"The Radical Fringe" of Christianity

Image by C. Wess Daniels via Flickr

Ron Cole, who writes "The Weary Pilgrim" describes the work of Jarrod McKenna as the "Australian version of Shane Claiborne."  "The Weary Pilgrim" highlights a podcast of Jarrod's.

What I wanted to quote, however, is how he describes Jarrod and this "radical fringe" of Christianity.

He is part of a radical element on the the fringe of the church that sees faith and works, the practice and action of faith as being critical. The teachings of Jesus put into practice must be lived out, as radically today... to dilute them, co-modify and embed them in western church culture is not the redemptive vision and imagination of Jesus. This radical fringe believes Christianity is in trouble because it has become to passive and culturally accommodating. They are stirring the luke-warm pot of status quo Christianity.

That's some powerful language there. 

And I am left with the struggle of determining how I should live this out when I have bills to pay, kids to pick up, a church to fund, construction workers to check in on, and a stewardship campaign to close out.

Sometimes I seem and feel so far from this "radical fringe."  I feel so...established...so diluted...so co-modified...so embedded.

Alas.

"The Trouble With Born-Again Christians..."

Image by megpi via Flickr

The trouble with born-again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain the second time around. -- Herb Cain

This is a post over at Ragamuffin Soul, a blog by Carlos Whittaker that inspires and challenges me.

And, this quote..., well, it inspires and challenges me.

First off, it's entirely out of context.  I have to admit this. As I read this I have no idea what it is that brought Mr. Cain to this conclusion.  Could he have been made to feel "unchristian" because he brought up questions of faith or because he expressed doubts?  Maybe he had just come back from a retreat with some "SuperChristians" and others doubted his own way of expressing his faith?  Perhaps he just got off the plane after sitting next to someone who spent the entire flight trying to convert him?  Or, quite possibly, this was spoken or written after years of trying to find a church that would welcome him because he's divorced?  Or or a minority?  Or Goth?  Or....

Secondly, even though I am a born-again Christian and have been rescued from my sin by the grace of Christ (Thank God!), I have had my struggles with some of my "born again" brothers and sisters in Christ.  I have felt excluded.  I have had my faith questioned.  I have had my interpretation of Scripture belittled.  I have even had the way I pray -- which can be quite colloquial -- criticized.  Some of my issues have been semantics...just the language we're all comfortable or uncomfortable with.

Third, there are a whole lot of really awesome "born again Christians" out there.  I'm friends with a lot of them (which sounds pretty meaningless as I write this).  I find many of them to be challenging and accepting, loving and respectful, and really not pains at all.  The notion that they are all "pains" is a cultural generalization that is merely a stereotype.  This is not to say that there aren't "pains" among them.  It just means that the generalization is a generalization.  This is a cultural stereotype that, even though it is not entirely true, has some basis in truth based on the experiences of many.

Fourth, and last, Mr. Cain could very well have said this about me at times.  I sometimes wear my Christianity like a badge...giving me the authority of the "faith police" in my environment.  I have bouts of self-righteousness and I can, I know, sometimes struggle with the fact that other Christians aren't more like me and my own understanding of the faith.  I recognize that as sin.  I recognize it as pride. I recognize that as Pharisaic. And I see that sin in myself.  At times, I'm part of the problem.  I merely hope and pray that my actions, my words, my expression of Christ in this world won't lead to all Christians being defined by the same broad stroke Herb Cain uses here.

The Salvation of Katy Perry

Image via Wikipedia

(OK, a little reflection on some pop culture here.  Clearly not my strong point.  However, I'm interested in the religious side of this discussion.)

Much has been made of the Katy Perry interview and cover over at Rolling Stone magazine recently, partly because of all of the "faith" issues it brings up.  See, Katy was raised by some dynamic youth ministers in an evangelical Christian church, she had a short-lived Christian Music Career, and now she's engaged to Russel Brand (hard-living/hard-talking comedian) and is a pop princess.

There's a preview of the article, entitled "Sex, God, and Katy Perry" over here at Rolling Stone.

You can see a video here where she talks about her parents.

And there's a whole lot out there about the revealing outfits she's worn.

But it's the transition between that upbringing to what she reveals, in word and action, now that are of interest to myself and others.

MTV talks about her upbringing:

In fact, while she appreciates having fiancé Russell Brand in her life, she just can't bring herself to say she feels lucky. Why? "I wasn't ever able to say I was 'lucky' because my mother would rather us say that we were blessed, and she also didn't like that lucky sounded like Lucifer," she told the magazine, which hits newsstands Friday. "Deviled eggs were called 'angelled' eggs. I wasn't allowed to eat Lucky Charms, but I think that was the sugar. I think my mom lied to me about that one."

Perry, who has the word "Jesus" tattooed on her wrist, admits that her parents channeled God regularly. "Speaking in tongues is as normal to me as 'Pass the salt.' It's a secret, direct prayer language to God," she explained, adding that her father is the one who can speak in tongues with her mother acting as translator. "That's their gift," she said.

So...no "lucky"...no "Deviled eggs"...no problem with speaking in tongues...

And we see this in the New York Daily News:

Katy Perry may be cool with stripping down to her skivvies for Rolling Stone, but the pop star says she takes her religion very seriously.

"I am sensitive to Russell taking the Lord's name in vain and to Lady Gaga putting a rosary in her mouth," the pop star, 25, told Rolling Stone about her fiancé Russell Brand's often dirty mouth and Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" video. "I think when you put sex and spirituality in the same bottle and shake it up, bad things happen."

So...sexually revealing stuff is OK...but blasphemy she still has a problem with.


What I have found interesting, outside of the pop-culture news of all of this, is the questions surrounding Katy Perry's salvation.  Is she going to heaven or hell?  Is she a believer anymore?

Denny Burke, New Testament professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, pulls out some other quotes from the magazine in a blog post:

“It’s surprising to hear Perry talk about God in this way, because one would think her religious past is behind her, but she says she still considers herself a Christian.  She shows me the tattoo of the word JESUS that she got on her wrist, just like her dad. ‘God is very much still a part of my life,’ she says. ‘But the way the details are told in the Bible—that’s very fuzzy for me. And I want to throw up when I say that. But that’s the truth.’

“‘I still believe that Jesus is the son of God… But I also believe in extraterrestrials, and that there are people who are sent from God to be messengers, and all sorts of crazy stuff… Every time I look up, I know that I’m nothing and there’s something way beyond me. I don’t think it’s as simple as heaven and hell.’”

“Perry started to question the path she was on. Her Christian label shut down, and, she says, ‘My gospel career was going nowhere.’ She started to write songs about love—and boys—on her guitar. And those weren’t gospel songs. ‘Letting go was a process,’ she says. ‘Meeting gay people, or Jewish people, and realizing that they were fine was a big part of it. Once I stopped being chaperoned, and realized I had a choice in life, I was like, “Wow, there are a lot of choices.” I began to become a sponge for all that I had missed—the music, the movies. I was as curious as the cat.’”

So...we have more info here.  She still considers herself a Christian, believing Jesus to be the Son of God, she has some doubts about the Bible.  It appears that she had been taught (or at least she learned) that gay people and Jewish people were not "fine."  (My assumption is that she had been taught that gays and Jews, because of their sinful ways or lack of belief could barely function in this world out of need for the salvation that Christ offers.  But, when she actually met homosexuals and Jewish persons she found they functioned surprisingly well in society and didn't seem like they were crying out for much assistance anyway).

Burk goes on to say:

The article is as sad as it is revealing. I hope and pray that perhaps there is a flicker of gospel still alive in Perry and that she will heed it soon. Pray for her. The Lord’s arm is not too short to save.

I don't want to say that Katy's journey from Christian gospel singer to pop-princess with doubts isn't troubling.  The comments on Burk's post read as if her comments should lead us to question her life...is she going to hell or to heaven...is she really a Christian (and many of the comments clearly believe that she's not.)

 

 

I am not alone in thinking this, but perhaps a better course of action, when faced with the questioning (and maybe even rejection, but I'm not willing to say that) of the faith by a teen idol, is to ask how has the church been acting that would lead one down this path.  Because, I don't think Katy Perry's path is so very different than a lot of 20 somethings whose Christianity has painted such a picture of the world that it could not stand when their belief came into contact with the world.  Have we made faith into "just" heaven and hell?  Have we gone "Pharisaic" with our faith, making rules about "Deviled Eggs" or "Lucky Charms," perhaps straining gnats and swallowing camels.

While the two changes of heart are not connected, can we, as a church, learn something from this as well as Anne Rice saying that she believes in Jesus but can't call herself a Christian anymore?

"For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being 'Christian' or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else." 

Look, I think it's well worth praying for both Katy and Anne.  Clearly there are issues going on here and many persons who aren't singers or writers go deal with these issues regularly.  But I think we also need to pray for a church that:

1. Feels a need to question the salvation of those whose deal with doubts very publicly in the media (and through a very small window into their lives)
2. Carries itself in such a way that many persons (young persons in particular) reject or question whether the beliefs of the church really are in line with the Gospel image of Jesus Christ.

Look, I'm not sending Katy Perry to heaven or to hell here.   I question why we don't celebrate the spirituality that she does express and pray for a continued strengthening of her faith...as well as our own.

Vitriol in the name of Jesus.

Image by loswl via Flickr

When dealing with politics in this nation of ours, I am a firm believer that we've lost an ability to discuss issues about which passionately disagree.  We read our liberal or conservative news.  We blog with like-minded folk.  We turn opposing positions into caricatures and oversimplify with sound-bites.  And what we get is...well...we get what we normally see on TV.  It's news as entertainment, all of it preaching to their respective political choirs.

The problem is, we do this in in the church as well.  But here, we're dealing with eternal ramifications.  Those with whom we disagree don't just become "lousy people" but persons who are "non-Christian"-- often meaning "damned to hell."  It could be that church down the road.  It could be the religious group that's taken up a cause with which we disagree (e.g.  against abortion, for gay rights, anti-war, etc).  Even though, though a reading of Scripture and an understanding of how that Scripture is applied to life-situations, we've deemed them to be less than Christian.  We spout out our vitriol in the name of Jesus.

So, it is with some interest that I found this post over at ThinkChristian.net.   It's "Quick Thought:  In All Things Charity" by Todd Hertz:

Last week, I casually mentioned a well-respected Christian ministry to a fellow Christian. With vitriol and definitiveness, he blurted out, “They’re not Christians.”

Unfortunately, I’ve seen enough in our Christian culture—even in the last week—to know this is not some rare ugly example of how Christians can treat fellow believers with whom they don’t agree. Arguments are fine, but why do we seem so quick to turn to hatred, discrediting and exclusivity when we come upon a brother or sister who we deem too conservative, too liberal, too fundamentalist, etc?

I don't want to say that God's truth is a lie.  And I really don't want to say that all truth is relative.  However, I do want to say that we "see in a mirror dimly" at this point and our perspective, out of the nature of our humanity, is limited.  A fair amount of humility is necessary for our Christian interactions  We don't want to claim that we have no understanding of the will of God or the mind of God...but we need to be clear that we don't know "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."  We may be children of God, but we're human children of God and we need to admit that there are persons who passionately love God and with whom we passionately disagree...and that that can be OK.  We need to get a little perspective here.

And yet we are left with the question, "When disagreeing with someone, how do we know when we are disagreeing because we are fearful or disagreeing because we're standing by the truth of the Bible?"

What are Disney Princess Characters Teaching Our Girls?

At Girdwood Chapel, we are getting into the Parables of Jesus throughout the summer and I've been saying that it's true that we learn though stories.  They teach us. The shape us into being certain types of people.

That said, I have four daughters and each of them has latched on to a particular Disney Princess.  Our youngest twins idealize Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella and, on many nights my wife and I get to hear made up songs about each of these characters.

So, what are our children learning from Disney Princesses?  If the following graphics are any indication, it might not be as harmless I I hope it is.

From BoingBoing by way of Dave Warnock's Blog:

Which is very similar to this image from Sociological Images:

What Are Our Boys Learning from Disney Princes?

Well, if our boys aren't learning as much about being "male" from the Disney Princess movies as the girls are...merely because they may not watch them as much, these movies do teach us something about being male.  And, if this graphic (from imgur.com) has any truth to it, we're in trouble.

Stats and Guardian Angels

I'm a sucker for religious statistics. Ever since I read and did a sermon series on UnChristian, by David Kinnaman, I've been fascinated by the things Christians and non-Christians believe and what they believe about each other. That's why I found the following over at Jason Boyett's blog, "O Me Of Little Faith," right up my alley.

"Have you had the following religious experience?" That's the question asked by the 2008 Baylor Religion Survey, authored by Dr. Rodney Stark and others, in an extensive look at the "depth and complexity" of America's religious landscape. The survey's findings are revealed in the book What Americans Really Believe, by Rodney Stark.

The surveyors spoke to 1,648 adults chosen randomly from across the country. When asked the question about having certain religious experiences, this is how many Americans answered YES:

• I heard the voice of God speaking to me: 20%
• I felt called by God to do something: 44%
• I was protected from harm by a guardian angel: 55%
• I witnessed a miraculous, physical healing: 23%
• I received a miraculous, physical healing: 16%
• I spoke or prayed in tongues: 8%

To be fair, it's not like any of these numbers are in the 90% range. While it may be a good 1 in 5 Americans who believe that they've heard the voice of God speaking to them, it's only 20% no matter how we slice it. And less than half of that figure have gotten into the gift of tongues as far as they know.

The thing I find particularly interesting is that a full 55% of the folks believed they have been protected by a guardian angel. Really? A full 55%. See, out of all of these, this particular point seems to be the weakest, Biblically. I think it plays into a particular pop-culture understanding of angels that we just don't seem to get from the Bible. Plus, I've always been troubled by the flip side of the phrase, "Well I had my guardian angel looking out for me!" For me, logically, this seems to break down when bad things happen. "Well, I guess HE didn't have his guardian angel looking out for him" or, worse, we end up with angels slacking off on the job or actually seeking harm to come to those under their charge. Some guardian!?

I'm sensing some amount of disconnect with the spiritual experience of my peers.

At least 44% of them have felt called by God to something.

I guess the question is called to WHAT?

Is Social Media a Fad?

I'm writing this in GMail, with my "Google Buzz" count prominently displayed to the left. 
This post will then get published on My Posterous Blog, The Prodigal Blog before it goes to its final home, my main blog, "The Epistle of Jim."  On that site you can "follow me" on Twitter, check out the Girdwood Chapel website, or subscribe to my posts.  The post will then appear on my Facebook page.

I manage two other websites (very poorly) and two more Twitter Accounts plus another Facebook page.  No MySpace.  No LinkedIn.  No YouTube.  No Vimeo.  But they may be coming for me.

So why do all of this?

Maybe I'm easily captivated by the new technical stuff out there...even if I have little to no expertise.

Maybe, as Communications Chair of the Alaska United Methodist Conference, I thought I'd better understand these things.

Maybe I'm avoiding the other work that is staring me in the face.

Maybe I want to understand all of this so I can understand our culture and understand how these tools can be used in evangelism and discipleship and the forming of relationships.

Maybe I'm concerned about the "branding" of our church and our churches.

Regardless, I don't think "social media is a fad."  Things will change and the next new thing will come up.  Earlier today I read how some social media experts have been giving up on Facebook and putting their collective energy into a new service that will, they say, better protect personal information.  There will be something new.

And this all brings up interesting questions for the church.  Just a handful...

1. Just because we can use social media, does that mean we should?
2. What does it mean that so many thoughts (good and bad) are not private anymore but are broadcast?
3. How does the church use social media constructively for evangelism and discipleship?  Or, can it at all?
4. How should the church deal with the social media issues of privacy and cyber-bullying?
5. For our larger churches, how much of our staffing should be directed towards this area?

If you have answers, let me know.

Posted via email from The Prodigal Blog