the parish

Old Scratch Helps Seduce California Women

Thanks to Prof Marty for sending me this link about a California pastor (note: not Hank Hanegraaff and not Joel Osteen) who scored the poonanny by telling three women that the devil would harm them if they didn't have sex with him. Now, while I'm technically appalled by this "pastor's" behavior, I'm also in awe of him. Maybe he just lucked into three women stupid enough to go for this. For the record, and because I'm a feminist/womanist, odds are, if he was gay, he could have found three men just as gullible.

One of the women said:

"He told me that there was a revelation from God," Dora said. "He told me that I had already been attacked by the devil, that I could only stop this by having sexual relations with him." Dora said she believed Romero because she considered him a "true pastor" who was "guiding us toward eternal life."

When I was 20 I would have killed for women this naive. "Hey, baby, the devil said he's going to lash you with his pointy tail if you don't give me the booty tonight." That line never worked. Another woman said that the pastor told her the devil would leave her "gravely wounded" if she didn't have sex with him. Okay, who's been watching "The Devil's Advocate" on TNT? Picture Charlize Theron throwing off her blanket in the cathedral: "Look what he did to me!"

Seriously, there's money to be made and virgins to be deflowered in the pastor business. Boys, get busy.

At the Risk of Sounding Divisive, Would All Southern Baptists Please Go Away!

Came across a story on Baptist Press about Fuller President Richard Mouw's comments before a group of Mormons in Salt Lake on Nov. 14. Here's what he said:

"Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you. We've often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of members of the LDS faith. It's a terrible thing to bear false witness ... We've told you what you believe without first asking you."

I love how the Southern Baptist leaders in the area interpreted those comments. Here's a sample of their responses:

Tim Clark, executive director of the Utah-Idaho Baptist Convention, said that a statement from an evangelical leader like Mouw's can cause weak believers to stumble and give credence to the Mormon message by muddying the waters. "[Mouw is] sending a message to Mormons that they are a part of mainstream Christianity," Clark said.

Really? Cause I didn't hear that. I heard a pretty sincere apology. To say that we've misrepresented them in no way suggests that we embrace them as orthodox. Mouw is as conservative a Reformed Christian as you're likely to find. He's also a very nice man. And again:

Clark suggested a better message for an evangelical leader like Mouw speaking at such an historic occasion: "If I had been Dr. Mouw, I would have talked about the life, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Ah, yes, take advantage of an invitation to speak to a group of people who have extended a hand of friendship and proselytize them. What a wonderfully Christian thing to do! The sad reality is that members of the SBC leadership think this is a Christian thing to do.

And finally:

"Some of my people were there and they were turned off by the whole event because of him," said Mike Gray, pastor of Southeast Baptist Church in Salt Lake City..."We want to become all things to all men to reach them to share the Gospel," Gray said. "And the tension and balance is how do you share the Gospel but not become part of standing with the Mormons."

Yeah. Sure hate to see you standing with the Mormons, Mike. Better to stand against them. Maybe even consider them enemies. Why are the Baptists to unapologetic about everything? Somebody that understands them please explain that to me.

Yet Another Appeal for Sanity

So I'm in Starbucks this morning reading the always excellent Dallas Morning News religion section and the always banal Daily Oklahoman religion section. An attractive woman pulls up in a RAV4. She sits at the table next to me. In the process of getting settled, she places two books and a package of stationery on the table. I'm always interested in what people are reading. The top book is a Kay Arthur book. Not too annoying and not at all interesting. The other book catches my attention though. It's called The American Prophecies.

There are many stories in the revisionist historical circles of home school and private Christian school America of the prophecies and visions seen and received by George Washington, John Adams, and other Americhurch Fathers. They are almost certainly apocryphal, but they make the rounds anyway. It's easier to keep repeating them than try to work out how a secular nation might make room for religious freedom. Surpisingly, these were not the prophecies of the title.

I looked up the book on Amazon, and this is what I discovered:

How is America tied into ancient biblical prophecies? According to author Michael Evans, a fundamentalist Christian minister, biblical prophets already predicted that America is doomed to collapse unless its government stops accommodating the Arab world for the sake of oil and instead offers full military and diplomatic support to Israel. He believes that God wants Israel to have full control of the West Bank and Gaza, and Americans are risking God's wrath by not fully supporting this biblical mandate. Evans also theorizes that much of America's problems--including the attack of 9-11--are indications of God's fury over America's split allegiance between the two famous descendents of Abraham: Ishmael and Isaac.

Okay, it's very possible that this woman was reading this book to refute its thesis. It's also highly unlikely. Speculation as to her motives aside, can I tell you how sad I am that this book even exists? I've addressed the silly notion of America in Bible prophecy in a previous post. I think the idea is ridiculous, but let's assume America is in Bible prophecy for a second. What the author is asking us to do is judge according to a perceived special status of Israel: that is, we must embrace Israel even if she oppresses the Palestinians because God favors her and wants her to have land that is unfortunately occupied by Palestinian houses and businesses and farms. Now, I'm sympathetic to Israel's plight, especially being surrounded on all sides by nations that would prefer to see her obliterated. However, that in no way justifies a policy of oppression against Palestinian Muslims and Christians. I'm not sure how any Christian can encourage support for a regime that practices injustice, racism, and systematic denials of human rights.

If we really want to consider Bible prophecy in these areas, all we have to do is ask what Amos, Isaiah, II Isaiah, and Jeremiah had to say about oppression, violence, greed, idolatry, and sundry other violations of Torah. If I believed in a covenant with nations, I would say God is in no way obligated to honor a national covenant with covenant breakers, and the nation that supports them would also seem to stand in the path of God's wrath.

Church, the Upside

I promised to blog about our recent, positive church experiences a few weeks ago. I'd been hearing about this community church in an at-risk neighborhood that has been sponsored by two local churches and supported by students and professors from my school. The church is in a neighborhood in NW Oklahoma City well-known for drugs, violence, single-parent homes, high minority population density, incarcerated parents, property crimes, etc. I ran a "crime-tracker" report on a local news station's website. Using an address in the middle of the neighborhood, I ran a request for all crimes in the previous twelve months for an area 3/4 of a mile around the address. Here's the result:

4	Rape
31	Robbery
126	Assault
194	Burglary
64	Auto Theft
9	Arson

I believe that's 438 crimes. If you expanded to one mile, it would far exceed 500. That's for reported crimes. Drugs, domestic violence, rape, and assault often go unreported.

Anyway, you get the point. The church was planted in this neighborhood. I talked to one of my professors, and he said they chose the neighborhood to try to do some preventative work: fight poverty and crime by doing kingdom stuff and by influencing the lives of young people. They work closely with the neighborhood school, provide a neighborhood food pantry, and they are working on a multi-purpose building that will house everything, including educational programs for the kids. It's amazing stuff.

The service is unremarkable from a modern American standpoint. Sometimes there is music. Sometimes not. Usually a cappella because the worship band kids go to the more glamorous churches, I suppose. The preaching is provided by my OT prof, and it is excellent. It's a difficult thing to preach to black, white, Native American, Hispanic, and Asian people from various economic backgrounds. He pulls it off beautifully. (I honestly believe the OT background, especially prophetic literature, helps with that.) There is usually a prayer and a responsive reading. Then the good part.

Every week the church buys enough food for everyone present, and at the end of the service, we roll out tables, serve the food (free), and everyone gathers around the tables to share a meal. People mix pretty comfortably with people who are "other." It looks like the kingdom ought to look. If you've read my Open Table posts, you'll know I think this is the real Eucharist. It's a beautiful thing to see and participate in.

I find myself eager to go to service. We feel like our money is being well-spent. Now we just have to figure out what level of involvement we want.

Happy Thanksgiving, etc.

We did the family thing at my mom's house today. I was reminded of one of the benefits of extended family gatherings: stories about our foibles and humanness never grow old; they are retold to successive generations. Ugh.

We watched Redemption: The Stan Tookie Williams Story tonight. It's a Jamie Foxx movie about the founder of the Crips. He's still awaiting execution in San Quentin. Been there since 1981. He's been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and a Nobel Prize for Literature for his attempts to stop gang and youth violence. It's not a great movie, but it is a fascinating and at times inspiring story. He has a website if you're interested.

Last and ickiest, someone found the blog tonight by searching for "13 year old whore." Just in case you were wondering what pedophiles do on Thanksgiving. I'm going to go throw up.

Extra-Sensitivity Posturing Network

ESPN has been broadcasting story after story about the Ron Artest "incident." And even as I write that, I realize that the networks have already framed the story as Ron Artest's issue. It's not being referred to as the "slovenly redneck throwing beer cup" incident. Nope. It's the black guy. This is another opportunity for the networks to portray the thuggy black male as the bane of middle class America. Sorry. Did anyone get a look at the behavior of the white people in the crowd that night? It would not be an exaggeration to call them a mob. Lest you misunderstand me, I am certain that there is a racist subtext to this story.

So, I'm on Ron Artest's side? Not exactly. Everyone has quickly forgotten how far he went in rehabilitating his image last year. They didn't notice that he didn't lose it when Ben Wallace went after him—let's face it, that could have been sheer wisdom. He was provoked. And he was provoked in ways that none of us are ever provoked. If you include pre- and post-season, he is called names, mocked, threatened, and insulted for more than sixty days a year (assuming he doesn't face this treatment in the home games). His mother is called names, and he faces racial slurs, and accusations of being rich, spoiled, and deserving of whatever happens. The fans feel free to say things to players that would get them beat down in any bar in America. They take advantage of an illusory wall of protection to say things they wouldn't say to someone in a face-to-face discussion. You can tell me how it's part of the job all you want. I'm just saying that there is a limit to how much a person should reasonably be expected to endure before he snaps. Artest, Rasheed Wallace, and a few other players have endured more than their shenanigans merit.

ESPN has been doing some hand-wringing lately about how awful this whole thing is. "The violence in sports is out of control..." Gee, that little bit of chagrin might have some weight if the media wasn't regularly involved in promoting violence in every medium available. Now that it spills out of control everyone is soooo shocked (shocked!) to see it happen. "This should never happen!" I heard the other night. Really? Why not? Because we're conditioned to be peace-loving people who treat others with respect and afford them the dignity of their differences? Sure, that's the America I know...

And while we're at it, can we get rid of beer sales at the games? Sure. The owners will go for that. Hey, guys, can you stop charging ten dollars for sixteen ounces of beer for the sake of public safety? Yeah, that'll happen.

ESPN has also been whining about the poor kids who saw the brawl. "Did you see the children crying?" Oh. My. God. Since when does ESPN care about children? They don't care about the development of young girls when they consistently show beautiful, skinny women behave like sluts for beer or Bacardi. They don't care about misogyny or exploitation when they run their Hooters commericals. Let's not pretend ESPN gives two shits about the children. This whole thing stinks. Yes, Artest over-reacted, but the seeds for that were sown a long time ago by predominantly white crowds taking liberties no one should ever take.

Guest Blogger: The Hot Hairdresser Wife Returns

Guys never cease to amaze me. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not a man-hater or a femi-nazi, but I do recognize the differences between you and us.

The thing I learned this week that surprised me is about men and boobs. Boobs--you know those things a foot or so below our eyes.

I went to lunch with my little brother, and as we were leaving the restaurant, he pointed out several men staring at my boobs. I might add, we were at Charleston's, not Bubba's BBQ Shack or Emerson Bigguns.

He went on to tell me that when guys are at a strip bar, they try very hard to be "gentlemen" and not look at the naked girls' breasts. Not neccessarily believing him, I asked Greg, who has had quite a lot of experience with strippers and their establishments (in the past). He confirmed this phenomenon; although he added that some guys look when the girl is not looking at him.

WHAT!!!!  Isn't that what you're paying for?. Boys, let me let you in on a secret: unless you have cocaine or a blank check in your pocket, most of these strippers are not going home with you. You have a much better chance with the girls at the restaurant. That is if you're looking at their eyes.

This seems like common sense to me, but I guess when you're not thinking with your big head, sense of any variety doesn't enter the equation.

So here's my challenge: next time you have the urge to stare at a girl's boobs and you're not in a strip joint, look up, make eye contact and smile. I promise the results will be better than the girl rolling her eyes and thinking you're a loser.

Walter Brueggemann and Others on Writing

Went to a panel discussion about writing for the church last night. It was interesting because the panel was composed of scholars like Walter Brueggemann, Marcus Borg, and David Bartlett (of Yale and Columbia) telling a room full of scholars how to write for "the parish." Some of the stuff doesn't apply to this group, since we are "the parish," but other items were excellent.

David Bartlett—Don't dumb down, clarify up. As Barth said, let's take the old worlds and enrich them again.

Barbara Rossing (Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago)—Spend time with small parish groups teaching or discussing your chosen topic. They will help you clarify points, identify questions, and develop useable illustrations and analogies. (She has a place in my heart as she's just written a book debunking the theology of LaHaye and Jenkins's Left Behind series.)

Marcus Borg—Say the obvious. Tell your audience why the topic matters. You need to know why it matters. If you don't know why, it probably doesn't need to be a book. When writing about a subject, write as if you are writing to a freshman taking her first class in the subject.

Walter Brueggemann—Writing is a non-foundational or anti-foundational exercise. Write as if you're not submitting your work for critical scrutiny. This frees you to write. It frees you to tease out metaphors, write poetically, and allow room for imagination.

This one deserves its own section. Brueggemann again: The task of the Christian writer is to deconstruct the hearers' world, and then reconstruct an imaginative world for the baptized community. He was responding to some input from a rabbi to the effect that Jews in America are always in danger of losing their identity because they "pass" in ways that non-whites do not. Brueggemann said, "Christians in America face the same sort of loss of identity. We're about to forget our baptism." I love that guy.

Alternative Voices, Part II

My second session in Black Theology was a look at the effects of Brown vs. Board of Education fifty years later. The featured speakers were Susan Holmes Winfield, a federal judge in Washington D.C., and her sister, Barbara Holmes, professor at Memphis Theological Seminary. The two sisters were beneficiaries of the Brown decision. Ms. Winfield enrolled at Penn shortly after the decision. Ms. Holmes now has four advanced degrees.

Ms. Winfield surveyed the history leading up to Brown, including the strategy of Charles Hamilton Houston and the contributions of Thurgood Marshall. After mapping out the early successes, she traced the court decisions that have ultimately undercut the effectiveness of Brown. When Brown was first implemented, less than two percent of children were in integrated schools. By 1974, shortly after the Supreme Court's decision that states did not have to count suburbs in their desegregation policies (the beginning of white flight), forty-six percent of children were in integrated schools. In 1991 the Supreme Court ruled that states were pretty much done with desegregation. Since that time the numer of children in integrated schools has dropped to less than one third. The victories of Brown have been overcome through tax structures, white flight, and increasing costs of private education (private kindergarten in D.C. costs $23,000).

These stories don't make the news. I understand there are political differences in perspective regarding education and parenting, but if we're moving backwards in integration, is that a good thing? Saturday night I spent a good bit of time talking to Elizabeth Gish, she was Jonathan Kozol's TA at Harvard for two years. She helped with his research regarding public education and the funding of schools. Not surprisingly Oklahoma has one of the worst funding structures in the country. (I was also embarrassed to learn of OK's record pre-Brown.) Is it time, as people of faith, to admit that we're participating in an unjust system of funding public schools through an unfair system that apportions money based upon neighborhood wealth, as opposed to putting all the money in one pot?

On Theologians, and I Don't Mean Hank Hanegraaff

I'd like to make an observation about theologians while I'm down here with several thousand of them. I don't ever want to be one. I don't think I want a Ph.D. anymore either. Not if it makes me act like most of these folk.

I watched N.T. Wright hand another theologian his ass today: he spanked him good. And he was right, and he was hysterical while he did it. It occurred to me as I was leaving that there is no way this other theologian in going to stop teaching what he teaches. He's not going to admit he's wrong, though he obviously is. Why? Vested interests. My new pet peeve.

Gotta publish. Gotta have novel ideas to publish. Gotta publish books that people read. Gotta publish books and articles that get attention. Controversial gets attention. Outlandish gets attention. Hell, sophomoric or sloppy gets attention sometimes. This guy has published books about his ideas. He probably has an endowed chair or tenure at a prestigious school. No way does he fold up his tent and move on.

I'm weary of theologians who are doing theology for the sake of a job or a career or notoriety. I've enjoyed the Black Theology meetings because they are doing theology in a crucible. It matters what conclusions they reach; it matters how they construe reality; it matters what means they utilize to inspire their students and congregations. That passion shows in their discourse.

I love theology because it helps me speak to the Church in ways that I hope are penultimately deconstructive and then constructive or redemptive. I do theology for the sake of the church. My professors do theology for the sake of the church. It's why I listen to them. Down here I'm surrounded by people who no longer maintain any vestige of orthodoxy yet continue to teach theology from chairs endowed by men and women who loved the church. It's crass and it's hypocritical. If your desire isn't to help the church, go sell mortgages or cars or something less critical than theology. Quit pretending theology is whatever I can argue it is. It's not. And if you're goal isn't to help the church, then you're not a theologian.