Rick Warren - Again

My church recently completed its lent studies of Rick Warren’s book “The Purpose Driven Life”. In spite of the occasional lapse into a “just so” spirituality and quip theology, I was, in the main, left with a very favorable impression of this book. If there is a single word that encapsulates my reasons for this, that word is “Inclusiveness”. Let me explain.

I have to confess that there has been and still is much mutual discomfort, sometimes bordering on deep repugnance, between evangelical Christianity and myself. Looking back that tension started the day I was converted. There were and are many reasons for this, but one major of cause of this conflict is encapsulated in one word “Exclusiveness”. Rick Warren’s inclusiveness implicitly undermines this exclusiveness and yet he does not stray beyond the traditional doctrinal shape of Christianity.

I can find many examples of Warren’s stealth attack on Christian exclusivism: Here are some examples:

“The most common mistake in worship is seeking an experience rather than seeking God” (P109). “Too many equate being emotionally moved by music as being moved by the Spirit” (P102). “There is no one size fits all approach to worship .... you don’t bring glory to God by trying to be someone he never intended you to be” (P103). “God made introverts and extroverts. He made some people love routine and those who love variety. He made some people thinkers and others feelers. Some people work best when given an individual assignment while others work better with a team” (P245). “Because God loves variety and he wants us to be special, no single gift is given to everyone. Also, no individual receives all the gifts” (P236). “There are no definitions of spiritual gifts given in the Bible, so any definitions are arbitrary and usually represent a denominational bias.” P250. “The Bible is filled with examples of different abilities that God uses for His glory” (P242).

The latter half of the twentieth century witnessed the intellectual impoverishment of large sections of the church. Unable to make sense of the ascendancy of science and reason there was a great Christian escape into various forms of gnostic enlightenment, and this was especially manifest amongst charismatic fellowships. Gnosticism is a general religious phenomenon found in other religions and it is not specifically Christian. Consequently, it skews the personality demographics of churches.

On the other hand Warren’s approach is a much-needed antidote to the spiritual elitism, exclusivism, fideism and authoritarianism that has wracked parts of charismatic Christianity, and in all probability continues to do so today. Warren’s book subtly subverts gnosto-christianity; How is it that Warren can talk about spiritual gifts without any reference to ‘charismatic initiation’? How can he accept that Christians can be filled with the Spirit without speaking in tongues? Should he allow thinking Christians to ‘be in the Spirit’ without embracing some form of fideism? Warren’s vision of the church, as far as I can tell, is big enough to include a variety of personalities types, spiritual gifting, experience, traits and styles. However, many Christains have a high tolerance of inconsistency and incoherence and they achieve this by ignoring or not seeing cognitive anomalies, and so Warren’s book is unlikely to register as a challenge to the gnosto-christian status quo.

Fighting Christians: Again

Further evidence that American evangelicalism is in disarray surfaced this month with a book review in ‘Christianity’. The book reviewed is “Thy Kingdom Come – an evangelical’s lament” by Randall Balmer and the reviewer is John Drane, senior professor at the School of Theology in Fuller Seminary, California. This is what Drane writes:

Fans of James Dobson, Pat Robertson and their ilk will hate this book. Randall Balmer argues that the religious right in America has trivialised the Gospel and made Christains a laughing stock: by campaigning on issues such as homosexuality and intelligent design (aka creationism) they have managed to persuade everyone that the gospel has nothing to say to the struggles of everyday life. In doing so, he believes they have denied the biblically-faithful evangelical heritage espoused by the founding fathers, and have become agents of oppression rather than redemption. ... It offers a stark analysis of what happens when ‘mission’ is reduced to complaint and condemnation....

This book adds to my colossal backlog of books I should be reading. If anyone gets to it before I do, let me know what you think.

Emerging Church: Again

Reachout trust, the Christian ministry to the cults, has weighed in on the Emerging Church debate. In their spring quarterly newsletter they present the first part of a two-part article on Emerging Church. Let me say straight away that Reachout are usually fairly circumspect in their approach, and when they offer criticism it is likely to be after careful consideration of the evidence, Biblical and otherwise, and even then they don’t take their criticisms to automatically condemn a group as sub-Christian. This seems to be the pattern with their consideration of Emerging Church, and their article expresses reservations rather than outright condemnation of EC. For these reasons I usually respect the opinions of Reachout. Reachout’s measured tone would be well emulated by some other so called “discernment ministries”, ministries that consider anything less than their own views on a subject as tantamount to blasphemy.

Reachout’s article expresses two reservations. The first is based on the observation that The Church, by definition, consists of the converted and if that is the case then what goes on within the church is primarily directed to the ecclesia (that is, converted people), and hence Church is defined as the “communion of the saints”. Thus, Reachout reasons, church should not be a “postmodern” environment for generation Xers with the consequence that services become entertainment rather than God centered services. But whilst it is true that much of what goes on in church is for those who are already convinced believers, Christains cannot operate in a cultural vacuum and will therefore use the language, styles, issues and thought forms of their surrounding culture, and will naturally communicate using the media on which they themselves have been reared and with which they feel comfortable. Moreover, a church is at liberty to use its own premises as a venue for outreach and therefore if an EC church is adept at using its immediate locale to successfully communicate the Gospel within the parameters of its culture, I fail to see why that should be interpreted as just entertainment. Although I think Reachout has a point here in that in giving attention to the means of communion one can loose site of God being the focus of that communion, I feel that as long this hazard is acknowledged then the force of Reachout’s criticism need not apply.

The other concern of Reachout is Emerging Church’s emphasis on experimentation. Clearly the creation itself has an experimental component: God’s creatures, such as ourselves, experiment: we seek, we explore, we find, we hypothesize, we essay, we select, we test, we reject, we knock on doors, we update our knowledge, and correct our knowledge; these are all legitimate activities and, for me, come under the rubric of experimental behavior. However, Reachout quotes EC pundit Michael Moynagh whom, in his book “Emerging-Church.intro”, first remarks on the created trait of experimentation but then goes onto to say:

“Some theologians would go further. They would say that the experimentation we see in the creation reflects an aspect of God himself. God is an experimenter”
This latter point takes us into very deep theological water indeed, but I have say that at the moment I share Reachout’s concern that if this concept of an “experimenting God” is applied in anything other than a metaphorical way then it does seem to conflict with traditional views on the omniscience, omnipotence, and timelessness of God.

I eagerly await the next Reachout article. For me EC is certainly an area of serious study and my own feelings are still mixed. On the one hand the function of EC has been remedial in counterbalancing, challenging, and exposing some of the unauthentic excesses of evangelicalism. Moreover, I feel that a constructive and sympathetic attitude should be taken toward EC’s interesting experiments with church and church worship. And yet on the other hand I am very much a Grand narrative man myself and consequently I fear that a too close identification of EC with Postmodernism may lead to the loss of the doctrinal shape of Christianity. That doctrine is like the exoskeleton of an organism, and acts as a protective cover and gives the Church a requisite rigidity of form. In reacting against imbalances EC may be in danger of overreacting and thereby be prone to a loss of balance itself.

Ricks Ricks Ricks Warren

My own church is currently working through Rick Warren’s book “The Purpose Driven Church”. When I heard that we were set to do this series my first thought was: “Ah! I wonder if this is going to be another formulaic presentation of Christianity, suffused with an upbeat American tone and riddled with ‘do this and you’ll get that’ remedies. Easy as ABC…!” Well, the book is nowhere near as bad as that, of course, and it does raise many interesting and important issues. But best of all is that when one looks into the Rick Warren phenomenon it opens up a window on the hot scene of American religious infighting – witness the picture of Rev Rick Warren accompanying this post, a picture I found on one lurid and hysterical web site that screamed hell and damnation to the good Rev all over my screen!

The controversy surrounding Rick Warren reached my ears sometime ago via Reachout Trust, the Richmond (England) based group that watches the cults. Much of the controversy, it seems, is sourced in America where evangelical subcultures vie with one another in a seething sea of claim and counter claim. To date my own contact with Rick Warren’s textual presence suggests that he holds fairly conservative doctrines that I do not myself find particularly disagreeable.

The American Evangelical furor over Warren seems not so much due to his doctrine as it is his association with causes hated by the American evangelical right. For example: his signing of the Global Warming Pact, his connections with the United Nations; his inviting liberal democrat Barack Obama to Saddleback to talk on AIDS, his sharing of platforms with New Age speakers, his use of suspect Bible translations, and his soft peddling of fire and brimstone preaching, have all lead critics to attempt to trace Warren’s taste for bad company back to doctrinal unorthodoxy. Out and out unorthodoxy has been difficult to pin on Warren and these critics, unable to square his apparent doctrinal conservatism with the sympathetic noises he makes to those beyond the conservative political pale, have simply thrown their hands up and accused him of “flip-flopping”. Perhaps a lot of it is down to Warren having a temperamental disposition toward inclusiveness rather than confrontation – a trait I have seen in some other Christian leaders. But whatever, for Rick its “guilt by association” in a country where the quality of one’s of faith is often measured by an expectation that the ramifications of Christianity inevitably lead to a right wing slant to one’s politics.

The following is a quote from one anti-Warren web site I visited and is evidence of just how vicious evangelical infighting can get. At the end of a garish and vulgar looking web page dedicated to rubbishing Warren it concluded with:

“Rick Warren has NO FAITH in Jesus Christ, only in his precious purpose-driven program and Peace Plan. His dirty, rotten, stinking, gnat-covered fruit is an abomination and stench to the Lord.”

These “discernment” ministries, as they usually think of themselves, tend to cancel out in a welter of mutual criticism. However, they are also in danger of canceling out true Christianity in the process. Thank God for the Open Gospel, which provides us with the conceptual framework to make sense of just why Christianity is so often plagued by fragmented squabbling factions. Most amazing of all is that God gives these screaming hysterical believers the grace that they are so unwilling to offer to their fellow Christains. Either that or Christianity is false.

On Emerging Church

As my last post raised the knotty question of “Emerging Church” I thought I had better post something indicating my position on this matter. I could think of nothing better to do than reproduce a comment I posted on Monty's blog who was also thinking about the issue at the time. Frankly, I have to admit that I haven’t developed my thoughts on “Emerging Church” since I posted this comment (I really need to do a bit more studying):

On this emerging church business: I haven’t done much work on this matter myself but here are my first impressions, possibly to be corrected and enhanced by further study.

‘Emerging Church’ is one of those expressions that catches an underlying mood - probably a mood of disappointment/disaffection. That same mood might have manifested itself as far back as David Tomlinson - a defector from the quasi-cult restorationist movement - he emerged from that movement a rather disillusioned man and became the de-facto leader of “Post evangelicalism”.

Perhaps as a result of a quick succession of false dawns (involving various gnostic experiences, blessings, healings, prophecies, revivals, church structures, spiritual formulae, big personalities etc etc) crammed into living memory, a feeling of “we’ve tried all that, so where to next” prevails amongst Christians. I have seen quite a few spiritual restarts even in my time: that is, groups who attempt to clear the ground of the spiritual elaborations of their forerunners and remake church as they attempt to get back to a kind of contemporary primitive church – an oxymoron if there ever was one.

It’s not surprising, then, that the emerging church is a new philosophy of church that doesn’t want to look like a new overarching philosophy of church – after all, we’ve seen no end of them before. So the emerging church faces the logical conundrum also faced by postmodernism – how do you present a completely new philosophy without it looking like just another new philosophy? The result is a rather groping exploratory approach where the stress is on the journey rather than the destination, because all destinations, true to the postmodern sentiment, are thought to be end-of-rainbows. Sometimes there can be a downright evasiveness about just what the “new philosophy” stands for.

Emerging church knows what it isn’t, but sometimes I feel that it is not at all sure about what it actually is: Christian dissenters find themselves grasping the term “Emerging church” just as some disaffected evangelicals grasped at the term “Post evangelical” - terms that act as “rafts for the mind” when the mind is in the sea of confusing times. Thus under the umbrella of “emerging church” one can find Christains that make uneasy bedfellows – in short “emerging church” is a pastiche of views and a mixture of Christains that are trying to jump start a new kind of church, although some of them are still looking for the jump leads.

However, having said all that I find myself on balance sympathising with emerging church in as much as it is a reaction against, dowdy, strict, kitschy, plastic, corny, cosmetic, contrived, dated, out-of-touch, domineering, authoritarian, patriarchal, false, artificial, triumphalistic, pseudo, affected, unselfconscious manifestations of Christianity (if you want that in even more emotive terms see Ben). Fair enough we can all be a bit like any of those things at times, but when these tacky Christian styles come with a self confidence born of a conceited spiritual narcissism the product is very ugly phenomenon indeed, and I find myself in common cause with the emerging church people, in spite of being a “Grand Narrative” man myself.

Let me add that I do bulk at some emerging church counter reactions, reactions that may shows signs of the beginnings of a loss of grasp of the grand over arching themes of structured Christianity. Instead these themes have morphed into the shapeless blob of “God consciousness”. And the tremendous irony is that that is precisely where the affected touchy-feely narcissistic manifestations of Christianity, which emerging church is reacting against, was also taking us!

But I shouldn’t unfairly generalize on what seems to be a very variegated trend. On the matter of engaging society emerging church may have something to teach us and someone like Paul is probably the man ask about it. (and Ben!) I was fairly impressed by the authentic feel of the “Nooma” DVD’s (Rob Bell et al) and moreover there seemed to be behind them a gospel message that you and I, as fairly conservative Christains, would recognize and applaud.

“Evangelical Culture Disgusting” says Mega Church leader

A few postings I ago I reported the rather strong words of the Rev Mark Stibbe who suggested that those Christains who did not fall for the 1994 Toronto Blessing were in danger of committing the unforgivable sin. Well, today I have just received my copy of the February edition of “Christainity”. In this edition Rob Bell, Pastor of an emerging mega church and creator of the Nooma series of DVDs, is reported as saying “Evangelical culture is terribly sick in America. It’s absolutely disgusting and it is in no way a representation of what Jesus had in mind. It’s actually anti-Christ in its orientation”. Now let me say straight away that my impressions of Rob Bell have generally been very favourable and he comes over as an unwilling Christian megastar who is acutely aware of the pitfalls of celebrity and heady Christian scenes. But is evangelical culture really disgusting? That accusation is no big deal: how many times have I wanted to sign a written complaint about this or that bizzare evangelical practice or belief with “Disgusted of Norwich”? However, the “anti-christ” charge is rather different: that’s as strong as accusations of theological sin can get and makes Stibbe look like a master of tact! Whatever the truth is here it is nevertheless clear that there is spiritual pathology in America, because at the very least this sort of contention is evidence that things are not at all right between some very influential American Christains.

I sometimes ask myself why do I have to take such an interest in the “negative” hotspots of the Christian community and immerse my self in the worst that that community can throw at me? Some Christains, it seems, opt for a subtle epistemological method that in one sweep fixes all the deep contradictions in their ontology – they simply don’t go looking for them or they ignore them when they come their way. They stay within their social and empirical playpen and this circumvents what are otherwise spiritually dangerous liaisons with circumstances that are difficult to interpret. And those puzzling circumstances can be excessively challenging: after all, some of the contradictions one finds within evangelicalism actually could be construed as evidence against the very veracity of Christianity (if such is possible)

Why don’t I lead the quiet life and use a playpen epistemology? I don’t think I could do that simply because, as any serious investigator is aware, it is those strange anomalies that don’t quite fit the categories which are signposts to deeper truths. For this reason, and for reasons of integrity, VNP is committed to facing up to the whole of reality without prejudice, even when those sense making interpretations are not readily to hand.

Make my day - give me an anomaly.

Signs and Blunders

In 2001 I distributed the following bogus Press release at church:

FINGER LICKING GOOD

The City of Slough, which has been dubbed the most boring place on Earth, has been guest to strange events at a local Anglican church. St. Leonard’s, on Lime side, has witnessed a sudden increase in attendance since reports that communion bread and wine have started to taste like honey.

A church member said "It was wonderful: we had this really up lifting communion service, and when I tasted the bread I couldn't believe it - it was sweet!" Another said "I saw my communion bread just dripping with honey and the wine reminded me of the syrup of figs I used to have when I was young. I knew then that God was just blessing us."

When asked what was happening at his church the minister, the Rt. Rev. Verity Vaughan said "The Lord has just chosen to Bless us. Our God is a God of abundance. This blessing has just done marvels for people’s faith. One week we had communion every night. People are just flocking in and lives are being changed and Christ is just being glorified.

After communion people are seen licking their fingers to remove traces of the holy food. Some have said that the pews are getting tacky due to contact with sticky fingers. There are unconfirmed reports that people have been seen licking the pews and even the fingers of those communicants who have been privileged to receive honeyed sacraments.

One investigator, a member of the local Voltaire society, said of the sticky pews: "Yes they were sticky, but then the varnish on those pews is years old and is probably decomposing". He also said that there was a rumour of someone bringing in a Jar of honey but he was unable to confirm this. Several years ago he investigated a case not unlike it at an Eastern Orthodox church where it was claimed that Christ's face could been seen reflected in the wine, but the clerics didn't like it because the Wine took so long to distribute.

Father Patrick O'Rumme, priest of the nearby Catholic Church, said that he took the whole thing with a pinch salt: "These Charismatics are forever looking for some new miracle. The Bible says that the communion elements are Christ's body and blood, not honey and syrup". He declined to comment when asked if at his church they tasted of meat and blood.

A representative of Ebenezer Chapel on the other side of town said "Our corrugated iron premises are damp and cold and sometimes our bread goes moldy, but we're not worried. It's what it means that counts not what it tastes like. During the war we once had to use silage bread and red cabbage water".

The Bishop of the diocese, Dr. Tannington-Hyde, was unavailable for comment. A Spokesman said that the Bishop was chairing an ecumenical conference on feminist liturgical needs at this moment in time and his situation was sticky enough.
Esat@news Agency January 2001
More than one person was either convinced or unsure that the above report was genuine. I can hardly blame them. The only thing that gives the game away is the corny name of the Catholic Priest. Everything else is completely plausible.

The Open Gospel

In March of 2000 I endeavoured to produce a pithy statement that summarised my view of the kernel of Christianity. Rather than annunciate an exclusive and purist formula defining some Christian sub-grouping I was anxious to forge an inclusive statement giving account of the hostile demeanor often adopted by Christains sub-cultures toward one another. I came up with the following statement. It is a bit formal and legal sounding, perhaps because I wanted to make it as bullet proof as possible.

***

The "Open Gospel" is a term I use to indicate that the common, defining, distinctive, and primary phenomenon of Christianity is not its patchwork of sometimes mutually hostile church subcultures but the underlying Gospel message, a message which, unbounded by cultural barriers, diffuses laissez-faire style through populations spawning a variety of church communities. These communities, which may or may not be independent of one another, display varying degrees of development, spiritual health and quality of culture. The net result is that no one group or subculture (Thank God) can claim to have privileged access to the Gospel message, or to have sole agency in its propagation, or to be the only group expressing the spiritual life and gifting that it gives. Inevitably, some Christian communities will vociferously claim that they are either the best and most faithful representatives of the Gospel, or perhaps its only representatives. Self praise is, of course, no recommendation and anyway such claims are little more than bluster because they are impossible to enforce: It is now five hundred years since the Roman Catholic church started to lose the power to enforce its claim to being the sole distributor and representative of the Gospel. But even at the height of Roman Catholic political power it would seem almost impossible to attain complete control of a message that can pass quietly from mind to mind. Thus, it is exceedingly difficult to enforce monopoly claims upon the Gospel, even under conditions favouring such claims. Clearly the Good News is out, and groups who maintain they have exclusive rights to it can simply be ignored by other groups who have taken it to heart and made it their own, in all its fullness. Some Christian sub communities will undoubtedly retain their mutual prejudices toward one another and express a partiality as to who can or cannot claim to possess the fullness of Gospel truth, anointing and gifting. But The Word is like a seed borne on the Wind of the Spirit; who can control either? What God gives no man can take away. (I John 2: 20 & 27)

The idea of the Open Gospel is, for me at least, a source of great consolation as it helps reduce the significance of the contentions surrounding parochial religious elaborations of particular cultural realisations of Christianity. Those elaborations are sometimes beautiful and fascinating, sometimes helpful, sometimes essential, sometimes relevant, sometimes indifferent, sometimes quaint, sometimes outdated, sometimes comical, sometimes bizarre, sometimes tasteless, sometimes tacky, and, unfortunately, sometimes malign. Whether we are talking of the decorative trappings of ritual and vestment, or obsessions with mystical gnosis, or strict adherence to fancied biblical ordinances, or interpretations which use the Bible to contrive rigid blueprints for arranging life and church, we have here behavioural forms which, whilst they may not be absolutely wrong, are often championed by those who protect them with a jealous religious zeal. Thus, Christians who live beyond the religious subcultures defined by these behavioural forms may find themselves being bullied by sectarian Christian zealots who will accuse them of being disobedient to the Divine order. These zealous Christians may even regard the testimonies of other Christians as void or at best substandard. But a high view of the Open Gospel allows one to rise above Christian infighting and to be less phased by Christian cultural forms whose sectarianism stands in ironic contrast to the message that has spawned them, a message which passes from ear to ear jumping the boundaries separating communities. The Open Gospel is a majestic vision of the essence of Christianity, a vision which not only sees the Gospel as being, at the very least, the world's best bet for a revelation of the meaning of life, the universe and everything, but also an allusion to timeless and lofty principles from which the vagaries of Christian ethos and culture do not detract.
c. T. V. Reeves March 2000

The Plain Truth

With the apparent demise of the optimistic modernist belief in ‘Grand Narratives’, postmodern ‘Little Narratives’ abound. In fact narratives are getting smaller and smaller as is evidenced by the latest book from brilliant and innovative secular theologian Julian O'Gobstopper. O’Gobstopper has spent 4 years on a work entitled “The Nihilist's Bible”, a monumental tome consisting of 2257 pages of blank paper. “As a nihilist theologian and philosopher” says O'Gobstopper, “I have spent many years thinking about nothing and this book is the result. It is a definitive statement of today's progressive and utilitarian philosophy. It moves us away from the authoritarian and didactic assumptions that books should contain content. This book strongly affirms the ambiguity of everything. It leaves the plot open, free for the reader to complete within the parameters of his or her experience, and to impute whatever meaning and truths (s)he wants.” Asked whether the book classified as fact or fiction O'Gobstopper replied that the distinction between fact and fiction was itself a fiction.

Although not exactly a challenge for the presses, the spelling checker and the indexing software, the publication wasn't without its production problems. Proofreaders claimed the proofs gave them headaches and a variant of “snow blindness” as they checked the volume for typos, and page make-up compositors walked out angry that content-free books could set a precedent in publishing that may lead to a loss of jobs. A Union spokesman stated, “It was aw-right for the Luddites, at least they had sommit to smash, but what do my members do when there’s now’t to hit out at?”

O'Gobstopper's book:Starting (and finishing) with a blank sheet.

A sample page from O’Gobstopper’s scholarly work is illustrated below:

.

.

.

.

.

.

(This space has been intentionally left blank by VNP typographic staff)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(The above article was first published in the December 2004 edition of VNP)

Don’t Try this at Home

Many churches will be impressed with the latest house group study book “Facing Up to Change”, with its full range of “In yer face” activities. In the introductory study the home group is asked to sit quietly and contemplatively in a room illuminated only by a candle. But the meditative peace is not long lived; the candle turns out to be, in fact, a disguised November 5th “howling thunderclap” and a short spurt of sparks is followed by a head splitting whistle terminated by a deafening report. Participants are then asked to continue to sit quietly and contemplatively until the acrid smoke clears and the sounds of the dying fades before considering some soul-searching questions. Now you might think that all this would be a great introduction to the manner of Christ’s return and our preparedness for it; but no, “Facing up to Change” gives anything that threatens to be a theological can of worms a wide birth and instead puts the inscrutable inner life of the heart under the spot light. Accordingly, as explosions are the most rapid form of change known to man, this is the cue for a series of probing questions on facing change:

Are you prepared for sudden and unexpected changes?
Did the firework disturb your comfort zone?
Can you maintain your cool in the face of change?
Does change make you feel nervous?

Other stimulating study-activities in the book include a custard pie fight (Study 3: “Taking the stick when you lobby for change”), a piano smashing competition (Study 4: “Putting up with discordance”) and a snail race (Study 7: “Getting those boring old f*rts moving in the Spirit”). At the end of the study book you will be sure to want change; at least a change from all those courses and talk about the need to change.


(The above article was first published in the June 2001 edition of VNP)

Moshing Mayhem ... Coming to Your Church Soon

For those of you who like to be set alight spiritually with church action songs, I’ve come across a real corker. Imagine the sights and sounds that might accompany this one:

*

God has such love, such love,

He lives in heaven above.

God is so big, so big,

bigger than a big fat pig.

We can have lots of fun

because of Jesus His Son.

I want to leap and bound

and just run around, around.

I going to jump and jump,

and tell all I bump.

I’m so happy, so happy,

I could mess my nappy.

I'm going to shout and shout,

like a lager lout.

You’ll get a clout

if you don’t jive about,

and with words inane

praise His name

till an absolute pain,

and then start over again.
*
If your church tries this one make sure a St. John Ambulance is present before it does. If you are of a nervous disposition or have an easily offended sense of taste I suggest you give church a miss that day. Now that’s something you can do that an all powerful God can’t: when the going really gets embarrassing, corny and tasteless, He, being omnipresent, just can’t slope off but has to stick around and endure it. Long-suffering God? You bet!

Moshe Pit Heaven

Ben's in there somewhere, but I'm damned if I can see him.

Damned? Surely he's not that bad?

(The above article was first published in the June 2001 edition of VNP)

Soul Searching

Rev. Randle J. Schmaltznegger, the ebullient American spiritual dynamo, counselor extraordinaire, evangelist supreme, recently ran a retreat for Christian leaders under the rubric: “Loosing your Heart and Soul to God: the Passion and the Intimacy”. But in a debacle that has been described by one rival American evangelist as the valley of the dry bones in reverse, Schmaltznegger's retreat leaders, having been relieved of their hearts and souls stormed out of their secluded Mid-West venue as the retreat turned into an attack, creating havoc in the surrounding area. As ever, an undaunted Schmaltznegger sussed the spiritual problem immediately and in a riposte stated firmly that “One of the leaders failed to claim the victory in his home life and allowed Satan to find a way into our retreat - this leader admitted to me that his son has a friend who once played with Pokemon cards”. Police using Abrams tanks, B52’s and tactical nuclear weapons, eventually brought the situation under control.

Danger, Evangelists at work: “Anyone seen our Lost Souls?”

(The above article was first published in the February 2004 edition of VNP)

Character Assassination: A Stibbe in the Back

If you needed proof that Christian infighting can sometimes be at least as vicious as that found in politics, with accusations of sleaze thick in the air, check this story out: Mark D Smith in his book “Testing the Fire”, a closely argued analysis of the mid nineties Toronto blessing, reports the words of Mark Stibbe, a Christian leader who favoured the “Carpet Blessing” (so-called because the blessing involved lying around on the carpet making strange noises). Stibbe, it seems, was displeased with anything less than an enthusiastic acceptance of the blessing and felt urged to make his own accusation of sleaze toward Christians who were critical of it. So what did he accuse his fellow believers of? Handling Slush money? Initiating smear campaigns? Visiting dodgy addresses under cover of darkness? Lying under oath? No, it was none of these sins, common in politics, which after all can be dealt with and forgiven. Instead he warned fellow Christians “To be very careful not to commit the unforgivable sin – namely blaspheming against the Holy Spirit”. Now that's serious sin; a lot of Stibbe’s fellow believers were critical of the “blessing” and therefore he effectively accused them of committing the dreaded unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:31! Accusations of sleaze don’t come worse than that!

(The above article was published in the first VNP of April 2001)

Fighting Christians

The September edition of Christianity magazine carries a letter of mine which really sums up my perspective on Christianity. I wrote the letter in response to the editorial written by the editor John Buckeridge in the July edition of the magazine. Here is my letter:

***

In response to the editorial in the July ‘Christianity’ let me say that I support John Buckeridge’s policy of including a mix of articles that are less than good news and/or touch on controversy. For example, if the policy of ‘Christianity’ is to tell it as is, then the sharp disagreements existing between many Christains should be represented. After all, the Bible itself is frank about controversy amongst believers (Gal. 2:11, Acts 15:39). Christians are the beneficiaries of one universal message of salvation, but the various Christian subcultures hosting that message may split acrimoniously over such things as tithing, the history of creation, church structures, blessings, and healing etc, as recent correspondence in ‘Christianity’ suggests. We must be honest about the real state of affairs in Christendom.

But there is good reason for this state of affairs. The Christian view is that salvation is not attained through visible membership of a single highly integrated religious group. Many religious cults see it that way but true Christianity is different, being first and foremost a personal response demanded by the message of redemption. A faith such as Christianity, which majors on message rather than membership, is not easily confined to one tight knit group of people because, like any freely diffusing message, it can cross partisan barriers and take root where it wills. In Christianity where message is primary and membership secondary, there is a consequent trade off between freedom and disharmony. We may, of course, find disharmony unacceptable and do all we can to bring accord, but it is a fact that ‘The Church Invisible’ is distributed over a wide cross section of sometimes squabbling Christian subcultures. The quasi-Christian cults shortcut this problem, of course, with a very strict selection and management of their member’s beliefs, and when tricky questions are asked this is taken as evidence of unbelief. In contrast, real Christianity is no toy town cult, but has all the rough edges of a work in progress.

In line with ‘Christianity’s’ policy of handling difficult material I was gratified to read Adrian Plass’ article on healing (May). This article challenged the conspiracy of silent pretense and religious spin sometimes surrounding the subject of healing and which is reminiscent of the emperor’s new clothes.

However, it seems that John Buckeridge was criticised for editing a magazine that occasionally breaks the silences over awkward questions. This criticism used some spiritually intimidating language, which included accusations of unbelief and a call to repentance. Not only does this kind of criticism show just how partisan evangelicalism can get, but it also indicates that the temptation to arrive at a contrived harmony using the methods of the cults – namely, through silence, pretense and spiritual bullying – is never far away. If Christianity went down that road it really would be in trouble.
You may be able to quarantine a membership, but you can’t quarantine a message.

Communicating by Ozzmosis

Dr. Beardsly Bugbeard, liberal and bearded Bishop of Botchester (affectionately called “Bugrug” by his progressive clerics) is updating his diocesan liturgy by encouraging the use of swear words during Sunday worship and sermons in the churches of his diocese.

“We stiff upper lip English”, said the Bishop scratching his beard, “need to connect with our passions and express our feelings. The use of sentence intensifiers in church liturgy is one way we can get our message across and identify with workingmen and women in the community. If expressive expletives are good enough for the noble working classes they ought to be good enough for us middle class church(wo)men”.

The “Johnny Rotten” memoirs are required reading for new curates who ultimately have to sit an examination in the meaning and use of expletives and compose services that make imaginative use of “heavy duty language”. Curates also do a course at Botchester University’s sexology department with the Prof Trevor H. E. Pitts where they can learn the “adult” names of body parts and practices they never dreamed existed. The Good Bishop did the epilogue at the end of Channel four's “Osbourne night”. By the time of the epilogue, however, the bleeping machine had overheated and exploded so Bishop Bugbeard, who refers to bleeping machines as “the enemy of free speech” was able to deliver the full text of his message without censorship. The channel 4 phone lines were crammed by outraged stand up comics whose jokes about prudish church people are now obsolete. When VNP asked the Bishop to comment he said he had no time for a politically incorrect and reactionary blog that promulgates Victorian values. In any case, he said, he had to get to a commissioning service to the swear in a new curate (You bet). Takings at the Bishop's churches, however, have rocketed as he has shown no signs of decommissioning his swear boxes.

In the Nick of Time

Contemporary Christian evangelicalism has had a poor prophetic record if my sampling of it is anything to go by, just as bad as the Jehovah’s Witnesses in fact. If you like long shot odds then betting on the fulfillment of “prophecy” is the game for you. So folks, here’s the form so far on “prophecies” that have come to my notice:

1. The Mt Carmel prophecies affirming 1975 as a “significant” year.
2. That revival would sweep the southern part of England, as did the hurricane of 1987.
3. That this or that person would be healed from terminal cancer (and never did).
4. That there would be Christian revival shortly after Princess Di’s death.
5. The Spring Harvest prophecy that Westminster Chapel would be the center of a great revival in 1996.
6. That the millennium bug would be the precursor of Global collapse in the year 2000.
7. That Southern England would experience a devastating Earthquake.
8. That “big things” would be happening in the UK shortly after the July 2005 Benny Hinn rally in Norwich.

As a rule these often highly public “prophecies” are quietly dropped and anyone with a retentive memory is the enemy of those who support the ministries who put out these "prophecies". I haven’t particularly gone out of my way to seek out duff prophecies – they found me rather than I found them. So how many more are out there hiding themselves away in shame? I daren’t Google “Kansas City Prophet” for fear of what I might find. However, things are looking up. Before I could say “Kansas City Prophet” I got news of a “right on” prophecy. In the August 2006 edition of “Christianity” magazine ex-Christian rock musician Ian “Ishmael” Smale, now a children’s worker, tells a fascinating story of meeting at the end of the 70s some then unknown Irish musicians in a Brighton pub. Ian takes up the story:

“They were saying God had showed them they were going to be very big. They had scriptures and prophecies, but I looked round and there was nobody else in that pub. But they obviously got the prophecies right”

Really? Trouble is, I don’t follow rock music closely, so without cribbing off the Internet I haven’t got a clue about this group. Ian says that the lead singer was called “Bono”. I think that even if I met Bono I wouldn’t know him from Old Nick

Cut Me Some Slack

My church requires people applying for membership to go through a kind of informal interview with some well-respected church member like myself, who then brings a report to the church meeting. Sometimes I feel that there is something about this church membership business that I haven't twigged yet, and such were my feelings when I did my first and last church membership interview, an interview that turned out to be an absolute disaster. With the naive enthusiasm of a beginner I was hoping that my interviewee would not be a boring person - you know, sort of person who has worked as an assistant light switch operator all his life and keeps every issue of "Soup label collector's world". I'd much rather blow the church meeting away with a spiritual rags to riches report about a drug crazed street mugger of indeterminate species now awash with blessings in the Spirit.
Anyway, with a name like "Mr. Sebastian Horn of Great Twitchingham Hall" at least my interviewee sounded interesting. Lightning struck the teetering tower of the west wing as I made my way up the mile long overgrown drive of Mr. Horn's run down but very prestigious looking mansion. The clock struck 12 as I got to his front door, which seemed to sense my presence and creaked open of its own accord. The butler took my coat and then flew away with it.
"Good evening Mr. Horn" I said as I entered his cavernous hall.
"Good evening Mr. ReeveSSSSssss", he said, his reply tailing off into a hiss. "The name's HornSSSSsss actually, with an 's' on the end, just like yours. Can't you see I've got two of them?".
Mr. Horns described himself as a Stoker. "Coal?" I queried, "What, in these days of gas and electricity".
"Coal is not the only thing that makes a good roaring fire!" he said trying to suppress his smile as if endeavouring not to expose his teeth. Mr. Horns asked me if I smoked and I said that I did not. He said he always smoked. I then noticed wisps of smoke rising all round him.
"I've been trying to get into a church for a long while" he continued "and, I am sure, Mr. ReeveSSSsss, you can help me."
"Well I'll see”, I said. "Tell me about your conversion."
"Me and the Lord go back a long way. Great friends you know, he knows me well. But I haven't seen him for a bit. I tried to get hold of him a few years back and give him a proposition but I wasn't able to nail him down to anything."
I asked Mr. Horns what he saw himself contributing to church life.
"I have my own very effective three point sermon", he said as he gently fingered the funny looking pronged decoration on the end of his cast iron staff, "and I can't wait to use it!".
I informed Mr. Horns that the church needs to be in possession of all the facts before it can make a decision about his membership.
"Possession!" he snapped. "I quite like the sound of that! There'll be a plenty of that if I get my way". He went on to add: "Don't spend too much time deciding. I'm a bit short on time nowadays and I don’t want to wait until kingdom come. However, I'm sure someone of your calibre, Mr. ReeveSSSssss, will not disappointment me. If you succeed the world is mine to give; should you fail ...", Mr. Horns then gave a meaningful look at his staff and added, ".... you will find my three point sermons very convincing and to the point".

As I left I felt a strange tingling in the spine. Something about Mr. Horns gave me the creeps. The clock struck mid night as I passed through the door - where had all the time gone or had no time at all passed but very slowly? When I handed in my report to the good reverend gentleman who pasteurizes my church he seemed none too pleased.
"Well Mr. Reeve," grouched the good Rev. who, unlike the polite Mr. Horns, habitually addressed me in the singular, "I don't think we will be putting this report before the church". He obviously thought I had missed something important and I was never offered the job again. I don't know what the trouble was as Mr. Horns seemed as keen as any one I have met to get his place on the membership and do his bit and he clearly had the sort of resources to win friends and influence people. So keep an eye out for him in church; he is very distinguished looking - unlike the Devil, of course, who comes in disguise and is difficult to spot.

God of Abracadabra?

Let me give you an example of why I so often find myself at odds with contemporary evangelicalism. Today, I was in church listening to a visiting preacher. This preacher rightly stressed the daily pastoral and devotional endeavours of the church as it seeks to “come to the unity of faith” and “the stature of the fullness of Christ” – a work of creation if there ever was one, as the church moves incrementally toward the goal, metaphorically speaking, of a “full grown man”. In short we find ourselves to be agents of Divine labour inside an act of creation. Our first person experience of this work is of a process of great complexity and effort. Words like progress, process, gradualism, and change readily describe this act of social creation, a project composed of a myriad steps forward (and sometimes backward).

And yet so often when these evangelical preachers talk about the act of Genesis Creation they revert to a magical paradigm. Here God is portrayed not as a workmen but a magician whose mere words, like magic spells, bring about Creation. “God”, you will hear them say, “Speaks things into existence at a mere word”, and the example sometimes given is that of Genesis 1:16 where it says “He also made the stars”. This verse is interpreted to mean that God is so powerful that He just "spoke the stars into existence" in an offhand way. Rubbish. The Genesis 1 creation account is of a phased incremental work, of which the Bible uses an umbrella Hebrew word related to our expression “to make”. This same word is also used of created entities within the Creation account, as for example when it says, “He also made the stars”. Hence it is likely that the making of the stars was itself a phased process. In short Creation was a recursive activity that breaks down into finer and finer detail as you zoom in on it. God’s commands, like some highly complex computer algorithm, have detail and sub-detail - they are not magic

Is this just a theoretical nuance? That, I doubt. The visiting preacher may have a different take on Genesis 1 to myself - fair enough, Christains can agree to disagree. But look at how the preacher was using his view of Genesis 1. To him the God of Spells who has the power to “just talk things into existence” was evidence of “how great God is”. Presumably then, the logic of this position demands that a person such as myself who doesn’t accept this illustration has an impoverished view of God’s greatness? Is the next logical step to then use this view to sort out the spiritual elite from the goats and to thereby partition the Church?