we seem to be on our own, and if there is a god, he can't be counted on, so find some people who care about you and whom you care about, and try to be there for each other?

This probably doesn't make me an atheist, but it certainly doesn't make me a theist either. I'm just too tired of all the faith talk to care. God's not showing up and he ain't talking, so I've just made the choice to live as if god doesn't exist and as if people matter more than god and as if action counts for more than belief. Sorry. It's where I am.

Blue Like Jazz: The Movie

Yes, it's gonna be a movie. Here's a story that includes an interview with Donald Miller and Steve Taylor. According to the interview, Miller will have a cameo as the "trendy writer" character from the book. No decision has been made on actors yet, but I can't wait to see who plays Driscoll. Zack Braff is my choice for Donald Miller. I'm thinking a slimmed-down Vin Diesel for Driscoll, although word is Will Ferrell is a complete jack-ass, so that may work if the filmmaker is going for irony.

Steve Taylor, whose claim to fame as a filmmaker was the 2006 stunner The Second Chance featuring the magnetic Michael W. Smith, will direct. Will the music people please stick with music? Please. Except for Smith. He needs to not sing, ever. Unless he's doing a remake of The Muppet Movie.

Miller is honest enough to say that he believes the movie will appeal primarily to Christians. Taylor is more hopeful. I'm thinking it's going to appeal to a subset of Christians--those who are weary of megachurches but still think evangelical theology has the answers.

The New Christians or Nebulous Christianity

Two things first: Tony Jones is a good writer and Tony Jones needs to be more honest about a certain friend of his. The book is easy to read, if pointless, and Mark Driscoll takes a pounding for being an ass, whereas Doug Pagitt gets a pass. Pretty sure Driscoll is an ass, but I've actually met Pagitt, sat in on his sessions, watched him interact with emergents and NPC pastors, and if anyone gets the designation of asshat in the early years of this movement, it's Doug. And Chris. I was there when Chris Seay and Kevin Wilson (is that who that professional/CT type was?) went at it. Ugly. Ugly. Ugly. Anyway, just a preface to say that even the postmoderns are content with revising history.

Jones begins the "argument" in The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier with the emergent rejection of binary thinking prevalent in American Christianity: dissatisfaction with Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal, Evangelical and Mainline. Except that emergents are less than honest about the new polarity: emergent and not. Jones gives some insight into this when he discusses the early meetings wherein people were designated those who get it and those who don't. He will go on to articulate 20 dispatches from the emergent church (certainly Emergent here, since this book has been designated by some gatekeeper as Emergent), beginning with:

"Emergents find little importance in the discrete difference between the various flavors of Christianity. Instead, they practice a generous orthodoxy that appreciates the contributions of all Christian movements."

The best that can be said about this is that it's half-true. But it's less than honest to call the differences between Independent Fundamentalist Baptists and Episcopalians "discrete." And it's less than honest to pretend that some Christian movements are worthy of appreciation rather than disgust. Better to say emergents appreciate the post-liberal thinking of Hans Frei and the Yale school while still holding onto some of the trappings of evangelical worship combined with Newbigin's missiology.

Dispatch number 2, and I'm not going to list them all, is the rejection of "the politics and theologies of left versus right. Seeing both sides as a remnant of mordernity, they look forward to a more complex reality." I too tend to reject binary thinking. I struggle with teaching ethics to students who have been taught the contrasting pairs. However, it's fair to say that those sorts of polarities predate modernity. Even Jesus must have been caught up in it when he declared, "Those who are not against us are for us." Two teams. Hmm...

Jones then gives an excellent, semi-detailed history of the emergent movement. It's the most helpful section of the book, and probably the last helpful section. When we get to "Who are the emergent Christians?" the answers are typically, emergently anecdotal. To be fair, Jones offers three characteristics of emergents: 1. disappointment with American Christianity; 2. desire for inclusion; 3. a hope-filled orientation. Jones has just described the LGBT movement and the American Humanist Association.

Then comes what should be the backbone of the book: the theology. It's true that emergent Christians, especially church planters, are more theologically tuned in than their evangelical church-planting counterparts. Rare is the middle-aged Hybel/Warren disciple who can withstand the theological questions of a young emergent full of Newbigin, Wright, Frei, and Brueggemann. There are passages within this section that I wholeheartedly affirm and/or sympathize with: "Dispatch 13, Emergents believe that truth, like God, cannot be definitively articulated by finite human beings." There are others that bring out the scoffer in me: "Dispatch 14, Emergents embrace paradox, especially those that are core components of the Christian story."  As a skeptic I have to ask, what else could they do? If they're determined to believe theistic nonsense, they are forced to embrace paradox. Jones uses the example of a physicist who "embraces paradox" to justify his position. Since I'm not a physicist, I'd like to hear what Dawkins or a mathematician (Leighton) would say about this passage (162-163). Then follows the two major paradoxes an emergent is forced, according to Jones, to defend: Trinity and Chalcedonian Christianity (fully God, fully man).

The last critique I have is of Jones's description of "wikichurch" in Dispatch 16: "Emergents believe that church should function more like an open-source network and less like a hierarchy or a bureaucracy." Umm...isn't Jones the "national coordinator" of Emergent Village, and isn't that a nice euphemism for director, and isn't that a hierarchical title? And has anyone else noticed that this open-source network keeps showing the same "programmers/administrators" on the fliers for the conferences? And who is pastoring these open-source network churches? Aren't the names Pagitt, Ward, Kimball, etc.? I don't recall seeing a flier about an emergent conversation or conference wherein the pastor(s) of Solomon's Porch was 500 names.

And then there is wikichurch. Jones wants us to think about Wikipedia as a good analogy of the emergent church. The first thing I tell my students is that they may not use wikipedia as a source for a paper. The problems with wikipedia are well-documented. Contrary to Jones, there is no glory, wonder, or awe attached to allowing morons equal access. Call me an elitist, but I'll stand by that. And that's only the first of many critiques I could make of this analogy.

Also in this section, Jones uses Tim Keel's church Jacob's Well as an illustration of an emergent church. Tim Keel, along with Brian McLaren, is one of the good guys of the movement. He's sincere, approachable, humble, kind, and a whole host of other positive adjectives, and the last time I talked to him (about two and a half years ago), his exact words were "I'm not even sure we're an emergent church anymore." That's because Jacob's Well has become a baby mega of sorts. A good church still, but emergent?

Jones answers his own questions about Emergent when he talks about the inevitable hardening of the categories that takes place in any movement—the tendency to move toward bureaucracy. He even admits that the purchase of his book might be a sign of that move, an argument I made both when Jones became "national coordinator" and when the first publisher announced their line of Emergent books, and I think I bitched when they came up with a logo. In short, you can read Jones's book and you'll probably enjoy the read, if you're sympathetic. If you're not because you're a skeptic, you'll probably be bored and a bit frustrated with the circular thinking attendant with theism. If you're not because you're fundangelical, then you'll be frustrated by Jones's unwillingness to be pinned down about almost anything. So, this is a book about emergents written for non-emergents that non-emergents won't care to read, but emergents will think Jones has done them a good turn. And Emergents are still unwilling to admit that the forces that drive fallen powers toward ossification and bureaucracy have taken deep root in the emergent church.

I had high hopes for emergent Christianity. I was one of them. Susan and I started what was arguably the first emergent congregation in Oklahoma City. What I want emergents to recognize, and this is from an outsider (to Christianity) now, is that there is no room within institutionalized American Christianity for them, so the sooner they stop the apologetics for the sake of the sanctified, the sooner they'll truly be counter-cultural and not counter-Church. Maybe then they'll make a difference for the long term. Playing by the same rules as the churches they've left—marketing, publishing deals, logos, titles, celebrities—only guarantees their demise.

You might avoid this if you have a weak stomach or are clearly cynical.

Tony Jones referenced this church in his new book (which I will review sometime this week, per request by the way--not his request, lest you be confused). It was one of the few areas where we are in total agreement. Just read the page. It explains why a church has trademarked its name. Yes, you read that right. I only hope Nathan and Christy Nockels don't sue the church for trademark infringement.