Wherefore Art Thou, Irony?

Heard about our local hydra-headed megachurch's annual day at the amusement park? They print tee shirts, take a band, invite the church, and invite the church to invite friends. It's named after a huge concert you may have heard about. It happened in upstate NY in the 60's. Yeah, that one. The mud, the sex, the Hell's Angels. The climax of the day at this Stock is baptism. You heard me—baptism.

For the paltry sum of $11 you can join your community in celebrating the most significant spiritual event in the new believer's life. The initiation into the kingdom of God, an event that the entire community should celebrate, an event that marks the beginning of a life of kingdom living, can now be attended for only $44 for a family of four. Now, before you think that's too much to spend to celebrate your new brothers' and sisters' initiation into the community of God, remember, you get to ride the rides too.

That's correct. Not only do they charge admission to baptism, the initiates are free to play on the rides as soon as their baptism is done, maybe even before. I can't think of a more appropriate symbol of this particular church's commitment to the kingdom of God than an amusement park. I've been working on a new thesis this year: I'm convinced that conservatives of the political and religious stripe are immune to irony. This is one more bit of evidence in favor of my thesis.

Oh, and you get a tie-dyed tee shirt too.

Comments

[Laura]

A night at the amusement park? That could be the greatest evangelistic tool since The Passion of Christ.

[Monk-in-Training]

Ugh,
And to think people bled and died for this Church. Catachumens once took three years of study before they could be admitted to the Sacred Waters of Baptism. This sound more like a quick swim through the warm waters of Sins of the Flesh. Sorry but this is shocking to me, and I don't quite know how to process it.

[tim]

Why not just ride the log ride (water themed ride for those of you who've never been to Six Flags) and get baptized while riding a ride? Of course some might just be sprinkled and then the baptist wouldn't count it... but the Episcopalians might.

Sarcastic and saved,
Tim

[Fat Calbert]

sick!

[Robyn]

Hey, don't forget, you have to tack on an additional $6 for a t-shirt.

[jvpastor]

I bet for $19.99 you can get a video of your Baptism, $29.99 if you want it on DVD featuring never before seen underwater pics of your sin being washed away!

[Jim]

What, you don't think a tie-dyed T-shirt is worth $11 bucks. You cheapskate.

And how dare you (ironically) criticize the commercialization and commodification of spirituality. It's the friggin' American Way!

So--does admission include a hamburger as well?

[smitheeboy]

A couple of points:
1. I don't know many conservatives who would approve of roller coasters baptisms.

2. In order to give this thing more street cred they will sell bootleg copies of the original DVD at the funnel cake stand.

[Kevin Powell]

Jesus wept.

[Scott Jones]

I think your thesis regarding irony is correct.

[Jason]

What would really be avant-garde is to set up three misting stations as you walk through the entrance of the park with a "pastor" at each one saying the appropriate lines...

I mist you in the name of the Father...

Of course I'm presbyterian and we just sprinkle so this might not work for those dunk'em and leave'em kinds of churches.

But, Ohh, how the numbers would increase with a little more ingenuity...

Seriously, what part of sacrament do these "pastors" not understand. The richness of tradition, the enfolding of one into the community and Body of Christ, the welcoming of the lost into a sacred journey undertaken in the care of God. I am through being appalled with the state of Christianity in this country. Nothing shocks me when it comes to our shallow attempts to indoctrinate people, and that is the saddest testament I can make...

grace and peace

[Bob Smietana]

Here in Illinois, Jesus People USA (JPUSA) runs a five day rock festival called Cornerstone. It's $45 to get in for a day, and $125 for the week. And one of the highlights comes on Sunday morning, when they go down to the river and start baptising people. These initiates go to a concert and maybe a movie afterwards. They can get a t-shirt too.

Brian McLaren will be at the conference, as will John Perkins, along with a slew of seminary profs. Are they somehow complicit in a sacramental travesty?

Have a couple of brews and lighten up, my friend

Can you lighten up just a little

[greg]

Bob,

I'm familiar with Cornerstone. It's not an amusement park. I'm sure some of the money goes to support the ministry of Jesus People as well as Cornerstone magazine. I think there is a slight difference. I'm betting that the people who work the festival don't pay to get in. I'm also hoping that those who are baptized are part of Jesus People and are also not charged for admission. If they aren't part of Jesus People, I'd like to know what sort of instruction they've receive that makes them think getting baptized somewhere besides their local community is a good idea. There may be some things I need to lighten up about; baptism and the commodification of Christianity are not good examples. Peace.

[bsmietana@covchurch.org]

Greg,

They're not members of JPUSA, and the only way in is to pay admission. They likely get no follow up, though I don't know that for sure. The baptism is certainly not part of a local community.

The commodification of Christianity (as well as just about everything else in life) worries many of us. If this event was focused primarily as a baptism event, and the general public was invited and people were charged admission and baptized off the street, then it would be more worrisome. That isn't the case, as far as I can tell--this is a megachurch gathering, and amidst a number of other activities, they are holding some baptisms.

Is it the perfect setting? That's a legitimate question. Characterizing it as some kind of ultimate expression of commodifying the Gospel is over the top, that's all I am saying.

[greg]

Bob,

I certainly understand what you're saying. I'm saying that we have two sacraments, one of which is done only once. It is the point of entry into the kingdom of God and into a specific community. To place it behind an entry charge shows a serious lack of theologizing about the importance of baptism to the entire community. To place it in the context of an amusement park, well, that's just one church being a parody for the benefit of those who will notice.

[Gilbert]

Greetings to Greg Horton from a lifechurcher. What on earth is wrong with getting together with members of one’s church and going out to an amusement park on a Sunday afternoon? What’s wrong with tickets sold at cost? $11 is a problem? Regular ticket price at FC is 28 bucks! http://www.sixflags.com/parks/frontiercity/TicketInfo/index.html
If anything, some poor families probably got to enjoy the park for a change!
And what’s wrong with t-shirts sold at cost? You MIGHT be able to find them cheaper in a thrift shop!

Do tell, exactly what is your beef with Life Church? From the snippets here and there that I can find on your blog, your criticisms are totally inconsistent. On the one hand, you criticize LC for making Christianity “cool” and appealing to the masses at the expense of articulating doctrine and orthodoxy, on the other hand I’ve read posts where you criticize the pastor for his hardnosed, traditional theology. Which is it anyway? Too much theology or not enough? I’ve never met an Augustinian Calvinist in the Marcus Borg fan club before. Can you clear this up for me? Is it even clear to you? What church / theology do you align yourself with anyway?

[Joe]

Gilbert,
The deal is that what was supposed to have a been celebration and a confession to the public of one's belief in Christ, it was turned into a spectacle. I would dare to compare it to the incident with Jesus turning over the tables in the temple. I'm sure that families had fun and could actually enjoyed the park, but at what cost? Did the money raised from the t-shirts go to help those in need? Why charge to enter at all couldn't everyone attend for free? It's like charging money to park in a church parking lot.
Theology isn't limited to fire and brimstone and by using the phrase "traditional theology" that is the concept you are referring to.

[greg]

Gilbert,

First, I appreciate you not being combative. I'll take your questions/observations in order.

1. There is nothing wrong with getting together with members of a church and going to an amusement park.
2. Also, nothing wrong with tickets sold at cost.
3. Ditto for the $11, although I think you'll find that a family of five would have a hard time with the $55 dollars plus any other expenditures. Depending upon how poor the family is, a family of three or four could easily have a difficult time with the price. But if it's just for an afternoon outing, you do what you can afford to do. This wasn't just an afternoon outing though.
4. Also nothing wrong with tee shirts sold at cost. Nothing wrong with tee shirts, period.
5. My beef is not just with Life. It's with the suburban megachurch trend in general. Life is just a more egregious example of some of the things wrong with that movement. You'll find that I despise Joel Osteen's church far more and Saddleback far less.
6. My criticisms have been very consistent. I suggest you read the "size matters" posts if you're really interested in a more thorough exposition of these ideas. You can probably find them by googling the parish and size matters. I don't like fundamentalism, and I don't like seeker-sensitive. LC is a combination of both. Six-day creation, for example, is a fundamentalist read of Scripture. So, LC emphasizes things that don't matter (fundamentalism) and ignores things that do (seeker-sensitive). Seen within that framework, you'll see that they are very consistent.
7. Too much bad theology, not enough good theology.
8. Augustinian Calvinist, Borg fan? You've not read closely. I think Calvinism is the most untenable Christian position imaginable. I think Borg is a nice man, but I find the claims of liberal theology to be vacuous. So, you've put me in the wrong pigeonhole.
9. Is it clear to me? Is this where you stop being a nice guy? I think theology is clear to me. I'd be happy to debate the finer points with you, if you like.
10. Anabaptist, mostly. But you'll find a great deal of Barth in my theology as well. So, let's say I'm a mixture of Wesley, Yoder, Barth: Wesleyan-Anabaptist-NeoOrthodox. How's that? I attend a Nazarene church, but you'd never mistake me for a Nazarene, and they don't either.

[Gilbert]

Joe wrote: “The deal is that what was supposed to have been celebration and a confession to the public of one's belief in Christ, it was turned into a spectacle.”

The use of “spectacle” in your response is a loaded and somewhat relative term by my thinking. What exactly are you trying to say? What exactly makes it appropriate to baptize people in a traditional church with pews and stained glass and inappropriate to baptize people outside in a field located on the grounds of an amusement park? Can you drop the rhetoric and be specific?

Joe wrote: “I would dare to compare it to the incident with Jesus turning over the tables in the temple.”

Apples and oranges. Life Church isn’t selling items for a profit. From what I’ve heard, Craig (the senior pastor) has a capped, modest salary--and he certainly doesn't live an extravagant lifestyle. People I know that work for LC make pretty close to minimum wage and work 50+ hours a week. The church pumps virtually all of its money into missions and evangelism—they avoid all extravagant purchases—just look at the facilities—they are the cheapest metal barns money can buy.

Joe wrote: “Did the money raised from the t-shirts go to help those in need?”

No money was raised. My understanding is that they were sold at cost. And the shirts are used as walking invitations to attract postmoderns into the church so that they can hear the gospel and experience a relationship with Christ. Like it or not, we live in a postmodern culture and to not communicate the gospel in a way that the culture understands—well, you may as well be preaching the gospel in a foreign language.

Joe wrote: “Why charge to enter at all couldn't everyone attend for free?”

Why charge? I don’t really think you understand the alternatives. This was an optional fun afternoon out and if everyone could attend for free that would mean that the church would have to take the tithe that WOULD otherwise go to evangelism and feeding the poor and use it to buy several thousand $11 tickets. Again, the 11 bucks went to the amusement park, not the church.

[Gilbert]

Greetings Greg,

I hope that my first post on your blog was not offensive or disrespectful. I do not intend to sound rude or discourteous.

Greg wrote: “I don't like fundamentalism, and I don't like seeker-sensitive. LC is a combination of both. Six-day creation, for example, is a fundamentalist read of Scripture. So, LC emphasizes things that don't matter (fundamentalism) and ignores things that do (seeker-sensitive).”

I don’t agree that LC teaches a fundamentalist theology. Just look at the statement of faith. They stress diversity and freedom on non-essential doctrines—and I can’t count the amount of times that Craig has qualified a statement with “this is my opinion” in his talks. Ironically, LC is criticized and chastised more by conservative fundamentalists than by any other single group—so it seems strange that you would label LC fundamentalist.

I share your “old-earth” views by the way.

Greg wrote: “Too much bad theology, not enough good theology.”

And what exactly would good theology look like?

Greg wrote: “Anabaptist, mostly. But you'll find a great deal of Barth in my theology as well. So, let's say I'm a mixture of Wesley, Yoder, Barth: Wesleyan-Anabaptist-NeoOrthodox. How's that? I attend a Nazarene church, but you'd never mistake me for a Nazarene, and they don't either.”

Wesley and Barth? Seems contradictory. I consider my own theology Wesleyan. Why don’t you put down Barth and try a little Schaeffer or Lewis instead?

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of meat to your megachurch arguments—at least the articles that I could find. It seems like you have opted to keep the logic of your criticisms more or less concealed and have resorted mostly to barbs here and there about the size of the church and its optional outings to amusement parks, etc.

From your size matters article: “The megachurch fails at almost every level because the friendship necessary to sustain community is not available. (The moment you argue that you find friendships in small groups, I'll argue the small group is your church. We needn't deconstruct how silly most of these small groups really are and how ineffective they are at making disciples.) I mean community in the real sense of the word: people who are committed to each other, who tell the truth, who live in a state of accountability with each other, who share, support, love, etc. The group has to be small enough that we can share a common story. The story of our lives become the story that shapes me into a disciple. We live the story of Jesus together.”

Can you cite any evidence other than your own subjective opinions to support your belief that small groups meeting in homes can’t provide the same type of community, growth, and accountability that a small church can? I personally find more spiritual growth going on at LC than at the smaller churches that I have attended—and far less “church lady” style politics, legalism, and condemnation.

Also, you seem to be overlooking the matter that “megachurches” don’t force anyone to attend. From its inception, LC has always found itself growing faster than anyone had anticipated or even necessarily wanted. On your view, I suppose we ought to just throw everyone out that shows up in excess of the magical, arbitrary number of parishioners that you assign? If people show up, should the church not accommodate them? I really don’t understand what feasible alternatives there are if several thousand people show up—and it doesn’t sound like you have offered any alternatives either.

I come away from your blog believing that your criticisms of Life Church are grounded merely in your personal distaste for large congregations and non-traditional services—sort of in the way that some people don’t care for broccoli. I don’t find a lot rational substance to your criticisms—certainly not much of anything beyond your personal preferences.

Also, it really confounds me that, in a culture (especially here in OK) infiltrated with Word-Faith televangelists, prosperity name it and claim it theology, and Benny Hinn crusades and Hinn wann-a-bes, you spend your time criticizing Life Church? Talk about misdirected priorities.

[greg]

Gilbert,

No. I didn't find your first email offensive or combative. And you're the first LC'er I can say that about.

You completely ignored the issue of baptism. This was not just an afternoon outing. It was a baptism service--arguable the one service for which the whole community should be together. Charging admission is like charging admission to a worship service.

Which doctrines are non-essential? It's easy to say "we stress unity on non-essentials" so long as the organization is defining what is non-essential. And Craig didn't preface his statements in last year's Q&A about evolution and creation with "this is my opinion." He talked about young earth creationism as biblical truth. LC is criticized by fundamentalists for being too much like the world, a criticism I would also make. When the church is so much like the world that an unbeliever feels perfectly comfortable in a service, we've failed to convey that the church is the kingdom of God and is different. This is why friendships outside the church are vital, not a service that is non-Christian friendly.

Good theology at least takes baptism seriously enough to keep it out of an amusement park and free of charge. It also doesn't use existential crisis fomenting as an opportunity to "create conversions." Nor does it pretend that saying a few words at the altar is somehow giving my life to Christ. It takes seriously Jesus' words, not just Paul's legal arguments about justification and such. It doesn't pretend that transfer growth is church growth. It doesn't pretend that transfer growth is conversion growth. It doesn't pretend that an electronic image beamed hundreds of miles is a pastor. In short, it takes discipleship, sacraments, and incarnation seriously.

I've read everything Schaeffer (a fundy) and Lewis ever wrote, I think. I like much of Lewis. I'm betting LC wouldn't be too happy with his eschatology in The Last Battle, nor his views on judgment, purgatory, and hell in The Great Divorce. Let's not pretend Lewis is an evangelical. Schaeffer had too much of a commitment to natural theology for me to take him seriously. That's where the Barth strain in my theology comes in, and that's why it's not contradictory to Wesley in every way. Barth was not a Reformed churchman in the Calvinist sense. Most Calvinists don't care much for him. He turned natural theology upside down and reinterpreted classic Reformed doctrines in a way Wesleyans can appreciate. This isn't to say that they're completely compatible, but they both have strong things to say about the ethos of "seeker-sensitive" church.

You don't read me very well. Small groups meeting in homes can provide the same support, ministry, etc., as a small church. That was my point; it is a church. Unless you're a staffer, you have no idea what kind of politics go on at LC. (This is not to say that I do, but I know enough ex-staffers to have a better idea than most of the current membership.) I don't know how I can be any more clear than I have been in this blog about my "logic" about megachurches. Much of what I've written here has gone into writing an entire thesis on the problems with them, which, God willing, will be done by summer's end.

Of course megachurches don't force anyone to attend. Why would they have to? They cater to every "felt need" imaginable, including Starbucks addiction. They have animatronic critters in children's areas. (BTW, when do you teach the kids that Xianity isn't about entertainment? When they're in college?) The issue isn't forcing people to leave, although that's exactly what Rick Warren did when he built Saddleback. People who already had a church weren't allowed to join. Hmm...how big would LC be if they'd followed that ethic? The other issue is church planting. You don't have to grow to 10,000. Just plant churches all over. You have to want to grow to 10,000. Pastors know this. That's why they take classes on how to do it. It doesn't happen accidentally. Church growth barriers (250, 500, 800, 1500, etc.) are well-known in church growth circles.

I happen to like non-traditional services. I don't like pabulum though, and that's what LC offers. I still vividly remember the pastor saying quite animatedly: "Write this down! Write this down...If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!" Whew! I thought I had to read the Bible to get wisdom. It's good to know that I just have to listen to country songs, cause that book is booorrrring.

This may come as a shock to you but the Word of Faith is in tremendous decline since the mid-90's. And Benny Hinn? If people haven't figured that guy out yet, they're willfully deceived; although, for the record, I've mentioned him on here before.

I think my critique of LC and other megas has been fairly substantive. What I've never heard is a good theological defense of megas. I hear plenty of sociological and marketing arguments, but never a theological one.

[Gilbert]

Greg,

I’m heading off to vacation soon and I probably won’t be able to dialogue much again until the 2nd full week in July. I would like to discuss this more with you then—maybe we could get together and chat over coffee sometime as well? (Sorry, not much of a beer drinker.) You bring an interesting perspective and I am sure we could have some stimulating theological discussion.

Greg wrote: “You completely ignored the issue of baptism. This was not just an afternoon outing. It was a baptism service--arguable the one service for which the whole community should be together. Charging admission is like charging admission to a worship service.”

This is a straw man—I wish you would lay off the rhetoric and stop mischaracterizing. Life Church does not charge admission to anything—Frontier City does—and Life church does baptism regularly during the church services, in the church building. The baptism at the amusement park is for people who were going to the park anyway.

Greg: "Which doctrines are non-essential?"

Are you sure you’ve read Lewis? Mere Christianity has become the staple for essential Christian doctrine.

And, by the way, what do you mean that Lewis was not an evangelical? Can you cite any Lewis scholar in the universe that agrees with you on that one?

Greg wrote: “And Craig didn't preface his statements in last year's Q&A about evolution and creation with "this is my opinion." He talked about young earth creationism as biblical truth.”

This is true—and it bothered me quite a bit at the time. My guess is that Craig won’t teach this again—as I am guessing he caught a lot of flack for it. Craig is not perfect and he is not a scientist or Christian apologist. Mistakes are made from time to time. But I don’t think the church is adamant about pushing a young earth agenda anyway.

Greg wrote: “LC is criticized by fundamentalists for being too much like the world, a criticism I would also make. When the church is so much like the world that an unbeliever feels perfectly comfortable in a service, we've failed to convey that the church is the kingdom of God and is different. This is why friendships outside the church are vital, not a service that is non-Christian friendly.”

Why not do both? Why not foster both rather than one at the expense of the other? This is what LC tries to do.

Also, I would say that the message isn't compromised, just the style and approach.

Greg: “Good theology at least takes baptism seriously enough to keep it out of an amusement park and free of charge.”

Pray tell, where SHOULD baptisms take place Greg? Can you cite scripture to support where they ought to take place? If not, is it merely your personal preference that baptisms not take place in a rented field located on the grounds of an amusement park? While we are at it, how do you personally feel about being baptized in the Jordan River? Do you find it aesthetically pleasing Greg?

Greg: “It also doesn't use existential crisis fomenting as an opportunity to "create conversions."

Really? You can’t be serious about this? I would agree with Lewis that pain is God’s megaphone for rousing a deaf world. I read Jesus as constantly seeking out angst-ridden, downtrodden, and depressed as the ideal candidates for salvation. I really don’t get where you are coming from here?

Greg: “I've read everything by Schaeffer (a fundy)”

I’m sorry that you’ve written off Schaeffer so hastily. I think he brings some very important ideas to the table.

I’ve grown annoyed with the “fundamentalist” label. I’m not even sure if the word has any meaning. Anymore, I think it is just a convenient way to belittle someone that you disagree with politically or otherwise. After all, who isn’t a fundamentalist? We all have worldviews and philosophical presuppositions through which we see the world.

Greg: “You don't read me very well. Small groups meeting in homes can provide the same support, ministry, etc., as a small church. That was my point; it is a church.”

Okay… it is a church. Sounds good to me. What is your criticism then? I fail to see how this is a problem? If anything, life church could borrow your criticism as a slogan... "It is a church" in your home. ???

Greg: “They have animatronic critters in children's areas.”

Please Greg, tell me, how would you teach small children about spiritual matters? Do tell Greg? Would you recite from the King James for an hour and a half in monotone while wielding a spontoon over their heads?

Please, give me some alternatives when you criticize LC. Tell me how things ought to be done Greg—I’m up for convincing.

Greg: “The other issue is church planting.”

Life Church has planted more churches than they have campuses.

Greg: “I happen to like non-traditional services. I don't like pabulum though, and that's what LC offers. I still vividly remember the pastor saying quite animatedly: "Write this down! Write this down...If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!" Whew! I thought I had to read the Bible to get wisdom. It's good to know that I just have to listen to country songs, cause that book is booorrrring.”

This is elitism on your part. The masses aren’t as affluent as you are. I know more than a few people that need to hear “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” Why not be a part of a church that reaches out to the ignorant, the hurting, the downtrodden, the simple-minded—rather than looking for a church that strokes your own intellectual ego? Don’t you have your Karl Barth and Paul Tillich collections at home for that anyway?

Greg: “I think my critique of LC and other megas has been fairly substantive. What I've never heard is a good theological defense of megas. I hear plenty of sociological and marketing arguments, but never a theological one.”

I still don’t see a good theological defense of your anti-mega, anti LC position. I fail to see how there is any inherent problem with the megachurch or any major theological problem with Life Church in particular. I look forward to reading your critique / thesis when you finish it.

As I mentioned previously, I may not be able to respond again for a while. If you want to chat, please don't hesitate to e-mail me.

[Joe]

By "spectacle", I am talking about taking a geniune display of committment and findig a way to exploit it. In this case LC, in my opinion, exploited it. Baptism can take place anywhere at anytime but it isn't a show (rhetoric?). I am jumping on a statement in your post to Greg and I apologize if I am butting in. About Mere Christianity being the staple for essential Christian doctrine. MC was written to provide hope and common faith during WW2. It was read over the radio in order to provide comfort and focus on the similarities of all Christian faiths. I think it is how you read Lewis and which mindset you are in when you read him. For example, I don't find his work evangilistic more disciplship oriented. When you read MC and GD, the Narnia series, we see an image of Christ in Aslan and (Greg may disagree with this and I love to conversate about The Magican's Nephew with him) an image of Satan in the Witch. But it is not meant for Soul saving, I think that is what some of turned it into. They make it what they want it to be.

[KP]

Joe, exploited it for what? Financial gain? LC didn't make a single penny off of that event; if anything, you could say that Frontier City was the one doing the exploiting. I don't think I understand what you mean.

I have attended a few of these annual events now; IIRC it began as essentially a glorified church picnic, but once the baptisms were introduced they became more and more a central part of the day. This weekend it appeared to be close to two hundred people that were baptized. People I spoke to that were in the tent with those folks as they were being prepared for baptism said that tears were flowing freely, and that the sense of God's presence was palpable. I saw many of those people's faces as they came up out of the water, and what I saw was pure joy. I probably can't argue a thological defense for why I don't think it's wrong to be baptized in an amusement park, so I won't try. All I can say is that I understand baptism as a public declaration of an inward state of grace by faith. Something to be entered into boldly and proudly. Those hundreds of people who made those statements seemed to be in the right spirit, and I believe that the church's intentions were honorable.

[Joe]

I don't doubt those who were baptized weren't feeling God's presence, I am happy for all. In my mind they were the only ones who were real. I understand that the church's intentions were honorable; however, I feel like they took advantage of these people. How many people there were there because they wanted to see these people baptized? Were they there to really honor and glorify God, which baptism is for, or were many of them there to get a cheap entrance to a theme park? Get my point? LC used these geniune declarations of faith were the means to getting more numbers. I just don't agree with it.