the parish

The New Christians or Nebulous Christianity

Two things first: Tony Jones is a good writer and Tony Jones needs to be more honest about a certain friend of his. The book is easy to read, if pointless, and Mark Driscoll takes a pounding for being an ass, whereas Doug Pagitt gets a pass. Pretty sure Driscoll is an ass, but I've actually met Pagitt, sat in on his sessions, watched him interact with emergents and NPC pastors, and if anyone gets the designation of asshat in the early years of this movement, it's Doug. And Chris. I was there when Chris Seay and Kevin Wilson (is that who that professional/CT type was?) went at it. Ugly. Ugly. Ugly. Anyway, just a preface to say that even the postmoderns are content with revising history.

Jones begins the "argument" in The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier with the emergent rejection of binary thinking prevalent in American Christianity: dissatisfaction with Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal, Evangelical and Mainline. Except that emergents are less than honest about the new polarity: emergent and not. Jones gives some insight into this when he discusses the early meetings wherein people were designated those who get it and those who don't. He will go on to articulate 20 dispatches from the emergent church (certainly Emergent here, since this book has been designated by some gatekeeper as Emergent), beginning with:

"Emergents find little importance in the discrete difference between the various flavors of Christianity. Instead, they practice a generous orthodoxy that appreciates the contributions of all Christian movements."

The best that can be said about this is that it's half-true. But it's less than honest to call the differences between Independent Fundamentalist Baptists and Episcopalians "discrete." And it's less than honest to pretend that some Christian movements are worthy of appreciation rather than disgust. Better to say emergents appreciate the post-liberal thinking of Hans Frei and the Yale school while still holding onto some of the trappings of evangelical worship combined with Newbigin's missiology.

Dispatch number 2, and I'm not going to list them all, is the rejection of "the politics and theologies of left versus right. Seeing both sides as a remnant of mordernity, they look forward to a more complex reality." I too tend to reject binary thinking. I struggle with teaching ethics to students who have been taught the contrasting pairs. However, it's fair to say that those sorts of polarities predate modernity. Even Jesus must have been caught up in it when he declared, "Those who are not against us are for us." Two teams. Hmm...

Jones then gives an excellent, semi-detailed history of the emergent movement. It's the most helpful section of the book, and probably the last helpful section. When we get to "Who are the emergent Christians?" the answers are typically, emergently anecdotal. To be fair, Jones offers three characteristics of emergents: 1. disappointment with American Christianity; 2. desire for inclusion; 3. a hope-filled orientation. Jones has just described the LGBT movement and the American Humanist Association.

Then comes what should be the backbone of the book: the theology. It's true that emergent Christians, especially church planters, are more theologically tuned in than their evangelical church-planting counterparts. Rare is the middle-aged Hybel/Warren disciple who can withstand the theological questions of a young emergent full of Newbigin, Wright, Frei, and Brueggemann. There are passages within this section that I wholeheartedly affirm and/or sympathize with: "Dispatch 13, Emergents believe that truth, like God, cannot be definitively articulated by finite human beings." There are others that bring out the scoffer in me: "Dispatch 14, Emergents embrace paradox, especially those that are core components of the Christian story."  As a skeptic I have to ask, what else could they do? If they're determined to believe theistic nonsense, they are forced to embrace paradox. Jones uses the example of a physicist who "embraces paradox" to justify his position. Since I'm not a physicist, I'd like to hear what Dawkins or a mathematician (Leighton) would say about this passage (162-163). Then follows the two major paradoxes an emergent is forced, according to Jones, to defend: Trinity and Chalcedonian Christianity (fully God, fully man).

The last critique I have is of Jones's description of "wikichurch" in Dispatch 16: "Emergents believe that church should function more like an open-source network and less like a hierarchy or a bureaucracy." Umm...isn't Jones the "national coordinator" of Emergent Village, and isn't that a nice euphemism for director, and isn't that a hierarchical title? And has anyone else noticed that this open-source network keeps showing the same "programmers/administrators" on the fliers for the conferences? And who is pastoring these open-source network churches? Aren't the names Pagitt, Ward, Kimball, etc.? I don't recall seeing a flier about an emergent conversation or conference wherein the pastor(s) of Solomon's Porch was 500 names.

And then there is wikichurch. Jones wants us to think about Wikipedia as a good analogy of the emergent church. The first thing I tell my students is that they may not use wikipedia as a source for a paper. The problems with wikipedia are well-documented. Contrary to Jones, there is no glory, wonder, or awe attached to allowing morons equal access. Call me an elitist, but I'll stand by that. And that's only the first of many critiques I could make of this analogy.

Also in this section, Jones uses Tim Keel's church Jacob's Well as an illustration of an emergent church. Tim Keel, along with Brian McLaren, is one of the good guys of the movement. He's sincere, approachable, humble, kind, and a whole host of other positive adjectives, and the last time I talked to him (about two and a half years ago), his exact words were "I'm not even sure we're an emergent church anymore." That's because Jacob's Well has become a baby mega of sorts. A good church still, but emergent?

Jones answers his own questions about Emergent when he talks about the inevitable hardening of the categories that takes place in any movement—the tendency to move toward bureaucracy. He even admits that the purchase of his book might be a sign of that move, an argument I made both when Jones became "national coordinator" and when the first publisher announced their line of Emergent books, and I think I bitched when they came up with a logo. In short, you can read Jones's book and you'll probably enjoy the read, if you're sympathetic. If you're not because you're a skeptic, you'll probably be bored and a bit frustrated with the circular thinking attendant with theism. If you're not because you're fundangelical, then you'll be frustrated by Jones's unwillingness to be pinned down about almost anything. So, this is a book about emergents written for non-emergents that non-emergents won't care to read, but emergents will think Jones has done them a good turn. And Emergents are still unwilling to admit that the forces that drive fallen powers toward ossification and bureaucracy have taken deep root in the emergent church.

I had high hopes for emergent Christianity. I was one of them. Susan and I started what was arguably the first emergent congregation in Oklahoma City. What I want emergents to recognize, and this is from an outsider (to Christianity) now, is that there is no room within institutionalized American Christianity for them, so the sooner they stop the apologetics for the sake of the sanctified, the sooner they'll truly be counter-cultural and not counter-Church. Maybe then they'll make a difference for the long term. Playing by the same rules as the churches they've left—marketing, publishing deals, logos, titles, celebrities—only guarantees their demise.

You might avoid this if you have a weak stomach or are clearly cynical.

Tony Jones referenced this church in his new book (which I will review sometime this week, per request by the way--not his request, lest you be confused). It was one of the few areas where we are in total agreement. Just read the page. It explains why a church has trademarked its name. Yes, you read that right. I only hope Nathan and Christy Nockels don't sue the church for trademark infringement.

Sally Kern and the Politics of Press Releases

Sally Kern (R - Dist 84) of the Oklahoma House of Representatives made national news recently when she compared homosexuals to Islamic terrorists. What she actually said was that "militant" homosexuals were “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.” So, I guess you could say that Islamic terrorists fare better in Kern's mind than the guy in ass chaps marching in the Pride Parade. Kern has refused to apologize for her comments. Her husand is the pastor of Olivet Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist congregation near downtown Oklahoma City. It's a church that has been involved in some good things; it's also a fairly typical SBC congregation in Oklahoma, which is to say, they are very conservative politically and theologically.

Concerned Women for America has come to Kern's rescue. Apparently, evil homosexuals are waging a hate campaign against the brave legislator. Here's the press release:

Oklahoma State Representative, Sally Kern, is under attack by anti-Christian homosexual hate groups, such as the so-called “Human Rights Campaign” and the “Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund,” for addressing the dangers posed to American culture by militant homosexual activism and celebration of the homosexual lifestyle. These groups have dispatched their minions in an effort to intimidate and embarrass Rep. Kern. Investigators are even looking into potential death threats against the lawmaker and she has been assigned a bodyguard.

As you can see, the information is fundamentally dishonest, an odd but common tactic from a "Christian" organization. The release does not inform its recipients what Kern said. Her poor choice of words and her ridiculously hyperbolic comparison are not addressed. It's not mentioned that she first characterized the "attack" as an intentional edit of her recorded comments to discredit her, as if the line quoted above was cobbled together from several places in her speech. The aggressors here are militant, pro-homosexual, "hate" groups. Never mind that gay people in OKC were going about their lives when Rep. Kern decided to vilify them. I'm sure there are some anti-Christian homosexuals out there, and who can blame them, but I'm equally sure there are homosexuals who love the Church and would prefer to see her and her spokespeople behave with more love, respect, and compassion. What CWFA has done here is blame the victims and champion the bigot. In the name of Jesus, of course.

I haven't hammered on this point in a while, but these are the events that convince me Christian organizations are almost entirely anti-Christ in their tactics once they embrace the ethos of American politics. The polarizing, spinning, and demonizing that characterize American politics ought not characterize the Church, but I'm willing to be that only voices on the Left will attempt to hold Kern and CWFA accountable.

Torn Between Two Hopes: The Politics of Race

It's finally happened. Race is front page in the Obama campaign. I admire the way Obama has managed this situation: refusing to disown his pastor and friend while disavowing some of the more extreme statements his pastor has made. Here's the first hope. I want Obama to be president. That requires white America to come to grips with their racism, as subtle as it may be for some. White America is not liking what they're hearing in this story, and except for the radical liberals who wear crocheted ponchos, they're not going to admit that they're racists. Hell, I have a grandson who is mixed race, and I admit to some racism in my own life. It wasn't that long ago that a poor-ish, black man approached me at a gas station late one night, and the first thought I had wasn't "I wonder what he wants"; it was, "I hope I'm not being robbed." I felt bad about it when I realized he just needed to borrow a few dollars, but it didn't make me not have the thought.

I meet with a group of white folks most mornings at a local Starbucks. These are professionals, for the most part, and half are Christian. A couple are retired. Over the past year I've heard the "n" word more than once. I've heard their fears about black folks in reference to church, crime, moving into the neighborhood, and being president. Most of what they say is pretty typical for white suburbia. They don't recognize it as racism. They think they're just making observations. They would never say that white people are more inclined to commit crimes; they would assume that certain individuals are more likely than others, based on character, nurture, and circumstance, to choose criminal behavior. However, they stop making individual assessments when it comes to black people. They would never utter the words "blacks are more inclined to commit crime" or "be on welfare" or "aren't as smart" or any of a dozen other stereotypes, but they believe them.

White America is not going to appreciate being called racist, but we are. We really are. As is black America. As is Hispanic America. Etc. We all have racist tendencies because we find it easier to define and generalize according to negative stereotypes than to get to know individuals. Some of what Obama's pastor said was true, but white America doesn't want to hear it. They want to hear that things are better, and they are, but better isn't necessarily the same as good. They want to hear that America is progressive for putting forward a female and a black candidate for president. This despite a Muslim nation, Pakistan, having a female prime minister nearly twenty years ago, and England having one 25 years ago. Israel, the champions of patriarchy for millenia, had one thirty years ago. White America would have found other reasons for dismissing Obama if this story had never surfaced, but this story allows them to write off Obama as racist while never admitting to our own racism.

In the meantime, the politico is waiting in the wings to take the nomination. She is ready for white America to rise up in anger. She is part of the old guard. She's accomplished exactly nothing in her tenure as senator. She is an old school politician. She is republican lite. Her nomination will almost guarantee a Republican victory because Republicans are too brainwashed to realize that she is one of them in almost every category that matters. (I too would vote for McCain against Hillary though.)

I am hopeful that Obama will be our next President. And I am hopeful that America will be honest about her racism. The first won't happen without the second, but I'm afraid that neither will happen, and race, that synthetic category we all insist is organic, will be the issue that delivers the White House to a Republican, again.

If I had known, you'd have heard from me before now...

The hot, kitsch-hating hairdresser wife told me about Thomas Kinkade doing a painting for Disney. I assumed it was the cheap box wine that made her talk thus. Unfortunately, she wasn't just drug-addled; she was telling the truth. Remember when I made fun of Kinkade for his escapist nonsense? Remember how much shit I got from christians who liked his elysian fields porn? I dare anyone to defend this. Seriously.

No Country for Old Men, or Ecclesiastes in West Texas

Cormac McCarthy fascinates me. But it's a dread fascination. No living writer is as relentlessly despairing, and no living writer whom I've read is as capable of following in the grotesque footsteps of Flannery O'Connor. O'Connor used the grotesque to illustrate our inability to redeem ourselves, but at the end of her novels and stories, even The Violent Bear it Away, there is a sense where redemption is possible. Not so with McCarthy. Where O'Connor was hopelessly ensconced within a Catholic framework that attempts to make an inscrutable God good, McCarthy mixes pagan mythology with the God of the Bible to make God absent, when He's not just plain evil. In his Border Trilogy, McCarthy mixed epic and tragic heroes, the stories of Joseph and Job, and the mythic tales and ethos of the old and middle American West. I was watching No Country for Old Men last night with that as my backdrop.

As soon as the movie was over, the hot Crown-loving hairdresser wife, who was admittedly not operating at full faculty, said, "I have no idea what that was about." She went to bed, and I sat there for another hour thinking about what I'd just seen. It's unusual to see a Coen Brothers movie with no humor, but one can hardly blame them for failing to find humor in McCarthy's bleak landscapes and hopeless characters. One theme runs through all of McCarthy's books: no good deed goes unpunished. While the movie is, on the surface, a meditation on escalating violence in the cross-border drug trade in the 1980's and the growing awareness of old school sherriffs that they will be unable to compete with the relentless and heartless violence spawned by the drug trade, Javier Bardem's character seems to give away something else in his encounter with Woody Harrelson. **Spoiler alert** Just before he kills Harrelson, Bardem asks: "If you follow a rule and the rule has brought you to this point, what good is the rule?" I don't know if that's a line from the novel; I assume it is. If it is, McCarthy seems to be echoing the vanity of vanities from Ecclesiastes.

Bardem is the one character in the movie who manages to accept what comes. Injury? Patch it up, move on. Job? Do it with detached cruelty. Challenge? Find a creative way to destroy the problem. Betrayal? Vengeance, and move on. Loose ends? Tie 'em up. He is singular in his ability to deal with life because he has reached a level of acceptance with whatever comes. Tommy Lee Jones seems to recognize this when he tells the older sherriff that Chiguhr (Bardem's character) is not a lunatic. There is nothing insane about what Chiguhr does, although twice he's told he's crazy. Chiguhr seems to realize that there is nothing to answer for, no purpose in living other than to destroy, and no motivation other than what can be found within, and if that motivation is to live at the expense of others, so be it. In the final encounter with Brolin's wife, she tells him, "You don't have to do this." He smiles and tells her everyone always says that. He is more aware than his victims that he doesn't have to do anything. He does what he wants. Yes, he has a code, but it is a cipher, as is the code McCarthy's God seems to function under. This code is the rule Chiguhr lectured Harrelson about. Evaluate the rule, in the old sense of a way of ordering life, and see where it is taking you. For Harrelson, his rule brought him to a violent, bloody end. Only Chiguhr walks away clean in this movie, and it's because he follows his rule. It's difficult to say Tommy Lee Jones survives, although he does. His utter failure to confront the escalating violence is another form of vanity, as pointed out by his father, and it leaves him looking old, confused, and weak in retirement.

Chiguhr has conquered life, just as surely as he has conquered his enemies. People of faith will insist that there is a reckoning in another life, but that other life has seldom factored into McCarthy's novels. Redemption in another life can't match the suffering that McCarthy finds in this one: that point is painfully clear in The Crossing and The Road (Job and Revelation, if you will). A God who can't deliver his people from suffering in this life, who can't help us overcome Chiguhr, is hardly one worth betting the farm on. A brilliant film, beautifully shot, well-acted, great pacing, and overwhelmingly bleak. But as Ecclesiastes points out, except for that unfortunate emendation at the very end, even goodness is vanity.

Sex, Sex, Sex and Jesus and Relevance and Lifechurch.tv

The hot, movie-loving hairdresser wife and I were watching our ABC affiliate waiting for the Oscars when a teaser (hee hee) came on for a report on the local news following the awards. It was about a church in FL where the pastor had issued a 30-day sex challenge. Now, most of you have seen this by now, so I won't bore you with a recap. (If you haven't, here's the link.) This week I finally learn that Craig Groeschel, lead pastor, head pastor, senior pastor, video pastor, satellite pastor, conference speaker pastor, cat-hating pastor, lives in a half-million dollar home pastor, has a new book out. It's called "Going All the Way." According to the Amazon entry it's about preparing for marriage. You can read all the glowing reviews from such egalitarians as Mark Driscoll and Ed Young on the same page. Anyway, the book title uses and obvious allusion to sex, and the cover image, much like the 30-day sex challenge promo material, shows legs touching. Is that supposed to be sexy? Okay, so here's a quick church/marketing meeting about the promo material.

Pastor: We need something sexy to sell this.
Ad Pastor: What about a couple kissing?
Pastor: No. Too overt. We need the promise of sex without sex, just like church camp.
Ad Pastor: How about a woman in like a teddy with a cross on it?
Pastor: That's kind of icky. How 'bout we just show a handholding shot, just the hands?
Ad Pastor: But that could imply many things, like standing in line for a movie.
Pastor: True. What about legs entwined. You know, like they're worked up but not macking (editor's note: hip word) yet.
Ad Pastor: Perfect.

So it probably didn't go exactly that way, but you get the point. Both these endeavors use the same tactic, and it's one I've been accusing Lifechurch.tv of for a long time: exegete the culture, determine what's selling, package a product that appears to promise what's hot, bait and switch at the point of sale, rattle off the same old tired evangelical nonsense. Here we have two churches who are attempting to use the promise of sex to a younger generation with the intent of selling them sexual ethics that most people in their congregations believe but can't practice. And they believe the sexual ethics because they've been told to believe them, and even when they've been incapable of living them out, they've believed them. When they've been nearly destroyed by guilt, when their relationships become pathological because of guilt, and when they've tried and failed to reform, still they believe.

I have an idea. Why not look at sexual ethics from a variety of lenses: history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and physiology? Why is it that churches insist on only the traditional/literalist lens on this one issue? Is it possible that the Bible isn't meant to be a manual of sexual ethics for a modern woman who doesn't want to marry until she's completed a Master's degree (or who doesn't want to marry)? Is it possible that sexual ethics written from within a patriarchal system where 14 year old brides were married off to 30 year old men isn't the best system to turn to in a contemporary context? Is it possible that sexual ethics wherein the woman is not seen as a full partner in the decision making process is a bad system? Is it possible that someone who seems fairly psychotic in his opinions of women and sex (Paul the apostle) shouldn't be dictating how people have sex? No. That's not possible. Y'all stop having sex. Or, if you're going to, feel bad about it. In the meantime, we have these cool posters...