Buffoonery in the Name of Jesus…
August 19, 2010
It is one thing—one appropriate thing, of course—to stand for Christ and His truth. It’s quite another to do what these people are proposing, which constitutes, not a stand for Jesus, but a needlessly offensive, counterproductive affront to people of another faith. Never mind the fact that that other faith is, as Christians believe, a false religion—our purpose as followers of Jesus must be to love and to win to Christ, not to stick our thumbs in their eyes. These people aren’t quite in the league of the “God hates fags” loons from Topeka, but you can see ‘em from there.
The Evangelical Obsession with Bigness
August 2, 2010
Recently, I was encouraged to listen to a message given by one of America’s “leading pastors” (whatever that means), a man who pastors one of the largest churches in the country, a fine pastor whose heart does beat, it seems, for the need of people to follow Christ. All well and good.
But the guy who introduced him, prior to his speaking to a large national conference, went on for the better part of ten minutes singing the praises of this particular pastor. I kid you not; for nearly ten minutes, he lavished praise and adoration on a guy who, last time I checked, put his britches on one leg at a time. A significant part of the praise had to do with the outward manifestations of the man’s “greatness”, related to the size of the church he pastors, and other size-related stuff.
It’s all about being “big”, having numbers, being able to boast (“in the Lord”, of course) about the bottom line of baptism, bodies, and bucks. Yes, there will be, at many such gatherings, some nodding acknowledgement given to “those courageous and faithful pastors who labor in the little country churches”, yada yada yada.
But we don’t believe it. And we don’t mean it.
Because what we really believe is not demonstrated by the words we say, but by the things we do. And what we do, almost without fail, is to celebrate the superstars, to insist upon parading the “success stories” of Christian ministry (defined as those who pastor the “fastest-growing churches”) before people for all to admire (and, I suppose, emulate). Because we’re addicted to bigness, and far too many evangelicals worship it more than they worship Jesus. I read recently of one conference which took a Twitter poll or something asking prospective participants to vote upon who ought to be invited to speak at the conference. Funny thought occurs to me…wouldn’t it be funny for a bunch of Christians to get together and nominate, I don’t know, Nancy Pelosi or somebody…
So here’s a suggestion for the next big denominational conference of Christians (actually, I’ve got two): Suggestion 1: Take the names of all of the denominationally-ordained men serving in pastorates in the movement, put ‘em in a hat, pray about it, and then draw out a few names and let them be the speakers at the next big denominational shindig. Suggestion 2, if Suggestion 1 is a bit too radical (and it probably is): get every one of your denominational superintendents to nominate, say, three candidates. One would come from a church of over 500, one from a church with 150-499 people, and one from a church with an attendance of less than 150 people. Put all those names into a hat, pray, and then draw out as many speakers as you’d need.
How refreshing would THAT be?
Jennifer Knapp Comes Out…in More Ways than One
April 21, 2010
This is not a post about homosexuality.
That’s coming; I’m actually planning an apologetic series on the subject soon, spurred on not only by the article this refers to, but also by some sincere questions from a friend who doesn’t understand my point of view on the subject. That’ll be fun…
This post, however, is about the crying, desperate need for the church to be the church—on at least a couple of fronts.
I have never listened to Jennifer Knapp’s music. I couldn’t name a song of hers, but I do know that for a period of time, she was “all that” in the world…resist the urge to say, “cesspool”…urge resisted…of contemporary Christian music. It had escaped my notice, but she took a 6+ year hiatus from singing and producing albums. Now, she’s back—and according to the article, she’s homosexual; currently, she’s in a same-sex relationship that has lasted for a number of years. She’s got a new album coming out next month, one that she claims is not a “Christian album” (by the way, is “album” the right word anymore? Hmmm…). Fine. More power to her. This is not a post about homosexuality.
It’s not even, per se, a post about the reasoning she uses—actually, fails to employ much of, if you read the article—to justify her lifestyle. But this is a post about the church—and the crying need that exists for the church to be the church.
She answers, in response to the question, “are you currently in a church in Nashville”, a terse “no”—and yet she wants to go on to talk about her faith. This is the problem—or at least one of the problems—or at least a symptom of a greater problem—or a symptom of one of the greater problems (the latter is my final answer, Regis).
A quick caveat, just so I’m clear: I have a wide—and growing ever more wide—tolerance for different kinds of expressions of the body of Christ. Each form of church has, to my way of thinking, its strengths and its limitations, whether that form be the “mega-church” or the house church, the denominational church or the independent church, the ethnically-diverse church or the homogeneous church, the seeker-sensitive, traditional, contemporary, or emerging church, or what-have-you. I’ve become a lowest-common-denominator kind of guy when it comes to thinking about church; hit the minimums (and there are a few, but only a very few), and I’m down with that. Digression over.
Here’s the deal: we have a system, and it involves not only the Christian music industry, but the Christian publishing industry, the Christian radio industry, and likely other “Christian industries”, not limited even to media, that virtually ignores the church except when it comes to marketing its wares to the church. These entities are unaccountable to the church; the bottom line for many of these industries has little to do with the mission of the church; in many cases, what these entities are peddling is actually counterproductive to what God has called the church to be and to do.
And what’s as bad, or even arguably worse, is that neither the church, its leaders, or its individual members seem to give a flying rip about correcting this terrible arrangement. Will Jennifer Knapp receive airplay on Christian radio? Will her album be bought—and enjoyed—by Christians? Beyond this, I refer you to some of the questions I raised a few weeks back about Amy Grant.
But for that matter, what church(es) approves Casting Crowns as fit for ministry, and holds the band members accountable—and beyond this, why is this information not public knowledge, prominently displayed on all its CDs? Jars of Clay—who holds those guys accountable? Stephen Curtis Chapman? Look, I don’t mean to suggest that accountability isn’t happening—I hope it is, of course—nor that Jars and SCC are heretics—I have no reason to believe that at all—but why don’t we know about this, so that we can with confidence say, “somebody is helping keep these guys in line; they’re involved in a real, solid, Christ-honoring, gospel-declaring church.” Or, conversely, we can say, “I don’t care that Phillips, Craig, and Dean sing well; their theology is highly-suspect” (and it is; did you know that?). Writing a Christian book? Super! What local body of believers puts its imprimatur upon you and your work? Who is telling Christian radio, “quit playing that silly Jesus-is-my-girlfriend music”, with the expectation, yea demand, that somebody there listen?
Sad truth is, this stuff doesn’t seem to matter to most folks, even professing Christians…but it matters, because the church matters. Because the gospel matters. Because Jesus matters.
What Some Preachers are Saying…
April 16, 2010
This comes from the “Out of Ur Newsletter”, delivered weekly to my inbox courtesy of Christianity Today. These are recent quotes from pastors:
“If you’re going to catch a fish, you have to have bait. If it takes a helicopter dropping 5,000 eggs to get people to come to church, it’s worth it. There are souls to save.”
—Matt Woodfill, pastor of The Woodlands Christian Center in Houston describes his church’s Easter outreach strategy.
“They’re coming for the loot and they’re going to leave with Jesus.”
—Pastor Bill Cornelius from Bay Area Fellowship Church in Corpus Christi, Texas, about giving away 16 cars and 15 televisions during their Easter celebration.
“Barbie’s very versatile that way. She’s open to new possibilities, so evangelism is definitely in her future.”
—Rev. Dena Cleaver-Bartholomew, rector of Christ (Episcopal) Church, in Manlius, New York, and the creator of Episcopal Priest Barbie Facebook page.
“We paid the electric bill, we paid the heat, we paid the bills.”
—Pastor Robert Farah of Center Harbor Christian Church in New Hampshire, explaining what he did with $470,000 his son allegedly stole from investors and donated to his father’s church.
If I agreed with any of the philosophies espoused by these pastors, I believe I’d quit pastoral ministry tomorrow (although I’m not sure about the Barbie thing…). Thoughts, y’all?
On Using Words Carelessly
April 15, 2010
As a communicator, there’s sometimes a fine line between using strong language to make a point, on the one hand, and throwing words around carelessly and irresponsibly. I’d like to report that I’ve never crossed that line…but while I might like to report that, it wouldn’t be true. As I wrote a couple weeks back, I’m trying to redouble my efforts to check my wording on some things more carefully before I go public.
There is a “controversy” of sorts that has brewed in the evangelical world over the course of the last few weeks, ever since John Piper, darling of the conservative and Reformed branch of evangelicalism, invited Rick Warren to appear at his Desiring God conference this fall. Warren is viewed with downright scorn by at least a certain vocal segment of this movement, and predictably, many were up in arms, reacting with horror to Piper’s invitation extended to this man they view as a pragmatist who waters down the gospel, who represents so much of what they abhor about the contemporary evangelical movement.
An aside: though I have benefited from some of Warren’s writing, I have increasingly viewed a lot of what he says and does with skepticism myself. I understand a lot of where these folks are coming from, and I sympathize with it. Some of the positions Warren takes have a level of, I believe, danger inherent in them.
But one of the things that has been thrown around is the word “heretic” to describe Rick Warren. Seriously. Folks, say what you will about Mr. Warren, and there are some things to say, to be sure, but Rick Warren is no “heretic”. And I wrote all this to make a point that Trevin Wax makes in this article about the controversy:
When you use the word “heretic” to refer to anyone who disagrees with you, you don’t have a good word to use to refer to someone who actually fits the bill.
Couldn’t said that better myself. Wax references Jerry Falwell, who a few years back used the “H word” to refer to folks who believe in the Calvinist doctrine of “limited atonement”. Do I disagree with “limited atonement”? Absolutely. Are people who hold to it “heretics”? Please. Spare me.
We’d all do well to remember—particularly if we “c0mmunicate for a living”—that words mean things, and we do no service to anyone when we cheapen those words by over-speaking.
What I’d Ask Amy Grant
March 30, 2010
Can of worms alert: if you’re not in the mood to get into something that might get uncomfortable, perhaps you’d better go here. Have a nice day.
My daughter’s favorite radio station is The Fish 104.7. It’s a nice-enough joint, I guess; I listen along sometimes. I will even play real, real nice and resist the incredible urge to do a riff on their tag line: “Safe for the Whole Family”. I won’t even ask the question, “is Jesus really safe?” Or, maybe I just did…but go write your own post; that’s not what this one is about. No, instead of opening that can of worms, I’m going to open a different one, brought on by The Fish’s promotion of Amy Grant, who’s in town at Family Christian Stores—resist, Byron, resist the urge to do a riff on how much is “Christian” about Family Christian Stores—OK, urge resisted, that can of worms left to be opened by somebody else.
Ah, Ms. Grant. A little history, here: when I went off to Bible college, I believe the first cassette (remember those?) I purchased was Ms. Grant’s first album, a self-titled offering that was what I think you’d call “Bubblegum Pop” as to its styling, a fun little thing with some songs that ranged from the silly (“There’s a grape, grape joy in Jesus, in the vineyard of the Lord”) to the more serious, I guess (“The Lord has a will, and I have a need, to follow that will…”). Funny…go looking for that album now, and you get the new, updated cover art (considerably more flattering than the original cover art—but I’ve reproduced the latter). At any rate, 
I loved Amy, scarfed up her stuff, overlooked some things that I didn’t care for so much. After all, Amy was my age (she turns 50 this year, two-and-a-half months after I hit that same milestone; I’m going out on a limb to say that she wears those nearly-50-years a little better than do I, though if I had her stylists and beauty consultants…never mind). To this day, if you asked me what albums I loved the most, of all I’ve ever owned, I’d have to put “Straight Ahead” and “Lead Me On” very, very high on that list.
At any rate, I stuck with Amy, even when she admitted that sometimes she was…well, let’s say she used a word that indicated she sometimes felt in a way that would indicate she’d like to have sex (shocking! Christians sometimes feel that way? My word…), and even when she said that she enjoyed a beer sometimes (what? A Christian? No!). I’ve seen her in concert on several occasions, and on the last occasion, at a Christmas concert sometime in the late 90′s, I actually got to go backstage and meet her, had my picture taken with her, etc. Yeah, there we are, me and Ame, smiling like old buds. 
We make quite the couple, eh? Golly, did I look like a goof…
OK, so holding all that history in mind, fast-forward to a few years ago. Amy and her husband of many years, Gary Chapman (saw ‘em in concert, in Roanoke, when they toured together, prior to them being husband and wife; in keeping with the theme of “Amy is just a step behind Byron Harvey in life”, she and Gary were married the day after Karen and I), had had some marital struggles, fueled in part by some serious substance issues Gary was dealing with (and about which he has been candid, to his credit). We’re all sinners; we all struggle with stuff; Jesus loves us all in spite of, not because of, our junk. Gary and Amy are no different in that respect.
But Amy chose to divorce Gary. Now, in one very real sense, that’s just none of my business, or yours. None…in one sense. What goes on in their home doesn’t affect me, except that any time a professed Christian marriage fails, it’s a shame, and casts a negative light on the name and cause of Christ. Her rationale was the oft-repeated refrain of “irreconcilable differences”, and I’ll again use exemplary restraint with regard to my feelings on that term, except to say that in a marriage between Christians, there is no such thing. I say that granting immediately that it certainly “takes two to tango” when it comes to marriage, that there is such a thing as an “innocent party” (not a “perfect party”, of course, but in our parlance, an “innocent” one), that marriage is tough enough when two sinners are married to each other in Christ, and it’s gotta be just incredibly difficult under other circumstances. But back to the point of this paragraph: in one sense, the circumstances of their divorce is none of my business.
But in another sense, the circumstances of their divorce is very much my business, and the business of every Christian who does things like listen to The Fish 104.7, or who frequents Family Christian Stores, etc., and it is this: while Christians, sadly, get divorced all the time, the standard is higher for those who would profess to stand and sing—or teach—or preach—for Christ. Now, I’m open to the argument that the standard isn’t as high for someone such as, say, Ms. Grant as it is for me in that regard; I’m not sure I buy it, but I’m open to it. Fair enough. But what I’m not open to is the uncritical acceptance and promotion of any person—Amy Grant, Billy Graham, Byron Harvey, anybody—as a qualified and fitting promoter of Christian faith. And that’s where the rub comes in. But I’m still not ready to answer the question I raised in the post’s title, because I want to be perfectly, crystal clear before I do:
- I do not in any way, shape, or form sit in judgment upon Ms. Grant’s eternal soul. In fact, I accept her profession of Jesus as Savior. One might argue that there is evidence to the contrary, but there’s evidence to the contrary in every Christian’s life—mine included—and so this post is categorically not about calling her salvation into question.
- I do not claim to have detailed knowledge of her circumstances. What I have are questions, nothing more and nothing less, questions which have never, to the best of my understanding, ever been answered (and I have sought answers; that’s a different post). Questions which ought to be asked of Ms. Grant, yea, of anybody in this situation. I do not have answers—but the questions need to be asked, at least before uncritical allegiance is given.
- I do not make the claim that Ms. Grant’s subsequent remarriage to Vince Gill constitutes adultery. I’ll refer you to the previous bullet point. It might constitute adultery, but it’s possible that she had Biblical grounds to divorce Mr. Chapman; I simply don’t know. Do know this: if she didn’t have such grounds, then she is living in an adulterous situation. Once again, let me be clear: there are many, many professing Christians who are in this situation, and many, many professing Christians who have repented of that sin, and it is my counsel to them—and to Ms. Grant, if this is her situation—to remain now in that situation, because another divorce is not the answer. But my point is, I don’t know.
And that’s just the point: I don’t know. You don’t know. And some things about the situation, I don’t care to know, don’t deserve to know, shouldn’t know. But prior to encouraging my daughter to listen to Ms. Grant’s music; prior to buying her music myself (and I’m sure it’s beautiful, particularly given my educated hunch that she’s mellowed musically through the years, matching my mellowed tastes); prior to endorsing her in doing what she’s doing, there are some questions that, in my judgment, need to be answered. Indeed, the failure to ask such questions strikes me as a prime example of one of the most devastating plagues currently…plaguing…the evangelical movement in America: an appalling lack of discernment. Ironically, The Fish 104.7 was soliciting “Questions for Amy Grant” this morning.
So you know, I was a good boy…
But here are the questions I’d ask Amy Grant:
- Amy, did you have Biblical grounds to divorce Gary Chapman? I won’t go here into what those grounds are; those of you who are believers probably (hopefully) have some idea of what they might be, even if we might differ on certain particulars. Now obviously, if her answer were “yes”, most of the follow-up questions would be rendered moot. I’ll actually assume a “yes” answer for the next question, and a “no” answer for the rest.
- Amy, was your relationship with Vince Gill completely aboveboard during your marriage to Mr. Chapman, and would an independent, knowledgeable observer of it agree that it was? Again, I stress that I do not know the answer; these are questions, folks. I raise this one, though, because her former husband has suggested this not to be the case. He could be lying. He could be bitter. But isn’t the question worth asking?
- Assuming a “no” to the first question (as I will do from here on out), Amy, what kind of accountability to a local church—and its leadership—was in place in your life during the period that led up to, and included, your divorce—and did you submit yourselves fully to this authority? This question is critical, and ought to be critical for all believers: under whose authority—real, legitimate, Biblical authority with teeth in it—do you live? Are you part of a church, Christian, that is willing (if need be, perish the thought) to kick you out? If not, you have two legitimate options: one, demand of leadership that it changes its ways such that it becomes a church willing to kick people out, or two, leave that church and find a real one. Yes, you heard me.
- Amy, did a church work with you through the process of repentance, confession, and restoration—and then did that church pronounce you restored, and ready again to minister publicly? If so, what church is that? There is not a bone in my body that believes that a divorced person is forever disqualified from ministering, depending on the circumstances, of course (which again, we won’t get into here). But when a person sins so publicly, there must be real repentance and restoration; absent and until this, the person is disqualified from holding such a public position of Christian leadership (check that: delete “public”).
- Amy, particularly given your high profile, do you have an ongoing accountability relationship even now with a church/its leadership whereby you are held accountable? This question relates to the possibility that she’d fall again into the same sin—and to what would keep her from again tarnishing the reputation of Christ in this way (again, I’m only assuming a “no” to the first question, not making any judgment).
- One more question, Amy (and I ask this to any Christian radio station/publisher/bookseller that would promote her): if a young lady were facing the exact same circumstances as you did in your marriage to Gary, would you counsel her to take the same action you did—and can you justify this Biblically? This goes to questions of “hero worship”, and to her current fidelity to the Scriptures. If Ms. Grant is indeed ministering for the Lord, then she must be in line with clear Bible teaching. This question goes to that.
The deeper point isn’t really about Amy Grant at all; it’s rather about some other things:
- Our obsession as evangelicals with the bigger, the “better”, the more glamorous, the “we’re as hip and cool as the world”—and the way that causes us to gloss over and/or excuse failings in the lives of our “heroes”;
- The lack of accountability on the parts of so many of our “heroes”, our “Christian radio stations”, our publishing houses, our “Christian” booksellers;
- The glaring lack of discernment that is being fostered by some of the above, and complicit in this are a good percentage of churches and Christian leaders that just look the other way, at best;
- The woeful ecclesiology of many (dare I say, most?) Christians, such that the local church is effectively superfluous.
I tried once to address some of these issues with several different folks, including a church that was hosting her concert in the Pittsburgh area (I got what was, effectively, a pleasant brush-off). I tried to address them with the general manager of the Pittsburgh equivalent of The Fish 104.7; for my trouble, I got the nastiest email I’ve ever received in my life (and frankly, it’s not even close). I tried a couple of other routes—but everybody wants to sweep questions like these under the rug. It’s easier just to turn the music up and sing along, apparently…
I want to close with a few words directed toward Amy Grant (not that I believe she’s reading—though she oughta be, right? If so, hey Amy! Remember me?): first, I rejoice in the common salvation that I believe we share in Jesus Christ. I do not hesitate to call her “sister”. Second, I am thankful for how her music ministered to me for many, many years. “Grape, Grape Joy in Jesus” didn’t do much for me, but Michael Card’s “El Shaddai” played in my head over and over; “Sing Your Praise to the Lord” reminded me to do just that; about 2/3 of the Lead Me On album hit me from every which angle and both ministered to me and pummeled me around a little bit. And I could go on in that regard, though time has faded some of those songs from memory, and it’s been years since I’ve listened. Third, her gifts and talents can, and will, be used by God as they have been. God uses frail people such as us, warts and all. If He can use me… Fourth, these questions, if she’s never answered them (and I’m not aware that she has), need to be answered, and maybe some more. What a testimony of God’s grace could be wrought from “coming clean” on these issues. Finally, God’s grace is where it’s at; it’s what it’s all about. It’s available and lavish and undeserved and costly and free at the same time, and without it, we’re all sunk. With it, the words of “1974″ ring again so true:
Purer than the sky,
Behind the rain.
Falling down all around us,
Calling out from a boundless love.
Love had lit a fire;
We were the flame.
Burning into the darkness,
Shining out from inside us.
Stay with me.
Make it ever new,
So time will not undo,
As the years go by,
How I need to see
That’s still me.
The Priesthood of the Unbelievable
March 25, 2010
Jack Brooks has a great piece on the plague—and that’s not too strong a word at all—of every Tom, Dick, and Benny jumping up and claiming to have “an anointed ministry of God”, simply because he/she deems it to be so and can self-publish the latest “Christian classic” revealing some hitherto unrevealed “truth” of God:
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
