I was thinking more about the whole “being a radical” thing. I am obviously fairly conventional in many ways, yet simply being a Christian is a radical departure from American cultural norms from the beginning.
So much of the religion of Christianity has capitulated to the culture – and here the conservatives are as much if not more guilty of this than are the liberals (at least in the West and most notably in America) . Part of the difference between the two equally guilty parties is that the conservatives are often blind to the capitulation or which parts of the culture they have given themselves to – frankly, what often happens is they take a culture norm and sanctify it and call it God’s will, like free-market economics for example. Certainly nothing wrong with free-market economics, but it certain isn’t the dictate of God that this is His divine plan or will for humankind. From my experience, at least liberals don’t make any excuses for being like the surrounding culture. Speaking of excuses, what I like about many conservatives is their honesty about their sense of personal, cultural, ethnic, economic, or “systems” superiority – you know where you stand. My experience suggests that liberals have a hard time admitting to their own sense of superiority, like conservatives have a hard time admitting to their own capitulation to the culture.
Anyway, with even a cursory reading of the New Testament, one can’t come away without realizing that the way Jesus calls us to life and to live is very contrary to the prevailing cultural – religious and secular. Jesus calls us to a peculiar life, a radical departure from the norm. This is the way it is, unless we simply want to justify ourselves and our ways of living.
We are to be in the world, but not of it. We are to let our example be a light to help a lost world find its way, but if our lives simple blend into the context of everything else then there is no distinction, no difference, no different light to recognize and follow. This is why it is so tragic when the Church, Christians, and the religion become indistinguishable from the prevailing culture. We would rather trust the culture than the Way of Christ. Understandable, perhaps, due to fear and insecurity, but lamentable all the same.
Live a radical life, for the sake of the world and the people in it.
Category Archives: faith
“Prosperity Gospel – Word of Faith” Movement
Caron, who commented on the “Prosperity Gospel” in a post from yesterday, added a link to the website of Justin Peters who conducts seminars on the “Word of Faith” movement, which encompasses the prosperity teaching. I think he does a decent job in his overview. I particularly like his differentiation between those in the “Word of Faith/Prosperity Gospel” movement and mindful Charismatics. Peters is a Southern Baptist, and generally speaking Southern Baptists are not too keen on things Charismatic/Pentecostal. Certainly, not all Charismatics or Pentecostals subscribe to the “Word of Faith/Prosperity Gospel.”
Here is the link to Justin Peter’s website. Click on “Watch a demo of Justin’s Seminar” to see a video of a presentation he gave as an overview of his seminar.
As I said below, we need to recognize the influence these groups have on Anglican thought and practice in Africa and other parts of the world. This theological and experiential perspective predominates within much of the explosive growth of Christianity in Africa. While African Anglicanism may be of this one kind of expression of Charismatic-Evangelicalism, they cannot but be influenced by the phenomena and its influence on the general culture within the different nations of Africa.
Ordinary Radicals: We Will Not Comply
Believe it or not, there has always be a “radical” streak in me. Early on when doing campus ministry right out of college, the pastor of the church through which I did ministry, a friend, would always tell me that I’m rebellious.
I like this:
I particularly like the, “With the theology of empire… We will not comply.” I made a post a while back that I will not subscribe as an American to Empire, even while those leaders in the present government and ideology are bent on attempting to create an American Empire.
The Ordinary Radicals
Merging Lanes
I Once Was Lost
CT has a review of a new book that describes ways of engaging in evangelism with young, post-moderns. The book is entitled, “Once Was Lost: What Postmodern Skeptics Taught Us About Their Path to Jesus” by Don Everts and Doug Schaupp (don’t know who they are??).
A quote from the CT review: “Everts and Schaupp’s thesis is this: Postmoderns respond best to evangelists who allow for and encourage a process… The label postmodern is held loosely, meant simply to describe ‘how things are right now,’ rather than to conform to a technical definition.”
When I was doing campus ministry work among European students, particularly Germans, the one thing that distinguished the attitudes of German/European students from Americans was their insistence on truly working through and understanding the decision to become a Christian. Sometimes, a person may be in a ministry for a couple years and actively engaged, but would not describe him/herself as a Christ. That was okay with the leadership, because they knew that when the student did make a decision, it was real and would probably be life-long. They went through a process, and I think the patience with and trust of the process was very good.
It was very frustrating to many American students that come to Germany because they were used to call for and expecting decisions to “accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior” right then and there. Just get them to say the prayer, and everything will be okay. As anyone who has been involved in evangelism and discipleship of American college students can tell you, the spur of the moment decision to follow Jesus often means seed falling on rocky or thorny soil. They go no where, and in the end often think that their experience IS the Christ-centered life. The experience is a very deficient form of Christian religion, but little of Christian faith and the Christ centered life.
The process is good! All of life in Christ is a process that never ends – for the good. If the hard won process brings freedom, peace, beauty, joy, then bring it on! That is what makes the life in Christ so intriguing and non-boring (if we allow God to work in us and do in us what is necessary!). There is always something new, always a challenge, always a renewal of things.
This is one reason why I like the approach Anglicanism generally takes (including Anglican-Evangelicalism, but often not the American-Evangelical part of Anglicanism). There is an understanding of and allowance for process and the good that results. (Some people go to far with process, however, by never expecting or calling for decision making, often simply bringing people in the door with nothing happening thereafter.)
When we allow for process, we need to recognize that people in all parts of the process will be with us. This is messy. It doesn’t sit well with the sensibility of Americans who are so now-oriented and desirous of instant-gratification (and self-righteous perfectionism at times). People in the process who haven’t come to the point where they can honestly and with integrity commit their life to Christ, but who are seriously seeking, often don’t act or think like we believe Christians should act or think.
Some people can’t handle this – some expressions of the faith can’t handle it. Anglicans can, and I think this is why we have a lot of people in our midst who are seeking but aren’t there yet. There is an allowance for being wrong, confused, and just not sure. This is one reason, I think, that the Episcopal Church is messy and misunderstood. This is also why, I think, so many people want to look at the Episcopal Church and yell heresy or apostasy or whatever.
I well understand why this kind of messy environment makes people feel a bit insecure, uncomfortable, or fearful. I get caught in that trap, too. I think sometimes I have to defend God, as if I know full well what God thinks and have to protect His wishes against the onslaught of the Enemies of God (which are, who?). How funny. Really, how funny. Anyway, I understand why it is far easier to cast dispersions on people who can’t check off a list of criteria that “proves” their Christianhood, and thus worthy of fellowship with those who are “in,” then to be involved in the struggle, the ambiguity, and the patient seriousness of the process people must go through either on the forefront of the decision or as an after-thought. It is better for the struggle to come before the decision, than after.
I’ve seen too many people who deal with the struggles of the Christians faith afterward and end up having their faith shipwrecked. Christianity isn’t a marketing scheme. It is a transformational process that requires not buying into something (a system), but giving up everything. While we have to hear again and again how evil is the Episcopal Church, I frankly would much rather be around people who are notorious sinners but are honestly curious and desirous of God than those who smugly gloat over being one of the select, the saved, the righteous. (Isn’t that what Jesus did – which might well fall into ideas of orthopraxis.)
I’m glad I’m an Anglican!
N.T. Wright on The Cobert Report
N.T. Wright on The Cobert Report talking about his new book, “Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Church.”
Young Baptist preachers chart different courses
I know that the Episcopal Church and Anglicanism are not the only groups in the midst of controversy, competition, in-fighting, and the like. Most American mainline denominations are pulling themselves apart to one degree or another, not just the Episcopalians. The fight in many of the more conservative or Evangelical churches tend to be around the resulting different emphases and methods between Modernists and Post-modernists.
A couple decades ago, the “conservatives” in the Southern Baptist Convention gained control of the denomination and proceeded to purge the seminaries, colleges, churches, missionaries, and leadership of theological and social “moderates” and especially “liberals.” They succeeded. The Southern Baptists truly become a Fundamentalist denomination, and proudly so. There are groups within the mainline denominations that are trying to do the same kind of thing, although probably not to lead the Churches to Fundamentalism, but at least American-Evangelicalism – back to the “real Faith.”
This is the thing about those who believe that they stand up for and live out the “faith as it has always been” from the very beginning, free of cultural influences and capitulation – the reality is that none of us do! The truth is, and this is the Truth-on-the-Ground, is that few understand what culture does to us and few take the time to learn about how the Church’s understanding of God, its interpretation of Scripture, its sense of how to live godly lives has changed radically! A survey of history will make this assertion obvious. This does not mean that the essence of the faith is any different – God came to us to free us from sin and death and to re-enable relationship and reconciliation between God and Man and between one another.
All that to say that even within the Southern Baptist Convention, which experienced decline in membership and baptisms last year (which should be no surprise, because social-Christianity continues to decline in the U.S.), there are still fights and challenges to what the Faith is and means and how to best live it out. They are certainly not where the Episcopal Church is at, but it is only by degree and time span.
Here is an article entitled, “Young Baptist preachers chart different courses,” about the changes within the Southern Baptist expression of the Faith and controversy that results.
What Religion? Jesus Loves You?
I just came across these YouTube videos be “somegreyguy.”
The first considers what religion might be best to follow. As “somegreyguy” wrote on YouTube, “I’m getting older every day, and therefore closer to being dead, so I’m thinking that maybe it’s time to start sorting out my afterlife.” We hear all the time that when young couples have a baby, suddenly everything changes and there are considerations that they didn’t dwell on before, often resulting in a return to the Church. I wonder how many Baby-Boomer types as they approach the reality of their mortality will begin considering their own state with reference to the “afterlife.” After all, even Ted Turner now has a more positive regard for religion generally and Christianity specifically (and that is certainly a change!).
Here is the first video entitled: “Choosing My Religion”
Now, the second video takes up from the first (it seems). Someone did contact him about a religion to consider, and Christianity was (is) that religion. I sometimes try to put myself into the state of mind and cultural awareness of those who are unchurched or who have had a very negative experience with the Church or Christians. I try to see from the prevailing culture what they may see. This isn’t easy because I grew up within various segments of the Christian sub-culture in the United States (and a little bit in Europe – Germany more specifically and England by default).
This next video, I think, is a good representation of the perception many people have of Christianity in America – really come from the politicized Religious Right form of Evangelical-Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism. For those who actually consider what is being said, I think there is a good bit of perplexity about what is claimed to be true and necessary by Christians and why.
Here is the video, entitled: “Jesus Loves You.”
So, I’m back
Okay, back to real life (for me – for a few, Saltaire is real life!).
Not that I’m any kind of example, because I well know I am not, but what has happened to priests simply being priests? What I mean is this: as I observe the workings and doings and sayings of priests, the question that keeps popping up in my head is this: Why are so many priests being so many other things rather than simply priests? Some priests seem to really want to be social-activists, some therapists, some want to be politicians, et cetera, but what about priests who want to be just priests and be about the “cure of souls?” Too many priests, it seems to me in my observations, are agenda driven – and the agenda is political and social, not really – what? – “spiritual,” religious, restoration of people’s relationship with God (otherwise known as salvation in some parts of the Church), the cure of souls. Could the same be said about lay leaders?
As I listen to and watch other priests, I see the difference. Those priests who are concerned foremost about the souls of people, regardless of their political persuasion or the side they take in the Culture-Wars, have a quality about them, and so do their parishes. Big or small, more conservative or more liberal, there is an aliveness that is all together different than those parishes that are agenda driven, cause du jour obsessed, and not really focused on some of the basics of a Christian life: prayer that is more than reading some sentences, worship that is more then doing some manual acts, loving that extends beyond those who are politically and socially like-minded, preaching that is not vialed dictation on how or what to believe (indoctrination – liberal, conservative, and everything in between), or teaching that is beyond opposition to the war, the evil of same-sex relationships, or why the MDG’s are so essential to being a relevant Christian – all issues that the Church needs to be aware of and address, but not the primary emphasis of the Church or her priests.
Priests I know who seem to want to be priests rather than social-activists or therapists (in the guise of a priest), or some such other thing, seem to be far more effective. They certainly have their opinions political and social, but their cause is not to bring people around to a particular way of thinking, but teaching them how to engage the Source of wisdom and understanding, the Source of love, teaching them how to discern and know God. They teach people to fish, rather than simply giving them fish, so to speak.
That’s just me. I hope to be a priest who really wants to be a priest and be about the cure of souls.
Really open or rather flippant
These are just thoughts. I attended a memorial service/Eucharist yesterday. A non-Episcopalian asked about receiving communion, and I said that the Church teaches that all are welcome at the alter – non-baptized for a blessing and all baptized to receive the bread and wine. This is not on the politically-correct, popular side of things right now in this Church according to some who have been whelmed by “Open Communion.” (Sorry, but I’ve never been a part of the in-crowd that gives into “The Man” of political-correctness. I’ve seen too much and experienced too much hypocrisy in the academy and the Church to be there.)
Anyway, I well understand the desire to radically welcome people. Who doesn’t? Well, some don’t, I know. One of the first things people tell us when they come to St. Paul’s is how welcoming we are, yet communion is reserved for the baptized as the Canons stipulate and the Tradition teaches. If I go to a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Jewish ceremony, I certainly do not expect to be considered just like those who have given themselves wholly to their faith and then ushered into or given their most sacred things. I’m a grown up. I understand things like that, and I respect them for it. I very much appreciate when they explain things to me and I can see in them the excitement or joy that their faith brings them. I am suspicious, however, if I am brought into or given such sacred things and wonder whether they really take their own sacred things very seriously. That’s just me.
Continuing on, here is what came to mind after yesterday’s service. I’ve been hearing and reading a lot about persecuted Christians and Anglicans around the world. Christians are still martyred for their faith in various parts of the world. They are still jailed, beaten, enslaved, deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To say that just anyone can come up and participate in one of the most significant and sacred activities the Church provides – reception of the very body and blood of our Lord – whether they understand what they are doing or not, take it seriously or not, or whether they may be a “notorious sinner” or not is an affront to those who die for being part of such a ritual.
What must those Christians think who have to clandestinely gather together in fear of persecution, who have to take the body and blood of our Lord in secret for fear or reprisal, who dare to own and read Bibles late at night when perhaps no one will notice, or if they confess they believe in Jesus they are disowned at best and killed at worst, what must they think when we “open-minded and liberated Westerners” haphazardly give the most precious and solemn part of the faith to anyone regardless of whether they believe, whether they have examined themselves, all in the name of not making someone FEEL BAD.
This is not “welcoming.” It is pandering. It is about a therapeutic “feel-goodism” that has overwhelmed all other considerations. What if Scripture is true when Paul tells us to examine ourselves before coming to the table, lest we heap condemnation upon ourselves? What if it is right interpretation when we are told to leave our offering aside while we go and reconcile with our neighbor before coming to the table? With “open communion,” one who is unknown to the communion and is full of hate and has little intention of reconciliation can come and take the same body and blood as the person who will die for taking the same . Are we really this self-centered as a nation, as a people, and as a Church? Are we really more concerned about someone perhaps feeling bad than whether they may be heaping condemnation upon themselves for doing something so lightly? We have become juveniles.
I’ve knowingly given communion to the unbaptized for pastoral reasons. I knew them, came to find our they weren’t baptized after the fact, sat down and explained what they were taking upon themselves when they received, and that they should consider baptized. I continued giving them communion during the process, but soon they decided on their own to come to the alter and cross their arms to receive a blessing rather than the body and blood of our Lord. They decided that they wanted to pursue baptism, seriously. And when they received once again after their baptism, they talked about the different and tremendous significance it held for them.
We Americans have lost perspective in so many aspects of life and culture. I think this is due to our cultural isolationism and arrogance, our profound lack of knowledge and understanding of the rest of the world, our never really learning or caring about history, and our hyper-individualistic selfishness. They are right, those that pity us because of our deficient experience and understanding of the God and His provision! They have a right to be angry and disappointed with us because we are so flippant with our Holy sacraments and rites, after they are persecuted and killed for the same which they hold to be so precious.
Polls
I just came across a two interesting polls over at Christianity Today (CT) – their online site. The e-mail updates and information CT sends out regularly include links to the article and a poll. Source.
The First (most recent poll):
Do you sometimes avoid the label “evangelical?”
Yes, because I want to be simply a Christian. – 17%
Yes, because the word suggests I have political/social beliefs I disagree with. – 31%
Yes (other) – 9%
No, I embrace all the connotations of “evangelical.” – 9%
No, it’s a very useful term that describes my faith well. – 23%
No (other) – 8%
I’m not a born-again Christian. – 2%
Total Votes: 651
So far, over 50% answered “Yes” (readers avoid using the term “Evangelical”). It makes me wonder whether the majority of respondents are younger, since they tend to be more apt to read stuff on the Web and since they tend to be more opposed to the policies and tactics of the Religious Right. Since CT is “A Evangelical Magazine of Conviction,” it seems odd that so far a majority of respondents to the poll “sometimes avoid” using the label.
The Second:
Which candidate do you support?
Hillary Clinton – 5%
John McCain – 46%
Barack Obama – 25%
Ron Paul – 15%
Other – 8%
Total Votes: 2288
The Clinton and McCain numbers do not surprise me, but look at Ron Paul! He received 15% of the vote. Considering he was the Libertarian Party candidate during the last presidential election and a Republican candidate this time around, I wonder what is going on. I’m frankly very surprised by that number. Are Evangelicals becoming more Libertarian? Historically, I think it can make sense, but considering the rise of the Religious Right I’m just surprised.