the parish

Recommendations Please

I have a little Xmas money to spend on iTunes. Song, not album, suggestions, please.

To Be Real (With Apologies to Cheryl Lynn)

And most of you have no idea who she is and don't remember the song. If you do, you're old.

Anglican got me thinking about something I hear quite a bit about pastors, especially pastors of large churches: they're so real. I hear it frequently when someone is recommending their church: You'd love my pastor; he's so real. There are other variations of this recommendation: laid back, chill, down to earth, honest, etc. Most people mean it when they say it; they just don't realize how wrong they are.

First, what does it mean that he's real? You mean he talks to you in ways and about things that you believe impact your life directly. Risque jokes, tongue-in-cheek digs at religiosity, closely controlled items of information of a personal nature (i.e., he'll say he struggles but it's never with anything too serious, say spouse abuse or alcoholism or oxycontin addiction), identifying with congregants in their distrust of theology or tradition or liturgy, talking about finances or parenting or marriage in ways that shows he's sometimes where you are, etc. In other words, he's like you, only with some religious training and a big-ass church.

Second, why is it important that he is "real?" (Bearing in mind we really have no solid definition in mind when we say the word? It's like calling him cool. It could mean almost anything, except "he's an asshole." It could even mean "he's boring but his sermons are only eleven and a half minutes long so I never miss kick-off, the buffet line, or a nap.") What does it mean for a pastor to be unreal? Does it perhaps mean that his life is not accessible to his congregation? That she hides information we'd like to know? That he doesn't seem to struggle with the things we do? That she isn't necessarily hip or culturally savvy?

Here's the problem: the guy you think of as real is someone you know almost nothing about, especially if you're in a megachurch. When you recommend him to someone as real, you're simply saying, "When I hear him preach for the fifteen minutes each week that I actually see him face to face (sort of), he strikes me as sincere, honest, and accessible." The reality, of course, is that every pastor that I've ever met, including myself, has a carefully constructed public persona. Different people are afforded different levels of access depending upon how much the pastor trusts that person. Even wives or husbands don't always get in as far as they ought. In short, there is almost no such thing as a pastor who is a real person. Congregations don't allow it. Congregations say they love their "real" pastor, but if they heard what he really thought about that last complaint they'd brought to his office (does not apply to megachurch pastors; you'd never get that far with a complaint), then they'd experience real. If they heard him fight with his wife, or heard her go at it with her 13-year old daughter, or if God forbid, they heard what he/she thought about the job, then they'd experience real.

Congregations don't want real men and women as pastors. They want carefully constructed simulacra of real people. They want real to be nicer than them but not too nice, and holier than them but not too holy, and smarter than them but not too smart, and more honest than them but not too honest. Pastors learn too quickly that real people are messy. Congregations don't want messy pastors.

geez, etc.

Finished reading through the premier issue of Geez Magazine. First, I know two of the contributors personally, and one I blog-know. Kristen of McCarty Musings has a poem in the issue. I saw the final copy before it went to press, so I was expecting it. And it's good. They did a major edit on her actual piece, and I think the original was better. Hopefully, she'll post the original on her blog. I was never more aware that poetry editors select and edit based on taste more than any other kind of editor. The other contributor goes by the name of Carrie Martin in the issue, but that's a pseudonym. I've promised to keep her identity semi-secret. She gives enough info in the piece to figure out who she is if you know some of the company I keep. The article is funny, insightful, and makes fun of the hydra-headed megachurch that dominates our city. The third contributor is Jen Ambrose of Ambrose-a-Rama. It's a cleaned up version of some blogging she's done in the past about drinking and non-drinking Christians in KY. Good stuff.

The magazine is very well done in terms of layout and design. The graphics and photos are excellent. The layout is easy to follow, and some of the elements are very clever and creative. I don't know that any magazine could live up to the expectations many of us had for Geez, but they did a good job of doing something really different, creative, and interesting. I suppose if you asked them what they're goal was for this issue, they'd have an answer. I'd like to know what it is, because I think the first issue suffers from a bit of an identity or intention crisis. It's not cohesive despite being formed around a theme. The articles are too short in many cases, so we're not treated to some of the substance I'd hoped for. However, it's an excellent beginning, and I'm sure they will clarify their goals and audience as they produce more issues. So, to my friends who contributed: Congratulations! To Geez: Thank you for making an effort at being spiritual without being cliched. Read. Subscribe. Support these folks.

And now to the etc. part. I got this email from a member of the hydra-headed megachurch tonight. I'm posting it here because I'm feeling perverse and a little weary of some of the assumptions these folks make. Enjoy:

I accidentally got on to your web site , when trying to go on the Lifechurch.tv site. How sad for you that you have to spend your time bad mouthing GOD's work. But because of your bad mouthing I feel that maybe you have never experienced the love of Jesus Christ or some one has hurt you that claimed to know the Lord! I challenge you to really pray about (talk to GOD) the things you are saying.Because God is a just God and gives us all plenty of chances and FREE Will! We do pay the consequences for our actions! You see GOD Loves you , no matter what you say about him, because he knows you, and he knows your hurts! The reason (if you will) " Life Churchers are so attracted to lifechurch is because Craig is SO REAL, and continues to allow God to use him even when there are people like yourself hurting his heart! Just to let you know, yes I am sure Craig makes a substantial income, BUT he also capped his pay YEARS ago & will never make more than that set amount! He also is raising 6 children & has a wife, I am sure he could support them on minimum wage!!! Please for your own good & the lives you are influencing in a bad way, to judge GOD'S people, take a look at why you feel the need to have this site & what is wrong in your heart! Because God is Good all the TIME & Whoever finds God finds LIFE!!! AND not to mention We are Leading people to become fully devoted followers of JESUS CHRIST the ONE and only MESSIAH, and the only reason to live is for him!!!!! You see MY daddy was in the ministry my entire life and aI know about hurt in the church and I also know about dead churches! If God is at work then great things will happen! May he bless you and may you know the ONE TRUE GOD!!!!!!!

Mother Jones vs. the Priesthood

I'm a reluctant fan of Mother Jones magazine. That means for every article I enjoy, there is one I loathe; for every well-placed shot at the Right, there is one that is sophomoric or histrionic or paranoid; and for every well-written, solidly-researched alternative press article printed, there is one with too much opinion and not enough substance, the sort of stuff you find in college newspapers where the journalists write as if they're the first to discover that Republicans favor big business, while conveniently ignoring the Democrats who do the same.

Anyway, the current issue is dedicated to "God and Country: Where the Christian Right Is Leading Us." Some of the articles are excellent, but as with most alternative press stories, most also contain a tinge of the paranoid fringe tone. Nonetheless, we need alternative coverage of these issues, so again, I'm a reluctant fan. I'm not sure how the article "The Roman Inquisition" snuck into this issue. Sure, the Christian Right and the Vatican agree about some social issues (i.e., abortion and homosexuality), but to draw a parallel between the agenda of the Christian Right and that of the Roman Catholic Church seems simplistic and unfair. For every social issue the two sides agree upon, there is at least one upon which they disagree: the Catholic Church has grown increasingly anti-capital punishment in keeping with their pro-life position. The CR has taken no such stand, despite the obvious consistency of the position. Labor unions, living wage, poverty, etc. Pick a subject. The RCC will not align well with the CR most of the time.

Still, since the issue is homosexuality in this article, and specifically the new Vatican directive concerning gay priests and seminarians, maybe you can allow that the article belongs in this issue. Then, of course, you'll come across this passage:

"Here is an institution for centuries removed from the everyday construction of straight masculinity; a community of men, living together, freed from admonitions to marry and multiply, engaged in ritual and performance, praising gentleness, wearing dresses, and bound together in worship of a naked man on a cross. Body and blood, a heady mixture of rapture and camp, at once repressive and sensual, dependent, like the army, on structures of submission and domination, only here dedicated to a spiritual doctrine of love..."

In no particular order, here's what is wrong with this sort of writing that is only pretending to be journalism:

1. The Catholic priesthood is not a Fellini film, and the homoerotic fantasies of the writer notwithstanding, even at its worst it was largely populated by men who wanted to serve God, not worship a naked man on a cross. Bearing in mind that in the minds of Christians the naked man is Jesus, the God-man, much of the sexual tension is removed from the image, and bearing in mind that it depicts a crucifixion, all the sexual tension should be removed, except in the minds of the truly depraved.
2. I am aware that the priesthood has often been used as a source for homoerotic fantasies. Schoolgirls have served the same purpose for heterosexual fantasies. Just as I don't believe all Catholic schoolgirls are sluts, I also don't believe the Catholic priesthood is an oiled-up, no holds barred, gay orgy. (And won't the search engines love number 2!)
3. Priests don't usually live together. Yes, there are monasteries, but I'd hazard a guess that most priests live alone, so what's with the community of men living together talk?
4. Everyday construction of straight masculinity? Really? Does that play well in a sociology or anthropology class? The Catholic Church extends to nearly every nation on the earth. Do you suppose there are different ideas of what straight masculinity looks like in different countries and cultures? And even if you're just talking about the U.S, do you think straight masculinity looks the same in GA as it does in NY? I'm sure it's different in Manhattan and Queens.
5. A heady mixture of rapture and camp? The Mass is not Priscilla: Queen of the Desert. I suspect that few priests feel that it is. And confession, absolution, extreme unction, and penance don't dress down well for melodrama, no matter how campy the writer thinks they can be.
6. There have been gay men in the priesthood for hundreds of years. They live by the same vow of celibacy as the heterosexual men. The crucial point in this whole story, which the writer does touch on, is that this new directive seems aimed at gay priests in order to scapegoat them for the pedophile crisis. That is a story worth talking about, but when it sounds as if RuPaul wrote the piece, it doesn't help the article and it insults the reader who believes these are important issues.

K-LOVE Reports Santa Kinder Than Jesus

Listening to K-Love this morning. Don't ask me why I do it. A friend tells me it's an unhealthy desire to just be irritated about things Christian. Maybe he's right. Doesn't matter. Today, you'll be irritated too. I can't remember the exact words; maybe they're available on the web site, but here's how the message went.

Remember when you were a kid and your parents told you that Santa had two lists: one for naughty kids and one for nice kids? Soon you learned that there was only one list. Well, unlike Santa, God does have two lists. If your name is on one list, you spend eternity in Heaven with God. If you're on the other... Which list you're on depends on what you did with God's son, Jesus Christ. Blah, blah, blah...

Now, let's pretend no children were listening and didn't learn to their horror that there is only one list and their parents have been punking them for years with false threats about a naughty list. What K-Love managed to convey is that though Santa is forgiving and gracious, God keeps a tally and bad people spend eternity in hell. Merry Christmas.

I Radio Heaven (With Apologies to Over the Rhine)

Tomorrow (Saturday) from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. CST I will be on Left Hook Radio here in OKC to talk about atheism. Specifically, we'll be talking about the article I did for the Gazette cover a few weeks ago: Is Atheism a Religion? Some members of the atheist community have taken issue with the article, to wit:

1. It's a ridiculous question;
2. I misrepresented my intentions;
3. An atheist should have written the piece;
4. Rational thinkers can't get good press in Christian America.

To which I am replying and will reply:

1. I'm not the one passing out tracts and practicing "rational evangelism." And the question came about because of a court decision, not because I said, "Hey, I wonder if atheism is a religion."
2. I did no such thing and have the emails to prove it.
3. Do we need Carter and Bush I to write all the current articles about Bush II? Do I need to murder someone before I do crime reporting? Sorry. This is worse than stupid.
4. Sure they can, but saying there is the same likelihood that an invisible pink unicorn is talking to me as there is that God exists is not rational thinking. It's silly.

I'm hopeful that the conversation will get beyond things that pitiful, because Leighton has taught us well that there are rational, compassionate, articulate atheists out there. I'd like to find a few in OKC (no disrespect to Kim and Ellen who seem to qualify), and now that Dr. John George has left town, the numbers are smaller than they were before. Turns out I have as much sympathy for hard atheists as I do for Christian fundamentalists. I'm hoping that a few soft atheists will call the show and we can have a meaningful conversation.

Anyway, there is a listen live link on the Left Hook web site. Tune in via Internet if you don't live in our listening area.

Another Kind of Worship

As I am writing this a glass of 1997 Far Niente Cabernet is on the table beside me. The remainder of the bottle is waiting for me in the kitchen. I'm drinking it as slowly as possible. The hot, generous hairdresser wife bought it for me for graduation. I've never loved her more...

Church on Sunday? That's Just a Tradition

And tradition is a bad word for Reformers and rebels. Tradition is something that stands in the way of church the way it ought to be done. It is the stupid idea that prevents Jesus from having his way in the church. It is the constant refrain of those who don't like decisions made by boards, staffs, pastors, or congregations. They believe that the world is better served without tradition. (Insert musical notes here.) I can only imagine what it will be like when we have church without tradition. (End musical notes. Except for—Imagine there's no tradition...it's easy if you try...) Alas, you cannot do church without tradition.

Ultimately, tradition is a conversation. It is a conversation held by parties who care deeply about how things are done. We have this new faith that holds up Jesus as savior of the world and, indeed, Lord of all. When should we meet? Hmm...the Jews have always met on Saturday because that's the Sabbath. Wait, wait...Jesus has inagurated a new heaven and new earth. What if we met on Sunday to celebrate his resurrection? The Church meets on Sundays because they have their life, their vitality, their mission in relation to the resurrection. Sunday helps define us as a resurrection community. The vindication of our faith is eschatological, but the beginning of that eschatological vindication is the resurrection, SO we meet on Sundays. What a great idea.

Now, you can hate tradition; you can say it's stupid to meet on Sundays; you can even insist that worship happens seven days a week (and I won't disagree with that), but you better have a good reason for abandoning the idea of meeting on the day that ought to proclaim to the world that we are resurrection people, citizens of a new earth, and servants of the Lord of all.

Tradition can become a fallen power or principality. Some traditions can become idols. But nothing gets done in Church without tradition. Scripture came to us through oral traditions originally. The tradition of reading apostolic encyclicals led to the canonization of rather important letters. The practice of honoring saints and martyrs and recognizing high, holy days led to the development of a Church calendar so that we would know who we are and whom we worship, and even how.

All this talk about Christmas and worship services is predicated on the notion that tradition is a bad idea and freedom from tradition is a good idea. But I'm pretty sure that occasionally our identity is tied up in our tradition. You cannot be a Christian without tradition. You'll need to give up the Bible, singing hymns or choruses, praying, and many other things that are based on traditions of the Church. Insisting that people wear a suit to church is a stupid tradition; asking them to acknowledge the Church Calendar is not. We can have priorities, but they ought to be based on an understanding of why we do what we do.

I believe that the Church has had a 2000 year conversation about what is important. I also believe some of those conversations led to traditions that are important to our identity. I think some traditions are easily dispensed with, but I believe that to dispense with others necessarily redefines who we are. Sorting one from the other is the task of the church, but it starts with a respect for tradition, not a disdain when it is convenient.

Random, Important (sort of) Announcements

Tonight: Went to dinner with the hot, supportive hairdresser wife for a celebration. She provided an amazing 2002 Cakebread Cabernet. A wine distributor once told me Cakebread was overrated. How wrong you are, Mr. Wine-Distributor Hater Man. It was amazing. Why are we celebrating?

Today: Closed on our land and construction loan. We will be in the house we planned and dreamed and purchased a year from now. And Micah of McCarty Musings is building it for us. And...

Tomorrow: I will graduate at 2:00 p.m., CST.

And, off the subject of celebration...

Sunday: Preaching at kaleo. The text is Mary's Magnificat. What a great text. If you're in the area, stop in. 6:30 p.m.

And, strangely, sadly, the Daily Dig from the Bruderhof is gone. Today was their last one. Anyone know why?

Dear Jesus, Sorry we couldn't make it to your birthday...(updated)

Here is the list so far (and I'll update as I get more information):

• Willow Creek
• Fellowship Church
• Life Covenant Church in Edmond, OK (presumably at their other "campuses" as well)
• Southland Christian Church in Nicholasville, KY
• First Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA (Charles Stanley's place)
• North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, GA (Pastor Andy Stanley, son of Charles)
• Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Mich

Guess what they have in common. No services Christmas day. Not one. (And North Point is shutting down for New Year's as well.) Oh, guess what else they have in common. Give yourself five points if you said megachurches. Deduct five if you said "they suck" 'cause that's not nice and I've turned over a new leaf.

According to the AP:

Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., said church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 1994, and only a small number of people showed up to pray, she said.

Not the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources? Did you catch that? The way we determine whether or not to have a worship service on the second most important day in the Church Calendar is do a T-graph of pros and cons on resources. If you ever had any doubts that megas run on a business model and not a theological model, this should remove all doubt.

Let me see if I understand this: these particular megas do church so badly that their people won't come to celebrate Christmas? And I don't mean badly in the aesthetic or experience sense: I mean the quality of Christians they produce is so poor that these "disciples" won't celebrate the birth of Jesus? They are aware of his significance to their faith, right? You taught at least that much in your four-week new member class with the handy-dandy baseball diamond diagram, right? They are aware that the only reason they gather to worship is because of this Jesus character? Are you planning on closing down for Easter too? People are really busy around Easter as well, what with baking the ham and coloring the eggs and photographing the litttle ones finding the eggs, and we wouldn't want church to get in the way of "family time."

Cally, from Willow Creek, has a further explanation though: "'If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don't go to church, how likely is it that they'll be going to church on Christmas morning?' she said." Sorry, Cindy, your mission is to worship God, and Christmas is kind of important in the whole idea of how and why we worship God as Christians. If your "target and mission" are getting in the way of understanding the why and how of worship, it's time for a refresher course.

But Cindy from Southland has a plausible explanation: "'If we weren't having services at all, I would probably tend to feel that we were too accommodating to the secular viewpoint, but we're having multiple services on Saturday and an additional service Friday night,' Willison said. 'We believe that you worship every day of the week, not just on a weekend, and you don't have to be in a church building to worship.'"

If you believe that, shutter your damn doors, do home groups, and quit paying your pastor so much. This is an argument from convenience, because I assure you that anyone coming to the church board complaining that Sunday was too much of a focus and more money should be spent on Monday through Saturday worship than is spent on Sundays wouldn't get a serious hearing. And just let someone tell the pastoral staff that they don't have to be in church to worship. They'll get the long-winded explanation of why church membership and attendance are vital to our spiritual health. Then let 'em try to explain to the pastoral staff why they should be spreading their money around to other religious organizations. After all, I don't have to give my tithe just to the church where I don't go to not worship. And the secular viewpoint isn't what you're catering to; you're catering to a consumerist mindset, which you've instilled in your people and are furthering here, and you're catering to a business model in ecclesiology.