the parish

Customer Service Called. They Said You're a Dumb-Ass!

No time to blog about church tonight. I will relay our overwhelmingly positive experience in church tomorrow though. It's certainly worth reporting. I have a friend in town from CA, so I'll get back on schedule tomorrow. I did want to share a recent email I received. I can't tell if I'm a dumb-ass or Joel Osteen, although I suspect Mr. or Ms. Customer Service means me. It was from someone named customer service. That's what the address said, and until I have a real name, that's what I'll call 'em. Here's the email:

No intellegent human being could be so dumb as to miss the point in Joel Osteen's larger house. I know, $9.95 gets you a website, stupidity and search engine money gets you recognition. Wake up!

I think I'm being insulted. What do you think? By the way, I have the $4.95 package. Just goes to show you can't ever trust customer service.

Size Matters, I Think

This is part two of a response about the nature of the church that began here. I've decided to take Tedd's third question second, since how people live together as community is determined by what model of the church we have.

If you dislike what consumerism and fundamentalism have done to the church, what (if any) model of church do you think would bring us out of this mess?

Let me try a short answer first: a non-institutional, non-hierarchichal, community-based model of church built on three principles—witness, fellowship, and service. What does that mean? If you've read more than two of my "serious" posts, you'll know I don't care for the institutional church. I think Jesus meant to start a community, not an institution. Realistically though, in the second half of the first century believers realize that Jesus is not coming back tomorrow and the problem of extending the community across multiple generations leads to institutionalization. That in itself would not have been a problem. The problem arises when the three-tiered hierarchy arises to run the institution. By the time of Ignatius of Antioch (early second century), we have bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The Pauline emphasis on an egalitarian, charismatic community is gone. The church has reverted to cultural definitions of manhood and womanhood as well as class and racial distinctions. Basically, guys are in charge, a priesthood has arisen, and the vocabulary of lay and clergy is less than a generation away.

It's easy to blame Constantine for the woes we face now, but a great deal of the problems we face were already in the system when Constantine hammers the nail in the coffin. The Reformation was an attempt to redress many wrong ideas in the church of the 16th century, but only the Anabaptists seemed to realize that an eschatological community was the "church" Jesus came to build. The other two branches of the Reformation (Calvin and Luther) both opted for the institutional model. They failed to realize the degree to which Constantinianism had corrupted the community. Constantine baptizes everything—war, politics, wealth, empire—and in the words of Yoder, there no longer remained a difference between church and world.

Nearly five hundred years later we're still grappling with institutionalism. Christians in America wring their hands over the import of a "post-Christian America." They don't seem to understand that the vocabulary itself is idolatrous. There is no Christian America. There is a kingdom of God and there is a world, and the two should bear marked differences. Those differences are best displayed in witness, fellowship, and service. More on that tomorrow.

In Between

I came here seeking someone—
Not something, not answers
Not the words you offered
As if they were food for a starving man.

In fact, I am quite full—
Full of words, gorged on sermons.
Like a fat man at Thanksgiving,
I mentally loosen my belt.

Yet the torrent never ceases
An unending paean, a hymn
To your own understanding
Of things too great for words.

In between the pews
I look for spaces of silence
Moments of communion
With bread and wine.

“I received from the Lord…”
Even for this there are words
But the words wash over us
Leaving us unchanged and unhealed

I am afraid that we have talked too much
Been to enamored of our own words
To hear someone
Who waits for silence to speak.

Purpose Driven Politics

Thanks to Carlos at Jesus Politics for pointing out Rick Warren's column on the Baptist Press web site. For those who were confused about Warren's denominational affiliation, he's Southern Baptist. For those of you who thought he was a sweet, pastoral man, pay attention. Here are the excerpts, followed by commentary, of course:

During the last presidential election in the United States, there were millions of Christians who didn’t vote or weren’t even registered to vote! To me, that is inexcusable when you consider what the Bible says about our responsibility as citizens..."

Uhm, Rick, what does the Bible say about voting? What about that "slaves, submit to your masters" stuff? Does that count as citizenship advice too? This isn't all that important; I just like making fun of preacher hyperbole.

U.S. presidents serve for only four years -- at the most eight years -- so their impact is limited. Supreme Court justices, however, serve for life, and they are the ones who decide on issues like abortion, gay “marriages,” human cloning, harvesting babies for stem cell research, revoking the tax exemption of churches, removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” from our money.

See, he thinks we should pick the correct President so that the correct judges can be appointed. Guess which President he wants. And please, sprinkle ashes on yourselves and go about in sackcloth lest the horrible reality of "In God We Trust" being removed from our money takes place. I can't think of a more appropriate irony in American churches than a pastor of a megachurch worrying about that issue. Please note the list of important issues to be decided. Please note the issues that are missing. More on that later.

Here are five questions to ask when considering who to vote for in this election:

1. What does each candidate believe about abortion and protecting the lives of unborn children?

2. What does each candidate believe about using unborn babies for stem cell harvesting?

3. What does each candidate believe about homosexual “marriage”?

4. What does each candidate believe about human cloning?

5. What does each candidate believe about euthanasia -- the killing of the elderly and the invalids?

Even if you were prone to doubt Warren's affiliation with the Republican Party and Christian Right at this point, you'd have to be suspicious of marriage being in quotes in number 3, wouldn't you? He's sort of giving it away there, isn't he? Now, please, study that list. He doesn't ask you to take note of what each candidate believes about poverty, racial justice, care for seniors (including medical care), the state of developing nations vis-a-vis U.S. policies, conflicts of interest between politicians and corporations, or any of a dozen other justice-related issues. It's sad, sad, sad. This guy is probably the most influential pastor in America right now, and he comes down firmly on the side of the Christian Right. And a bunch of you knuckle-heads keep reading that crap he writes. Kill me now...

If you want to read the whole column, follow the link at Jesus Politics. I don't link to BP on principle.

Dear David

I hope you come back. I always hope hit 'n run posters come back. They seldom do. I spent some time today with people that actually gave me hope for the church, so I'm feeling beneficent enough to respond kindly—sort of. (Dear readers, if you want to read the background, look for David's comment under Joel Osteen for Real.)

RA and Brandon have addressed the obscene stupidity of saying the poor are poor because they choose it. Jesus' admonition that the poor we will have with us always was not a permission to accumulate wealth. Rather, he was talking about a specific act of worship which was being questioned in light of financial stewardship. Joel Osteen and his ilk need to read the other story about the man who is intent on building more barns to hold his excess stuff. That's the view Jesus has of accumulation. Let's keep things in perspective, shall we?

I don't know Joel Osteen. Don't really want to. He's the hot commodity in consumer "Christianity" these days as evidenced by all the Joel googlers like yourself who wander by the blog. It's lovely to have you here, by the way. I started picking on him at first because he was parlaying his success as a "pastor" (let's not kid ourselves, he ain't visiting the sick) into a writing career. And I saw the weird chant he leads at Lakewood. Dude, that's eerie and cultic. The more I heard him and the more I read about him, the less possible it was to pretend that he is preaching Christianity. Like Benny Hinn and countless others before him, he is preaching a gospel of self-actualization, accumulation, and crass consumerism. It is a religious version of what Robert Bellah calls radical individualism, which is to say it is individualism untethered from the ideal of a common good. It seeks only the good of the individual. That's why knuckle-heads like Lakewood dwellers can write off the poor so easily. Additionally, there is no cross in this message, unless you want to talk in terms of substitutionary atonement—a view I am coming to view as pagan and heretical. That's probably more time than I should have given this.

I meant to answer Tedd's second question about church tonight. I will get to it tomorrow. Maybe even begin question three.

Fit?

Sorry to post again so soon, but I just heard GWB say, about Kerry, "A political candidate that jumps to conclusions without having all the facts isn't fit to lead this nation," or something along those lines. The jumping to conclusions without having all the facts part is accurate. Okay, am I the only one that is turning that over in my head thinking, "Wmd's, wmd's, where are the wmd's?"

Halloween for Christians

This Sunday is Halloween. It makes me happy to think of little fundy kids showing up at church carnivals in their burlap "prophet" costumes or bedsheet Joseph or maybe a crown from Burger King so they can be King David. In honor of those churches who insist their kiddies wear biblical character costumes, I offer the following lovely ideas, including couples costumes:

• Jael: a sweet little girl can show up in a sheet with a bloody stake and mallet.
  
• Jezebel: another sweet little girl can show up wearing the outfit from I Dream of Jeanie.
  
• Bathsheba: pregnant or naked? You decide.
  
• Men of Sodom: dark sunglasses and leather thongs.
  
• Lot and Two Daughters: drunk or pregnant? You decide.
  
• Benjamite and Concubine
  
• Judah and Tamar
  
• Noah: sloshed and naked.
  

I'm sure there are more. C'mon. Join the fun!

Violence as a Methodology

"We have to kill them before the killing will stop." Jerry Falwell

Apparently Jerry has never read the Bible. In the OT there is this idea of cities of refuge. If you kill someone accidentally, you get to flee to the city of refuge nearest you and you're like safe in a game of tag. The victim's family may not seek revenge on you there. If you murdered the person, I believe that was a different story. The city of refuge wasn't open to you. (Some OT guru, MM, can tell me if these places actually worked like they were supposed to...)

The point is that a few thousand years ago people understood that violence breeds violence. If I kill someone who has friends and family, it's just possible that someone's friends and family might want to see me dead. What that means is, for every one person I kill, I can make one to one thousand new enemies depending on the deceased's popularity. Unless I'm willing to kill everyone on the earth, and I'm not saying GWB isn't, I will continue to make enemies when I resort to violence. There will not come a point where the killing will stop unless we choose to stop killing. This doesn't seem like a difficult concept to grasp. Other than willful perversity in Falwell and Bush and others, am I missing something?

Miscellanea and a Reference to Joel Osteen

First, Brandon has a great discussion going over at his blog about relevance, Relevant, Emergent, and postmodernism. Great stuff, and not just because I've commented a couple times.

Second, saw a Jerry Falwell clip on the Daily Show tonight. He was debating Jesse Jackson (now there's a South Park episode). He said, I swear to God, talking about the terrorists and GWB, "I hope he blows them all up, in the name of the Lord." Jerry, how do you blow people up in the name of Jesus? Even if they're depraved, evil, twisted terrorists? I'm killing you in Jesus' name? I think it was Jesus who said, "You don't know what manner of spirit you are of." You make me want to cry, Jerry.

I read today that Joel Osteen is spending 70 million dollars to refurbish the Compaq Center for the new home of Lakewood Church. (Joel is providing me about 40 hits a day from Google alone. Nobody steal my idea; I mean it. Kristen, note the use of the semicolon.) Seventy million dollars. It looks like this: 70,000,000. Once again, sin is just a word, ladies and gentelmen.

Kicking That Horse—Poor Bastard

I've recently been challenged to be more constructive. Apparently, I'm given to bouts of melancholy and cynicism. However, of all these calls to be constructive, Tedd actually asks some good questions that I'm addressing in my thesis but will go on record as saying here. So, thanks, Tedd, for helping me think through things that I have to write down eventually anyway. Here goes: part one of a multi-part series to be continued sporadically.

Do you dislike the church in principle or do you just dislike what the church has come to stand for in the inerrent-Bible (sic) belt?

Let's define church first. It's supposed to be an eschatological community called by God, gathered by the Holy Spirit, and modeling Christ for the sake of the world, living in community with each other. If that's what you mean by church, then no, I don't dislike the Church in principle. I love the Church. I believe in the Church. I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Really, I do.

If however you mean that thing that meets of a Sunday all over the country, then no, I don't like the church. It isn't just the Bible Belt either. The infection has spread to enclaves all over the country. Saddle Back and Willow Creek have extended their pernicious influences from coast to coast and north to south. No region of the country is immune.

If you dislike the church in princple, how ought Christians to live together?

That's a question that's too big to be answered in a blog entry. However, we might start by noting that Christians don't really live together in America. We live in suburbs and exurbs and cities and we meet at the church of our choice two blocks or five miles or fifty miles away depending upon our preferences. Once again, Christians in America, for the most part, don't want community as it's understood in a Biblical sense. It interferes with their individualistic tendencies. The notion that I might be subject to a group of people, accountable to them, transparent to them, and answerable for my choices to them does not sit well with evangelicals in America. It smacks of control, spiritual abuse, denial of freedom, and cultic tendencies. In short, we have no idea what it is to live in community. We don't even know what it is to live in a neighborhood any more. I'm old enough to remember that reality; evangelicals under 35 probably aren't, and there are a bunch of those.

How we ought to live together is a subject for another time. This is a good start. Thanks again, Tedd, and remember, you asked me to do this. Your last question is my favorite, and I'll save it for part three. Here it is for those of you who haven't the time to read all the comments:

If you dislike what consumerism and fundamentalism have done to the church, what (if any) model of church do you think would bring us out of this mess?