the parish

Tonight's the Night (with no apologies to the exceptionally crappy Rod Stewart)

Transforming Theology Stuff and Viral Bloggers

Friend Scott (Sally Kern's favorite gay pastor) is involved with a project through Claremont called Transforming Theology. He's reading and reviewing books, posting the results on his blog. The goal of the project is, I believe, to create a network of progressive Christians who think together in hopes of creating an intellectual, progressive, theological conversation. Scott doesn't have category tags working yet, so you'll know the posts that are for the project by the url at the bottom of each. For now he's doing Cobb on Paul. Scott, category tags, my friend...

Meanwhile, both of us have been invited to join Ooze's Viral Bloggers network. Again, we'll be reading and reviewing books with results posted on our personal blogs as well as on the viral bloggers site. Mike at zoecarnate sent the invitation, so thanks to Mike. He's been a friend and supporter of the parish for years, and I always appreciate sincere Christians who can endure my heathenism. I'll be starting with Rebecca Janney's Who Goes There.

Dear Jesus, in Honor of Your Death, I'm Giving up Facebook...for 40 Days.

I offended a friend today. I posted a new status on Facebook after reading a story about Christians giving up Facebook for Lent. Here is what the status said: "Greg is sure that 40 days of no facebook is not equal to carrying a cross up a hill and then being nailed to it. Go Christians!" I admit it's not really nice, but I do think it's funny for a variety of reasons, which I will elaborate on shortly. My friend texted me almost right away and told me to "give up the anti Christian crap." I replied that my status was not anti-Christian; rather, it is anti silly Lent ideas. Turns out she is one of the Christians giving up Facebook for 40 days.

She was offended because she believes Facebook has become an "addiction" in her life. I'm sure many other Christians feel that way as well. She also said she didn't understand why I cared because I'm not a Christian anymore. And lastly she said I'm not the Holy Spirit (decidedly true). Let me address those individually, because I'm pretty sure there are people who agree with her.

If something is an addiction in your life, you may not want to wait 'til the observation of a particular holiday, holy day, or festival to take care of it. Today might be better. Additionally, the idea that giving up an addiction is a Lenten discipline is absurd. Lenten disciplines are supposed to help the believer reflect on the Passion of Jesus, and his subsequent death. Jesus was not sweating off a high, kicking alcohol, dieting, refraining from masturbating, or overcoming obsessive use of social networking sites; he was being tortured and killed as an innocent man. Lenten disciplines are supposed to be about giving up things we love that are not harmful to us. That makes sense, right? (Not that masturbating is harmful—chafing maybe.)

I really don't care anymore. I just thought it was funny that thousands, perhaps millions, of Christians are giving up Facebook for Lent. Facebook. There is a deep and wondrous irony in all those people not realizing how much that cheapens the very thing about which they are supposed to be reflecting. I will always mock defects in ironic comprehension without regard to religious or political affiliation. The irony extends to the idea in the previous paragraph that Lent is a good time to sacrifice our addictions. Wow.

No, I am not the Holy Spirit. My point was to mock something worthy of being mocked, not to confront Christians so that they will give up Starbucks or molesting children instead. Although, the latter is a good idea, and now that Starbucks is intent on convincing us that instant coffee is good...well. I also scratched my head over the overwhelmingly ridiculous idea that the Holy Spirit of God spoke to an individual and said, "My child, give up Facebook for Lent." In the great tradition of Abraham, she should have said, "Lord, can I still check my MySpace if there be ten righteous Christians logged on?" The level of narcissism is staggering, as is the inability of evangelicals to understand why we of no faith think they're being absurd when they do shit like this. It's as if there are times when those of us outside the camp understand something good and true about their faith that they seem oblivious to, and primarily because their faith practice has become so fuckin' therapeutic that they don't understand that they're using the concept of God as some sort of psychological sex toy. (I was going to say "jack off sleeve" but that seemed irreverent and a bit over the top.)

Dear Christians, no, I don't care what you give up for Lent. But if it's so absurd that it makes a sour old skeptic like me raise an eyebrow, I am gonna mock you for it. That seems fair, and I promise not to get my feelings hurt when you mock me. Peace.

Ingrid Schlueter: Credible Source According to Baptist Press

Last month Mark Driscoll received some nationwide media attention in the form of an article in New York Times Magazine. The piece, "Who Would Jesus Smack Down?", addresses Driscoll's willingness to talk about sex in rather risque and even funny ways. It also mentions his penchant for profanity. (He is, after all, the cussing pastor from the relentlessly awful Blue Like Jazz.) Neither of those things bothers me, as you all know. I don't care that Driscoll uses profanity, and I don't care that he's frank about sex. Frankly, evangelicals could use a lot of both and be happier people. Driscoll is a misogynist and a five-point Calvinist, and I'm not sure which of those is worse. In other words, Driscoll is a fascinating, complex, contradictory douchebag. But wait.

Baptist Press ran a story just last week about the article. Before I get into the real issue, I should mention that to protect their increasingly elderly reading public from "naughty" words, BP used the following ellipses: an-l sex and or-l sex. Hmm. Whatever could those ellipses mean? The vowels are a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes w and y. But only "a" seems to fit. What is this strange code? In honor of A-Fo, who loves fake conversations, here is the Baptist Press staff meeting about this article.

Mark Kelly (the writer): So, I have to mention anal and oral sex.
Editor: What did you say?
MK: I have to include anal and oral sex in the article.
E: Uhm...no.
MK: But it's in the New York Times piece.
E: If you do, we'll have to explain it. Southern Baptists don't really know what those things are.
MK: They don't?
E: I don't. 
MK: You're shittin'...uh...kidding me.
E: Yeah, I am, but if we print those words, we'll have to talk about them on the phone, and there will be hundreds of calls from women who haven't had an orgasm, well, shit, ever. And they'll say things like "those words" and our receptionist will have to say "what words?" and they'll get mad and embarrassed and stop supporting us. Or their husbands will call in and pretend they haven't seen that stuff on the internet, and we'll have to pretend they're the stupidest luddite motherfuckers in history, and it will be all awkward. Our receptionist will cry. Can you imagine her having to hear anal, oral, anal, oral all day, like some sort of peep show worker?
MK: Peep show?
E: Never mind. Anyway, we can't print it.
MK: What if we use an ellipsis?
E: What kind?
MK: A dash. Like this (spelling aloud): o, r, dash, l.
E: Brilliant. Do it.

Anyway, that was fun. So, in this article from Baptist Press, they cite the old friend of the parish Ingrid Schlueter, she of the lukewarm spewy web site shenanigans at sliceoflaodicea.com. The article's first citation is too good not print in its entirety, and God bless Mark Driscoll.

On the heels of the New York Times profile, Christian talk show personality Ingrid Schlueter criticized Driscoll for a series of explicit "sex advice" posts on the Mars Hill Church blog -- material appropriate only for married couples but available to any visitor, including children. Schlueter also castigated Driscoll for linking the blog to a website, ChristianNymphos, "which features articles on how a Christian wife can turn herself into a dominatrix, the glories of an-l and or-l sex, and the use of sex toys."

Told ya. I'll let you read the rest of Schlueter's comments. There are many. The real question is, and this is one journalists struggle with, including myself, what constitutes a credible source? I am a blogger with a Master's degree in theology and an undergrad in Biblical Studies. I'm an adjunct professor of composition, philosophy, and humanities. What issues does that qualify me to address as a source? As an ex-Christian, what I have to say about ex-Christians as it relates to theology and leaving the church is probably quotable in a story. Why would anyone use me for a piece about internal church politics? I have an opinion about those things, but I'm hardly a credible source. An interesting one, perhaps. Funny and irreverent at times, but credible? What qualifications does BP think Ingrid possesses, other than an obsessive puritanism straight from a Margaret Atwood novel, that would qualify her to speak on this issue? Are they not aware of the section of her web site tagged "Purpose Driven Madness" and her relentless assault on Rick Warren, one of their own? I might give them credit for using a hostile source, but this is more a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" without realizing that she is also the enemy of the dominant ecclesial model in the SBC and the most high-profile SBC minister in the world. That is not to mention her zeal for judgment, slander, and character assassination. Who the hell calls on the most obnoxious, ignorant, slanted, theologically obtuse, exegetically crippled, mean-spirited fundamentalist of the blogosphere to respond to an article in the New York Times Magazine? Bravo, BP. Too bad you couldn't exhume William Jennings Bryan to make you look more like hayseed fucktards.

It's my understanding that SBC star Ed Stetzer was quick to condemn BP for using a "heresy hunter" like Schlueter as a valid source in one of their articles. Good for you, Ed. Although you should realize Baptist Press has never been one for legitimate editorial standards and practices. They are without question the propaganda arm of the SBC, not a journalistic organization.

"Ahem," God said.

If you've missed the news here in Oklahoma, a friend of ours gave the daily prayer in the Oklahoma House of Representatives this week. Twenty of our Representatives voted not to accept the prayer. You read that correctly. Scott Jones, our friend, is a UCC minister. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Oklahoma. He's single. Loves movies. I don't know if he sings well. We disagree often on books. Oh, he's also gay. I think that last bit is what prompted the vote. Scott Jones moved to Oklahoma City a few years ago after outing himself while a Baptist youth minister. Scott and the good friar Tim invited me to speak at a youth conference several years ago, and I believe that's the first time I met Scott. He was on the verge of making his decision public.

A short while later, Cathedral of Hope here in Oklahoma City needed a pastor. Scott has family in town and it was time to move out of Baptist-land, Texas, anyway, so he applied and was called as CoH's new pastor. Since then, the church has gone through the process of joining the UCC. Scott has become increasingly active in the religious and political communities in Oklahoma City, and recently started writing columns for the Oklahoma Gazette.

For some bizarre reason, the Oklahoma House of Representatives opens each day's session with a prayer. I know. The U.S. House does too, and I'm not happy about that one either. Separation of church and state issues aside, Scott was invited to give the prayer. You should know it wasn't the prayer that outraged the twenty legislators, including the delightfully evil Sally Kern, she who spoke at a recent John Birch Society conference and compared homosexuals to terrorists, with the terrorists winning the "less dangerous" laurel in Sally's less than broad mind. No. The prayer was just a nice prayer. What outraged the morons with whom I share this state was Scott's introduction of his "loving partner." Ah. Damn you, gays! How could you announce your love!? It's not as if heterosexual ministers introduce their spouses...

So, twenty of our state representatives voted to have the prayer stricken from the permanent record. In Heaven, somewhere past Mars and the Milky Way (according to John Hagee), God said, "Ahem." Yeah. Isn't it sort of up to God, this whole accepting the prayer thing? Do we get to decide? Sorry, gay man, God asked me to fill in what with all the poverty, genocide, and war going on, so I've got "smear the queers' prayer" duty. Yours is not getting in. You'll need to finish that Leviticus 18 checklist before you submit any more prayers. 

It's my understanding that several, as many as 17, left the chamber so as not to be counted on the official vote. Don't these people know God knows they were there? The UCC's news service reports on the story too. Also, I've been scouring the House's archives to find the names of the 20. No luck yet. 

File That Under "Evangelical Hubris" or "More Shit I Don't Need"

Rick Warren, the man who will save Rwanda from itself by implementing the ideas in his book that worked great in Saddleback Valley, Cali (which is just like Rwanda), is launching a new magazine: Purpose Driven Connection. No, alas, it's not sexual. According to a press release, the magazine, which launched this week, "offers articles on personal growth, and each issue will include a small-group discussion guide with a DVD offering Warren’s teaching on spiritual growth."

If that's not enough to foment some spiritual chub, try this: "With the collapse of our economy, the tools, resources and experiences we’ve bundled into the ‘Purpose Driven Connection’ are arriving at the exact moment when Americans need them most," Warren said. Umm, yeah. Rick Warren is going to save Americans from the economic crisis. I don't think I need a smartass comment here. The statement is so rich with hubris that it requires no editorializing. I would like to say "what the fuck?!" Seriously. How do you become so deluded that you believe your magazine is going to save Americans from the recession? I realize some marketing fucktards came up with that, but seriously? He didn't get the final say? And if he did, he agreed to that press release? By the way, our worthless daily newspaper in OKC, the Daily Oklahoman, called it a "news release." It still makes me chuckle.

If you're really interested, pop over to the site and sign up for a year. Only $29.99! What a bahgin! Before I forget, the news/press release also offered some encouragement:  "The hollow hope of materialism has left us disappointed, empty and worried, and the economic collapse has created a hunger for a deeper spiritual connection to God and to each other." So, hurry, sign up before you open a vein, drink some whiskey, and listen to Hank, Sr. cds while your life leaks out.

The Whining of Ted Haggard

First let me say that Alexandra Pelosi is a fine documentary filmmaker. I enjoyed Friends of God last year and was eagerly anticipating The Trials of Ted Haggard. Pelosi never seems to condescend to her subjects, and she tends to allow them to paint pictures of themselves. (I'm not naive enough to believe that the editing process has nothing to do with our perception, but I think she's worlds more fair than the bloated, egomaniacal Moore.) About the middle of last week, CJR had a critique of an Associated Press piece that criticized Pelosi for being too kind to Haggard. I think the AP might have gotten it right.

I didn't know what to expect from Pelosi's portrait, but what emerged was a man who was never forced to answer hard questions--kinda like being on Larry King. Haggard spends most of the 45 minutes whining about his lack of qualifications, his mistreatment by the church board, moving his family, money, educational opportunities, church issues, etc. He whines and whines and whines. And at every point where a journalist ought to say, "Tell me again how you got here," Pelosi leaves Haggard to whine a little more or shrug it off with fake aplomb. Ted, it ain't aplomb if you whine about it for ten minutes first. It's false humility. 

The cringe factor is very high in this film because Haggard doesn't emerge so much a broken man worthy of sympathy as a craven man who can't admit that he's gay. Over and over I told the little,  televised likeness, "Admit your gay. Just admit it and move on." Pelosi never seemed to want to have a heart to heart with Haggard about it. There was some time with Haggard and his wife on a walk when Pelosi peppered them with questions, but again, the sharp teeth necessary for journalism were missing. Mrs. Haggard was constantly allowed to intercede for her husband, and both obfuscated about definitions of sexuality. This has been the position all along from the non-evangelical left: of course sexuality is complicated, and because it's complicated, it's very hard to define. Haggard now uses the language of complexity while striving to avoid calling himself bisexual, opting instead for smarmy cliches about the closeness of his marriage relationship.

Haggard takes refuge in the "I was molested so I'm not really gay" story. This is one of the favorite canards of the ex-gay movement, but it fails to take into account gays who were never molested and heterosexuals who become promiscuous due to same-sex molestation. Frankly, molestation of every kind is horrific, but it also doesn't provide an excuse for abberant sexuality, at least not in the Church. It is no more excusable than a child who is beaten turning into an adult who beats his children. One is expected to transcend trauma in the context of redemption, not seek out therapeutic answers as a refuge from personal responsibility.

Also last week Haggard announced through a spokesperson that he had "over-confessed" in his resignation letter. He likened himself to a convict who is pressed to confess doing anything to relieve the pressure and stop the interrogation. In the letter, which is read in the film, he calls himself  "a deceiver and a liar." He says that was too much; he was never those things. Based on what I saw in the film, he still is. One wonders how these things weren't obvious about him before he was caught.