the parish

The End of Church As We Know It

Over at the McCarty's place they've got a story about wi-fi in church. It's over, folks. If they've got free wi-fi during the service, why not just admit that consumerism has won? If one church has done it, we have very little time 'til any church that can afford it is implementing it in hopes of meeting felt needs. Needs being defined as whatever the laptop-toting git defines as a need in the middle of what ought to be a worship service.

Thanks to the very same McCartys, I have finally tried Celebrator! I have a new favorite beer. I love you, Guinness, but Celebrator is better.

Calvin is Dead: Leave Him There

Over at Tim's blog he's lamenting the face-off between Arminians and Calvinists at a recent youth camp. After the camp was over, Tim asked the Calvinist what book he could read to brush up on Calvinism. The guy recommended John Piper's Desiring God. Piper? Seriously? Yeah, be sure to pick up Max Lucado's recent tome on Arminianism too. Populist writers are fine and probably necessary at some level, but you don't read them to understand theology. I don't read McLaren to understand Moltmann; I read Moltmann. Some may say, but everyone can't understand all that. Fine. But reading what someone says about Calvin is not the same thing as reading Calvin. People used to believe that serious study paid dividends in the form of discipline and theological growth. No more, now we read John Piper to understand Reformed theology. Whatever. Reading Reformed theology in our context should include a heavy dose of Barth, not The Institutes.

My real concern however is the renewed interest in a rigid form of Calvinism, not the more Biblical, more sensible Barthian read on Reformed theology. I suspect that the increasing uncertainty faced by Christians as a result of epochal changes in philosophy, science, culture, and religion has led to an increased desire for certainty. Calvinism seems to offer that. God's in charge. Everything happens because God wills it. And I don't think Arminianism is the answer either. Both are forms of determinism: one is in the mind (foreknowledge) of God; one is in the will (decrees) of God. At least Arminianism attempts to explain human freedom in terms that aren't hopelessly contradictory. Calvinism creates a closed system where all terms and all reality has meaning only within the system. I guess that works for some folks. Me? I'll continue to explore Open Theism. It seems to take God, freedom, the Bible, and life seriously.

Memorial Day Weekend Sans Idolatry

Church this morning. In previous years I cringed when I attended church on Memorial Day weekend. Long-time readers will no doubt remember some of my rants about America's love affair with violence and the military being celebrated in the context of worship. Seemingly forgetting the purpose for which we congregate in a church building on Sundays, pastors and parishioners wave American flags, show patriotic slide-shows, march men and women in military uniform down the aisle of the church to rousing applause, and sing horrendously inappropriate songs in a worship service (i.e., God Bless America or the military "theme" songs).

This morning, the pastor started his new series on embodied grace. We recognized a couple folks whose ministry contributes to the church's smoother operation. Sang some real hymns and a couple choruses. Took communion. At the end, the pastor reminded us to remember those who gave their lives for us. That was it. Perfect. We are there to worship God, not the American experiment, our wonderful heritage, those who died in a war, or loved ones now departed. It was simple, appropriate, and just enough.

This is also the first time I've heard Wittgenstein used so explicitly in a sermon. It was excellent. The question that stuck with me: what would people think about God's character based upon your representation of the ministry of Christ? Indeed. Are we embodying grace or something else?

Condi Infected

I was listening to NPR this morning and Condi Rice was the subject of an interview. The piece was focusing on her tour of several other countries. The correspondent asked her to comment on the perception of America around the world vis-a-vis our mixture of politics and religion, specifically the religious debates surrounding public policy. Condi replied that she wasn't sure what the correspondent was referring to. He mentioned Terri Schiavo, stem cell research, and the filibuster of judicial nominees. To which she replied: (paraphrase) Oh, so you're talking about the debate over what is moral, not religious.

Eek. Is this administration pathologically incapable of saying things plainly? It is apparent that when a U.S. Senator appears on a jumbotron in a huge Southern Baptist church to talk about the filibustering of people of faith—and how ridiculous is that phrase on its face?—that the issue is a religious and not just moral one. Besides, aren't these the folks who keep insisting that all moral judgments have a religious origin? They've even insisted that secular humanism is a religion in order to make their point. Now, I recognize that Bill Clinton was just as bad about obfuscating as the current administration is, but this is the administration that is so damned pro-Jesus and so certain they have the moral high ground. Can't they simply admit that religion in America is shaping the political debate? Can't they admit that they are manipulating middle American Christians by co-opting Christian vocabulary? Can't they admit that they allow people like Dobson too much influence because of his hordes of evangelical followers? In short, can't they just tell the damned truth? I should have continued listening, but I was so irritated I punched a different preset.

Theology on Tap, Debrief

RA once wisely pointed out that Christians tend to lurk on the blogs of "liberal" or "moderate" Christians because they at least share some common assumptions. It's easier to argue about commonly held assumptions than to talk to someone who doesn't share ontological or metaphysical starting points.

We held Theology on Tap: The Resurrection at Tapwerks tonight. A dozen of us met, and I'm happy to report nearly everyone enjoyed an adult beverage. However, our group doesn't always share the assumptions that make conversation easy. It's a challenge to talk about Trinitarian theology with a skeptical deist. It's difficult to talk about judgment with a universalist. It's difficult to talk about pacifism with police officers or soldiers. It's worthwhile, and it's difficult. My hope this time around is that we'll argue less and ask each other questions that are helpful, not adversarial.

For those of you who couldn't make it tonight, we'll be reading Yoder's Politics of Jesus for next time. We're going to focus on a book each time to try to keep the conversation on topic.

Beer Update: Spaten Pils

Ms. Wittgenstein, I Presume?

The hot, deli-loving, hairdresser wife and I are in Schlotzsky's today having a quick lunch. At a table near us is a woman in her late 50's/early 60's eating alone. (Clarifying note: Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote Philosophical Investigations by organizing notes scribbled on scraps of paper in what he took to be a comprehensible order.) She had several slips of paper organized in two columns on the table in front of her. The writing was tiny, spidery cursive. The notes were on torn notebook paper laid on top of a napkin. She studied the notes as she ate. Occasionally, she would mumble something to herself while placing different fingers on the table as if she were ciphering.

"Look," I say to the hottie, "we've got a crazy genius with us."

"What are you talking about?"

"It's Mrs. Wittgenstein," I say inclining my head toward the lady.

"Huh?" She says, not getting the joke. I explain it. "How often do you think we're in the same restaurant as a genius or a monster?" She asks.

"Well, we've got one crazy genius right now."

"What is she doing?" The hottie asks.

I turn to look. Ms. Wittgenstein has taken a zip-loc bag from her purse. There are two Hershey's miniatures wrapped in silver foil in the baggie. She takes the first out, picks up a spoon (!) and gingerly peels back the wrapper. The candy bar is melted. She inserts the spoon into the folds of the faux foil wrapper and scoops up some melted chocolate. She eats both miniatures in this fashion.

Definitely a crazy genius. What could she be doing with the scraps of paper? I should have asked. We need more folk like this in Oklahoma.

Not for the Faint of Heart...I Mean It!

Dr. Mike posted this tragic study in irony yesterday. God save us all.

Richard John Neuhaus on Emergent

This is from the April 2005 issue of First Things. I tend to save them up and read them, as they take some time to actually read and think through, so I'm just now discovering this. It's somewhat long, but worth the read. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing at this point; I'm just reporting on one smart, conservative Catholic's critique of Emergent. The quotation marks in the excerpt are from a Publisher's Weekly article Neuhaus is reviewing.

Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian is a tremendous hit. McLaren "calls the emerging church a 'conversation'  rather than a movement." It appears that even "movement" suggests too much of an institutional commitment for "emergents" who want to float unencumbered in their spiritual fancies. Says McLaren, "They're asking questions about what it means to be a Christian in a postmodern, postcolonial world." Postcolonial? One waits in vain for the postinanity era in the spiritual hustling of what PW (Publisher's Weekly) calls the world of "viral networking." (Viral as in virus, one assumes.) A successful marketer explains, "A lot of people who fit into the postmodern category don't want to be identified as Christian." Christ is so much easier to take without the riffraff he has attracted over the centuries.

The Relevant Media Group is near the top of the market with a "hip, twenty-something demographic that is the primary core of postmodern thinking." For Relevant, we are told, "the 'real world' is largely an urban one." "We want to be part of our readers' world," says a spokesman, so the company is moving from an affluent suburb to a site closer to the center of Orlando, Florida. You can hardly get more urban than that. Postmodern, postcolonial, emerging, viral networking--it's mostly the hype and chatter of religious pandering to a neophiliac culture.

In addition to cashing in on the newest new thing, I expect most of these authors and perhaps even some of the publishers think they are winning souls for Christ. Christianity Today, the mainline evangelical magazine, pays a lot of attention and is concerned about the theological vacuity and doctrinal deviations of the industry, as well it should be. But the stuff sells, as witness PW's list of the top-forty religion bestsellers in the same issue, a list which (except for one book by the estimable C.S. Lewis) runs the gamut from lower to higher kitsch. Of course, such an observation smacks of elitism, as in having a taste for excellence. The higher elitism, however, is not scornful toward the inevitability of the popular always being popular, as in vulgar, and holds to the hope that those who sell the fake satisfactions of being superior to Christianity as it has been believed and lived through time will, however inadvertently, lead some people to a commitment to Christ. Including his mostly quite ordinary friends who are the Church. Seeing through the preening self-importance of "seeker," "emergent," "pomo," and whatever is next month's hot spiritual pretension, they might even find the courage to call themselves Christians.

It's apparent to anyone who has been around Emergent that some of Neuhaus's critique is dead-on, most especially the floating unencumbered in their spiritual fancies bit, the neophiliac observation, and the caution about the next hot thing. However, he simply seems incapable of understanding why something like Emergent could happen. It's not the riffraff we object to in this postmodern church; it's the spiritually complacent, the power-mongers, the politicians and marketers and CEO's masquerading as pastors, and the sort of certainty that allows Neuhaus to write as he does. Still, his is a voice worth hearing.

Have You No Shame, Part II, or, Irony Anyone?

The Pentagon is complaining that the Sun may have violated the Geneva Convention by publishing photos of Saddam in U.S. custody. Uh, Geneva Convention? You mean the thing our current AG was trying to circumvent in numerous legal opinions? Or the thing Gitmo is supposed to circumvent? Geneva Convention? Why is it that this administration only wants the moral high ground when it's convenient?

Unite My World(s)

It's gonna be a bizzaro weekend, kids. Tonight we went to Scott's reception at the downtown Sheraton. Scott, you may remember, is the new pastor of Cathedral of Hope here in OKC. The reception was nice: it's always a plus when a church provides wine for a reception. So, we get a very warm welcome in a room full of evangelical gays, lesbians, and (at least) one transsexual.

Tomorrow, we're off to Hugo, OK, for a wedding. Hugo is located in far southeastern Oklahoma. Its main sources of income are methamphetamine, some respectable homegrown, skunky marijuana, and lumber. We're going for the hot, family-loving, hairdresser wife's cousin's wedding. It's in a horse barn. In jeans. In a horse barn. In Hugo.

Sunday we'll be attending our Nazarene church, where we'll hang out in a Sunday School class with folks that are sort of like us and less like the rest of the Nazarenes. Then we'll hear a sermon on Trinity, as it is Trinity Sunday. Then I'll go play basketball with a bunch of pagans who sound like me when they miss a shot.

Is there any hope that the diverse threads of my world can be woven into a whole life? Had a beer-alone day this afternoon. Decided to do my journaling at Tapwerks. Selected the Leffe Blond. Not very impressive, but not terrible. I won't order it again. But now I'm one closer to finishing my quest.