the parish

Calvin's Triumphalist Offspring

Don't know if you saw the story, but it seems that my assertion that conservatives don't understand irony is playing out again. Calvin College, that fortress of dusty, theological nonsense, is going to force a black, female professor to abide by a clause that requires Calvin professors to attend churches with ties to the Christian Reformed Church. The professor, Denise Isom, is attending a traditionally black Missionary Baptist congregation. My first thought was, "well, those are the terms of her contract." Except that Calvin hired her to teach on education and race. Yeah, race.

I looked for an approximate percentage of minority congregants in the CRC but I've been unable to find anything. Based on the CRC churches here in Oklahoma, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the number is in the very small single digits, maybe even decimally small. So, a professor hired to teach about race and education finds a church in good standing with orthodox Christianity, a church that happens to be historically black, a church that is outside the Reformed tradition to some degree, and in which she feels accepted. Calvin says no. Two observations in no particular order.

1. When I was a Christian I was already weary of hearing the triumphalism and arrogance that issues from the Reformed churches. Now I'm just bored with it. These churches aren't doing Reformed theology post-Barth; in fact, there has been a resurgence of interest in Reformed theology pre-Barth, especially Calvin's writings. (Nicholas Wolterstorff is a pleasant exception; John Piper is not.) The Baptist churches, always a second cousin to the Reformed churches, are becoming so infected with it, it's likely that some SBC churches are, except for their polity, Reformed in every way that matters. The real issue though is Reformed theology's inability to get along with its relatives. Except for Barth, who recast Reformed doctrine in ways that make it accessible to Wesleyans and postmodern theology, Reformed doctrines are notoriously all or nothing in their application. Think about the descriptors for the five points: total, unconditional, limited (applied to the atonement), and irresistible. There's a recipe for getting along. Your theology is either Reformed or its aberrant.

2. If you are going to hire someone to talk about something that you aren't qualified to talk about, either by education or race or experience, why not allow for some modifications to the rules to allow for that "other" to be welcome in your midst? If you are an historically white movement and you want a minority to teach you about racial realities, try not to enforce a system that, though not racist, has racial implications. What is the benefit of bringing an outsider in to help you if you're going to insist that the outsider play like an insider? Arrogant? Maybe. Triumphalist? Certainly. Wrong-headed? Without question. Many schools have already taken the step of requiring religion/theology faculty to attend a denominational church, but faculty in other areas, like education or science, are exempt. I think that's a stupid and pointless rule as well, and one which serves only to reinforce the bunker mentality, but at least it's not prejudicial across the board. I'm hopeful that Calvin can work this out. Really, I am.

Badass Bible Verses

The new site picture is shamelessly stolen with complete gratitude from this piece. Thanks, Leighton, for sending it along.

Can I Get a Speech Pathologist to Save our President?

Seriously, folks, I know people get upset when I call GWB an idiot, and I honestly want to believe he's not, but the press conference yesterday sort of gives it away. Flanked by Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, Bush managed to call them Ehud Omlet and Mahoomud Abbas. Now, we could just calll this a gaffe, and we could agree that it isn't substantive enough to use as a litmus test for the President's intelligence, but it's not as if this hasn't happened before. Remember when the press discovered that GWB had phonetic spellings of names and places in his notes? I do understand that there are about 200 countries in the world and no one should be expected to know all the leaders of all the countries, but at the same time, he's had almost eight years, and isn't this kind of his job? (I average 100 students per semester and I know their names by week four. To my knowledge, none of my students are running countries.)

However, granting that there are lots of difficult names, you'd think the names of the Prime Minister of our principal ally in the Middle East and their chief nemesis would be names that might be used occasionally in the White House. That's fair, right? How is it that the "leader of the free world" can't pronounce two of the most important names in world politics? Let's stop pretending the man is not in way over his head. After the famous Bush/Gore debate when Gore slaughtered Bush, Roger Ebert—yes, that Roger Ebert—said Bush reminded him of a bad student faking his way through a midterm oral exam. Ebert, who was a professor before he became a writer/reviewer, was the only one in the MSM with the courage to say so at the time. We should have listened.

Good News, Bad News

Trent Lott is leaving the Senate, presumably to avoid the new law that prohibits government officials from becoming lobbyists for two years after their term of office. The current legislation calls for a one-year hiatus. If Lott gets out before January '08, he is still under the old rule. Hmm...

Hastert is gone. I don't think there is any bad news attached to that. We'll just wait for the indictments now.

GWB signed an agreement with the Iraqi government for "an enduring U.S. presence" in that country. Does that translate to military bases? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, uhm, yeah. Won't that be a delightful tour for the poor schmucks in our military. And haven't some people been saying that we intended to do this all along? I believe the "liberals" who predicted this were villified and scorned. Pretty sure we won't be hearing any apologies from the Right.

The faith and family values tour just keeps on rolling...

God bless America...

The A Word

Somehow the conversation on a recent post has devolved into a discussion about politics and abortion. Abortion seems to be the perfect jumping off point to illustrate what is wrong with fundangelical talk about God, politics, truth, and the Bible.

Leighton rightly pointed out that the Bible actually treats unborn life as qualitatively different than born life. The penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is financial; the penalty for killing a child who is already born is the usual life for life. Somehow, fundangelical readers of the Bible are unable to extrapolate from this point that born life is different than unborn life. Despite their ability to find sins in the most obscure passages, they are singularly incapable of reading this passage critically and following the trajectory of the logic. They ignore what the Bible actually says in favor of a larger definition of "thou shalt not kill," and again they seem incapable of extrapolating pro-life principles for war and capital punishment from Jesus' words about loving an enemy. The problem with abortion comes from a completely different assumption about scripture though.

Genesis says that God breathed into the mass she had formed and created a living soul, and because we must define everything in ways that satisfy us, we've been stuck with a ghost in the machine definition of soul since at least Augustine's ramblings. Paul mentions the three part division of humans in one of his letters, and the passage is one Nazarenes are fond of quoting (I Thess 5:23): "And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus..." I don't pretend to know what a soul is, but I'm pretty sure it's not a ghost creature that leaves our bodies at death. The fact that trauma to the brain causes severe changes in personality should be a clue to fundangelicals that soulishness is somehow tied to physiology. Almost all the characteristics we attribute to the soul (mind, will, emotions, personality, etc.) are communally formed realities. (The very idea that our spirit departs our bodies at death to be with Jesus makes no sense if the things that make us unique individuals reside in the soul. And if they reside in the spirit, what the hell is a soul for? What does it do?) It seems to follow that the thing we call soul is our communally-shaped personality. I'm not downplaying the role of heritage in this scenario, but genes seem to shape us in ways that community does not. Still, I'll allow that some of our characteristics are inherited, but that doesn't advance the argument for a soul in any way that benefits Bible-readers.

If you assume that conception creates a new human being and that this human contains two non-physiological parts—soul and spirit—you're probably going to assume that killing this mass of cells is an offense against God. If you remove the impartation of a soul at conception, you remove most of the philosophical problem. If soulishness is learned and shaped by outside influences, the soul isn't a permanent part of being human. Again, this seems to be indicated by head trauma. And until someone tells me what a spirit does, I'll not address abortion vis-a-vis spirit.

So, the short reading of the problem looks like this: Christians ignore a pretty clear passage in favor of a convoluted interpretation regarding something they simply can't know to assert God's will. Now, if you read Exodus as if it's God's word, you'll have to argue with God about abortion. If you read Exodus as if it is written by people that were simply wrong about this issue in order to maintain your anti-abortion stance, then you open an entire Pandora's box of exegetical difficulties. It seems the simplest way out of this situation is to say that Exodus is right and abortion is okay, but I'm willing to bet that the Church won't arrive at that conclusion anytime soon.

House of Praise

KFOR, our local NBC affiliate, did a piece during the 10 o'clock news last night about the homes of high profile OKC pastors. This is a direct fallout from the ORU scandal, wherein people are finally becoming aware of how Oral, Richard, and Lindsay Roberts have been spending donor money for a long time. (Side note: this is no surprise to anyone familiar with the movement. A tell-all book was written right after Lindsay joined the family many years ago.)

Again, it's funny to me how people outside the church are able to see through the bullshit to the heart of the matter. The high profile pastors lived in houses with values ranging from 95,000 (People's Church, Assembly of God) to 987,000 dollars (Crossings Community Church, Church of God, Anderson). For those of you not living in Oklahoma, you need to know that property is cheap here. Here's a rough example. My wife and I live in a 2100 sq. ft, 3-bedroom, 2 1/2 bath, 1-year old house on one acre for which we paid 235,000 dollars. The homes of these pastors, at least the ones above a half million dollars, ranged in size from 5000 to 8000 sq. ft. Do the math for Colorado and California to see what the local equivalent would be. I'm guessing we're looking at 3-5 million easy.

Marty Grubbs, the pastor of Crossings, declined to be interviewed. Imagine that. Another notable exception, Craig Groeschel, pastor of Lifechurch.tv, declined to answer questions about where he lived and why no real estate records exist in his or his wife's name for their home in Edmond. I happen to know a little about Craig's house and I can speculate as to its value, but I'll wait to see if anyone from Lifechurch.tv wants to pony up an answer. My guess is that Craig has his home in a relative's name, possibly an in-law, or that he, being a finance major in college, has set up a trust or corporation in some name unrelated to lifechurch.tv. I understand the need for privacy, but the question about his home's value didn't seem all that invasive. In fact, at a time when 501(c)3's are coming under scrutiny, even from Congress, it might be a good idea to put speculation to rest by just telling the truth.

The reporter went on to ask a question about Jesus living in an 8000 sq. ft. house. The man on the street interviews, all conducted with "churchgoers," was predictable, ranging from "God has blessed him" to "he's just like everyone else." One man did say he'd be concerned if his pastor was living in a million dollar home. One of Marty's family members offered the explanation that Grubbs's home was purchased with help from his wife's second income. Okay, I don't think affordability is the question here. I'm pretty sure it's more about what is appropriate. KFOR seems to understand that, but people in the church were confused. Hmm...tell me again why it's a bad idea for me not to be one of the sheeple.

Politics all the time

Been watching the run-up to Debacle '08 with increasing interest. Jon and I did a couple podcasts about Mitt Romney and religion in the upcoming election. I said at the time that he is the only viable candidate for the Christian Right. I assumed the Right would stick to their principles. Silly me. Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani last week. Now, you're welcome to quibble about whether or not Robertson actually speaks for anyone anymore, and you won't get a whole lot of argument from me that his voice has been marginalized, but for some reason the MSM still reports on his press releases as if they are relevant to the national debate. I hope they are not, but I've been wrong before.

His endorsement of Giuliani helps give the lie to the Right's insistence that they are people of deep convictions. Giuliani, whose shenaningans and lies in the wake of 9-11 will come to light if he emerges as the Republican candidate, used to be a liberal Republican. He was a pro-gun control mayor, and his stance on abortion sounds much like Bill Clinton's—and it's possible to argue, as the guys on Air America have been lately, that the Clintons are really Republicans. Whatever the case, there is no clear uber-conservative around whom the Right can rally; that's why I thought Romney was the clear choice, despite his rather moderate record in a pretty liberal state.

The religion question doesn't seem to bother Republicans who aren't Pentecostal or extreme fundamentalists. Romney talks about faith and family, and Republicans don't seem to care that his Jesus is somewhat different than the Jesus of evangelicals. One only has to utter the name of Jesus for evangelical Republicans to roll over like two-dollar whores—witness GWB's invocation of the name with no application of the principles. (I still have students who tell me that they believe GWB is a "man of God.") Until about two months ago, I thought the Democrats were no-brainers for the presidency, but I'm increasingly convinced they will find a way to blow the election. And yes, I think putting Hillary out there as the candidate is a certain way to blow the election; they will lose the entire middle of the country if they run her. She seems sane and capable in the primaries, but in a general election, she will receive the Rove treatment and come out looking like a shrill liberal.

I admit that I am enjoying the Right's duplicity here. With a man who clearly seems to be a man of faith and conscience on one side, and a black candidate on the other side who had an adult conversion in an historically black church, evangelicals are likely to ignore these two candidates and pick based on issues of economics and support for the war. The most recent administration has taught us that you can always call yourself Christian, and fundangelicals won't blink as long as you give them tax cuts, promise them an enemy to hate, and speak out against abortion.

No One Would Die for a Lie

That's the premise in C.S. Lewis's classic defense of the resurrection, and it is one that has been resurrected, as it were, by N.T. Wright in his update of Lewis's argument (see The Resurrection of the Son of God, if you can wade through it). It goes like this: Jesus died; something happened; bad people became good people; cowards became martyrs; therefore, resurrection happened. The idea being, according to Josh McDowell and others, that people who knew the truth wouldn't die for a lie. It sounds like a pretty good argument. The problem was that we were removed from the events and the reasoning by two millenia. Leighton has pointed out the impact of Polycarp on the martyr mentality of the early church, and he has rightly pointed out that not everyone died; some recanted only to later resume their practice of the faith. But the argument has always rested primarily not on second and third generation martyrs, but upon the apostles themselves. Church history, tradition actually, has them all dying a martyr's death except for John. Putting aside the impossibility of knowing anything like that, and recognizing that Peter and Paul were likely caught in a pogrom, a cleansing that eliminates all people in a subgroup without respect to their actual practice of a faith (e.g., Jews in WWII), we can still look at the question of whether or not anyone would die for a lie if they knew the truth. Just ask the Mormons.

Christians have always believed that the Church of Jesus Christ - Latter Day Saints is a cult. They believe that Joseph Smith made the whole thing up. They believe that Brigham Young and other early leaders were knowing accomplices in a ruse. All of that might be true. The question is really whether or not early Mormon leaders were willing to suffer and die for their beliefs. It has been shown many, many times that belief often has nothing to do with "truth." If early Mormons who were in on the "lie" were willing to suffer and die, which they did, why is it inconceivable that early Christians would do the same? Once a life is fully committed to a belief system, it is difficult to rework the entire worldview that follows that belief system. Often, it's simply easier to believe the "lie." At that point, suffering for it, even dying for it, functions as a justification that a belief system is actually worth dying for and might even be true. Why would anyone kill someone for something that wasn't true? It's a small matter to work in a few phrases about persecution and its eternal reward to establish the mentality as righteousness. (Think Campbellites, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many premillenial dispensationalists—they have weathered significant disappointments, events that gave the lie to what they believe, yet they persisted in belief. Membership in the group is only strengthened by scorn and persecution from outside the group.)

This is not to say there was no resurrection. There might have been. I just don't care. But I am a little weary of the whole martyrs for Jesus equals truth argument. Peace.

Atheists again...

Stan Guthrie decided to respond in a CT column to the sudden interest in books written by atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al). He offers a "Why I am a Christian" essay allegedly in the spirit of Russell's "Why I am not a Christian." In this essay he clearly delineates why Russell was more right by using the typical questionable apologetics that ultimately drove me out of the faith. Included in his list of reasons was the Lewis trilemma trope. For those of you not aware of this apologetics standard, it's Lewis's argument in "Mere Christianity" that Jesus must not be considered a good, moral teacher. According to Lewis, we have three choices: lunatic, liar, or LORD. Lewis calls the idea that Jesus is a mere teacher "patronizing nonsense." Jesus, according to Lewis and now Guthrie, does not give us that choice. I am happy to agree that the NT does not seem to offer that as a choice. I am also happy to say that the choice is nonsense and is based on a particular language game that one has to agree to play before the debate can even take place.

When Lewis writes "Mere Christianity" there is widespread agreement among Western people, Christian and non-Christian, that the Bible is "true." By extension, the words of Jesus are also true and accurately represent what he said. If you don't agree with one or both of those assertions, the trilemma is just vocabulary within a closed language game. You first have to establish the trustworthiness of the record before you can convince someone who doesn't believe the Bible is "true" that Jesus is accurately represented. (There is also the secondary and tertiary problems of interpretation and theology being secondary language, not primary language.) What strikes me as funny about Guthrie's piece is that he seems not to understand that: a. the record can't be proven trustworthy, so any claims that require the trustworthiness of the Bible as interpreted by evangelicals are automatically dubious, and b. many, many people don't share the required assumptions to even play the game.

That makes his "why I am a christian" apologetic exercise an internal dialogue irrespective of how much he may believe it is apologetic in nature. Claims about "Jesus said..." are pointless for people who don't trust the Bible and don't trust the church to interpret it rightly, and who don't trust the church to practice what the church says they believe Jesus actually said. The language game will remain specific to a community of reference and closed to outsiders as long as there is a demonstrated lack of embodied ethics. The sooner the Church realizes that ethics matter more than apologetics in this context, the sooner we'll stop hearing silly arguments like Guthrie's.