Scattershooting ...

Scattershooting while wondering why we drape our own desires in the will of God ...

... why God never calls unattractive girls to be that guy's wife ... I have friends who have gone to little Baptist colleges, and they often get the sudden (from guys they barely know): "God spoke to me and said He created you to be my wife." This is before the first date; funny, it only happens to my really cute friends ...

... why God never calls a preacher to a smaller church. One might think that it was the little, struggling churches that need the best preachers and that the big, rich churches could survive with less than best ...

... why God never calls a preacher to plant a church in the declining part of town. When I hear about "God called me to plant this church," the church always seems to be in the fastest-growing, richest and most-overserved-by-churches area ... I guess the poor people do not need the Gospel ...

... why God always tells search committees to call the guy whose preaching they like the best ... because I served a small church without great recording equipment, I do not have a plethora of tapes (and no CDs), but churches always ask for a "newer sermon" ... I guess God did not hear the old ones ...

The point of my little exercise is how often we do things in our own self interest but feel the need to "spiritualize" those actions. Why can't we just say "I like petite, cute blondes" ... or I want to start a ministry and make sure there are plenty of potential church members with plenty of money to support my goals .... or I want to make more money and have a "more successful" ministry ... or "we want a pastor who preaches a certain way and fits a certain profile" ...

I just wish we would be more authentic and honest and not try to wrap our own failings inside the will of God.

Halloween versus Christmas

It is fall - finally! That means Halloween. This morning on the way to the USPO I drove by that church - the one with the plagiarizing preacher - and they have a big banner out front announcing its "Fall Festival." This really bugs me. Can a reasonably serious Christian celebrate Halloween? My wife and I have a big disagreement on this. She wants costumes and candy; I just have a hard time with celebrating a pagan holiday.

There is a great juxtoposition between Halloween and Christmas:

• Halloween is a secular holiday that many Christians "relabel" and celebrate
• Christmas is a Christian holiday that many pagans "relabel" and celebrate

Can we not just keep our respective holidays to ourselves? If pagans will get out of the Christmas-celebrating business, I will get out of the Halloween business. Quit making me celebrate "the holidays," and I'll quit celebrating a "fall festival."

I just have a real problem with churches baptizing the culture - again - and celebrating Halloween. I am not saying if you or your kids dress up that you're necessesarily sinning; but I think it is wrong for church to celebrate Halloween - calling a pagan event a "fall festival" changes nothing. Heck, "Halloween" is (I think) a Christian appellation.

Think of what Halloween represents. It once represented the pagan ideals of spirits and witchcraft. Now it represents the pagan ideals of sexuality and immorality. Have you seen the Halloween costumes? My mailbox if full of flyers with costumes - which primarily contains sexualized immorality. Take Red Riding hood and add a bustier and some red thigh-high stockings and you have a trendy Halloween costume.

The call of the church is to be counter-cultural. To stand for the Truth of Christ. I see too many - particularly fundamentalist evangelical - churches just bringing the culture into the faith. After all, it is less about Gospel and more about marketing.

Cold Turkey

Okay, I admit. I could not go cold turkey. In a moment of weakness I instinctively went over the the Outhouse and read a post. Of course, it was on women in ministry so I got suckered into reading some posts - no posts just perusing others' comments. The responses were typical.

• There were a surprising amount of people who were open to and accepting of women in ministry and at least could acknowledge there is not a clear, biblical witness
• There were those who dogmatically claimed that "they believed the Bible," which states women cannot be pastors, have authority over a man, etc.

And as always, my position is the correct one ... that is a joke. But seriously, one cannot reasonably make an argument either way without acknowledging that there is tension in the biblical witness. You have women leaders in theOT and the NT, and Jesus' liberal attitude - if not flat-out rebellion - against the social convention of the day makes it hard to believe he would support the paternalistic attitudes of first century Jews and 21st century Southern Baptists. I thought one person madea novel argument I had never heard: the Great Commission commands all to go out and and make disciples and to baptize - I guess our fundamentalist friends do not care to take that passage so literally.

I think that is my beef with the fundamentalist position - the absurdity of its inconsistency. Fundamentalists pick and choose passages to taker literally while ignoring other passages. I am a traditional Baptist, so I respect a fundamentalist's privilege to not support women ministers; but if they want to keep me from doing so, reciprocate with a little consistency: do not let women speak in church, forbid jewelry and makeup, and make them cover their heads; but no, they pick and choose their literal passages.

The fundamentalist argument largely hinges on the 1 Timothy passage; and theological arguments are exhaustive on both sides. However, I am more apt to believe that the writer of this letters intendes his direction to be situational as it is written to a specific person at a specific time. Paul's letters by contrast largely were intended to be circulated. Paul not only permits women to preach but considers them in equality with men (Gal).

When I started this post, my intention was not to dwell on preaching women. I also read an article in a magazine about the family feud going on in Episcopal life over the ordination of gay bishops. I think many Fundamentalists (in addition to other reasons) fear that letting women vote and leave the kitchen opens the doors for gays next (all this started when they let the blacks in).

How do we as hold on to orthodoxy while allowing for teneble positions that legitimately evolve? While there is tension over women, one really has to get out the mental gymnastics to support the ordination of homosexuals (IMHO). Yet so many in church leadership and the academy tend to have political and cultural agendas disguished as theology: my favorite is the "Mother God" movement ... there is a reason God chose masculine language more than a matter of grammar.

My concern is allowing liberty in places where one finds legitimate theological tension while preventing the slippery slope into accomodaton. I guess one has to define "legitimate."

Sunday Preaching

Sunday I had the opportunity to preach at a wonderful church. The people were nice and gracious. The couple of people who read my blog regularly know that my recent experiences with churches have not always been positive, so it was great to have such a good time.

Lost

Lost is one of my guilty pleasures; but it is starting to give me tiredhead. Each week new mysteries unfold with little resolution of previous curiosities. The most annoying thing about Lost is its tendency to launch major plot points and then tend to ignore them. In Season One, much was made about the "island monster." It was absent in Season Two altogether.

One of my former favorite shows was Alias, also written and created by Lost's J.J. Abrams. jumped the shark - I think - during the (I think it was) season 2 finale where Vaughn was trapped behind a door after a big, red, liquid-filled ball exploded. From that point on, Alias abandoned much of the character-driven, emotional plot lines in favor of conspiracies of conspiracies. It ultimatley collapsed under its own mysterious weight.

I fear Lost may be going down the same road. Gone from Season One is the intense interaction among the "losties" as they seek to build a society on this new, strange place. Gone is the tension - sexual, political, emotional, etc. Now it is secret after secret - a little revealed each week. Lost threatens to collapse under the weight of a gigantic metanarrative that the show cannot support.

I am still on board, but my patience is thinning.

No More Baptist Political Blogs

For the past year or so, I have been entertained by the world of the Southern Baptist blogosphere. It seems like blogs touting all sorts of Southern Baptist movements are popping up. Much of my interest was environmental - I was intrigued by the growing discord among the fundamentalists. Now that the evil liberals were vanquished, they had no one to fight. And as predicted, they began to fight among themselves. Much of my interest was personal - what better combines my backgrounds in journalism, theology and political science like a good Baptist brawl.

On one side, you had the fundamentalist establishment. This group included loyal lieutenants of the Fudamentalist Takeover as well as those who "worshipped" Paige Patterson and Adrian Rogers. On the other side, you had the disgruntled fundamentalists. This group is more high profile in the blogosphere and the hardest to nail down. Some of its leaders include:

• Their pope is Wade Burleson, a pastor in Oklahoma and IMB trustee whose loyalty and like of IMB President Jerry Rankin thrust him into this role. Burleson has good fundamentalist credentials - he led the Oklahoma takeover, and now that victory is one, wants to be seen as an irenic fundamentalist. Admittedly, I have not verified with him, but a professor told me during one of the early CBF/moderate meetings in Oklahoma, Burleson traveled to it and nailed "95 [Fundamentalist] Thesis" to the meeting room door. Burleson may be legitimately reformed (little r), more loyal to Rankin than Patterson, or is a la Mohler sniffing a new breeze in the air and wants to be in front of it.
• Their Cardinal Ratzinger is Ben Cole, by far the most entertaining of the neo-fundamentalists. Cole is a small-church pastor in the Dallas area and a former stoog of Paige Patterson. When he did not get the plum assignment he wanted, Cole turned sychophant to serpent and began casting his venom and Patterson and airing their dirtly laundry. Cole fancies himself as the intellectual leader of the movement although I am not sure anyone follows him ... he tends to be myopic and venomous, which makes him so entertaining.
• And "The Others." Like those who live on the other side of SBC Life, these guys are "small-time" preachers who never captured to love and patronage of the Fundamentalist Establishment. Some of them are sharp guys starting to realize the emperor has no clothes, and others fall into different sorts ...

Against this backdrop you have a strong group of folks who seem to worship Paige Patterson and Adrian Rogers more than Jesus. These are the hard-wired fundamentalist kids who actually believe most of the stuff spewed out of Fort Worth, Louisville, etc. By far the most interesting of these guys is Jeremy Green, purportedly a pastor in Waco. Until I meet him, I will not believe he is real ... nobody is actually like that. And another good one is Les Puryear. This guy lived in the real world for years and still thinks this way. Granted, I have not met any of these folks, this is just my myopic and self-absorbed observations.

While I hope you can tell from the little above why this has been so much fun, I have to quit. It is as addicting as nicotine; but I must stop. It is extinguishing my spirit. I can see why the Southern Baptist Convention is halfing in size (although they'll never admit it and voted down a real count last summer, there is no way the SBC is anywhere near its advertised 16 million members; 10 million would be generous). These people are power hungry, toxic spirits. It do not think it is their fault - this is the culture that reared them. They do not know how to be Baptist without building political coalitions and fighting.

Burleson and Cole advertised how they drove around Texas building support for their cause. My question: WHO IS PASTORING YOUR CHURCH WHILE YOU'RE OUT PLAYING POLITICS? For people who claim to have so much faith and belive the Bible so much, few act like it. To me, all this politicing seems to deny much power for the Holy Spirit. But that seems to be Baptist life - lots of talk about faith, but just in case the Lord does not agree with us, we better do all we can to make our agenda happen.

Cole posted a note about a meeting he had with Joel Gregory, who advised him to focus on the local church. I think everyone in the SBC should take that advice. I am going to and hope to leave the Southern Baptist Blogosphere. What is important is not what Paige Patterson or Al Mohler think or what some other yahoos think but what is the call of Christ on our lives.

Brian McLaren

I have never really known what to make of Brian McLaren besides his status as uber-trendy man du jour. The trendy seminary kids love him; the fundamentalists hate him. Is he just another foil complicit in the turning of the American Church into a big youth camp, or is he truly an intellectual trying to return the Church toward its roots. Is he seeking reformation or just another trend to push book sales? Regardless, I love this quotation from this week's Baptist Standard.

"When we present Jesus as a pro-war, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-environment, pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an American flag, I think we are making a travesty of the portrait of Jesus we find in the gospels."

"You’re Not a Real Mexican"

A Jeff Foxworthy doppelganger said: “If you have insurance or a drivers license, you might not be a real Mexican.” At least that is what the illegal alien that hit my wife’s car told my mother-in-law, who is an American of Mexican heritage. The man – the third illegal alien to hit my wife’s car in the past year – told her that real Mexicans don’t have papers or carry insurance.

So I thought: why should they? Illegal Mexican aliens come to the United States daily with reckless abandon and no regard for the laws of the country – and they’re treated like royalty: free education, free health care, free social services and they’re catered to by advertisers and businesses. If the news is any indication, we as a country soon are coming to a point where something must be done … and I have been pondering the proper Christian response to this issue.

This situation is like many that face us: there is a collision between the concept of political subdivisions and the kingdom of God, which recognizes no nationalities are borders. But does that mean anarchy? What is the proper response in face on no biblical mandate (I know there are alien passages in the Pentateuch, but since we ignore the other laws we cannot exactly enforce this one).

From a practical standpoint, the United States cannot continue to support the poor of a another nation. Hospitals, schools and agencies are overcrowded and under-funded largely because of illegal aliens. Law-abiding citizens are having to pay higher insurance premiums and other fees to compensate for the influx of drivers with no insurance. And crime is skyrocketing – 21-percent of federal inmates are illegal aliens, and a majority of crimes committed in the city Dallas are by illegal aliens. This group is not unique in any of these problems, but they exacerbate the overall problem.

Politicians and special interest groups have promulgates solutions from walls and deportation to immunity and full citizenship. I am not sure if either satisfies. There is something between giving people opportunities and expecting certain gratitude and respect for receiving said opportunities. Although pro-illegal special interests try to distract the issue by playing the race card, it really is a simple issue of: can the United States continue to support Mexico?

I think Mexico really is the culprit in this situation. Mexico exploits its poorest citizens by encouraging them to make the dangerous trek to the United States. Mexico exploits the generosity of the United States by expected Americans to accept, employ and support its poorest. As an aside, Mexico treats its illegal aliens harshly and deports or imprisons them.

And America seems impotent. Business interests do not want to lose cheap labor. Democrats do not want to lose voters, and Republicans are scared of the race card – so nothing gets done.

I do not know what the proper Christian response is. It seems like Jesus provided charity but expected responsibility. These issues where practicality and the gospel may intersect are the most difficult for me to contemplate. I do know, however, that something must be done.