Gentle Fudge

religion, politics, current events, and other fashionable dinner conversation.

Monday, June 01, 2009

Can We Handle the Proof?

Controversy surrounding the photographic evidence from 'alleged' abuse of Iraqi and Afghani prisoners of war are now pushed to the forefront of our minds and demanding to be dealt with in this new presidency. What has been repeated over and over in proverb have again prophetically rose from the ashes: Deeds men do in darkness and shadow will be shown in the light of day for what they truly are.

But dare we publish these disturbing images? Could we actually suggest that there are those in our own ranks that have sunk to the basest of things and taken on nothing more than animalistic behavior, nothing more than something befitting of a sociopath seen in a WWII movie or horror flick? Surely not in our own military. Not one of ours. They're the Good Guys. Only those who side with The Terrorists would use such tactics as raping an innocent woman or torturing a man beyond his capacity for pain. Yet somehow there is evidence of this. Or alleged evidence. But it could be misplaced. Or taken out of context. Or perhaps that person could have asked for such abuse, if information was being withheld. Always the victim's fault. (S)He asked for it.

And of course, if these images were to get out, then all of our own troops would be in danger. Eye for an eye. That's the way that side of the world works. So it would be best to keep this information behind closed doors and let our military keep to itself and discipline itself. Just as it disciplines the men who rape or abuse the women in our own ranks. Don't ask, don't tell, right?

So yes, we should just cover it up. After all, I'm sure we all would have been better off without the pictures of Auswitz and the gas chambers and East Germany with the Berlin Wall and Russia during the Cold War. Life is far better with repression and false memories of the Golden Years. After all, we never do anything wrong.

And we should never apologize because the U.S. never makes mistakes.

See also: Pro Liberate: "Again, May God Forgive Us"
Additional information from The Rutherford Institute can be read in their report here.

Labels: Afghanistan, christian, conservative, current events, forgiveness, human rights, Iraq, Islam, liberal, middle east, politics, religion, right-wing, spirituality, war, women's issues

posted by Sara @ 11:08 AM 0 comments

Friday, February 20, 2009

The Worth of Faith

Back from a lengthy sabbatical due to health issues. Bleh. Anyway... a little something to read about churches, how to market your church, and my own opinion on how this has gotten somewhat out of hand because, well, I think we're missing the point of what the Church is supposed to be about anyway.
---------------------------------------

The Value Principle

A marketing professor holds an item up in the air and asks his class, "what's this item worth?" His students suggest one dollar, ten dollars, three hundred, and so on. The professor's response surprises them. "Well, you're all wrong." He sees the class show their frustration and finally says, "The item is worth whatever someone will pay me for it." He then explains to them that this is universally true with any product.

Make sense? It's like when you hear someone say "All you're paying for in that product is the name." An expensive car, a set of golf clubs, a purse, or cosmetics—we try to justify these purchases but most of the time we're buying the name or the style. Sometimes the product truly is different and really more valuable but sometimes it's just the packaging that gets us. Sometimes it's the sense of belonging.

So here's my question… what do people perceive about the worth of your church? How much are they willing to "pay" for the product? In their minds, is church worth not sleeping late on a Sunday morning? Now, remember, man looks on the outside, so they don't always see the amazing product that we're actually providing—they think they are paying for the package that it's coming in. How do we make church valuable to them?

Published on Friday, February 13, 2009 @ 2:23 PM CST

From the blog Beyond Relevance

-------------------------------------------------

Now, here's where my two-cents comes in. This is what irks me. I get the whole "sense of belonging" and "searching" and "reaching out..." But we always are waiting for Them to come to Us. Christ didn't do that. He went out. And things were a little different, too. Religion was different. The state was different. Saying Jesus was Lord and G-d was considered heresy as well as treason; it would land you in jail because Caesar was Lord (and a god). That was his title. It would be similar to refusing to address the President with his official title and instead addressing someone else as such. And revering that individual with presidential power. Ok, enough history......

In this day and age -- and by that, I mean the past 100+ years -- we have been "marketing" Christ. As a product. You go to church. You say the right words. You "receive" eternal life. You "get" the product of Jesus. Pray and receive a different response than the one others expect. Read the Bible and learn the future; discover the past right there in black and white... all like some mystical crystal ball. Exchange of tender or product in anticipation for receipt of goods and services. Basic concepts of capitalism. Gone was the thought of wrestling with the Scriptures as the ancient rabbis once did, being captivated by the words instead of trying to captivate and understand each concept.

We sell Christ as a commodity like a car or toothpaste that will change your family, your workplace, your career. There are promises that you'll live a better life, become happier, have less worries and troubles, maybe get more money ("blessings"), all backed up with biblical verses or studies or testimonies. (I for one will tell you this is all a Great Lie. You will experience nothing but loss. Be prepared to lose everything; you must if you are to die to self. Now a sense of peace, contentment, and joy -- which is NOT happiness -- that I do agree with.) A great sense of individualism also sets in, which permeates the American culture. It is how we are -- strong, rugged, can-do attitudes, pioneering spirits. However, it also starts to isolate. This, I believe, is the reason more and more people -- individuals -- see the Church as merely church and as "their church." It's hard to be the Body of Christ -- the Bride -- with so many little bridezillas parading around. There has been a small revival that began around 5-10 years ago and is starting to catch fire -- I'm not talking about the nearly defunct Emergent Movement, but it was a catalyst. It looks at the teachings of Christ historically, contextually, and questions how Christianity is being "sold" now.

One of my favorite quotes is from Shawn Claiborne's Irresistible Revolution: "Christ is coming back for a Bride, not a harem." This is one of the things I keep in the forefront of my mind when I deal with difficult people and also when people ask me why I still attend church: Because I'm still a part of It and because, for some reason, I can't give up on It yet. (I haven't been told it's an option. Really.)

Labels: christian, marketing, religion, spirituality

posted by Sara @ 11:29 PM 0 comments

Saturday, August 30, 2008

A Kinder, Gentler Nation

The following commentary was published in my local paper this past Sunday. Of course, I was not able to find any links. The paper rarely archives any commentaries regarding religion and politics, thus I decided to retype it in its entirety here. Mr. Whitehead is the local watchdog for religion, politics, law, and civil rights, the founder and president for The Rutherford Institute. Fabulous organization.

When Pastor Rick Warren decided to hold a 'forum' on August 16, 2008, at his mega church Saddleback and invited both presidential candidates to avoid losing his tax-exempt status. This I'm certain of. Due to millions of Christians leaning away from the Religious Right and becoming more 'loving' and 'forgiving' -- thus of the evangelical persuasion -- Warren saw his opportunity and took it. The Purpose-Driven Pastorprenuer opened his arms and welcomed both sides -- surely a thing Christ would do, right? -- and asked questions... and charged tickets, to make sure this was not confused with a church event. Some went as high as 2 grand, from my limited websurfing.

was truly pointless, spineless, and lacked purpose, something Warren should really have some knowledge, considering his empire of books. I agree. Warren should have asked the tough questions instead of worrying about offending the evangelical masses. He is known for avoiding hot button issues and instead focuses on uniting the peoples. He avoids the issues of abortion, or specifically what causes abortions, and instead focuses on world poverty. A wonderful thing when you live in a rich country and the American Way is to fix problems with your checkbook... when the problems are thousands of miles away... when we are known for ignoring our neighbors down the street who are struggling financially or emotionally.

Christ was never worried about being offensive when it came down to it. He confronted the church leaders of his day who lived lavish lifestyles. He went out to find the poor and oppressed. He challenged the comfortable who thought they had done 'enough'. He wasn't afraid to die for what he believed, for those he cared for, which is what ultimately happened. So why is this pastor afraid to lose his earthly kingdom when he should be more concerned for his soul?

Commentary from "The Daily Progress" (Charlottesville, VA)
Sunday, August 24, 2008

by John W. Whitehead

America, meet your new evangelical leader

I have never been considered a part of the religious right, because I don't believe politics is the most effective way to change the world. Although public service can be a noble profession, and I believe it is our responsibility to vote, I don't have much faith in government solutions, give the track record. --Rick Warren

The recent Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was a wash. Both candidates, who claim to be Christians, spent much of their time pandering to the nearly three million television viewers who tuned in. But in terms of what presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama had to say, their responses were largely lacking in content.

However, the Saddleback Forum wasn't insignificant. Its significance has less to do with what the two candidates had to say than in what the person asking the questions, Rick Warren, signifies for the future of Christianity.

The fact that it was Warren and not James Dobson, the Christian Right's de facto Godfather, is particularly telling. It speaks of a decided shift away from the rigid, right-winged mindset that has dominated evangelical Christianity in America over the last three decades. Warren, pastor of the 23,000-member Saddleback Church in California and the best-selling author of "The Purpose-Driven Life," seems to be about as far as you can get from the stigma of the Christian Right while still calling himself an evangelical Christian.

The Christian Right, represented by such prominent figures as Dobson, Pat Robertson and the Late Jerry Falwell, among others, has long stoof for the erection of a Christian State. As David Kuo, who served as special assistant to President Bush documents in his book "Tempting Faith," these Christian leaders worked hard to maintain ties to the Bush White House, complete with weekly conference calls to keep them updated on ever facet of the president's policy and political agenda.

However, the dismal failure of the Bush presidency has led inevitably to the decline of the Christian Right -- and can be credited with contributing to Warren's rise to prominence. According to a 2005 Nation article, Warren "disassociates himself from the religious right, noting that he shares its position on social issues but doesn't want to focus on them. He focuses on poverty, disease, and aid to Africa."

It's not difficult to see why Warren, a mainline evangelical in the Billy Graham mold, is enjoying such popularity. Disillusioned by the power-hawking, war-mongering of the Christian Right, the nation's 80 million evangelical Christians would have little trouble with the feel-good Christianity that Warren sells -- non-confrontational, congenial, and polite. That isn't to say that it lacks substance, merely controversy.

As a recent time article observed, like Graham, Warren "projects an authenticity that he helped him forge an exquisite set of political connections -- in the White House, on both sides of the legislative aisle and abroad. And he is both leading and riding the newest wave and change in the Evangelical community: an expansion beyond social conservatism to causes such as battling poverty, opposing torture and combating global warming.

"The movement has loosened the hold of religious-right leaders on ordinary Evangelicals and created an opportunity for Warren, who has lent his prominent voice to many of the new concerns."

Warren has avoided much that is controversial, such as abortion and gay marriage (what he refers to as "sin issues"). Instead, Warren focuses on issues that "unite," such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change, and human rights. Warren is, whether consciously or unconsciously, shifting the national faith dialogue back to a pre-Regan era, before the small group of leaders that have come to dominate the Christian Right turned Christianity into a synonym for right-wing theocracy.

Sidestepping the siren call of politics, Warren has taken aim at what he calls the "five global giants": spiritual emptiness, selfish leadership, hunger, sickness, and illiteracy. Empowered by his publishing success and with the support of his megachurch, he launched his PEACE initiative -- an acronym for Promote reconciliation, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, and Educate the next generation. Since coming up with the plan, he has taken his PEACE plan global, with Rwanda as his testing ground.

Warren is now being looked upon as America's pastor. Suddenly, Christianity appears somewhat appealing again. Yet while there is so much to commend this so-called New Evangelicalism, with its rejection of politics as the answer and its emphasis on carrying out Jesus' mandate to care for the poor and helpless, there is also an important lesson to the learned. The rise of the Christian Right came about at a time when the evangelical church in America was doing its best to be non-controversial an inoffensive. The evangelical church's subsequent failure was to morally impact the culture and the legalization of abortion can be directly attributed to the emergence ot the Christian Right.

The Christian Right was, without a doubt, a semi-militant reaction to a society that seemed to be lacking a moral compass. And as journalist Chris Hedges points out in his book "American Fascists," if a real crisis rises again across this country (such as another terrorist attack), it would not take much for the country to revert back to such a militant fundamentalism.

This brings us to the current presidential election. No matter who ascends to the White House, it's clear that Christians will not enjoy the kind of access that laid claim to during the Bush administration -- whatever good it did them. For example, abortions didn't decline under Bush, and it's doubtful that whether they would under either Obama or McCain.

The lesson to be learned is this: what is needed now is not a return to the overly polite Christianity of the pre-Regan era. Nor is it the politically charged Christianity of the Religious Right, but a brand of Christianity that does not shy away from speaking truth to power. In other words, the type of Christianity Jesus practiced.

John Whitehead is president and founder of the Albemarle County-based Rutherford Institute, a civil-liberties organization. He can be reached at johnw@rutherford.org

Labels: christian, GenX, GenY, liberal, politics, religion, right-wing, spirituality

posted by Sara @ 4:06 PM 1 comments

Monday, April 07, 2008

Don't Ask Don't Tell

I will rarely post anything personal on this site because everything online is a public forum -- how quickly we forget that. Teens post their innermost thoughts and whine when parents discover a crush's name, not respecting 'privacy'. Employees are fired when opinions are posted about the competition or those at the workplace.

This is not an online diary. It is meant to be informative and opinionated -- and self-therapeutic-- and from time to time I will drift into the realm of the current state of the Church at large.

My opinion is made known, usually by the slant of my writing or articles chosen. Example from an OutofUr blog. I pulled the article and a few choice comments from both sides of the fence as well as my own. Understandably, the discussion was a little heated as this is a big red button in mainline xtianity.

There have been many "changes" in the faith and this is one of those things that I'm sure you can disagree with me on and still go to heaven. That's not the point. The point is to Love the LRD your GD with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. If you can't do that, then you have made yourself G-D and are committing idolatry. And last I checked, there weren't two different G-ds for each half of the Bible.

But that's another sermon for another time. I just live what I believe. Conversion by concussion doesn't work. It only leaves others with bad pain.

February 27, 2008

A Big Can of Worms

David Swanson reports on opening events from the National Pastors Convention.

David Swanson agreed to leave frozen Chicagoland to labor in sunny San Diego at this year's National Pastors Convention. He'll be sending us updates throughout the week of the goings on there. This is his first post.

I arrived at the National Pastors Convention in California a day early to catch one of the pre-conference seminars: Emerging Critical Issues Facing the Church. (For this Midwesterner, the sunny blue skies of San Diego were another reason to come early.) The seminar featured four panelists—Scot McKnight, Phyllis Tickle, Andy Crouch, and Tony Jones—addressing four critical issues: the role of Scripture, the church and politics, homosexuality, and religious pluralism.

These issues are as controversial as they are critical. This was clear from the spirited conversation between the panelists, the passionate questions and comments from the audience, and our moderator’s repeated requests for civil interaction. Allow me to summarize two of these conversations.

Scot McKnight introduced the section on the role of Scripture. “Since high school, I’ve been perplexed about how we [Christians] read the Bible,” he began. Specifically, Scot was puzzled by how we decide what parts of the Bible were for “then” and what is for “now.” He went on to define four ways Christians make these decisions. The “return to restore” method believes we can return to a New Testament form of Christianity in order to restore the Biblical texts to their original meanings. A less idealistic version of this is the “return and retrieve” method, through which the reader approaches the text in order to decide what can be retrieved for our lives today. The panelists agreed that every Bible reader does this to some degree. The question, of course, is how we decide what to retrieve and what to leave behind. Still others approach the Scriptures through his or her “sacred tradition,” allowing their particular tradition to shape their understanding of the text. Finally, Scot described the “primacy of Scripture” method of biblical interpretation. Rather than reading through the lens of tradition, this method reads with tradition. Scot believes this is the most helpful way of reading the Bible, for it allows the church to be constantly reforming.

If Scot is right that we read the Bible in these different ways, and if he’s correct that reading with tradition is the ideal, then how do we preachers and teachers help our church members read this way? Is it enough to allow our preaching and teaching to be formed by the primacy of Scripture, or must we be more blatant in explaining our methodology?

Reading from an article he wrote in 2003, Andy Crouch introduced the third critical issue facing the church: homosexuality. According to Andy, “Humankind is not divided into homosexual or heterosexual categories. We are all sexual beings who tend towards self-satisfaction.” Additionally, many churches rally around these categories, “which leads to a double standard: chastity for those who are gay and a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy regarding sexuality for the rest of us.”

While the panelists disagreed on whether or not homosexual practice is sinful, they were clear that the church must do a better job of pastoring those who are gay. Phyllis counseled the pastors in the room to “remember the human side—these are people, not theories, we are talking about.” Scot added, “The challenges for those pastors who are more traditional is how to create a safe environment for those who are gay to worship.” The evangelical church, he said, “has mostly failed in this area.”

Tony stated that the critical question for most churches is not whether to care for those who are gay. The question many in church leadership are wrestling with is, “Can a gay person can serve in leadership? And at what level?”

Can churches that understand homosexual practice to be a sin actually provide a safe space for gay worshipers? And regarding Tony’s question, should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?

David Swanson is pastor of missional ministries at Parkview Community Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

Posted by UrL on February 27, 2008

Comments

Sounds like some good questions to me! Especially as a seminary trained gay Christian!

Posted by: PomoProphet at February 27, 2008

"Should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership".

I guess I am totally misunderstanding the question here. And I think I've misunderstood this in churches for a little while now. I'm not understanding the use of the word "gay" or "homosexual". Is the question asking if someone is allowed into leadership who struggles with the temptation of homosexuality but doesn't actually commit an act of homosexuality? Or are we assuming that the words "gay" and "homosexual" are people who are actively practicing this behavior?

If someone struggles with the temptation but does not give in, then allow them to lead and show the rest of us how to have that strength in our own lives as well. But if it means people who are actively participating in a homosexuality then I wouldn't say that they should have any level of leadership.

Now this doesn't mean I don't want them to come to my church. I've known many decent, good people who are practicing homosexuals. But I know I would not ask them to teach, preach, or give any sort of spiritual direction.

But why do churches always make things into a "gay" vs. "straight" issue? The places of our worship should be safe for anyone with any issues to come and feel free to connect to God. It doesn't matter whether you struggle with homosexuality or pride or jealousy. Do we all agree that people sin?

But while I write this down, I know there is someone who will disagree with me on the issue of struggling with homosexuality. Thank you for reading my comment. I look forward to what other have to say.

Posted by: Thadd Sparrow at February 27, 2008

"Should gay members of your congrgation be allowed some opportunity of leadership?"

You have gay members? That is a problem in itself. Gay attenders, no problem. Membership should not be offered to anyone engaged in flaunting a sin, whether they be homosexuals, straight adulterers, or something else abhorrent to God.

Posted by: Richard Dennis Miller at February 28, 2008

Why is homosexuality the ultimate test of deciding who can be in leadership and who can not? What about a person in leadership who is exposed as being addicted to pornography? What about an adulterer?

In the latter two cases many times pastors or leadership are allowed to stay provided that they work on restoration. (of course this varies some) Why not work the same way with homosexuality?

Homosexuality is a sin, we know that. We know that ultimately we are to work at loving the sinner and helping them be restored to being more like Christ.

The question really being asked here is "will the church be mute about homosexuality, or will they look at it the same as any other sin?"

What Tony Jones and the others in the Emergent movement are articulating is (at least I think) a position of love and acceptance to the homosexual who feels they would never fit in a church. Ultimately them being allowed into leadership is a church by church decision. Only the local body will know the character of the person, where they are with God, how they are working on the sins in their life etcetera.

Posted by: Carl Holmes at February 28, 2008

Why do we want churches to be safe places to worship?

Light and truth and mercy are risky and dangerous and threatening.

Posted by: Nate at February 28, 2008

"should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?"

this sounds like "should we allow the children to ride elephants during the sermon?"

there is a lot of don't-ask-don't-tell going on in churches. we have become so afraid of being honest with each other and being real that no one will let any one in any more. one reason I like my church is because the music group I play in is full of "real" people. I hate defining them as that. but there are too many churches full of the usual self-perfecting congregations who believe you have to clean up before you can get through the doors. this is why my generation is leaving in droves.

homosexuality is a hot-button and it shouldn't be. it is becoming less and less of an issue with my generation and the next one coming up.

cue: you can begin warming up your Bibles to start quoting from Paul and Leviticus now.

south africa condoned apartheid for decades, citing the biblical stories of Cain and Noah as the "mark" placed by G-d and by the curse from Noah, thus creating the black race. slavery was condoned for years because of verses in the Bible. women and their places in leadership (or lack of places in leadership), inability to own property, keeping quiet in church, and being a physically and mentally weaker sex because of verses in the Bible. financial prosperity is condoned by numerous preachers due to a select few verses in the Bible and woe to those who do not believe because it is their lack of faith. And then there is 'biblical' marketing...

we often read what we wish to read. I have not read anything regarding homosexuality from Christ, for or against. really, he spoke more on the Kingdom of Heaven and money more than anything. I think these were far more important, so I've focused more on showing Christ to those who need him than focusing on someone's sexuality.

I have seen many circumstances and issues "change" due to culture and time. we no longer stone non-virgins, grow our beards long, or call ourselves 'people of the way'. we even adorn our places of worship with one of the ghastliest ornaments of torture known in history. homosexuality may be one of those things that is changing. I accept my homosexual brethren and sisters because I am told that I am to love my neighbors as myself. I cannot judge them because this is a gray area for me and because I have a hard time seeing G-d as some angry Zeus character.

let the casting of stones begin.

Posted by: Sara at March 4, 2008

In responce to Sara, your generation is not leaving the church in droves in fact the Evangelical Church is thriving because they teach truth concerning scripture. And they are not saying get your act together before you come to God we all come to him sin and all, but upon coming we confess our sin and repent of them.
Your sarcasm concerning Lev. and Paul is surprising coming from one who claims to be a believer. Do we throw those scriptures out because our culture has "evolved" beyond them? God forbid, let me cling to his words all of them rather than the winds of cultural change. You mention treatment of blacks, but true believers could not condone the slavery of blacks in this country, it was scripture twisted to fit what sin people wanted to justify. The beards and calling ourselves people of the way, outwardly , surface things, not the things of the heart God is looking for. Take away the scriptures about Homosexuality and view Gods creation on its own and you'll see Homosexuality is unnatural, our bodies were not made for it, any Doctor can tell you that. Lets stop making God in our image, he is a God of love but also a jealous God, a Just God, a Holy God and a God of Wrath among countless other attributes.

Posted by: Rich at March 5, 2008

Sara,

I also love my church because people are not afraid to be real and don't have to be perfect. As someone who works with sexually broken people, I can say that I believe sexuality is deeply important to who we are as humans. Jesus showed great compassion for sexually broken people.

We can talk about whether homosexuals are sexually broken (I happen to think they are); but if God is indeed calling people out of homosexuality, then it isn't because he is angry, but because he is compassionate.

All this being said, I really agree with where you are starting: God calls us to love our neighbors. And we love because he first loved us, not because he threatens us into submission. I hope I can love in the same way you aspire to.

Posted by: Nate at March 5, 2008

Rich:
We are not called to be perfect and holy and blameless. We are called to love others and to come as we are, without judging others that we don't know. It is then that we receive grace and forgiveness. We judge and rebuke others that we DO know -- Christians -- because we are to hold each other accountable. If you find my method a little rough, that is your perception. And Christians CAN use sarcasm and satire to make a point, especially those who "claim" to be believers. Seems I tweaked a nerve with you, sweetie. But be very careful how you go about ministering to others lest you lose out meeting some fascinating souls. Don't forget that we are all eternal beings (C.S. Lewis).

Until then, see you on the other side. I'm sure you'll find many surprises.
S

Deut. 6:4,5; Lev. 19:18; Mt. 12:29-31
" 'Hear, O Israel, The LRD our GD, the LRD is one. Love the LRD your GD with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength... Love your neighbor as yourself' There is no commandment greater than these."

Matthew 21:31-32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."

Posted by: Sara at April 1, 2008

Labels: christian, homosexuality, human rights, spirituality

posted by Sara @ 12:15 PM 1 comments

Monday, January 29, 2007

Rockin' Religion

Music is essential. It stirs emotion, it invokes memories, it translates g

roanings of the soul that words cannot express, it ascends to the divine and binds with human nature. In short, it is magical. And it has been a source of controversy for centuries especially in The Church. (Religious) Dualism separated the world into the Secular and the Sacred. Neither of the two were to intersect lest the Sacred become tainted.

Many preachers in the 50's spoke against the Devil's Music -- to quote Reverend Lovejoy "rrrock-and-or-rrrollll." It sparked unholy desires, they warned. It bred sin. Many churches today still struggle with the concept of "drums in church." I quickly fell in love with the blues and boogie stylings of the 40's and 50's, proudly baptizing my left hand into musical "blackness" on the piano, a style that was virtually non-existent in my white bread congregation. To this day, I consider myself the wooden spoon that stirs the pot. Larry Norman put it beautifully: "Why should the devil have all the good music?"

Music is often the reason many show up at a church service. I wish it were more than that and we would decide to shake ourselves out of our spiritual comas and start going out and making a difference, but baby steps, I remind myself, baby steps. Everyone is at a different stage and has a different calling. Musically, many young-uns like myself are left wanting from the "contemporary" style and skip church for this reason. I began wondering why -- why is this style predominant? What happened to reaching the masses through experimental music and dynamic lyrics? Why have we retreated back into our xtian ghettos, locked away from reality? When did it become a bland soup of bouncy, repetitive cliches underscored with simplistic composition and stolen riffs and hailed as meaningful and life-changing, while any song that doesn't specifically mention Christ is tossed aside as worthless?

The average "contemporary Christian" music audience, I learned, are women 35-45. More in-depth research can be found here:

The research primarily focuses on xtian radio. It has some good history as to how this phenomenon has come about.

I had been raised on the somnolent sounds of early xtian "rock" music. Nothing against Keith Green. Great lyrics, great music. A true pioneer. As with Rich Mullins. And I love the music now; I've helped orchestrate some beautiful arrangements. But they weren't as kicking as the, ahem, secular artists of the day like Guns'n'Roses, Prince, or The Cure. If it was loud, fast, and edgy, I went for it. But my home church was musically dualistic, so we were strongly encouraged to shun non-xtian artists. To help fill the void, lists were created by xtian recording labels comparing xtian groups to secular groups: "If you like (said style & band) you will like (said style and xtian band)." The lists were often very inaccurate. The theory was that if we listened to only "good music," we would abstain from "bad actions" which allegedly stemmed from listening to "trashy" music. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.

"Contemporary" xtian music is a misnomer; it does not reflect current music in any way. It's at least five years behind the current trend and many styles are not welcome within the walls of the institutional church. I'd love to hear some thrash, metal, or even hard-core rap before the offering is taken up. 'Tain't gonna happen, I'm sure. And I'm not talking concerts, either. And I'm also curious about the need to label it "xtian." I've never heard other bands branding themselves solely by religious affiliation.

I read recently about a new church opening in England that plans to use U2 music during its services -- a "U2-charist" that plans to have a live band and around 500 worshipers. Interesting concept. As my "next step" brain works, I'd love to know what the church's main purpose is. If you ever dissect U2's lyrics, you'll see numerous links to faith, biblical references, and social awareness. Bono is a fascinating person and not afraid to speak about what he believes in. BeliefNet has an excellent interview.

Music is a tool, one facet, that can be used to express faith and belief. It doesn't matter what instruments are used. It doesn't matter what style we choose. It doesn't matter if we express our doubts, exasperations, or despair to G-d in addition to the praise-and-worship overkill. (Sorry, cynicism showing. Pulling up the socks...) We are human and life isn't pretty or safe. We were never promised that it would be.

And G-d doesn't need our songs. G-d is complete without us. But G-d takes joy in our joy, in our music and our desire for self-expression. So sing a new song. Even if it does include drums and requires you to reach beyond a coddled xtian audience.

NOTE ON THE PIC: If you'd like to learn more about how religion and music is reaching out across the seas, check out David Pierce and No Longer Music. Not for the faint of heart. Live what you love.

Labels: christian, music, religion

posted by Sara @ 1:55 PM 2 comments

Thursday, October 26, 2006

"Crazy Christians"

I'm very impressed with the publicity NBC's "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" has been getting. Takes place in NBS Studios (ah hah! I get it!) on a sketch comedy show stage that feels very similar in format and even bumper music to SNL. Hmmm... well, NBC has the power to mimic their own format since they own it. Anyway, good writing, good cast, good characters. Compared with the glut of reality shows feeding our ever-growing sick appetite for voyarism and the just-add-water-wealth gameshows, I have been pleasantly surprised.

And of course, with all shows that mention the word 'christian,' there has been controversy.

All good network producers know the sacred cows. Repeat after me:

We do not mention politics.
We do not mention religion.
We do not mention race.
We do not mention sexual orientation.
We do not mention mental illness.
We do not mention sex. (We just hint at it.)
No smoking (on camera).
No drinking (to excess without consequence).
No drugs. (No admitting if you did. It's an herbal supplement.)

Most fear lawsuits in our happily litigious society. Somewhere along our sedated journey, we began remembering that there is no Constitutional right against being offended. There have been a few brave souls that have begun to refocus the spotlights in the past few years which of course brings controversy. Will and Grace brought gay out of the closet. Now, all biases aside, they still erred on the side of safety; there was little seen about the personal lives of the gay men and more focus on the clever writing, but it all rang similar to the shenanigans of the early bed-swapping Friends.

And all has been quiet on the western front recently until it was discovered on Studio 60 that there is an openly xtian character. Southern Baptist blonde who will damn you to hell with a smile. There are cracks about the Religious Right (and sorry guys, but you brought it on yourselves) and a few stereotypes in general including a jab at Pat Robertson -- again, Pat, you did it to yourself. And a continual allusion to a banned skit called "Crazy Christians."

I've seen many other 'xtian' characters on other shows and very few pass beyond two-dimensional -- weak sketches of every characature made: clueless about their faith, moral but self-righteous, stubbornly close-minded toward others, doormats, know-it-all isolationists that hide behind their double-locked doors, quivering and waiting for the rapture. Before Jesus leaves the real sinners for judgement, of course.

But the woman on Studio 60 shows a depth I haven't seen with any religious character on any show up till now. Sure, she lets slip some attitude once and a while against her fellow unsaved coworkers, but she is flesh and blood. She makes mistakes, but she still relies on her faith to give her guidance. And is open to sharing about it with others. I do like her attitude that this should not be the main focus -- it isn't for others. She is not the novelty act just because she is a xtian. There is more to her than just this label.

An article written by Brent Bozell III kinda charred my cookies. He lambasted the show for daring to berate xtians. (I'm sure he would be offended that I don't spell the word in its entirety either.) He states that Hollyweird is back to their usual self, wanting to take good moral programming off the air and replace it with immoral shit that encourage kids to sleep around, shoot up, and denounce their faith. First, I want to encourage him to turn off The 700 Club. Next, I want him to count how many non-xtian friends he has that he is not obsessed with converting within his lifetime. After dinner and watching The Passion or Matthew. Also, we are living in the world. And we have been told to Go, not Sit-And-Hide.

If he had kept up with the show, which is funnier than hell, he would see that the writers are turning all kinds of sacred cows into hamburger. They poked their stick at xtians, Jews, Muslims, and atheists during a sketch about the origin of the earth. The most recent episode showed DL Hughley and Matthew Perry skip out on the wrap party to scout a black comedian because Hughley's character insisted on hiring a black writer for "diversity". He was sadly disappointed when the comedian's act consisted of racial slurs toward whites, glorifying his part in multiple pregnancies with countless "bitches" -- "My next kid's name's gonna be 'Oops' " -- and not paying his bills on time; the typical ghetto attitude that has entrapped much of the black community. Racism and sexism coming from from another side, not our redneck-white-trash-cracker poster child? Risky.

Xtians are a target for a reason. Do we attend church just to point our fingers at others who don't measure up to our standards? Do we think we're better because we're told we said the right words and are paid up on fire insurance? Or have we only changed our Sunday morning schedule instead of our way of life? Let's not forget John 3:17. If we remember that G-d loves everyone and every person we encounter is an eternal soul, maybe our attitude would be a little different. Let's lower our noses a little bit and quit being so snobby and easily offended. I always find it amusing that the only people Christ got truly upset and angry at were the hyper-religious and legalistic.

When we find something desperately wrong with this picture, we need to start fixing it. And watch the show. It's damn funny.

UPDATE (11/06/06):
Well, if the rumors are correct, my beloved late-night show may be getting canceled. It had a good run and entertained many of us.

The mutterings are that the show was "too smart" and "too offensive," daring to make fun of the average TV viewer. Well, I'm not one for Roman holiday reality shows, mindless game shows of chance employing models and briefcases, and politically correct sitcoms the flavor of stale toast. I miss scripted TV written by writers who earned their journalism degrees by keeping current and edgy. And if that's offensive, then I'll have to buy more books because the replacement will definately have its sharp corners rubber-capped for your protection.

Labels: christian, religion, Studio 60

posted by Sara @ 10:45 PM 0 comments

Friday, September 22, 2006

Because I will never arrive

My husband can affirm this: I argue with preachers during church. Quietly. Under my breath. I am not malicious. I am not mean. I just have opinions and teachings and personal challenges that I wish to share and I haven't been asked to preach. Yet.

I'll admit I'm a highly opinionated person when it comes to challenging the traditional, safe, vanilla-protestant with a twist of classic Baptist religion of my childhood. We dunk; we don't sprinkle. We don't listen to "heathen" music. We don't allow women to lead churches. We view our "unsaved" friends as convertable sinners only. Funny. For something that is supposed to be so freeing, there are a lot of don'ts. Which only inspires me to do more research on doctrine. But back to my point.

I tire easily of the Sunday school answers that flow so easily from our lips. We don't think any more. Or maybe we think that we think since that's what we're told to think. For the most part, I get along with differing opinions-- even pastors-- but every once and a while, something tweaks my consiousness and I spout off in the car as we drive home. Or it sits at a slow simmer for several days and I mull it over, chew slowly and politely with my mouth closed, and let the flavors mingle until I sense the heat and then sent off my short thesis to a small audience. Everyone should have a sounding board.

A while back, the Theme Of The Month was Forgiveness and Grace. Very tricky to put into practice. There are many pretty songs about both. We are familiar with the story of the good Samaritan and how Jesus forgave everyone and how we should do the same. Yet we still have problems with those who don't share our viewpoint. We pick and choose based on our personal biases; avoiding those who don't fit into our definition of worthy. Anyway, here's that spout about forgiveness and being honest [about] yourself.

-------------------------------------------------
With thoughts from the "but how do I forgive THAT person?" topic of the past couple weeks and tangent into a deeper realm of purple. Warning: Xtian abbreviation usage. I'm sensing that many are feeling pulled into doing the "good Xtian" thing because that's what "good Xtians" do. Such as the Forgive-Others theory. Or Love-Others. These concepts kinda go together. This includes the terrorists that flew the planes into the Twin Towers, your coworker with an alternative lifestyle, that guy in Washington you didn't vote for, televangelists who fleece our widows and orphans. Insert Name Here. Nice thought. Easy to do when you're five. Harder to practice when you've reached... a more mature stage in life.

So often when we struggle, we're told to give it over [blindly] and then magically everything will be all right. G-d will wave his cosmic wand, sprinkle the pixie dust and somehow, we are assured, everything will work out. For [our] good, it is implied, which usually is interpreted in our Westernized ear as instant gratification for vengeance, material wealth, companionship that will incite covetousness among the neighbors, instantaneous healing, or really cool shoes. Even if the process is extremely uncomfortable and we still have questions that we can't really ask because that would indicate doubt, either in G-d or in G-d's "messenger". And if we have no "faith" then are we truly "good Xtians"? And the vicious cycle continues. Notice that the focus remains on ourselves.

Which brings us to the topic of the moment. How do we change this culture? Should we? Is this healthy -- to doubt and ask questions and say, "Y'know, I really don't get this whole thing and I really would rather take a two-by-four and slap him upside the head"? (Now I don't condone acting on violent tendencies; just being honest with the emotion.) Can we be honest without spitting back Sunday school answers? And is religious regurgitation really honesty or simply parrot-speak?

From the blog I read earlier today which addresses the importance of honesty and inclusion, especially in The Church:

Today's young adults see a generation of baby-boomer Christians that has striven for "excellence" in every part of church life... The nurseries have got to be sparkling clean, the church buildings are marvelously functional as opposed to artistic, the music is as close to FM radio quality as possible (even if they must hire a band), the Sunday services are seamless with perfect transitions (just like television), the preaching is entertaining and informative (but not so deep as to offend visitors), and the plants on stage are beautiful (but artificial).

...the next generation has concluded that "everything is image," and therefore nothing can be trusted. Church is too slick, too good, too polished to be real. And the twenty-something hunger for raw authenticity just doesn't fit in...

It's been my experience that twenty-somethings simply want permission to struggle. Most fear that they are not good enough for God's family. Each week they are told about the standards they are expected to keep, and each week they are led to believe that the rest of the church is somehow keeping up. This "silence about the struggle" quietly drives young adults away from churches all over the country. One of the highest compliments the pastor of an emerging church can receive is to be told that his/her own difficulty in following Christ has given someone hope that they, too, can fail and still keep following Jesus.

Twenty-somethings also see a generation ahead of them in the church that cannot live well with moral ambiguity. Boomer Christians tend to divide the world into three categories: the holy, the secular, and the downright sinful. For example, there was a debate years ago about whether or not Amy Grant had "sold out" when she left the Christian recording industry and crossed over to the secular market. It wasn't evil, boomers would say, but neither was it holy.

I'd replace twenty-somethings with a broader age group and include Xers and disenchanted Boomers. But this does address the concern that many of us have regarding the Image of Honesty that many churches-- small c-- have. *raise hand* Permission to struggle? Can I leave the Oscar nominated performance at home on Sunday? Monday? Tuesday?

There is no neat, tidy way to wrap this up as I'm anti A-Better-Life-In-Six-Bullet-Points. Because faith is a process. I like the thought of a race, but races are short and you know where the end is. I have no clue where the finish line is or in what shape I'll be when I get there. But it is affirming for my personal faith to hear those speak out about their own doubts and struggles and knowing that they "aren't with it" along with me. And that is the foundation for an honest, genuine, living faith.

Y'all have a good weekend.

Labels: christian, forgiveness, spirituality

posted by Sara @ 12:49 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

On Blasphemy and Dusty Relics

There is plenty of activity surrounding the Madonna "Confessions" tour and blasphemy has been thrown around a lot by church leaders. Reminds me of protests at heavy metal concerts. Overall, as an artist, I do think the whole mock crucifixion on a disco-mirror-ball cross is in bad taste, but what else do we expect from the pop diva who has made her living on shocking an antiquating institution into reanalyzing the faith of our fathers and the fixtures in our weekend country clubs?

In the late 80s/early 90s, many music groups began blurring the line between the secular and the sacred and sparked a mini-revival in the spiritual arena. Madonna was one of them. We were encouraged to wonder, to see G-d in the details, to doubt, to question, to see the Kingdom on earth, to speak in public and quit hiding our lights under little buckets which, as any good firestarter knows, impairs feeding the flame and eventually will kill any fire left. Action cemented faith. But the voices were still there: "You can't be [fill in the blank] if you [fill in the blank]."

Legalism is willingly remaining in the fishbowl.

Not to be overly cynical, but much of what we once held dear has lost meaning for many since spirituality has become a dry excuse for a Sunday morning nap before the game, looking down our noses at those less moral than us, and beaming over the BMW in the parking lot that G-d "blessed" us with. We have lost our saltiness and others merely shrug and say "so what?" We are so comfortable in our climate-controlled megachurches. Our mentality has shifted from "go into the world" to "let the world come to you (and then convert them to Your Version of xtianity)." We focus on appearing reverent and perfect, unaware of our spiritual numbness.

I don't want to discount the opinions of the cardinals of the Catholic church. But it makes me wonder. Has the cross become our good luck charm? Has it lost meaning for many who see our culture saturated with a symbol that means little more than 14 karat? Why does a poorly performed publicity stunt get our dander up? Or is it an appropriate gesture for someone who feels crucified by her childhood religion, damned to hell because she didn't measure up to the human standard of righteousness and now she is seeking purification the only way she knows how -- through penance?

Labels: christian, Madonna, spirituality

posted by Sara @ 9:18 AM 0 comments

About Me

Name: Sara
Home: gypsy wanderer, United States
About Me: Those who know me find me stubborn, opinionated, open-minded, strong-willed, of some intelligence, and yet they still hang around.
See my complete profile