Will Samson

Just When You Thought It Couldn't Get Any Weirder

This just in from the "church is weirder than fiction" department:

Armor of God PJ's

HT: Boing Boing

The Spirit of the Antichrist

I was perusing through some political blogs tonight and I stumbled (thanks to slacktivist) on the website of an old political acquaintance who was lamenting the fact that U.S. Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) called James Dobson "the antichrist."

Let me be clear - I don't think James Dobson is, in fact, the antichrist. But this began some reflection on the word. As you probably know, antichrist only appears four times, all in the pastoral letters of John (1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7). Each time John speaks against those who deny that Christ is the Messiah. But in context of the passages, the evidence of this denial seems to be a lack of love.

In other words, it seems as if John was speaking both to the factual basis of the messiahship of Christ and the need for one to demonstrate that belief with Jesus-like love for others. If this is right, the spirit of the antichrist is seen in those who, in John's words, do not demonstrate that "everyone who loves is born of God and knows God." Rather than some eschatological specter, the antichrist is here today, present in all who do not love others. Even at the time of John's writing he claimed "now many antichrists have come."

Perhaps we would rather think of the antichrist as some future scary person which the faithful will avoid encountering. This lets us off the hook, particularly if we believe we will be a part of that faithful. Yet scripture does not seems to support this notion. Instead there seems to be clear teaching that to believe in Christ is to act like Christ, and not to do so is anti-Christ.

The Folly of Fighting Terrorism

Unless you have been asleep the last two days, or completely away from any form of media, you know that the US and British governments foiled a plot between more than two dozen individuals seeking to blow up flights from Great Britain to the United States. It appears that the plot was quite sophisticated. Terrorists would bring on board undetectable explosive components in liquid form. Those liquids would then be combined with electronic devices smuggled onboard disguised as an iPod or a laptop to make a bomb and cause death and terror. Let me first say I am glad they caught these guys. The loss of life is tragic whenever and wherever it happens, and catching a plot like this before it is enacted is the ideal scenario.

However, there remains a larger concern, which is whether America is engaged in fruitful efforts to end terrorism, particularly when the only weapons we appear to have in our our arsenal are prevention, intelligence gathering and the overt use of force. Will current American policy cause the world to be safer tomorrow than it is today?

As this latest incident points out, prevention can stop some bad things from happening. But it would wrong to believe we can cease all aggression against the United States. In the global, deconstructed world we occupy, terrorism has gone high-tech and entrepreneurial. Organizations like al-Qaeda, while not to be admired, are nonetheless incredibly sophisticated in their drive to harm. Prevention may stop most of their planned actions, but any given country, including the United States or Great Britain, cannot stop all such plots.

Further, current efforts to prevent terror do not seem to deal with the larger issue of why an individual or a group would want to harm us. How has America's past actions caused others to seek our pain and humiliation? And, if we focus on prevention to the neglect of these restorative questions, do we stand any chance of success in our desire to prevent future global terrorism? The closest we might come to halting all planned violence against this country would be to invoke complete totalitarian control; to become as feared as the terrorists. I pray we find that to be an unacceptable alternative.

This points to the second concern, which is the ineffective nature of intelligence gathering for those who do not wish to stoop to the level of the terrorists. Sadly, not all in our government share this ethic. There are those who believe, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, that extremism in the pursuit of information is no vice. For them, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Extraordinary Rendition are necessary evils. Even this week the Bush Administration aggressively sought to ensure that the United States can continue to engage in humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, in opposition to the Geneva Convention and the majority view of the world's non-totalitarian nations. And while torturing prisoners in an effort to gain information may foil a plot today, it does not address the fact that torture seems to exponentially multiply the number of terrorists facing our direction tomorrow.

The notion that persecution and bad treatment creates stronger adherents is not a new concept. Tertullian is famously quoted as saying that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." So, if torture and martyrdom caused the early Church to phenomenally expand, what do we think it will do to al-Qaeda? Do they believe any less in their vision of the world than those early Christians? Or, to contemporize the example, are terrorist cell members any less dedicated to their worldview than Chinese Christians, a group that seems to grow in direct proportion to its poor treatment? Inflicting terror on those from whom we hope to gather information with which to combat terrorism is a fool's errand and it is helping to shape the next generation of extremists. Guantanamo is the recruiting poster for tomorrow's plane bomber.

Which highlights the problem with the third tool in our arsenal, the overt use of power. As David Wilcox notes in his song No Far Away, "resentment doesn't die with the dead." Because of our unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in opposition to more than 200 years of stated American foreign policy, at least 50,000 Iraqi citizens have died. When people tell me that the terror threat for America is greater today than it was five years ago, the kindest response I can muster is this: What did you think was going to happen? In Middle Eastern culture, where honor is imbedded in the DNA, did you think that we could kill someone's father and not have their son want to kill us? Did you think that we could blow up a village and not have mourning family members ask how they might avenge the painful loss of loved ones?

I am not suggesting that we recklessly ignore terrorism. It is an important function of our government to help keep us safe. I am instead pointing out the bad investment we have been making with our current efforts. Our current policies are not making the world safer for me or my family. We have spent billions of dollars in "security" in ways that have helped the recruiting efforts of those who want to blow me up. When will the American people say, "Enough!"?

So, you might ask, "What is the answer? If our current means of combating terrorism is creating more terrorists, what is our hope? I'm glad you asked that question. Some of us follow in a long line of people that have been seeking to influence culture to act in ways that are in harmony with the God of the Universe. We believe that this God was revealed in the person and work of Jesus, and that conversion means bringing ones thoughts and actions more and more into conformity with this Jesus. Further, we believe, as odd as it might sound, that this is a realistic method of social formation. While it may be overly simplistic to ask, "WWJD?", some of us believe it is possible to collectively live as a group shaped by the teachings and model of Jesus.

What might this look like with relation to the contemporary struggle against terrorism? I'm sure there are many implications, but here is one that comes to mind: we could take responsibility for restoration. As people seeking a Christological sociology, perhaps we could begin to ask about our role as agents of healing. The teachings of Jesus were filled with discussions of the need for whole relationships and the need to think beyond an external analysis. Consider the number of times Jesus uses the "you have heard it said...but I say" paradigm in Matthew. What would the world look like in 20-40 years if Christians in America began to understand that as individuals and as a nation we have played some part in the pain and heartbreak which drives terrorism? The central evil character in the Bible is Satan, whose name means "the accuser." What would the world be like if, instead of joining with those who accuse, we joined with those who took responsibility for peace and justice?

But even if you do not accept the model of Christ as a reasonable means of acting in the world, perhaps you would be willing to apply a basic ROI (return on investment) analysis to current American antiterrorism efforts. Since 2001 we have spent somewhere in the neighborhood of one trillion dollars fighting global terrorism and seeking to make us all safe. How's that working out for you? I certainly do not feel safer. Every time I read the news I become more convinced that we are sliding into a time of unprecedented global violence. Simply analyzed as an investment, we appear to be achieving exactly the opposite effect of our desire.

Preachers, Plagiarizing and Community

Interesting post from Out of Ur entitled: What is driving pastors to plagiarize?.

The post properly identifies a key issue driving the plagiarizing of sermons, which is the celebrity preacher mentality. After the way we train kids in most youth groups, and given the number of consumer choices presented to us in this culture, should it be any surprise that people sit in the pews on Sunday morning and say, "Entertain me, clown."

Something is desperately broken with the Church. We have participated in and helped shape a culture of consumerism. Often it was with pure motives. We wanted to see more people get saved. And so, beginning in earnest in the 1800's, we devised new marketing methods for evangelism. One of the victims of these new methods was the theology of community. In order to gain more adherents, preachers downplayed the need to be responsible, accountable members of faith communities (who wants to be dragged down with all that depressing "accountability" stuff?) and instead overemphasized individual salvation. People came to believe that they could simply accede to a particular belief, i.e. "asking Jesus into your heart," without ever having to worry about being a part of "those who were being saved".

There's is just one flaw with this way of thinking - it is difficult to find many examples of this in the Bible. It is simply not the gospel, or at least not all of it. Other than the thief on the cross, I am not aware of any examples of community-free salvation in scripture. Big problem for someone in this culture whose job it is to speak from that book.

Have you ever actually read the Bible? There is some scandalous stuff in there, and not just from the words of Jesus. Paul prayed that the Christians in Rome would "live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus." Peter asked the Church to "maintain constant love for one another." The entire thrust of the New Testament is the creation of a people who are being saved. Not exactly the kind of outcome one would expect from the predominant way we organize as the people of God in this culture.

Fast forward 150-200 years from that first wave of evangelists and we see the effect of individualism in our culture. Compare, for example, the phrases "Jesus wants me for a sunshine" with "You deserve a break today." While the Church has not been the only actor in shaping the culture in this way, I would contend that the Church has been one of the most significant. Ever wonder why the chief salespeople at many companies are called the corporate "evangelist?" At the very least we must ask why the Church has been unwilling to speak against individualism and consumerism.

Today, we have people who realize they have a multitude of choices regarding religious dialogue. We have preachers marginalized by an agenda-driven reading of the text, but still desperate to have those pews filled in the morning. Finally, as members of this culture and having grown up in churches without accountable community, the preachers themselves have little responsibility for connection with others, including having someone who will check their honesty. In this context, why should plagiarism be any surprise at all?

The Church and Postmodern Culture Project

My good friend Geoff Holsclaw is coordinating a great new project entitled, The Church and Postmodern Culture. Check it out.

Thoughts About Mel

I have held off until now writing about the Mel Gibson fiasco because it has been so well-covered. Few in the media or the blogosphere have rushed to embrace Gibson after his hateful spew while being arrested for driving under the influence. However, few in the Church have questioned his actions. I have been compelled by the relative silence of the Church, so here are my thoughts. Hopefully they can get some conversation going.

First, let me say that I thought The Passion of the Christ was a good film. I did not see it as the anti-semitic harangue many perceived it to be at the time of its release. I thought it was well-done art. I went to see it twice.

It should not have been, however, a $400 million film. It was an art film. It told one part of the story of the life of Christ in graphic detail. It was beautifully shot, well acted and deserved critical acclaim. Under normal circumstances it would have had the level of box office receipts that one would expect for an independent film with religious subject matter. As most of you know, what made Passion such a blockbuster was the Christian marketing campaign. Churches rented buses to take people to see the film. There were study guides and companion books. There were high-priced media consultants. Everyone in the Church wanted to promote this film.

There was, as you may recall, just one problem - the film had been made by Mel Gibson. Yeah, that Mel Gibson. Mad Max. The crazy guy from Payback. The chain-smoking, butt-kicking actor who slept around in virtually every film. The contemporary, Evangelical American Church would never have gone to see a film made by that guy. It was not enough that it was a film worth watching. In order to sell it big, they had to create a new back story for this guy; they needed to turn him into a 21st Century evangelical. So the previously mentioned media consultants went to work. Stories were leaked about Gibson's family life and his devotion to his wife. We learned about how much he gave to charity and how well he knew the Bible. By the time they were done reshaping Gibson's public image he was the next Billy Graham. That is at the root of today's problem.

It seems to me that the Church was willing to overlook certain concerns because they thought they had a star on their hands, in both Gibson and in the film. Neither have panned out too well. Despite record receipts at the box office, few have converted to the way of Christ because of this film. Perhaps that is because following Jesus is always relational? Perhaps we have ceded the way of the cross to an industrial model of efficiency that is foreign to the gospel itself?

However, of greater concern is how we are to respond to Gibson himself. Perhaps if we hadn't put him on a pedestal, his fall would not be so far?

Stephen Colbert Teaches Sunday School

Hovind Redux

A friend commented on my posting of the story below related to the downfall of Kent Hovind. I was originally going to answer in the comments but my answer grew so long I decided to make it a post.

First, I am never happy when a well-known Christian figure gets caught in a corruption scandal. Even if he is not well known to you, Kent Hovind has been giving the Church a bad name in the scientific community for years. If the Church interprets the gospel for this culture, than what does the public arrest of a gun-toting, tax-evading crazy guy say about the call of Christ? Kent Hovind is a bad person who has abused the Church for personal gain. For the purity of the gospel and for the maintenance of a civil society, it is good that he was caught. But it is never good when something like this happens.

However, this is not to say that his teaching is not destructive in and of itself. I have seen the degenerative power of this guy's work firsthand. A small group at a church where I ministered got caught up with Kent Hovind. After that (and even though I was the teaching pastor at the Church) I was accused of being, in their words, "not faithful enough" to scripture because I did not accept Hovind's version of creationism. Lisa was thought of as uncommitted because, even though she tended to accepts Hovind's view, she didn't really care to argue about it. Rather than the doctrine of creation being an idea which draws people together, under this guys teaching it became a way to separate followers of Jesus.

Contemporarily, the bulk of what is done in the name of Creationism is an obsession with two chapters of the first book out of 66 holy books which together form the canon by which Christians seek to live. Creationists tend to accept a particular view of Genesis 1 & 2 and then they flit through the rest of scripture seeking "evidence" that supports their view. This is bad logic and even worse theology, and it makes for weak adherents. That highlights the destructive nature of so much of what is being done in the name of creationism. The only false obsession that bests the Church's fascination with creationism is eschatology, that doctrine that has skyrocketed Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins into the ranks of the mega-wealthy. (Hmmm, is there a parallel here?)

The bulk of the American Church is, it seems to me, overly obsessed with the beginning and the end. In so doing we have financially profited those who write of such subjects. However, given that scripture is predominantly concerned with what happens in the middle, these obsessions have bankrupted the Church. We can observe this in trends in the American Church. There is almost an inverse correlation between the rise in creation studies and the number of people leaving the Church. While I am not necessarily drawing causality between the two, this should at least cause us all to pause and consider what doctrines truly matter and which are peripheral to our faith.

The IRS Makes A Monkey Out of Kent Hovind

If you have been around crazy-crazy fundamentalism long enough, you know the name of creationist and recalcitrant madman Kent Hovind. This is the guy who has  been arrested for violent behavior and made some bizarre and erratic public statements, including the fact that he does not recognize the power of the US Government over him (who needs Romans 13?) in any way, including their ability to tax his income and the income of his ministry. Despite this, he continues to have a following in the Church.

Now, according to this article, the IRS has caught up with him:

A Pensacola evangelist who owns the defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola was arrested Thursday on 58 federal charges, including failing to pay $473,818 in employee-related taxes and making threats against investigators.

Of the 58 charges, 44 were filed against Kent Hovind and his wife, Jo, for evading bank reporting requirements as they withdrew $430,500 from AmSouth Bank between July 20, 2001, and Aug. 9, 2002.

And whatever happened to "render unto Caesar...?" Maybe if that verse had been in Genesis 1 & 2.

The Need for Humility

Don't read ahead on this one - you'll spoil my surprise! Ok, here's a test. Read the following quote and see if you can identify where it came from:

Why do I love Jesus? I love Jesus because he took me out of a life of utter despair, depression, psychotropic drugs, and instilled in me a value of self worth. He took an introvert and made an extrovert. He took a self-loathing individual and gave him self-respect. He took a person with no anchor in life and gave him purpose. He showed me that he needed me...to believe in him. He took a person with a death wish and gave him a zest for life. He took a person that was physically, verbally, and psychologically abused the first eighteen years of his life and taught him how to bear his cross. If it weren’t for Jesus, I wouldn't be here today. That's why I love Jesus.

So, have you guessed it yet? That's right! This quote came from a White Supremacist website, from the "Why we love Jesus" forum. (Link). Here is another quote from the same guy:

White Christian Nationalism is the only thing that will save the White race, its culture, and its government. (Link)

How does a White Supremacist say such flowery things about his faith and still hold to such horrible views on race? This should cause all of us to pause.

I came across this site while I was researching for an upcoming book. It was mentioned in the NY Times this morning in an unrelated story. My first reaction when I see things like this is to be utterly shocked. Nothing about the way of Jesus should allow one to exclude, much less hate, based on any criteria. But I don't share this with you to make a political point.

This guy really believes what he is saying. He is living with a view of the world that allows him to hold such radically inconsistent ideas as love for Jesus and hatred of other races at the same time. While this should repulse us all, it should also humble us. What ideas are we still holding on to because of social conditioning, culture or other factors? What things do we believe that are utterly inconsistent with the call of Christ on our lives?