The Church has always been marked (and marred) by divisions. It is just the way things go when you bring strong-willed human beings together. We have disagreed on the place of free-will as it interacts with God's sovereignty, the meaning of communion, how baptisms are to be performed, when (if ever) Christ is coming back, if people will be magically taken into the air with only their clothes remaining in a heap, how the Church is to relate to the state, what place human works have in salvation, the nature of Christ as deity... and the list goes on. People even disagree on the nature of how important these issues are in the believer's every day life. As long as there is sin there will be disagreements. On this side of eternity we will not all reach consensus on every issue.
In the last hundred years the Church has argued over each of these issues in some form or another. But we have entered into a new argument that has never been so compelling as it has been in this latest century. The question is in regards to the place of theology in the life of the believer, especially in contrast to how one lives their life. The argument is broken down into two camps: Orthodoxy (right thinking) and Orthopraxi (right living). The issue here is what comes first in the life of the Christian, is it knowledge or action?
Traditionally the orthopraxi view has been held by the liberal church as it emerged in the late 19th, early 20th century. The goal was to save Christianity from itself by removing the need for the supernatural elements of the faith and making it more modern and post-Darwin-rationalism friendly. Christianity was less of a faith than a morality code. Miracles and supernatural claims were down-graded to morality stories about living a better life on earth. Is Jesus God? Was He born of a virgin? Did Jonah really get eaten by a giant sea creature? Did the sea really split at Moses' command? It doesn't matter. What matters is the lessons the Bible is trying to teach, i.e. live a good life, treat others as you would want to be treated, practice charity, etc. What mattered for the liberal church was how you lived. Whether Jesus was your Lord and Savior in whom you placed your faith as the substitution for the punishment you deserved for sin really didn't matter. A Christian was someone who looked to Christ as their moral teacher.
This viewpoint has endured. More than a few Church leaders at least flirt with this view, if not entirely embracing it (McKlaren more or less, Bell although he refuses to actually commit to anything this is the obvious end to his theological statements, Frank Shaeffer, et al). And because their writings are so popular many people follow them and give new life to a movement that more or less got stamped out after World War Two (its hard to believe in the potential goodness of man after seeing six millions Jews killed, not to mention Stalin killing millions of his own people, the Raping of Nankin, the firebombing of Dresden, or the US dropping two atomic bombs).
Orthodoxy tells us that right thinking must inform right action. What one believes about Christ is the most important issue in any individuals life. Orthodoxy holds to all the supernatural elements, including eternity. Eternity is one of the most important issues. Each Christian is conscious of their eternal destination as a place either of eternal communion with God or eternal separation from Him. You can be a very kind person, give your money to charity, adopt pets from the shelter, eat only free-range chicken, vote at every election, and never touch alcohol but that has no impact on your eternity. All people have sinned, this sin separates each individual from the Holy God who can have no part with sin. In God's economy there must be a punishment for sin. Jesus came to take that punishment. If you believe that He died for your sins and rose again conquering sin and death and confess Him as Lord you are saved. All the right actions in the world don't make you a Christian. Belief in Christ makes you a Christian. All the goodness that may follow after this confession of faith does not make an individual any more or less of a Christian. Rather that goodness is a rightful response to the Holy God who has given us everything, and the outworking of the Holy Spirit inside of us who transforms us into the character of God. First you must believe, right living must flow from that belief.
I, along with the historical Church, accept the orthodox perspective as the Biblical and correct approach to the life of faith. This is what has informed the stance that pastors are meant to be guardians of the gate rather than ambassadors. First we must be certain that our congregation knows what it means to be Christian, and allow that to inform the way they live their lives.
Because of this view we are to love the teaching of Scripture (at the risk of seeming pretentious I'd like to call this "theology"), teach them, ands defend them. How this makes us look is secondary to our job to protect the Gospel from being watered down or compromised. But this is always to be done in the loving spirit of the Gospel, informed by who Christ is, not by our own ambitions or desires. We cannot forget Christ.
This is a warning I was reminded of as I heard a sermon preached on Revelation 2. At the beginning of Revelation 2 Jesus is delivering a letter to the Ephesian church. Jesus praise and congratulates them for their steadfastness in identifying and removing false teachers and remaining steadfast in the truth. These were people who knew their theology, how to identify those who are wrong, and how to endure in their faith and not be led astray. These are people who would have agreed with my last essay, and this one, wholeheartedly; and that causes me to pause. Because in the next sentence Jesus calls them out because, even as they were doing all those things they made one huge mistake, they forgot their first love. They defended and held to their theological convictions but forgot about Jesus whom they had loved and who loved them. This was such an intense mistake that Jesus was prepared to dismiss them entirely. Because they were theologians without heart they were no use to the Kingdom and were in danger of being more of a harm then help.
Its hard to argue that the church heeded this warning. The church is now a sub-group, an underground movement that exists in defiance of their government, hardly the influential church it was then. I worry that my emphasis on right thinking might encourage people to become heartless theologians who know all the right answers but none of that knowledge affects the way they live, the way they interact with people, the way they pray, the way they look at a sunset, the way they read their Bibles, the way they look at a new born baby, or their spouse. Theology can bring us closer to Christ, it can encourage and strengthen us. It can inform our prayer lives, inspire us to share the Gospel, move our hearts during worship, etc. But we must test ourselves. Is our pursuit of right thinking an end in and of itself? Or does it come from a heart to draw closer to the God of the universe who has created us and desires to be in communion with us? Theology without heart is a dangerous thing. Theology that begins with and is informed by Christ, who He is and what He has done for us, can change the world.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Guardians of the Gate or Ambassadors to the Nations?
When discussing the influence and ministry of pastors with other Christians the critique I often hear of Church leaders is that they are too quick to cause division and give critique. It is not the place of pastors, they claim (either directly or through inference), to denounce others or speak against them. Pastors should be bringing together, rather than tearing apart.
Most recently the issue came up when Rob Bell's new book had its first press release and video advertisement. The video is classic pretentious Bell. I've never been a fan of Bell's as I'm sure he'll never be a fan of mine. The video raises the question of how one gets to Heaven, even saying that the Gospel message that Christ dying for our sins to appease the righteous demand of God for a punishment for sin means that Jesus is saving us from God, and how poorly that reflects on the Father. There is talk of an art show and Gandhi in there, he does his classic hand gestures and long breathy pauses, someone mixes paints, and a camera pans through a room nonsensically.
After the video and press release came out a few evangelical leaders spoke out against it. Some wrote blogs and essays about the danger of what Rob Bell was saying. John Piper sent out a message on his twitter account saying goodbye to Rob Bell (dismissing him from the evangelical world one would assume). Others wrote blog posts and essays in defense of Rob Bell, or at least against those who spoke against him, saying their criticism is premature and we should wait until the book comes out to judge where Rob Bell stands.
The criticism surrounding the criticism is what I find most interesting and is not unique to this one instance. I often hear people criticizing evangelical leaders for being too critical, too quick to speak against those who are theologically against them.
The question these people raise, perhaps without really knowing it is: what is the responsibility of the pastor? Is he the guardian of the gate or is he the the ambassador to the nations? Is he responsible to protect the Church (and his local church) from false teachings, heresies, and all distractions from the Biblical faith or is he supposed to cast the widest net of appeal so as to attract as many people as possible and hurt as few as possible?
The argument would seem to be that our pastors are supposed to be ambassadors. They should make the faith as appealing as possible so as to bring in as many people into the doors of the church as possible and discourage as few people as possible from wanting to leave. When a pastor speaks against another evangelical leader or group or individual he creates divisions. Divisions separate which is the opposite intention of what the church and pastor are supposed to be doing. Churches make fewer and fewer theological distinctions, talk less and less about controversial issues, and never say negative things about anyone because we don't want to offend anyone.
This reflects our postmodern age and proclivities. We need people in the seats, not at home thinking all Christians are narrow minded and judgemental. But there are those (I amongst them) who would argue the opposite. Pastors are not meant to cast the widest net of appeal. They are not ambassadors. They are the guardians of the gate. They are in charge of keeping watch over their flock (believers who are members of their congregation). They are not here to make Christianity look cool (because its not cool!). They are hear to guide and instruct people in righteousness and Biblical living. The pastor's job is to provide right teaching and declare false teaching as such. If a person is teaching against the Scriptures, leading people away from Godliness, profaning the name of God, it is the pastor's primary job to tell his congregation and teach them why its wrong. If a man is claiming to be an evangelical while teaching things that go against Scripture the pastor should be the first to denounce that man's teachings and teach the truth. The pastor's job is to protect his flock from heresy and guide towards truth, whatever the consequences. So if Rob Bell even hints at the idea of universalism (that all people go to heaven-or at least all "good" people-regardless of their faith in Christ) then pastors should be putting their people on notice to at least be on guard about that, if not outrightly saying he's wrong. If they don't they are neglecting their responsibilities and are a disservice to the Church rather than a help.
Some people claim this kind of thinking makes the Church look bad, and maybe at times it does (especially done with an arrogant heart). But I am convinced that if we didn't do it than we look even worse. We become hypocrites who have no foundation at all. If we claim to believe in the truth as revealed in Scripture and build our lives upon that and then someone shows up and says something that contradicts Scripture and we accept it we look wishy-washy and spineless. If we say "Christ says that 'no one comes to the Father except through me'" but then turn around and say "and you can also come to Him by living a good life, feeling guilty sometimes about sinning, giving some money to the poor, etc." We are foundationless. We have no appeal at all.
One of the things we forget, I think, is how theology has been formed. Theology was not formed in a vacuum or by council (despite what the revered historian*Dan Brown says). The development of theology (at least up into the 1800s) came from a defensive stance. Theology was formed from division-division from heresy. Orthodoxy was always assumed until someone came and taught a heresy that forced the Church to put orthodox teaching on the subject into writing. Hence the Church having many documents titled "Against [some heretic]". Theology has always been reactive. The Reformation was a reaction to the Roman Catholic Church's many theological errors. Luther wrote many documents against those he viewed as wrong and teaching against Scripture.
Is this always pretty? No! Do we want division for divisions sake? Not at all. Sometimes these divisions are done in pride, sometimes in anger. I'm not saying they are always great. I am saying that we should know our heritage and understand that when men are teaching against Scripture it has been the Church's role to stand up and speak against it. If we do not we validate it with silence.
The issue at stake is the souls of men and women. There is nothing more important than that. If people don't want to come to church because we are correctly handling Scripture I can live with that. If they are attracted to our churches because we look like the world and never make a stand against anything and never bring about eternal change in anyones' lives I can't live with that. We are working to bring people to understand the amazing love that Christ has for us, that saves us from the dominating effect of sin in our lives. The consequence of failing in this end, the cost of allowing people to be misled while we stand silent is beyond dire.
The pastoral office is always to be held with humility and gentleness. Confrontation is not to be sought out or desired. People who build us haystack towers so that they can knock them back to the ground and set them on fire are quite dangerous. Creating controversy from nothing is neither Biblical nor wise. It is in fact contrary to Christian character. But that does not mean we shy away from confrontation, either. We proclaim and defend the truth. The cost is too high not to. Heresies must be called out and corrected, never tolerated.
Pastors are meant to guard the gate, protecting the sheep from the wolves outside. If there is a wolf trying to break through he is fought off, if we find a wolf within the gates he is to be quickly removed. To do anything less would be to abandon one's duties for the favor of man.
*he says snarkily.
Most recently the issue came up when Rob Bell's new book had its first press release and video advertisement. The video is classic pretentious Bell. I've never been a fan of Bell's as I'm sure he'll never be a fan of mine. The video raises the question of how one gets to Heaven, even saying that the Gospel message that Christ dying for our sins to appease the righteous demand of God for a punishment for sin means that Jesus is saving us from God, and how poorly that reflects on the Father. There is talk of an art show and Gandhi in there, he does his classic hand gestures and long breathy pauses, someone mixes paints, and a camera pans through a room nonsensically.
After the video and press release came out a few evangelical leaders spoke out against it. Some wrote blogs and essays about the danger of what Rob Bell was saying. John Piper sent out a message on his twitter account saying goodbye to Rob Bell (dismissing him from the evangelical world one would assume). Others wrote blog posts and essays in defense of Rob Bell, or at least against those who spoke against him, saying their criticism is premature and we should wait until the book comes out to judge where Rob Bell stands.
The criticism surrounding the criticism is what I find most interesting and is not unique to this one instance. I often hear people criticizing evangelical leaders for being too critical, too quick to speak against those who are theologically against them.
The question these people raise, perhaps without really knowing it is: what is the responsibility of the pastor? Is he the guardian of the gate or is he the the ambassador to the nations? Is he responsible to protect the Church (and his local church) from false teachings, heresies, and all distractions from the Biblical faith or is he supposed to cast the widest net of appeal so as to attract as many people as possible and hurt as few as possible?
The argument would seem to be that our pastors are supposed to be ambassadors. They should make the faith as appealing as possible so as to bring in as many people into the doors of the church as possible and discourage as few people as possible from wanting to leave. When a pastor speaks against another evangelical leader or group or individual he creates divisions. Divisions separate which is the opposite intention of what the church and pastor are supposed to be doing. Churches make fewer and fewer theological distinctions, talk less and less about controversial issues, and never say negative things about anyone because we don't want to offend anyone.
This reflects our postmodern age and proclivities. We need people in the seats, not at home thinking all Christians are narrow minded and judgemental. But there are those (I amongst them) who would argue the opposite. Pastors are not meant to cast the widest net of appeal. They are not ambassadors. They are the guardians of the gate. They are in charge of keeping watch over their flock (believers who are members of their congregation). They are not here to make Christianity look cool (because its not cool!). They are hear to guide and instruct people in righteousness and Biblical living. The pastor's job is to provide right teaching and declare false teaching as such. If a person is teaching against the Scriptures, leading people away from Godliness, profaning the name of God, it is the pastor's primary job to tell his congregation and teach them why its wrong. If a man is claiming to be an evangelical while teaching things that go against Scripture the pastor should be the first to denounce that man's teachings and teach the truth. The pastor's job is to protect his flock from heresy and guide towards truth, whatever the consequences. So if Rob Bell even hints at the idea of universalism (that all people go to heaven-or at least all "good" people-regardless of their faith in Christ) then pastors should be putting their people on notice to at least be on guard about that, if not outrightly saying he's wrong. If they don't they are neglecting their responsibilities and are a disservice to the Church rather than a help.
Some people claim this kind of thinking makes the Church look bad, and maybe at times it does (especially done with an arrogant heart). But I am convinced that if we didn't do it than we look even worse. We become hypocrites who have no foundation at all. If we claim to believe in the truth as revealed in Scripture and build our lives upon that and then someone shows up and says something that contradicts Scripture and we accept it we look wishy-washy and spineless. If we say "Christ says that 'no one comes to the Father except through me'" but then turn around and say "and you can also come to Him by living a good life, feeling guilty sometimes about sinning, giving some money to the poor, etc." We are foundationless. We have no appeal at all.
One of the things we forget, I think, is how theology has been formed. Theology was not formed in a vacuum or by council (despite what the revered historian*Dan Brown says). The development of theology (at least up into the 1800s) came from a defensive stance. Theology was formed from division-division from heresy. Orthodoxy was always assumed until someone came and taught a heresy that forced the Church to put orthodox teaching on the subject into writing. Hence the Church having many documents titled "Against [some heretic]". Theology has always been reactive. The Reformation was a reaction to the Roman Catholic Church's many theological errors. Luther wrote many documents against those he viewed as wrong and teaching against Scripture.
Is this always pretty? No! Do we want division for divisions sake? Not at all. Sometimes these divisions are done in pride, sometimes in anger. I'm not saying they are always great. I am saying that we should know our heritage and understand that when men are teaching against Scripture it has been the Church's role to stand up and speak against it. If we do not we validate it with silence.
The issue at stake is the souls of men and women. There is nothing more important than that. If people don't want to come to church because we are correctly handling Scripture I can live with that. If they are attracted to our churches because we look like the world and never make a stand against anything and never bring about eternal change in anyones' lives I can't live with that. We are working to bring people to understand the amazing love that Christ has for us, that saves us from the dominating effect of sin in our lives. The consequence of failing in this end, the cost of allowing people to be misled while we stand silent is beyond dire.
The pastoral office is always to be held with humility and gentleness. Confrontation is not to be sought out or desired. People who build us haystack towers so that they can knock them back to the ground and set them on fire are quite dangerous. Creating controversy from nothing is neither Biblical nor wise. It is in fact contrary to Christian character. But that does not mean we shy away from confrontation, either. We proclaim and defend the truth. The cost is too high not to. Heresies must be called out and corrected, never tolerated.
Pastors are meant to guard the gate, protecting the sheep from the wolves outside. If there is a wolf trying to break through he is fought off, if we find a wolf within the gates he is to be quickly removed. To do anything less would be to abandon one's duties for the favor of man.
*he says snarkily.
Friday, January 7, 2011
The Madman and Ravi Zacharias
We have created the narrative of a world where God is not necessary, where we live by our own standards and disregard as tyrants those who would call us to something different, even if that different thing is for our betterment. We have left the building of towers to heaven to the ancients and instead tried to bring God down to ourselves, where we removed His crown, placed it upon our own heads and spent the rest of our lives staring at ourselves in the mirror.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
A Moment with Pastor Bonhoeffer Part 1
When the Puritans wanted to know if their community was in right relationship with God they looked to the harvest. If the harvest for the community was plentiful they knew that they had lived in a pleasing way before the Lord. If the harvest was bad then they knew that at least one individual in the community was living in unrepentant sin. This being the case they would collect the people of the community into the church where the pastor would preach a sermon known as a Jeremiad*. Named after the "weeping prophet" Jeremiah of the Old Testament who was famous for calling the people of Israel to repent with great emotion, Jeremiads were sermons designed to call the congregation back to a right relationship with Jesus and repentance from sin that was dominating their lives.
The basic assumption of this practice was quite simple. If Jesus is happy with us then he will reward us in the exact manner and timing that we expect. If we do not get the thing we want/desire/suppose we need in our exact timing then He must be mad at us and if that is the case then we must repent in dust and ashes so that His wrath doesn't fall on us. If Jesus likes you He gives you things. If He doesn't then He is withholding.
The practice came from, what I am convinced is, a poor theological framework. Nowhere in Scripture is the idea expressed that prosperity is designed for those with whom the Lord is happy. I can't think of any Bible believing Christian who would explicitly say that the Puritans were right in their thinking. Most would say that they were quite wrong. One can point to the Egyptian nation who defied God and still enjoyed centuries of prosperity, while a man like Job could live a life pleasing before God and have everything taken away from him. The way the Lord works is beyond our comprehension that the reasons for events beyond our ability to categorize. No one would deny this. And yet I still find myself and others guilty of the fallacy of the Puritans.
When things are going well I rarely consider how my life and choices are impacting God, whether He is content or disappointed. When things are bad I immediately retreat to the notion that I am being punished for some great sin. In essence this is line of thinking is more in line with the Prosperity Gospel than Biblical Evangelicalism. The thinking is that if I live well I will be rewarded, if I live poorly I will be punished. This isn't Biblical Christianity. The Lord lets the sun shine on the just and unjust alike. His ways are unknowable. Why things happen the way they do is beyond our ability to comprehend. All I can do in the good times and the bad is know that the Lord is God, nothing is out of His control and all things work out for the good of those who love Him. But what that "good" looks like might not be what I expect.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer addressed this very issue when he was writing to the Confessing Church pastors who were fighting against the Nazi takeover of the German Church and nation. They were beginning to get discouraged wondering if they had been wrong by choosing the path they had. By this time pastors were being imprisoned and some had even been murdered. The dark times were just beginning and their was no light in sight. This brought them to an existential crisis where they asked themselves "what if we were wrong? Why hasn't God delivered us yet?" In a letter to these pastors Bonhoeffer spoke powerfully to this issue:
The basic assumption of this practice was quite simple. If Jesus is happy with us then he will reward us in the exact manner and timing that we expect. If we do not get the thing we want/desire/suppose we need in our exact timing then He must be mad at us and if that is the case then we must repent in dust and ashes so that His wrath doesn't fall on us. If Jesus likes you He gives you things. If He doesn't then He is withholding.
The practice came from, what I am convinced is, a poor theological framework. Nowhere in Scripture is the idea expressed that prosperity is designed for those with whom the Lord is happy. I can't think of any Bible believing Christian who would explicitly say that the Puritans were right in their thinking. Most would say that they were quite wrong. One can point to the Egyptian nation who defied God and still enjoyed centuries of prosperity, while a man like Job could live a life pleasing before God and have everything taken away from him. The way the Lord works is beyond our comprehension that the reasons for events beyond our ability to categorize. No one would deny this. And yet I still find myself and others guilty of the fallacy of the Puritans.
When things are going well I rarely consider how my life and choices are impacting God, whether He is content or disappointed. When things are bad I immediately retreat to the notion that I am being punished for some great sin. In essence this is line of thinking is more in line with the Prosperity Gospel than Biblical Evangelicalism. The thinking is that if I live well I will be rewarded, if I live poorly I will be punished. This isn't Biblical Christianity. The Lord lets the sun shine on the just and unjust alike. His ways are unknowable. Why things happen the way they do is beyond our ability to comprehend. All I can do in the good times and the bad is know that the Lord is God, nothing is out of His control and all things work out for the good of those who love Him. But what that "good" looks like might not be what I expect.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer addressed this very issue when he was writing to the Confessing Church pastors who were fighting against the Nazi takeover of the German Church and nation. They were beginning to get discouraged wondering if they had been wrong by choosing the path they had. By this time pastors were being imprisoned and some had even been murdered. The dark times were just beginning and their was no light in sight. This brought them to an existential crisis where they asked themselves "what if we were wrong? Why hasn't God delivered us yet?" In a letter to these pastors Bonhoeffer spoke powerfully to this issue:
"We then speak as though we no longer had 'a proper joy and certainty' about this way, still worse, as though God and and His Word were no longer as clearly present with us as they used to be. In all this we are ultimately trying to get round what the New Testament calls 'patience' and 'testing.' Paul, at any rate, did not begin to reflect whether his way was the right one when opposition and suffering threatened, nor did Luther. They were both quite certain and glad that they should remain disciples and followers of their Lord. Dear Brethren, our real trouble is not doubt about the way upon which we have set out, but our failure to be patient, to keep quiet. We still cannot imagine that today God really doesn't want anything new from us, but simply prove us in the old way. That is too petty, too monotonous, too undemanding for us. And we simply cannot be content with the fact that God's cause is not always the successful one, that we really could be 'unsuccessful'; and yet be on the right road. But this is where we find out whether we have begun in faith or in a burst of enthusiasm."
The Christian's life is not validated by his success in this life. One's faith is not proven by the condition of his life. The Christian finds his identity in Christ, his worth and value is found in the fact that Jesus took the punishment for his sins and died for him that he might spend eternity with Christ. Faith in Christ who died for man on the cross is what makes a man a Christian. He is eternally sealed to Him forever. Nothing can shake or break that. Life gets hard. We will find ourselves in times of plenty and in times of want. But God remains constant. He is the one who united us to Himself and He will not let us go. A change has to be made in our own minds (my own mind!) where circumstances do not dictate the quality of our relationship with God, but simply provide an opportunity for that relationship to be strengthened. Those who desire faith will be given it, but often with tears. We know the Lord is content with us because He is content with the work Christ has done. We live lives seeking to honor Him as a rightful response, in love, for what He has done. Joys and difficulties are not meant to reflect our relationship with Christ, but to strengthen it. The secret is to endure, never quit, and continue hoping in the Lord, come what may.
*Out of this tradition we get Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Spirit of Christmas
I don't think Bill Maher and I would be buddies. Maybe we would? I make a mean fried chicken. Maybe he'd be into that. But I'm not really a fan of his. I am always interested in people who are so avidly against what I believe in, part of me feels obligated to understand their position if I am ever going to hope they will understand mine. But I find it even hard to understand where he comes from at times. In practice I see him being guilty of a lot of the things he accuses Christians of being (arrogant close-mindedness as an example). But I have to admit that I agree with him on this (warning: foul language):
I could expand on this topic more I think I will let it speak for itself for now. While I'm not against having material possessions I think we're heading in a dangerous direction. Having things is not bad, but finding our identity in them and being driven by a constant desire for more is incredibly dangerous. Its a very strange new form of gluttony.
I could expand on this topic more I think I will let it speak for itself for now. While I'm not against having material possessions I think we're heading in a dangerous direction. Having things is not bad, but finding our identity in them and being driven by a constant desire for more is incredibly dangerous. Its a very strange new form of gluttony.
The Gloves Come Off
My last essay discussed how inadequately stocked Christian book stores are these days when it comes to books that are of any consequence. Because Bible covers were occupying the space that was meant for history books I came down at least moderately hard on those Bible covers. Over the last week I had conversations with a few different people about whether or not I was too hard on Bible book stores or not hard enough. I felt I was gentle while also making my point plain. No need to hurt any one's feelings. I felt that way, that is, until I went to the Bible book store again this morning to get my last Christmas present. Then I found this:
I no longer feel a need to be nice. This is either the saddest or funniest thing in the Christian book store, I can't decide. Well that's not totally fair, this is merely indicative of many products that Christian book stores are peddling. Every single brand that exists, from Adidas to the Republican party has Christian parody propaganda replicating their appearance. I'm pretty sure this is up there as the most ridiculous though. "I have an idea: lets cover peoples' beautifully leather bound, golden edged book that's contain the very words of God Himself, His main revelation of Himself to humanity, and put it in a really tacky case that is a semi-clever riff on a video game that was incredibly popular two years ago and has since decreased in significance in the culture, that will make us look relevant to society."
I hope I don't hurt any one's feelings with this, but its a frustrating thing. When I think of the creators of this product I can only think of two possible things that could be going on in their minds when they came up with this idea. One option is they think this is a really good idea and they are incredibly proud of the work they have done. If this is the case, which is a scary proposition, then we should not be buying this kind of product because we owe it to them to save them from themselves. When I was a kid I played basketball. I wasn't the most terrible thing in the world but I wasn't that good. Add to that that I was short then and am as an adult only 5'5" and you have the clear makings of a boy who had the potential to be anything he wanted, just not a basketball player. There was no sense in hoping that I was gonna make a career, or even really a hobby, out of basketball. I wasn't going to be Bugsy Malone. My parents were nice to me about it, but they made it clear that I should focus on hobbies I was better suited for, like sitting and reading, or theater, stuff that didn't require height. Did it hurt my little feelings? Absolutely! Were they right? I don't think anyone in all of human history has been more right about anything. If my parents had tried to encourage me on then the end result would have only been hurt, disappointment and embarrassment. We need to do for these people what my parents did for me: stop encouraging them because they are going in the wrong direction. This kind of thing needs to stop, and it will only stop when we stop giving them our money for making ridiculous products. I can only do so much people! I need your help. Stop buying silly knock-offs of pop culture products. Only then will they stop being made, and maybe when that happens something clever will take its place, something that has some artistic and real spiritual merit. Stop the madness before it goes any further.
The other option for what these creators are thinking is far more sinister and I hope its not true, but I fear it is. People make products like this because they think we're stupid. They have no respect for us. They don't think we want or desire anything with more artistic or aesthetic appeal because they don't think we'll appreciate it. They figure we'll be happy with the manipulation of a popular icon, justify its existence with a vague verse then display it. Job done. We'll just buy stuff because its Christian. We should demand more from the things we buy. Its not my place to decide whether or not people who make these products are Christians. But I can say that its an easy market to tap into. You don't have to come up with anything original, just "Christianize" items in pop culture then take a long lunch. When I saw this Bible cover my first thought was "man, they really think we're idiots." The people who make this kind of thing should have more respect for us. We should demand more respect.
I don't really understand Bible covers to begin with. So I'm probably not the market for this. But it confuses me to no end that these kinds of things even exist. And I'm sure if they are in the store they are in the real world. Which means someone is walking around carrying their Bible in one of these cases. And as they do people are giving them strange looks and asking themselves "how long has it been since Guitar Hero and Rock Band were even cool?"
I no longer feel a need to be nice. This is either the saddest or funniest thing in the Christian book store, I can't decide. Well that's not totally fair, this is merely indicative of many products that Christian book stores are peddling. Every single brand that exists, from Adidas to the Republican party has Christian parody propaganda replicating their appearance. I'm pretty sure this is up there as the most ridiculous though. "I have an idea: lets cover peoples' beautifully leather bound, golden edged book that's contain the very words of God Himself, His main revelation of Himself to humanity, and put it in a really tacky case that is a semi-clever riff on a video game that was incredibly popular two years ago and has since decreased in significance in the culture, that will make us look relevant to society."
I hope I don't hurt any one's feelings with this, but its a frustrating thing. When I think of the creators of this product I can only think of two possible things that could be going on in their minds when they came up with this idea. One option is they think this is a really good idea and they are incredibly proud of the work they have done. If this is the case, which is a scary proposition, then we should not be buying this kind of product because we owe it to them to save them from themselves. When I was a kid I played basketball. I wasn't the most terrible thing in the world but I wasn't that good. Add to that that I was short then and am as an adult only 5'5" and you have the clear makings of a boy who had the potential to be anything he wanted, just not a basketball player. There was no sense in hoping that I was gonna make a career, or even really a hobby, out of basketball. I wasn't going to be Bugsy Malone. My parents were nice to me about it, but they made it clear that I should focus on hobbies I was better suited for, like sitting and reading, or theater, stuff that didn't require height. Did it hurt my little feelings? Absolutely! Were they right? I don't think anyone in all of human history has been more right about anything. If my parents had tried to encourage me on then the end result would have only been hurt, disappointment and embarrassment. We need to do for these people what my parents did for me: stop encouraging them because they are going in the wrong direction. This kind of thing needs to stop, and it will only stop when we stop giving them our money for making ridiculous products. I can only do so much people! I need your help. Stop buying silly knock-offs of pop culture products. Only then will they stop being made, and maybe when that happens something clever will take its place, something that has some artistic and real spiritual merit. Stop the madness before it goes any further.
The other option for what these creators are thinking is far more sinister and I hope its not true, but I fear it is. People make products like this because they think we're stupid. They have no respect for us. They don't think we want or desire anything with more artistic or aesthetic appeal because they don't think we'll appreciate it. They figure we'll be happy with the manipulation of a popular icon, justify its existence with a vague verse then display it. Job done. We'll just buy stuff because its Christian. We should demand more from the things we buy. Its not my place to decide whether or not people who make these products are Christians. But I can say that its an easy market to tap into. You don't have to come up with anything original, just "Christianize" items in pop culture then take a long lunch. When I saw this Bible cover my first thought was "man, they really think we're idiots." The people who make this kind of thing should have more respect for us. We should demand more respect.
I don't really understand Bible covers to begin with. So I'm probably not the market for this. But it confuses me to no end that these kinds of things even exist. And I'm sure if they are in the store they are in the real world. Which means someone is walking around carrying their Bible in one of these cases. And as they do people are giving them strange looks and asking themselves "how long has it been since Guitar Hero and Rock Band were even cool?"
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Loving History (or "Why We Should Be Very Very Afraid")
I admit I watch The Daily Show because it is hilarious, and because I think Jon Stewart is one of the most interesting comedians/tv personalities working today, carrying an influence, reputation and charm that may one day be compared only second to Johnny Carson himself. This is all conjecture, but I'm nearly positive I am right. But that is not the main reason I watch The Daily Show. I watch it to support it. When you watch a tv show or movie, buy an artist's album, see a play, or purchase a book at Borders you're essentially voting for that thing you're purchasing-validating its existence, requesting that the creator continues making similar product, and calling for those in the business of that medium to continue making more products in the same vain. I watch The Daily Show because I support (at least in part-never in whole) what it represents, at least in my mind. That being the repopularization of intellectualism. For all the things that I don't fully agree with, the prospect that a show like this can bring people back to analytical thinking, appreciation for high ideas, and learning (especially when lacking the motivation that a school provides) is something to support. I believe this is a great thing to fight for, because in the age of reality tv and politicians taking off their ties and wearing flannel to tell us "I'm just like you... I did go to Harvard and I own a controlling interest in a major league baseball team... but I'm still just like you" intellectualism is taking a nose dive.
The popular conscience has not been penetrated yet, but this is a start. We seem to revel in not knowing, in gut reaction over informed decision. Being cool is more important than being informed. Comfort and safety is a more worthy pursuit than knowledge.
This really only started bothering me the other day when I was at a local Christian book store looking for a good present for a friend. After I found a good book for him I began doing what I always do in book stores: mining every isle to see what books there were, which ones I wanted to read, which ones I could only ask why it would exist. And I found this:
The popular conscience has not been penetrated yet, but this is a start. We seem to revel in not knowing, in gut reaction over informed decision. Being cool is more important than being informed. Comfort and safety is a more worthy pursuit than knowledge.
This really only started bothering me the other day when I was at a local Christian book store looking for a good present for a friend. After I found a good book for him I began doing what I always do in book stores: mining every isle to see what books there were, which ones I wanted to read, which ones I could only ask why it would exist. And I found this:
This picture* is take in the section marked "history." One would assume that in the section reserved for history books there would be books on Church history. This is not a barren area in the world of the written word. There are thousands of volumes on the topic. Even personally I have enough books on Church history to fill this single five shelfed section. But instead of there being any books on great leaders of the Church, or on the progression of theological ideas, or on the progress of the Church from the post-apostolic age to neo-evangelicalism there are a bunch of Bible covers. Bible covers! There was not one history book. My problem with Bible covers? They are nice and all (the butterfly on the cover seems pleasant, especially if it is intended to represent the transformation of the believer in Christ, rather than because they are pretty) but they aren't essential. Knowledge of history is essential.
I understand supply and demand. I know that if people were buying Church history books people would be selling them (they are writing them, they just aren't being marketed). I don't totally blame the store. But when I looked around the store I didn't find much to encourage me. The theology section is only a little more improved, but each of those books is written by authors who are still living, no sense of history there. Now, what books were well stocked and selling? The fiction section was huge with not one Bible cover to be found. Wall to wall there were books with girls with bonnets on covers. Those covers that were bonnetless were decorated in lightning bolts, dark clouds, or anything else that makes you think "This looks like a book Stephen King would write if he were a Christian." Funny enough, the fiction section, with all its books about people living on the prairie is the closest the whole place came to anything resembling history. I suppose I should be grateful and less snarky about that.
Full disclosure, I was a Church history major in college. So clearly I am biased to the subject. But arguing that more people should be aware of Church history doesn't benefit me in any way-actually one can make the argument that it hurts me, if people would just read a few books on Church history (even skim them), they would know as much as I would and all my anecdotes would be undercut-I see no more money in my pocket. My ramen noodles won't taste better. I want people to read history because I believe that its important. The old idiom that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it is entirely true. We need history, we need to learn from it, otherwise we're going to be a broken record, never progressing, always repeating the same beats.
People don't understand why I don't trust Rob Bell. Most think I'm close minded or something clever like that, I've been accused of not having progressive enough thinking, being afraid of change. One guy tried to argue that I was too modern. I'm glad he said it because I hadn't laughed enough that day until then. After that I met my quota. Why don't I trust him? Because historically every "controvertial" thing he has said was also said by liberal theologians and pastors BACK IN THE 1920'S!!! How progressive can anyone be if their statements are more or less retreadings of arguments made 90 years ago? These liberal theologians and pastors were debunked and argued against all that time ago. Their whole theological framework was abandoned to be repackaged several more times over the last century. The claims he makes, the ideas he "introduced" were also made by men who, long before any of us were born, separated themselves from evangelicalism and if they didn't evangelical theologians and pastors were showing them the door. Now the same ideas are back again. "Yeah, but he does say some really encouraging things, and stuff that makes me think." One, I'm not sure thats worth the damage he does, two, I haven't found one thing he's said that is constructive that Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Moody, Schaeffer, Lewis, Spurgeon, or Bonhoeffer et al hasn't said (much less what is found in Scripture itself), and hasn't said it better.
Through reading about Church history, and reading works written by major figures I have learned so much that I fail to have to space to describe it all here. But I will certainly try to at least give an idea:
- Martin Luther taught me to deal with guilt when I was drowning in it. He helped me to further understand what it means to find my identity in Christ, not in my own actions or how anyone else saw me.
- Kierkegaard taught me to work through melancholy, the beauty of the individual, the dangers of a cultural religion, and the dangers of disregarding the importance of the Church.
- When John Wesley was sailing to England he encountered a severe storm that caused him to fear for his life. When he noticed a group of believers who showed no fear of death he was shocked. After they had arrived safely he asked them why they were not afraid. They responded that they saw no reason to be afraid of death, they were going to heaven. This group of people were called the Morovians. This is one of my favorite stories in church history. Why should a believer fear death? Amazing.
- Studying the persecuted Church brought me to greater appreciation for every right I enjoy now.
- Hearing about men and women willingly facing death because they refused to deny Christ forces me to ask why I am not more bold.
These are just a few examples. There are plenty more stories I could tell (DL Moody giving up his financially successful job to work with street kids to the point where he was out of money and sleeping on chairs in the closet of the YMCA comes to mind) to show how valuable history is. We have the opportunity to learn from men and women who have lived before us, saving ourselves the trouble and pain that they went through. As well as being encouraged and taught by them. That is essentially what the poem "The Weight of Glory" was trying to communicate.
If we don't study history we rob ourselves of its benefits. We cheat ourselves. We shouldn't knowingly allow that to happen. We have a rich heritage, and a wealth of knowledge at our disposal, but instead of trying to tap into that we're doing everything we can to make sure our Bibles look at pretty as possible. What a shame.
*I was about to apologize for the quality of the photo taken by my camera phone, then I realized how crazy it was to begin with that I could take a picture with my phone, send it to my email and then place it on this blog. Who cares that the quality isn't 1080i thats still pretty crazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)