the parish

woof, woof?

I don't even know what to say, and thanks to Jay for the link.

Joel Osteen: Cry Me a River

Hope you caught the Reverend Joel Osteen on 60 Minutes last night. After the Patriots dismantled Jerry's pretenders, I stayed on CBS because I was interested in three of the four 60 Minutes pieces.

Before I get to Joel, let me recommend that you not take the Blackwater piece all that seriously. "Americans want to hear you say you're sorry." That's journalism? Then Erik Prince is allowed to say he never wants innocent civilians to die. Bring up the music. And...scene. For a more thorough piece of investigative journalism concerning this army of lunatics, go to www.iraqforsale.org. And as far as the Florence federal prison piece goes, could they have found a less sympathetic prison guard? That woman only needed a trailer and wrap-around shades to be the post-tornado interviewee in Gotebo, Oklahoma. "The inmates are needy." Needy? "They ask for extra toilet paper." Oh, heavens. Needy bastards. And we haven't got a square to spare... Again, there is much more to the story than 60 Minutes presented. There is another super max federal prison in Marion, IL. These are not nice places, and the idea that you would keep people from human contact only guarantees the development of additional pathologies. Imagine never being able to touch another person. Never.

Joel. Let me say that for the first time ever I'm an outsider to this conversation. I don't care that Joel is a heretic. And the fact that 60 Minutes trotted out Michael Horton only makes me more sympathetic to Joel. Maybe next week they can get D.A. Carson to talk about Lakewood. I've read some reviews online about the interviewer Byron Pitts. The reviews have all been very positive. Internet Monk called him "superb." How 'bout we go with a cast-off actor from the theater of the absurd? Over the top. Scowling. Contrived. Condescending. Why didn't he just let us know what church he attended? There is no way someone with no dog in the fight could have behaved the way Pitts did. His bias was all over his face. In his defense, I will say that I appreciate him understanding the theological issues better than most journalists.

Joel came off as nice, if a bit wide-eyed. The scene where they are checking out the shifting colors of the ceiling is classic: "Isn't that neat?" Neat? Who says neat anymore? I can't decide if that's really Joel, which is to say he's a rube that made it big, or if he's one of the best actors around. They definitely should not have shown the last few scenes in which Joel was playing football with the family. It was obvious he had no idea what to do; he fared a little better with the basketball. So, he's a family guy, works hard, loves people, cries when he talks about changed lives (it's odd that when Hybels cried during his interview, Christians talked about how passionate he was; I suspect Joel won't get the same courtesy), and seems to genuinely enjoy his life. And yes, he's gotten rich off the ministry. This strikes me as a degree of culpability issue though. I'm not sure how pastors who routinely make 50, 80, or 100 thousand or more a year get to criticize a guy who's making ten times that. If you're living off the church and you're making twice the annual salary of an average parishioner, you might as well put down your stone.

Joel practices the great American religion: entertainment. Sometimes entertainment is transformative, sometimes it's banal. Christians can criticize him all they want for watering down the Gospel, preaching prosperity, or being a heretic, but the bottom line is he's doing what most of their churches are doing; he's just doing it better. Entertainment has become the water in which the church worship machine swims. If Joel does it better, learn from him. Quit crying about it. If you think entertainment is awful, stop playing the game. Churches aren't going to do that though; it would cost them too many members. Think of it like a sports metaphor: if Joel is the top of the BCS rankings, don't bitch about him because your church isn't in the top 25. You're playing the same game; he's just better.

Of Course It's a Christian Video Game: The word Covenant is featured prominently

The New York Times ran a piece about evangelical churches using Halo III to reach young people. The remarkable thing about it has nothing to do with how well it's written or how insightful it is—in fact, it's a pretty unremarkable piece of journalism, and I mean no insult, as I've written plenty of those myself. Rather, it's remarkable because I think mainstream evangelicals are likely to yawn when reading the piece. Churches using a violent video game to reach teenagers? Shocking! No, not really.

Let's be honest; we're not talking about Grand Theft Auto; we're talking about the latest iteration of the Halo brand. I've played the first two, and since I've yet to pony up for an Xbox 360, I have to admit to not having played III. I thoroughly enjoyed Halo. My response to the game was much like the first PC version of Tomb Raider I played many years ago: different, challenging, creative, unique, fun! But it's Halo. You're killing aliens or humans. No one gives a shit about the religious dimension to the Covenant forces. Because of my background, I did have a limited interest in the choice of a word like covenant in a fps, but I didn't like Halo because of the backstory; I liked it because of the gameplay. And I've never found the graphic depiction of animated violence to be all that disturbing: sorry, I just don't. And neither do most Christians I know.

The Church has a long history of supporting violence in many manifestations: capital punishment, war, slavery, subjugation of women, corporal punishment, spousal abuse, etc. They've been holding hands with violence since they decided God killed Jesus. If your first principles are are saturated with violence, deicide, divine murder, and blood atonement, how can you object to violence...so long as it's directed against someone who deserves it?

What is remarkable about this piece is that the New York Times tried to make a story out of something that isn't a story. Yes, churches use Halo III, and they're likely to use any violent game that doesn't include nudity, profanity, satanism (including the demons in Quake), or symbols of other faiths (unless the Crusaders are pillaging a mosque). What's remarkable about this piece is that people outside the Church look in and say, "Aren't you opposed to violence?" and they really think the Church should be opposed to violence, because, apparently, they understand the source document better than evangelicals do.

If the big issues are avoided or demonized—homosexuality, abortion, pre- or extramarital sex, nudity, masturbation, "false" religions, profanity, and blasphemy—the Church will sanctify any method within pop culture to "reach" people for Jesus. Violence? Come on. The Church still hasn't figured out that violence is a form of pornography; that's why they flocked to The Passion of the Christ.

Radiohead's In Rainbows

Yes, I will be downloading Radiohead's new project today. In Rainbows is available today. I went to the inrainbows.com site last week and named my price. I received my code this morning. I will spend most of the evening listening and re-listening to In Rainbows. Radiohead is apparently conducting an experiment with downloadable music and fan loyalty. The "name your price" feature is for real. The minimum was one pence--about two U.S. cents, I guess--and the maximum was whatever you were willing to pay. I opted for five pounds. The currency converter reported that it was about ten bucks. That's about what I pay on iTunes, so I thought it was a fair price, even bearing in mind the sheer genius of Radiohead. So, I'll let you know what I think, and I'm sure J-Fo and A-Fo as well as a Courter or two will also let me know in the comments section. If you're a fan and you download it, let me know, and let me know how much you paid.

Later today I'm going to try to get in a post about the behavior of the spokesperson for Left Behind: Eternal Forces (hint: he's threatening bloggers with legal action for panning his shitty product. he posted a lengthy response in the comments here last year.) and the NYT's piece about church groups using Halo 3 to reach teens. And thanks to Leighton and Goz for the links on those two pieces.

And We're Back...so, unfortunately, are Chuck Colson and misogyny in Christianity Today

Took an unscheduled hiatus in which I seriously thought about shutting this project down. I've decided I'm too much of a narcissist, so we're back.

The latest issue of Christianity Today has another rant from Chuck Colson on the back page. Does he do anything but rant? He's turning into Mr. Wilson, Dennis the Menace's irascible neighbor. This time though, he tosses in a phrase that the editors at CT should have asked him to clarify, and by not doing so, they appear to condone one of three things: misogyny, gratuitous profanity, or just sloppy conservatism. (I suggested to CT several months ago that they would be better served having Colson just empty the trash in the office. They apparently found no merit in my suggestion.)

Colson is talking about how appalled he was that team leaders in his Centurion Program, a "worldview" course, were unable to teach a section that asserted the truth of Christianity over against other world faiths. Do these people not understand what faith actually means? How do you assert the truth of metaphysical claims over against other metaphysical claims when there aren't clear criteria by which to judge the truth of any set of metaphysical claims? That's why it's faith. But Colson, one of those dinosaurs who believe Christianity is an extension of the modern epistemological project, thanks largely to the influence of another cranky fundamentalist, Francis Schaeffer, on Colson's early faith development post-Watergate, insists that the Centurion Program teach a worldview that offers Christianity as objective truth. Regular readers will sense my cringe.

At the end of the piece, Colson tosses off this phrase: worship at the altar of the bitch goddess of tolerance. You'll note that tolerance, widely considered a virtue except in fundangelical circles, is here demonized by being called both an idol and a female. I'm not sure what Colson is getting at with this phrase. Is tolerance a feminine trait? And if so, why is she a bitch? Can't she be a sweet grandma or a Sunday School teacher? And why the goddess language? Wouldn't "idol" have sufficed to make his point? I find it difficult to believe that this choice of words is anything more than gratuitous profanity to shock and make a point--something I'm quite comfortable with around here, in fact; although, I do try not to be quite so misogynistic in my choice of profanity.

A few of us have been noting the uber-conservative trend in CT of late. If you want proof, just read the ridiculous editorial about Red Letter Christians actually being liberals (blue, if you will). More on that another time. I don't care if a magazine wants to take a conservative stand. It's possible to argue the points and stand on those convictions without being such twits though. Seriously, can we get an explanation of why Colson is allowed to interject such inflammatory, pointless, and sexist language in a Christian magazine? And can we get an explanation of why they keep this cranky old bastard employed?