Monthly Archives: June 2008

Is the Prosperity Gospel Recession Proof?

Posted on by
11

This is another installment in my occassional series on the financial status of the United States.

Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein shares his thoughts on the future of our economy:

This thing's going down, fast and hard. Corporate bankruptcies, bond defaults, bank failures, hedge fund meltdowns and 6 percent unemployment. We're caught in one of those vicious, downward spirals that, once it gets going, is very hard to pull out of.

Pearlstein recently won the Pulitzer, precisely because he predicted that our nation was in financial trouble. And Steve doesn't blame Republicans or Democrats, he blames the American people for living a lifestyle beyond their means.

And in my mind the "prosperity doctrine" is just another byproduct of America's prosperity entitlement mentality. That somehow Americans believe God wants everyone to be rich, and God wants everyone to live a lavish lifestyle. I think we're going to find out real quick that this simply isn't true.

It's also one of the positives I see in this Recession. The curtain is being pulled back on the prosperity gospel, and more and more people are recognizing it for the fraud that it is. And perhaps people will stop going to church to learn how to be rich, but instead will start attending church to learn about the Love and Grace of God. 

Calling out the Dobson

Posted on by
5

I know some readers of this blog tire of my fawning over Obama. And I get it. So, I tried all week to ignore this story, but um, my beautiful black hero is calling out one of our whack-job Evangelical Leaders. And I can't resist. So bear with me.

Recently, in a speech on Christianity, Obama had this to say:

"And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles now. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."

So Obama basically implores people to actually read their Bible, and in turn, pokes at James Dobson.  To which, the Dobson responds:

"I think [Obama is] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,"

Really? Obama is the one interpreting the Bible to fit a crazed idealogy? This what I believe we mean, when we say, the pot is calling the kettle black.

And in today's Washington Post, George Bush's former Deputy Assistant, Peter Wehner, writes a rather nice defense of Obama:

If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity. In this instance, Dobson didn't. He has set back his cause and made some of us who are evangelicals and conservatives wince.

Yeah well, I've been wincing about Dobson for years. Ever since he went from Focus on the Family, to Focus on James Dobson.  So yeah, chalk this up as another reason, I'm voting for Obama. He annoys the Dobson.

Do Hard Things

Posted on by
28

I just want to comment quickly on this Willamette Week article that I briefly mentioned last week.

The Harris twins are the sons of Homeschooling Godfather, Gregg Harris. And Mr. Harris has his sons traveling around the United States, speaking at conventions and challenging young Christian teens to, in their words, Do Hard Things. And these hard things are basically the standard Christian requirements: no sex, no drugs, no rock & roll. 

The author of the WW article has this insightful quote:

It certainly fits with the twins’ message of “rebellion against rebellion”: the idea that evangelical teenagers can change the world, so long as they do not challenge a commanding adult authority that protects them from that world.

Heh. So true.

And look, I was homeschooled for six years. And the only thing hard about homeschooling is trying to find something to do that will fill your day.  Home-schooling is mind-numbingly boring. 

I actually learned quite a bit while home-schooled, but dear God, what I wouldn't have given for a friend that wasn't my mother.  And now at the age of 30, I frequently find myself holding lengthy conversations with myself while at work. Something I picked up home-schooling.  At a yong age my brother Jesse, who was also homeschooled, developed a close relationship with an imaginary friend named Bobby. You won't be surprised to hear that Jesse still keeps in touch with Bobby. Seriously, homeschooling will keep you safe from drugs sex and rock-roll, and it will also turn you into a complete and utter social retard.

Christians really need to get over their insecurity and fear of the world. They're missing a lot.

Anyway, I challenge you to read the whole article. It's actually quite good.

The Shack

Posted on by
26

Please read this book.

If for no other reason, then it appears to be truly upsetting a lot of pastors across the U.S.

Update:

Great article in yesterday's New York Times about The Shack and it's author. My favorite part:

Sales have been fueled partly by a whiff of controversy. Some conservative Christian leaders and bloggers have attacked “The Shack” as heresy. The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, devoted most of a radio show to the book, calling it “deeply troubling” and asserting that it undermined orthodox Christianity. Others have said the book’s approach to theology is too breezy to be taken seriously.

Here's a good general rule of thumb: If someone in authority tells you NOT to read a book, go ahead, pick it up and read it for yourself.  You'll be a better person for it.

Joshua Generation Project

Posted on by
9

This isn't too surprising, but Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama is aggressively courting the Christian Vote.

This month, the Illinois senator held a closed-door meeting in Chicago with almost 40 Christian leaders, including evangelical heavyweights such as the Rev. Franklin Graham, publishing magnate Steve Strang and megachurch pastor Bishop T.D. Jakes.

And specifically, Obama is targeting young Christians though an effort his campaign calls the Josha Generation Project.

Obama's campaign is also launching a grass-roots effort, tentatively called Joshua Generation, with plans to hold concerts and house meetings targeted at young evangelicals and Catholics.

Color me unimpressed. The name "Joshua Generation" feels completely patronizing and cliche.

And look, I'm voting for Obama because I think he will be a competent leader.  I think he will get our troops out of Iraq. And I think he will eliminate the government corruption that has marked that last eight years of President Bush.  But I'm not voting for him because he is a Christian. I'm not looking for another Christian President. We already had one of those, and the guy was an unmitigated disaster.

I just want someone who can make this country work again. If Obama wants to talk about his Faith. Great. But this Joshua Generation feels like Obama hired some former Evangelical Youth Pastors and asked them how to reach young Christians.  Meh.  I expect better.

“Homeschool Royalty”

Posted on by
24

I'm too busy to write much, but there is a great article in the always entertaining Willamette Week about a teen conference put on by homeschoolers Alex and Brett Harris.  For those who spent any time in church, Alex and Brett are the younger brothers of Josh Harris who wrote, "I kissed dating goodbye".

You can say what you want about the content of what the Harris's preach, but uh, those are some ambitious genes in that family.

(Thanks to the readers who linked to this.)

People are leaving in spades

Posted on by
17

A reader writes:

Have you guys heard/written anything about Living Hope Fellowship in Aloha, Oregon? The place is ripe with unreal, unbelievable religious abuse and inconsistencies. The pastor is a graduate of PBC and a proud member of MFI. Interestingly enough, he left MFI years ago and referred to the organization as "The Firm".
 
Now he subscribes to the same thinking and the bizarre happenings at that church could fill a book. The pastors have allowed their kids to take over and run the church, their theology is bizzare, they have covered up major sexual indiscretions, but defamed others for not paying their tithes consistently and the list goes on.
 
Just curious as I've not seen anything written on them and I cannot imagine there aren't scores of bitter ex-LHF'ers. Right now, people are leaving in spades.
 
Take care. You guys are awesome.

I'm posting this email for two reasons.

One, the writer called us awesome.

Two, the sentence "people are leaving in spades".

Sometimes I feel that readers of this blog consider themselves victims. And while I admit some people truly are vicitms of their church, the vast majority are only vicitms, because they never had the courage to leave the congregation. No one forces you to attend church.  You are always free to leave.

Now, I grew up in the church. So I understand the emotional ties one creates with the pastor and congregation. But when that emotion changes from a feeling of belonging to one of anger and bitterness, then you just need to leave. And you need to stop blaming others for your failure to act.

*Editors note: I do not verify the accuracy of the statements made in the letter above.

When tradition nullifies the word of God

Posted on by
14

In the thread Do long sermons make men hate church, the following exchange has taken place:

Sam: If every believer present in the assembly of the saints can NOT stand and speak under the Spirit’s leading (1 Corinthians 14:26), then there’s a ‘house rule / tradition’ in the way.

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. (1 Corinthians 14:26 NIV)

Help Me Understand: What house rules are you talking about? … Will we let everyone that wants to stand up and testify go ahead and do that? Is that what you suggest? Maybe they use 1 Cor 14:40 as a guide, ever thought of that?

But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. (1 Corinthians 14:40 NIV)

The exchange points up something that has long bothered me about how scripture is interpreted, where occasionally believers will use one verse of scripture to nullify another. First Corinthians 14:26 is clear about how the assembly of the saints is supposed to work together – each one coming to the assembly with something to offer for the edification of all … a word of prophecy, a tongue, an interpretation, a hymn – all orchestrated beautifully by the Holy Spirit who is the source of the life and inspiration and spiritual gifts entrusted to the saints.

More often than not however, the freedom accorded the saints by the Holy Spirit and scripture, to share openly (courteously and lovingly) in the assembly has been sacrificed on the altar of liturgical "orderliness", wherein only the pastor and his (or her) handpicked supporters with rehearsed and pre-approved messages are allowed to speak, while the congregation watches in silence, according to the house rules (or traditions established by the local church). If the ALL the saints aren't allowed to share in the assembly, without audition, pre-approval, etc., then clearly there are "house rules" (traditions) that have been put in place to nullify what scripture plainly teaches.

About such traditions, Jesus said to the Pharisees and teachers of the law:

Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that. (Mark 7:13 NIV)

I'm not sure which bothers me more, the practice of using one scripture (1 Corinthians 14:40) to nullify or severely limit another (1 Corinthians 14:26), or the deceitfulness of man in suggesting that the perfect logos word of God contains within itself contradictory scriptures, which when paired, cancel one another out, leaving man to do whatever he wants to do.

The clever lie in using one scripture to nullify another, is that it is NOT really scripture canceling scripture, but man's INTERPRETATION of one scripture (1 Corinthians 14:40) is used to cancel what is clearly the Father's will for the assembly (1 Corinthians 14:26) of the saints. In so doing, men blame God for their tradition of silencing the saints.

In the example above, it is clear that 1 Corinthians 14:40 serves as an expectation for how 1 Corinthians 14:26 should be carried out. Unfortunately, the practice of most institutional churches I'm familiar with, use the former to nullify the latter. 

Surely the saints are meant to come to a considered and mature interpretation of scripture concerning how they all work together to form the perfect word of instruction, rather than seek ways to cancel those passages of scripture that are contrary to the traditions of men.

Sam

Poking fun at the Prosperity Gospel

Posted on by
15

Here's a fun article from a columnist in Michigan, mocking televanglists and their "prosperity gospel".

It's not a gospel you'll find after Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. It isn't tucked in near Revelation. You won't find it anywhere in the Bible. The basic idea is that God will grant financial and spiritual wealth to the faithful. What a deal. Just really, really, really believe and take the rewards to the bank.

After all, doesn't God help those who help themselves? No, wait. That's not in the Bible. Benjamin Franklin said that, and while he accomplished a lot, I don't think Franklin contributed anything to the Scriptures.

So far, the prosperity gospel seems to work well for the televangelists who are cashing in on all the stuff they sell and the Social Security checks little old ladies are donating to their churches. I'm not sure how prosperous the donors are getting.

Good point. You'd think after over 10 years of practicing the prosperity gospel, the members of City Bible church would all be filthy rich and overwhelmingly happy. But uh, you know, I think they're all pretty much living the same lives they were living a decade ago. And there's nothing wrong with that. But if you're not getting rich, then you've just spent the last 10 years of your life, listening to one boring repetitive sermon after another.

I keep remembering what Jesus told that rich guy: "Sell everything you have and give the proceeds to the poor. Then follow me." The rich guy declined.

The prosperity preachers apparently don't include that story in their sermons.

They don't. They also don't include the verse about camels going through needles. But then, the prosperity gospel isn't about the Bible. It's about the pastors preaching it.

Whatev. I really just enjoy the fact that the mainstream media is picking up on the "prosperity doctrine" and pretty much coming to the same conclusion that we all did four years ago. The prosperity doctrine is a sham. And a mockery. It's a smamockery!

Do long sermons make men hate church?

Posted on by
50

Multnomah School of the Bible's student newspaper The Voice interviews author David Murrow, asking why men don't attend church.

the Voice: How can preaching be improved to attract men to church?

Murrow: Make it shorter. One of the main complaints that men have with church is that the sermons are long and boring. The average parable of Jesus takes 38 seconds to preach. Why does it take a preacher 30 minutes or an hour?

And then the other thing you can do is use a strong visual or object-lesson component every time you enter the pulpit. When Jesus taught, he often used a prop, like a coin or a sheep or some wheat. We need to recover visual preaching because that's what Jesus did.

Is there anything in the structure and organization of the service that could be improved to appeal to men?

Men like a service that is vertical-focused, focused more on God. A lot of churches have a horizontal focus, where the focus is on the people; people stand up and share prayer requests, for example. Men usually hate that.

If your worship service reflects "God is my buddy," then you're going to attract more women. If your God is a little more remote, absolute, powerful and mighty, then you are going to attract more men.

What style would appeal to men?

The focus on a mission. One hundred years ago, preachers talked about our mission. Today they talk about a personal relationship with Jesus. If that's the punch line of the gospel, then you're going to have more women than men responding because women are all about relationships.

How does church music affect men?

We used to have hymns, which were pretty well-suited to the masculine heart; they talked about battle and blood and victory. Today we have praise and worship choruses, which I call "Jesus is my boyfriend music." We use words that no man would dare say to another, and yet we ask men every week to express their love to God using these very romantic words.

How can churches change?

It's a long process. You have to disciple your men first. But once thy have roots, then you can start offering them ministries oriented toward their tastes.

What should churches do to make boys grow up to love going to church?

We really start losing boys in Sunday school. The behaviors we value in Sunday school are sit still, listen, memorize and verbalize. The verbal centers of a girl's brain mature about 18 months ahead of those of a boy's. So if we have a highly verbal, reading, memorize-type Sunday school, who is going to do better? The way you retain boys in Sunday school is you give them a chance to win, to perform as well as the girls.

I am a big believer in making church shorter. This is primarily because I am an impatient person, but also, because I rarely listened to a long sermon that I thought couldn't have been covered in 15 minutes.  I used to say a silent prayer of thanks every morning for Children's church, because the only reason Pastor Frank wouldn't go long some Sunday's was so that the four-year-olds in Childrens church wouldn't go crazy and take over the place.

(Thanks Suzanne)