The Church of My (Day) Dreams

I still sometimes have dreams about my old abusive church. In those dreams, I frequently find myself attending long and dreary meetings listening to our head honcho or his lieutenants preaching while we all sit like prisoners, listening (although sometimes I am standing up in such meetings, yelling things like “Shut up!”). Or I dream that I am being assigned to help out with setting up such meetings or cleaning up after such meetings while being bossed around by a bunch of “head honcho” wanna-be's. I don't enjoy such dreams, but I don't always have much control over what my mind does while I am asleep. In this post, however, I will describe the kind of church I envision in my daydreams – in those wish-fulfillment fantasies over which I have control.

Each Christian, I am sure, has a conception of the sort of church of which he or she would like to be a member. These conceptions might all vary widely in outward details, while holding to the essentials of the Faith. Sometimes it's good to write down one's conceptions. Therefore, I am going to have a bit of fun and tell you all the sort of church I would like to walk into if I were going to church on Sunday.

The church of my dreams would have one and only one main meeting day, namely Sunday. This isn't to say that members couldn't get together spontaneously at other times to hang out, talk or do cool things together. It simply means that there would be only one day dedicated to formal meetings.

The first formal Sunday church activity would be worship. By worship I mean something very different from what is typically meant in modern evangelical circles, where “worship” is defined as an intense emotional experience. What I call worship is instead, a weekly ceremony of Christians presenting themselves to God for the following purposes (note the order in which they are listed):

1. To formally and openly acknowledge that they are His people and that Christ is their King.

2. To remind themselves of the nature of Him with Whom we have to do.

3. To confess their sins and receive His forgiveness. The celebration of the Lord's Supper would be a big part of this.

4. To hear His words to them.

5. And last, to present their requests before Him.

By their regular participation in all the parts of this ceremony, the members of such a church would be making a weekly public declaration that they are God's people and that He is their Lord. Such a ceremony would be very similar in its message to what I used to experience when I was in the Army, where every weekday, we had a morning formation after we had physical training and breakfast. The purpose of the first official formation of the day was to present ourselves to our commanders in order to receive their orders. No matter what any particular soldier thought of first formation, or how it affected him emotionally, that ceremony was a constant objective reminder that we had become the property of the U.S. Government. You can bet that there were no commanders who were trying to make such a ceremony “seeker-sensitive”!

In the church of my dreams, music would be an integral part of our weekly “first formation.” But the songs sung would, for the most part, be songs of instruction which intelligently declared the majesty, mercy and holiness of the God to whom we were all drawing near. And they would all be free – in the public domain, with no royalties owed to anyone for their use, songs that could be freely sung in all settings, public and private. Notice that I didn't say anything about musical style. In the church of my dreams, the chief criterion for singing a hymn or song would be “Is it Scriptural (in other words, is it Biblically accurate)?”, followed very closely by, “Is it in the public domain?” In the church of my dreams, the musical style of worship would be something decided by all the members, and would be simply be a servant to the words of the songs, rather than getting in the way. What this would look like in practice might vary from church to church, however, depending on whether we're talking about the church of my dreams or the church of someone else's dreams.

Point number one in my list, the formal acknowledgment of God as our Lord and Christ as our King, would therefore involve singing of appropriate hymns or psalms. But it would also involve the weekly public, participatory reciting of the Apostles' Creed and/or the Nicene Creed. (Sorry about any Plymouth Brethren whom I just caused to flip out over this statement. Take two Advil and call me in the morning.) As far as hearing the Word of God, the church of my dreams would assign certain volunteers the weekly task of reading passages aloud from the Old and New Testaments during the service. The weekly readings would be designed to cover the entire Bible. This would take care of points two and four in my list. But I want to expand on this a bit more.

I have to admit that coming from the sort of strict abusive church in which I was involved, I am somewhat leery of having to listen to extended sermons by preachers, since I think that the longer a man talks, the more likely it is that he might be trying to manipulate his hearers rather than instructing them. So if I were to attend a church that looked like the church of my dreams, I would be content if the only form in which the Word was declared at first was simply the public reading of Scripture. (Of course, the readings would all have to come from a translation that is in the public domain.) But if such a church graduated from public reading to include a bit of expository preaching, that would be okay – just as long as no preacher was allowed to preach for longer than fifteen minutes! Such a restriction could even be included in the bylaws ;). I have a cousin who preaches in a black church in Ohio who has two favorite sayings: “Be brief, be enthusiastic, and be seated”, and “Stand to be seen. Speak to be heard. And sit down to be appreciated.” Can I hear an Amen to that?!

The entire ceremony of worship would be presided over by a leader (lector? cantor? worship leader? pastor, maybe) who was democratically elected by the entire congregation to serve for a limited time, and whose powers extended no further than presiding over the Sunday worship. (I also should mention that such a church might want to elect elders who again have limited powers and serve only for a limited term, and whose chief duty is to demonstrate godly behavior to the congregation.) The leader's duties would include leading the congregation in reciting the opening creeds, providing the readers with their cues to read at the appropriate times, presiding over the Lord's Supper, preaching (if the congregation deemed a time of preaching to be appropriate) and the closing prayer.

That closing prayer would be the time in which members made known their prayer requests and the leader made a public prayer for those prayer requests, closing with leading the congregation in the public recital of the Lord's Prayer. The last part of such a service would be the closing hymn, followed by an exhortation from the leader to the congregation to give generously to the Lord by giving to the poor wherever they may be found (there would be no offering plate). The entire ceremony would take an hour at the absolute maximum.

I can already hear someone saying “But what about Sunday school?!” I have an answer for that also. Right after the worship, there would be a Sunday school. But not your everyday, run-of-the-mill Sunday school. Rather, this Sunday school would be devoted to teaching the congregation the original languages of the Bible, namely, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Why teach these languages? Because knowing these languages would give individual members a powerful means of going directly to the source to understand what the Bible teaches, and would make them much less susceptible to those who would try to enslave them by distorting Scripture.

“But learning languages is hard! The church of your dreams is a church for eggheads!” I have an answer for that also. Think about it – none of us could talk or write when we were born, yet somehow we managed to pick up these skills without too much trouble. And consider all the immigrants, both legal and illegal who come to the U.S. from non-English speaking countries, yet who manage to learn English. Their pronunciation may not be perfect and their vocabulary may be limited, and native-born Americans may look down their noses at them, yet they are mastering a skill which most Americans don't have – the ability to master a foreign language. If they can do it, and if their kids can do it, it isn't as hard as some people think. Americans may just be lazy. Consider also that Hebrew children are taught Hebrew in synagogue, and most synagogues have classes in which novices can learn Hebrew. For that matter, there is at least one Russian Baptist or Pentecostal church near my house which teaches Russian to regular attenders.

There are also good public domain resources for learning Biblical Greek. One such resource is Greek in a Nutshell: An Outline of Greek Grammar, by James Strong, available online for free download at www.textkit.com/learn/ID/143/author_id/64/. Another resource is A Brief Introduction to New Testament Greek, by Samuel G. Green. It too is available online for free download at http://www.recursosbiblicos.investigacionbiblica.com/libros-pdf/EnIngles/Samuel%20G.%20Green%20-%20A%20Brief%20Introduction%20to%20NT%20Greek.pdf. (By the way, the church of my dreams would only use public domain resources for teaching Bible languages. This would not only prevent the church from having to pay copyright fees, but it would prevent the church from being hoodwinked by heretics like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons in their distortion of Scripture.)

The key to such a language class would be to make it fun and interactive, and especially for children, to make it a sort of game. And it could be seeker-sensitive in a good way, with coffee and munchies and a laid-back atmosphere. It too would be limited to no more than an hour or maybe an hour and a half at the most.

Speaking of fun, the church of my dreams would have lots of fun together. Members might decide to go to a local park, have a picnic, and jam together on musical instruments, playing anything they wanted. They (at least the more adventurous among them) might get together for extended overnight bicycle camping tours. They might do all sorts of things together. But they would not lord themselves over each other or be constantly looking for some ecclesiastical ladder to climb, since their organizational ladder would be no more than a few rungs tall, and those who got to climb the rungs would get their chance based on a democratic vote.

An Answer to City Business Church Regarding Biblical Infallibility

I have been following a recent discussion on the City Business Church blog regarding Biblical infallibility. A poster who goes by the handle of “Catalyst” asked, “Is the Bible Infallible?” His answer was “No,” because of a passage in Deuteronomy which commanded that rebellious, unrepentant children in Israel were to be stoned to death. The passage is quoted below:

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and, though they chasten him, will not listen to them; then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place; and they shall tell the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.' All the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

In his view, such treatment of children was never appropriate, and that a passage in the Bible which commanded such severe discipline was proof that the Bible was in error in some cases. Such an assertion brings up some interesting and fundamental points which must be addressed before anyone can begin to properly understand the Deuteronomy passage in question.

First, it must be noted that the City Business Church blog, like many other blogs, was born out of the experiences of individuals who were jacked by an abusive, exploitative evangelical church. The CBC blog, like many similar blogs, pointed out the contradictions between the behavior of church leaders and the Good Book they claimed to be following. The CBC blog, like many similar blogs, used these contradictions to condemn the behavior of abusive church leaders. The fact that their behavior violated the Scriptures became a basis for identifying that behavior as morally wrong.

But if the Bible is not infallible, then the case made by the CBC blog becomes rather shaky. If the Bible is not God's infallible Word, if some parts of the Bible are fallible, then on what basis do we decide which parts of the Bible are truth and which parts are error? Is John 3:16 possibly in error? Is the description of a righteous God in error? Are the four Gospel accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ in error? Is Genesis 1:1 in error? Are we living in a world in which, as John Lennon once sang, there really is no Heaven and no Hell? Who gets to tell us? What basis do they get to use to decide?

And what does that do to the case made by the CBC blog and similar blogs that asserted that the behavior of certain church leaders was clearly wrong because it clearly violated Scripture? I, for one, used a lot of Scriptures to make my point that the present American evangelical culture is on the wrong footing, because it is in error regarding its treatment of money, power and lust. I quoted the passage in Matthew where Christ clears the Temple of the moneychangers in my discussion of how the love of money has corrupted the worship of the Church. I quoted passages which condemned the oppression of the poor and the destruction of the earth in my indictment of the Religious Right. I quoted passages that condemned pride and leaders who lord themselves over their flocks in my indictment of certain individuals who become leaders solely to make their flocks into lamb chops.

But if parts of the Bible are actually fallible, maybe my case too is shaky. And what if the whole Bible is fallible? Then how do we decide what is objectively true? And what absolute, objective standard do we use to tell what is right and what is wrong? What if there is no such standard? Then people who are hurt by other people can say nothing more than “This hurts.” They may react in anger, but they cannot say, “What was done to me was wrong,” because there is no longer any objective, absolute standard of right and wrong. Consider cats in an alley – mother cats nursing their kittens may cause the kittens to realize that they are experiencing something pleasant. Cats who are squaring off and getting ready to throw blows over a turf dispute may feel all kinds of unpleasantness. Yet they have no framework for saying, “What's being done to me is right (or wrong).” People who reject an absolute moral standard are reduced to a universe of existential beastliness. In such a universe, I can't say that what was done to me in an abusive church is wrong. I can only say that it hurt a lot. Third World victims of Religious Right policies implemented by the U.S. government can only say that it hurt.

My case has been that the behavior of certain powerful figures in American evangelicalism is wrong, because it violates the Bible, because such behavior is condemned by the Bible. The evidence that the Bible is true in condemning this behavior is the hurt and damage caused by such behavior, yet I hold the Bible to be an absolute, objective standard of morality even when it condemns supposedly “victimless” crimes. Otherwise, I can't say that the people who used religion to hurt me did wrong in hurting me – I can only say that what they did hurt a lot.

If we accept the Bible as an infallible moral standard, the Deuteronomy passage becomes very easy to figure out. First, such a passage is a living, three-dimensional illustration of the Scriptural truth that the wages of sin is death. And there were many such commands in the Old Testament Law – commands which illustrated the terrible consequences of sin. Second, we note that there really is no mention of anyone in the Old Testament actually obeying the command to stone rebellious children. This is because Israel failed miserably in all points in keeping the Biblical Law. The failure of Israel to keep the Law meant that the whole nation was under a death sentence. Third, the failure of Israel to keep a righteous Law was a three-dimensional, living illustration of the sinfulness of the whole human race, which is under a death sentence because of sin. This is what necessitated the death and resurrection of Christ to provide a rescue from that death sentence for those who repent and believe in Him.

Christ Himself said, “Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18). And the Apostle Paul said, “Therefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.”

I assert my conviction that the Bible is wholly true and righteous and good, and utterly to be relied on. In short, infallible. As I have used the Bible as a basis for condemning modern day evangelical excess, I will continue to do so, and to point out the reasonableness of the life which the Bible actually commands. I hope I don't lose any readers over this, but if I do, “oh, well,” as they say.

Note: All Scripture quotations are taken from the World English Bible, a public domain translation. No royalties are owed to anyone for its use, and it may be freely quoted in all settings, public and private.

A Nifty Blog Page on Religious Abuse

I just found a blog with a page titled, "'Authority' In Churches." It is a re-posting of a Web article by Bill Newcomer, in which he listed several words typically used by leaders of abusive churches, and the ways in which these words are used. It appears that Mr. Newcomer escaped from an "elder-led" (actually, elder-ruled) church typical of many that are springing up now in evangelicalism. Funny how even though such churches are not as outwardly weird as the Geftakys Assemblies - my old abusive group - the language and tactics of control and domination remain the same. Anyway, the blog page is http://adsthma.blogspot.com/2008/08/authority-in-churches.html.

Lessons in Wolf-Proofing

This post will examine personal strategies which Christian individuals and groups can use to prevent being hijacked by religious dominators. Making sure that you are a healthy, well-informed person, and that your church is a healthy place is the best strategy for dealing with potential wolves.

The first and most personal strategy is simply this: to realize and believe that God loves you. There are many strategies used by abusive groups and leaders to ensnare recruits. But one thing that makes people quite vulnerable to exploitation by an abusive leader is the awareness that they are not whole or complete, combined with the leader's assertion that he has the answer for them. As such a leader encounters people with unmet needs and soul damage, he obtains great power over them by promising that he can meet their needs.

Often this promise is made through the practice of “love-bombing,” that is, when group members try to recruit a potential candidate by showering him or her with attention, care and affection in the initial stages of the candidate's involvement. This is done in order to form powerful, early bonds between the candidate and the group, in order to bring the candidate quickly into a state of dependency on the group. This strategy is very effective when used on people who have not experienced much kindness or love in their lives, people who instead have experienced a great deal of rejection. As the leader of such a group establishes himself as the ultimate source of the affection and attention being shown to the candidate, the candidate becomes more and more dependent on the leader. And if the leader and the group begin to withdraw that affection, or to attach strings to it, the recruit resorts to desperate measures to secure another love “fix.”

This is why in my old abusive church, members were always encouraged to pray with the elders and “leading brothers”; why members were subtly taught that in order for them to amount to anything, they needed the approval and attention of the “leading brothers” and elders; why people who prayed out loud in the meetings or men who preached in the meetings would often try to work themselves up into tears in order to obtain the sympathy of the leaders; and why so many of us zealously and unquestioningly enforced the things we were told by the leaders.

In short, these leaders inserted themselves into our lives as father figures, and their head honcho inserted himself into the lives of his deputies as their father figure. In many cases this strategy worked because many of us who joined this group came from homes in which the parenting we received was sadly lacking. But Christ Jesus said, “Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9) He also taught us to pray to our Father in heaven in the full expectation that our Heavenly Father is attentive to us and cares about our needs (Matthew 6:6-13). To believe this is to rely on it as truth, to rest the whole weight of your life on these words.

It is the stand which I have chosen to take, though I am no expert in this. I was taught a very wrong view of God by my old church, and I am still recovering from that. And I see great suffering in the world, and haven't yet figured out how it all fits into the grand scheme of things. But I have decided to believe that God loves me – tangibly, practically – and that I don't need to go running off to find some religious honcho to be my surrogate daddy. As 1 John 4:16 says, “We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.” As I look over the last year and a half, I can see how He has met my material needs in merciful ways. One example: I am not rich (far from it), but I am now debt-free. And He is meeting my psychological needs, as I am drawn through blogging into meetings with fellow-travelers. God wants each Christian to rely fully on Him as a Heavenly Father, and to realize what it means that we are complete in Christ. This realization is a powerful antidote to those who would try to gain control over us by exploiting our natural incompleteness. The Bible says much about how God loves us in Christ. Study for yourself what it says and rely on it.

And this lesson – that we are loved – must be taught by Christian parents to Christian children. Children who know that their home is a safe place where they are welcome are far less vulnerable to manipulation by bad influences (such as gangs and cults) than those who feel as if they have no one to support them. But children don't begin to learn love through theology lessons and abstract reasoning, but rather by the modeling of concrete behavior. Christian parents, treat your children as if you love them. And don't let love be defined for you in the way some false teachers do, who talk much about “tough love,” severe discipline and authoritarian control as if that were the true sign of parents' love for their children. The Bible does teach that parents must discipline and correct their children when they go astray, yet it sets limits - “Fathers, don't provoke your children, so that they won't be discouraged (Colossians 3:21; read Ephesians 6:4 also).”

To those parents who are just escaping from a high-demand, authoritarian religious group, I say that you must realize that you may be carrying some baggage with you, baggage relating to your treatment of your children and the way in which the group may have tried subtly to redefine love into something that looks very much like cruelty. My suggestion: go rent an old video of episodes of Lassie – especially the episodes with Timmy and his adoptive parents. See how they treated him, then go and do likewise to your children.

Next, Christians should do all they can to educate themselves concerning the strategies of those who would try to enslave them. As 2 Corinthians 2:11 says, “...that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes.” Know what it means that you are free in Christ, in order that you may easily spot the theological attacks used by false teachers to move Christians away from true freedom in Christ into bondage. But don't stop with theology. Learn the psychological and sociological tricks used by abusive leaders in order to assert control over groups of people. As you learn, you will be able to spot these tricks as they are used in many other settings beside the church. (For instance, one thing you will learn is the large number of college graduates possessing advanced psychology degrees who go into the market research and advertising fields – and how much they get paid! And you didn't know why you keep buying things you don't need...)

I want to mention one particular trick that is popular with those seeking to enslave people or groups. I have just started reading The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, a book by Naomi Klein. Her premise is that the rich masters of the present global economy have advanced free-market, corporation-friendly capitalism throughout the world by means of artificially-induced crises to a nation or culture which left the people of that nation in a temporary state of shock and disorientation. That shock state was then exploited by corporate masters and pro-business Western leaders to set up governments in the “shocked” regions which would be favorable to Western businesses in exploiting the poor and the natural resources of these nations and cultures. The aftermath of these shocks almost always resulted in a strong, domineering central government which gave great latitude to large private businesses while stripping rights away from its own citizens. She cites the September 11 tragedy and the mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as examples of the shock doctrine applied in the US (though I think she should also mention how President Clinton used the Oklahoma City bombing to expand the reach of Federal government control over private citizens).

The shock doctrine can also be used to take over churches and Christian groups. The first step is to manufacture a crisis. Webster's Dictionary defines a crisis as “...an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending...” A crisis can be positive or negative. For instance, a would-be leader may send infiltrators to an established church to talk to the members about how “they have a great opportunity to hear deep teaching from a great man of God. But they mustn't let it slip or it will never come again!” Or the infiltrators might talk about how a particular church “...needs to grow, and it hasn't been growing like it should, and this is very, very bad, so we need to do something drastic!” Or, the crisis could be financial: “Gifts and tithes are diminishing, and this very ministry is in danger of ceasing! We must do something!”

The next step is of course to present the one man or group of people who have the answer to the crisis. And it is stated that in order to insure that this man or group has sufficient latitude and tools to address the crisis, the congregation or individual members must give unlimited authority and unquestioned submission to the person with the answer. Democratic processes, committees, member input and voting must be suspended so that the man with the answer can solve the crisis. The funny thing is that even after the “crisis” has been solved, the man with the “answer” is still in a position of absolute authority.

This strategy was used by George Geftakys to take over a number of house churches and para-church groups in the late 1960's and early 1970's when he was just starting his “Assemblies.” This strategy is also a hallmark of those who hijack churches to force them into a Warrenist “purpose-driven” agenda. Believe it or not, there are Lutherans who believe that this strategy is being used on the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, in order to transition it to a “purpose-driven” model, including the consolidation of financial and executive oversight in the hands of a chosen few. I don't consider myself to be Lutheran per se, but in the times I have visited Lutheran churches since leaving my old abusive church, I have always liked my visits, because the Lutherans seemed to be safe, conservative people not given to the excitement of intrigues. I guess maybe I was wrong!

Don't let yourselves be shocked by the shock doctrine into giving total control of your lives or your church to mere mortals.

Notes:

1. All Scripture quotations are taken from the World English Bible, a public domain translation. No royalties are owed to anyone for its use, and it may be freely quoted in all settings, public and private.

2. If you want another book that addresses the “shock doctrine,” read Leading Change by John P. Kotter (http://www.amazon.com/Leading-Change-John-P-Kotter/dp/0875847471/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209064439&sr=8-1).

3. If you want to look up news on the brewing Lutheran dust-up, here are some links: http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=4784; http://adelphoitouchristou.typepad.com/savethelcms/; and http://www.extremetheology.com/.

Rearranging the Furniture - Drastically

In my post titled, “Who Can Fix This Mess?”, I alluded to the problems now prevalent in modern American evangelicalism, and concluded that the ultimate solution to these problems must come from God alone. Christ Jesus is the Head of the Church. He alone holds the prescription for the diseased state of many who claim to be of that Church, and He will administer that prescription in its proper time. I do not claim to have that prescription. The suggestions I am therefore about to offer should therefore be taken as the observations of a mere mortal, one of several billion, none of whom has a complete picture of everything.

Yet I do believe that these suggestions could help in the short run if they were adopted by a large portion of the modern evangelical community. However, the problem with the suggestions offered in this present post is that they involve large-scale, systemic, structural changes to modern evangelicalism. These changes, if adopted, would be very disruptive to certain people in high positions within the evangelical community, as well as disrupting certain secular figures who now profit from the present evangelical arrangement. Therefore, I do not expect modern church leaders to willingly embrace these changes unless they are driven to the wall. But I think I would be remiss if I didn't present these suggestions anyway. My next post, by the way, will present suggestions for individual responses to the present evangelical mess.

My strategy in this blog has been to characterize the present mess in terms of addictions to money, lust and power. While I have mentioned some symptoms of these addictions, I have tried to avoid becoming fixated solely on symptoms, since I did not want to lose sight of the overarching addiction behind those symptoms. I believe that the present problems in Western (particularly American) evangelicalism are indicative of the craving certain key people have for money, power, and the indulgence of their own lusts. Most people who choose to do evil do so out of some motive of self-interest. Therefore, a key to cleaning up the present evangelical mess is to eliminate the opportunity for individuals to use the Faith to acquire money, power, or opportunities to indulge their lusts.

Close your eyes for a few minutes, and let's play a little imagination game. (Don't do this at work, though!) Let's suppose that a large majority of American evangelicals woke up tomorrow morning in an entirely different condition – smarter, far more willing to use critical thinking skills, far more Biblically literate, more ethical, and far less lazy. These people would be the genesis of a new culture, since a culture is created and modified by the people who have cultural elements in common. Let's assume that that culture comes rapidly, shockingly to birth. What would such a birth look like?

It might begin with a sudden realization of the extent to which the culture of the Church has become commercialized. For instance, let's watch many of these people hop into their cars for their morning commute to work (or church, if it's a Sunday) and turn on the radio to Fish Music or something like it. But three minutes into their drive, most of them are becoming increasingly agitated as they wait for commercial after commercial to end before they get to hear any actual music. One thing they notice is that the commercials played on the supposedly “Christian” stations are paid for by the same businesses that advertise on “secular” traffic/weather/news stations. Only the spin of the commercials is any different.

When they go to church, instead of closing their eyes and getting into the worship music, they leave their eyes open long enough to see the “CCLI License # XXXXX” notices at the bottom of every hymn projection – even projections of lyrics of hymns that are over a hundred years old. Something doesn't seem right – “after all, aren't some of these songs in the public domain? You mean to tell me that in order to worship the God of Heaven, I must pay royalties to some secular copyright holder?” They might also notice the cheesy commercialism of supposedly “Christian” books, and how both “Christian” fiction and nonfiction is written for the purpose of tapping into the same cravings that are targeted by secular media. And they begin to notice that almost every activity of their church involves paying copyright or royalty fees to someone.

In short, such people would begin to discern and understand the present commercialization of contemporary Christian culture. But these people would be too savvy to preoccupy themselves merely with the symptoms of that commercialism, choosing instead to strike at its very root. Therefore, rather than arguing over styles of music in church, they would take the radical step of demanding that their churches sing only those songs that are in the public domain or that have been released for public use under a Creative Commons license. They would also insist that their church use only those stories, movies, multimedia presentations and Bible translations that were published as a freewill offering – no strings attached – or that are in the public domain, or that were released under a Creative Commons license.

And they would make a deal with their church leaders. That deal would begin with an acknowledgment that the Bible commands those who preach the Gospel to get their living from the Gospel, yet the apostle Paul chose to work for a living even while serving as an apostle, in order to distinguish himself from false apostles who tried to use the Faith to freeload off of the Church. Because of the problems faced by the modern 21^st Century Church in dealing with religious freeloaders in high places, congregations would now require that anyone who sought to be a leader in the Church must also have a full-time secular career, and must renounce relying on the Church for his material support.

This would cause an immediate and radical shake-up. Those who had been involved in the work of the Church solely for money would become swiftly apparent by the sound of their pounding feet as they raced for the door. A large number of “worship artists” would quickly become “crossover artists” in a desperate attempt to make it in the world of secular music. The rest might have to get a haircut, put on nice clothes, go to the local grocery store, and say “Gizza job! I can do that!” The pushers and promoters of modern “Christian” media would see their markets evaporate. The liturgy and hymnody of the Church would begin to stabilize, since there would no longer be any profit to be made by forcing constantly changing styles on the Church. Songs or books or any other creative content produced for the Church would begin to take on an entirely different character, since these would no longer be produced for the sake of making money.

Let's assume that the shake-up began not with money, but with power. Suppose that these newly smart and ethical American Christians all wake up one Sunday morning with a new and deep understanding that humility is a two-way street, and that leaders need limits to their power. Let's assume that they all drive off to what had been typical Warrenist or “wanna-be” Warrenist churches, or to churches which until this particular Sunday had taught that their pastors were to be in the place of Moses over their congregations, or who had employed some other subterfuge in order to give the pastors absolute and unquestioned authority over their congregations. This particular Sunday proves to be different, however.

Watch the pastor of one of these churches mount the steps to his stage or lectern or pulpit, full of the comfort of a nice Sunday breakfast at a local Denny's, punctuated perhaps by cell phone conversations with some of his colleagues in which they compare the membership of their various churches by asking each other “How many you runnin' this week?” Watch him look down for a moment on his property – er, I mean, his congregation. Listen to him clear his throat in preparation to give yet another glorious sermon – only, as he opens his mouth, suddenly someone in the congregation stands up and says, “Subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ!” The congregation responds with “Ephesians 5:21!” Someone else stands up and says, “That means you too, pastor!” Again the congregation responds, “You too, pastor!”

While the surprised pastor is trying to catch his breath, someone else stands up and shouts, “Yes, all of you clothe yourselves with humility, to subject yourselves to one another; for 'God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble!'” The congregation responds with “Amen! 1 Peter 5:5!” Yet another person stands and shouts, “That means you, pastor!” Again the congregation thunders, “You too, pastor!”

Such a situation might evolve into a rush by the congregation to surround the podium. While the pastor stood helpless, eyes glazed in shock, the congregation might hand him a copy of bylaws drafted by the congregation, in which they state that while they will obey their leaders according to the Bible, that obedience will not extend to anything which violates the consciences of the members. Moreover, the bylaws require that the congregation have full say in deciding the financial matters of the church, and be allowed full knowledge of the financial state of the church. The bylaws also give the congregation full rights to vote on the ministries of the church, and on the choice of who fills those ministries (Acts 6:3, 5-6), as well as its liturgy and hymns and everything else pertaining to the running of a church. Lastly, the bylaws give the congregation the right to fire the pastor if he violates the bylaws or is found guilty of immoral or criminal activity. They could then require the pastor to sign the bylaws as a condition of his further employment as their pastor. Now, that would be an interesting Sunday morning service!

I have yet other suggestions to make. For instance, congregations who found themselves pestered during election season by people standing outside their doors handing out “Christian voters' guides” could formulate a strategy to deal with these people, namely by requiring that these people fully disclose the source of their funding as a condition of being allowed on church property. Those who refused could be threatened with arrest. But these suggestions, and others like them, though offered whimsically, all have a serious aim: to eliminate the vast majority of troublemakers from the evangelical community by denying them the ability to use the Faith as a means of gaining money, power or the opportunity for indulging their lust.

Each of us in his or her personal situation can come up with ways of accomplishing this goal. If you are involved in a church or a Christian ministry, push for limits on the leaders. Push for accountability on the part of the leaders, and a real submission to one another, leaders also being required to submit to those whom they lead. Formulate tangible tests and conditions by which that submission can be measured. And if your church or ministry is not willing for this, vote with your feet. Leave such a church or ministry, lest you be found supporting something evil.

Note: All Scripture quotations are taken from the World English Bible, a public domain translation. No royalties are owed to anyone for its use, and it may be freely quoted in all settings, public and private.

Who Can Fix This Mess?

In this blog, I have outlined my spiritual journey from the time I became a Christian to the present. That journey began in a relatively safe place, namely a Lutheran Vacation Bible School I attended just before I entered junior high school. Even though the journey was somewhat interrupted during high school and my Army tour, I found myself on the path again in my early twenties, having been brought back on course through the writings of C.S. Lewis, among others.

My Lutheran experience and my reading of Lewis led me to expect a Christianity whose chief aim was to produce people of Christlike character, in which a Christian man's chief business in this life was attending to the process of that character growth, and displaying that character to the world. In such a view of the faith, the Church was to be simply one of many aids in this process, along with Bible reading and good Christian friendships and prayer. Church involvement was not to be some life-draining, leech-like affair that sucked up all of a person's spare time, money and energy! This was the viewpoint from which I started life just after the Army, as a new college student.

However, I was soon hoodwinked into involvement in a church that was everything the Church should not be. It was abusive, cultic, authoritarian, and very demanding, and it sucked my life away like a parasite. Its leaders also twisted the Scriptures in order to justify their actions. It was a prime example of a religious group created by someone whose primary aim is to trap sincere people as they are trying to make their way from earth to Heaven, in order to exploit them for one's own uses.

Upon escaping from that group, I received lots of advice through books and the Internet concerning recovery from an abusive church experience. One frequently repeated bit of advice was that survivors of an abusive church experience need to find a “healthy church,” because such a church would aid survivors in their recovery. Yet in the years since I left my old abusive church, I have found the supposedly “mainstream” evangelical churches to be a lot less “safe” and “healthy” than advertised. Many of these churches, and the evangelical culture they have fostered, are increasingly characterized by the same exploitative personalities that are typically found in leaders of abusive “fringe” churches. They also twist Scripture in order to move people away from a Biblical Christianity toward a condition where they can be easily manipulated and exploited.

The result is that the pilgrimage from earth to Heaven is becoming lonelier and lonelier for pilgrims as time passes. The places to which such pilgrims would turn for mutual encouragement are now largely unsafe. They look for helpful inns and traveling companies whose members are also on the journey, and instead they find one big mess, a mess created by people who are hostile to the whole pilgrimage. Who can fix this mess?

The ultimate answer to that question is found in God alone. He is the One who calls people to become pilgrims, through repentance from sin and faith in Christ. And He is very, very concerned about those who seek to trip up pilgrims while they are on the path of pilgrimage. Matthew 18:4-6 says, “Whoever therefore humbles himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever receives one such little child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea.” And Matthew 13:41-42 says, “The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will gather out of his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be weeping and the gnashing of teeth.” Truly, gasoline has a better chance of surviving the day of judgment unburnt than those who have created this present mess!

Because we are all naturally fallen, this world is a dangerous world, a world of people who are naturally selfish and exploitative, a world in which pilgrims must be as shrewd as serpents even while being harmless as doves. Because the Church must function within this world, the Church is a place in which repentant people who are trying to learn to be wheat must mingle with hypocrites who are trying their hardest to be tares (Matthew 13:24-30). Yet there will be a day in which God judges the world and removes from it everyone who insists on being a threat to his neighbor. That judgment will also include those who call themselves His people. On that day, He will establish His people as a pure and harmless reflection of Himself, because those who are intent on harming others will have been removed in judgment (Ezekiel 34).

But in the meantime, pilgrims must learn to conduct their pilgrimage in the midst of difficult circumstances. And because companionship with like-minded fellow travelers is an essential part of the pilgrimage, pilgrims must learn to form associations which are resilient and reasonably immune to being hijacked by hostile interests. This is the same sort of challenge faced by humans who want to associate in any other context in this present fallen world – how to build connections, groups and societies which manage to accomplish some sort of good while preventing their fallen participants from harming each other. And it is a challenge which must be constantly faced, since as social systems are created and used over time, people who are bent on evil eventually find ways to “game” the system to get what they want.

The next two posts will present some ideas for Christians who want to build reasonably “fault-tolerant” associations or communities of faith. Take them as my personal ideas, the ideas of just another man on the street. I do not present them as some promise of Utopia, since I don't believe Utopia is possible as long as this present fallen world lasts. Nor am I trying to start or lead a new movement, although I'd be pleased and a bit flattered if these ideas caught on in any way. Rather, I present them as talking points and stimulants for further reflection. Stay tuned!

Vox Populi, or Your Turn

The time has come in this blog for an evaluation. To those of you who have been regular readers or even part-time readers, I want to say a big thank you. You have listened to my description of my church experiences and my evaluation of the American evangelical scene which resulted from those experiences. Now the time has come for you to judge what I have said. Therefore, I have three general categories of questions for you:

1. Have you experienced abuse within a supposedly “Christian” church? Was that church a typical “evangelical” church? What did you do about it? Have you since joined another church? How did that work out?

2. This blog, TH in SoC, has discussed several problems relating to modern evangelicalism. Do you agree with my assessment? Do you see any other problems with modern evangelicalism?

3. Do you believe the modern American church is a safe place? If not, what are two or three things that would make it safe?

Last week I sent these questions to a number of bloggers whose blogs deal with power abuse in church settings. I will post their replies as they come in. For readers in general, feel free to answer as little or as much as you like. And if you have a blog, feel free to mention it. One blog which I forgot to mention in last week's post is The Blog of Lema Nal (http://lemanal.blogspot.com/), written by a person who endured an abusive experience in the Plymouth Brethren-styled cult started by the Asian man I mentioned in my posts, “A Tour of the Fringes” and “Finding (and losing) Rebekah.” Because this is the same cult that sues its critics, I am going to modify this person's replies to my questions slightly, if they grant permission, to remove the actual name of the cult. I don't want to have to hire John Grisham as a lawyer! Next week we will move on from a diagnosis of problems to a discussion of solutions.

One other thing: if you are a church pastor reading this, I'd like to suggest that you be primarily a listener rather than talking. Perhaps after next week it might be appropriate for pastors to try and answer for themselves, but for now I'd suggest that you just listen. But if any pastors or so-called pastors use this occasion to post advertisements for their own personal “cult recovery” ministries, I will delete your posts out of hand. I don't mean to be harsh, but this week's post is not an opportunity for you to build up some “ministry” for yourself.

A Righteous Kick In The Pants

The Bible commands Christians to associate with each other for mutual encouragement, and that we may stimulate each other to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24-25). Most people who read this Scripture in Hebrews take it to mean involvement in the life of a church. Yet for the last few years, I have not been a regular church attender, because of the damage I suffered through long-term involvement in an abusive, cultic church, and because of the rather scary supposedly “mainstream” evangelical churches I sampled after leaving my old abusive church.

My lack of church involvement used to bother my conscience somewhat, because I felt somehow that I was missing out on involvement in the things of God. But over time I was able to strike a deal with my conscience. This blog, TH in SoC, is that deal. You see, when I became a Christian, I was instructed by books, tracts and other Christians that I needed to find a solid, Bible-believing church so that I could grow in sanctification and spiritual maturity.

But as I began my journey, my personal pilgrim's progress, I found myself tripped up by punji stake-filled pits carefully placed along the path of life by devils, to trap those who were trying to make their way from earth to Heaven. That's how I describe my old abusive church and the many other abusive groups and cults that trap sincere believers. That's how I describe the wicked, narcissistic, damnable leaders who create such groups, who ensnare sincere people, who devour the energy and strength and talent and best years of their deceived followers. That's how I describe the big-name personalities who are trying to use the Christian faith to further their own selfish ambitions and lusts for earthly riches and political power. Being jacked by an abusive church hurt a great deal. What made me even angrier was finding out upon my departure from that church that there are many others in the realm of American evangelicalism who are busy digging pits and filling them with punji stakes in order to trap people.

I believe that much of American evangelicalism is now unsafe. I don't know all about how it got that way and I don't much care. All I know is that I promised myself that before I tried to get heavily involved in the life of a church again, I would do what I could to make church safe, by doing what I could to expose those who were making it unsafe. This blog is my little gift to these people, my way of administering a much needed, righteous kick in the pants to such people.

And I must admit that I have had a good time writing this blog. It has been a lot of work, but I have genuinely had a good time. This isn't supposed to be a “nice” thing to say, and in fact, I have encountered many blogs written by victims of spiritual abuse who say things like, “I just want to humbly, lovingly entreat the perpetrators I have encountered,” or, “It is with great grief and heaviness of heart that I must write these things,” and so on. I can't say that I feel any grief or sympathy for the perpetrators, who have been warned many, many times that what they were doing is wrong, and who have not changed their ways. My only sorrow is that the world in general and the American evangelical world in particular have turned out to be such dangerous places. Yet the danger exists, and in facing the danger like an adult, I have decided that I'm going to have a good time doing what I can to ruin the game plan of those who try to make my life unsafe. I think of Saul Alinsky, a 20^th century social protest organizer who stood against injustice, and how he admitted that he had a very good time doing what he did. Let this blog serve as a two-by-four upside the head of certain people who badly need it. Judge its effectiveness by whether or not we hear some of these people say “Thanks...I, uh, needed that!”

But if the perpetrators will not listen to this blog, there are many others blogs and websites on the Internet. Many of these name names. They are all written or hosted by people who have been jacked by an abusive church, or they are written because someone known to the blog authors has been jacked by an abusive church. And these blogs are multiplying like rabbits. These should serve as a wake-up call to many leaders in evangelical circles that they can no longer continue business as usual. Many of these leaders look on their flocks as their own personal possessions; yet they will soon find that the sheep have an entirely different view of things. I've got news for some pastors: I'm not your property. Knock off your stupid grandiose view of yourself, because I won't let you live in your delusional dreams. And I am not alone. More and more of us sincere Christians are tired of playing stupid church games in order to build up some supposed pastor's ego. We're not going to take it anymore. Do we have your attention yet?

Below is a partial list of blogs and/or websites hosted by other victims of church abuse. In next week's post, we will hopefully hear from some of these survivors. And next week will be a chance for readers of TH in SoC to sound off as well.

http://galewarnings.blogspot.com/2008/04/when-to-hold-em-when-to-fold-em_19.html

http://brisbanechristianfellowship.blogspot.com/

http://recoveringfromchurch.typepad.com/my_weblog/

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/

http://notnewtestamentchristianchurches.blogspot.com/

http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/292884.html

http://willyoulistentomystory.blogspot.com/

http://nailschurch.blogspot.com/

http://racistchurches.wordpress.com/

http://www.regainnetwork.org/

http://www.ex-pentecostals.org/

http://groups.msn.com/LBC-WCBC-IFBSpiritualAbuseRecoveryZone

http://www.citybusinesschurch.org/blog/

www.geftakysassembly.com

http://www.batteredsheep.com/pdf/think04.pdf

Lust And Discernment, or Living By Wishing Upon Stars

There is a well-known tendency in humans to alter their perception of reality when faced with an overwhelming desire for something they cannot have, or when faced with a painful problem that cannot be escaped. This tendency can range from daydreaming to paranoia and other dysfunctional “coping mechanisms,” going even as far as living in a constant wish-fulfillment fantasy whose most severe manifestation is psychosis. Those who live in a fantasy consisting of things as they'd like them to be have renounced their ability to discern things as they really are.

Life is difficult. This is not just a quote of M. Scott Peck, a famous American psychiatrist. Actually, the Bible stated this very truth long before Peck was born. Job 5:7 says, “...but man is born to trouble, as the sparks fly upward.” Trouble and difficulty are an especial part of the life of the righteous while they are on earth. Psalm 34:19 says, “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all.” Matthew 7:13-14 says, “Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it. How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it.” Acts 14:22 says “...that through many afflictions we must enter into the Kingdom of God.” Romans 5 talks about how trials produce character in those who are receptive to the formation of that character.

This view of life has been the historical view of the Church in all times and all places until recently. It is seen in the writings of people such as Dante Alighieri, thirteenth-century author of the Divine Comedy, and John Bunyan, seventeenth-century author of the Pilgrim's Progress. Such people as these recognized that life is difficult for everyone, and that it is especially difficult for the righteous as they seek to grow into the character of Christ while living in a fallen world. But from the time of the Industrial Revolution and onward, there have been people who have unwisely tried to remove some of the difficulty which the righteous must face on their journey from earth to Heaven. Nathaniel Hawthorne provided a biting commentary on such people in his short story, The Celestial Railroad (Twice-Told Tales collection, published in 1843).

This attempt to smooth the way and widen the road to Heaven really kicked into high gear during the 20^th century – especially during the latter half of that century. Jesus Christ said hard things to His followers and commanded His followers to do hard things. But within the last few decades “scholars” have arisen who have sought to explain away all the hardness and difficulty of the hard sayings of Jesus, in order to make the faith more appealing to a larger audience (or, as some of them would now say, “to reach the unchurched” by allowing them to keep more of their pre-salvation baggage).

One example I saw in my church-finding explorations of the last few years is the proliferation of “Christian” martial-arts clubs and martial-arts “outreaches.” One particular group, the “Smith Family Martial Arts Outreach,” proclaims that “Jesus is our Master.” Their leader is a “Grand Master/Governor of the Eastern U.S. for the Koreja Do Christian Martial Arts Association.” From their website you can learn the plan of salvation, while from their classes you can learn how to kick someone's groin out or collapse their windpipe.

I'm not a professional theologian, so perhaps I can be excused if I find this hard to swallow. All I know is that Matthew 5:38-39, along with other passages, teach Christians to be non-retaliatory. This is why I don't own a gun. Why invest in something if you believe you are prohibited from using it? This applies to learning or teaching martial arts in my opinion. Or maybe there's more to the Sermon on the Mount than I read, and I missed the part that was written in invisible ink? Somebody help me here.

Another thing I have been seeing for a long time is the changing evangelical stance on divorce and re-marriage. Matthew 19 is quite restrictive, especially the part where Jesus says, “I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery.” But through “creative” interpretations of passages in other parts of the Bible, modern-day pastors, teachers and theologians have relaxed restrictions on divorce and re-marriage to such an extent that a greater percentage of evangelicals than non-Christians are opting for divorce (27 percent Christians versus 25 percent non-Christians according to a 2007 study by the Barna Group). Fourteen percent of clergy have been divorced, and most of them have re-married, according to a 2005 Ellison Research study. One pastor teaches that something as intangible as “emotional neglect” is sufficient grounds for divorce! (“What God Has Joined,” David Instone-Brewer, Christianity Today, 5 October 2007).

Someone reading this post may say of me, “Oh, you're just a fundamentalist conservative, and that's why you are criticizing these things.” But I want to remind you that lust always involves a violation of others. In my first post on Lust, I stated that those who indulge in lust always violate someone else, whether it's a violation of God's rights or a violation of their fellow human beings. Those restrictions which have been placed on Christians by the mercy of God are being rationalized away by people who are bent on distorting reality in order to silence their consciences. Lust is not a victimless crime.

Take divorce, for instance. Here I am not just speaking as an “amateur theologian” when I say that lust involves violating others. On the contrary, I actually have “skin in the game,” because I grew up in a broken home. It was no fun witnessing the verbal and physical confrontations between my parents while I and my siblings were little kids. It didn't get any easier when I entered adolescence. In fact, there were nights when the tension hung in the air like cigarette smoke, because I had learned to read the signs of coming trouble. It was no fun not having a dad around during high school. My relationship with my dad is still strained, decades later.

But my parents had an excuse, in that they were not “saved,” though they were churchgoers. What excuse do people have for this kind of behavior when they say that they have come to know Christ and that they believe that their marriage is a picture of the bond between Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5)? I wonder especially how anyone can listen to a so-called pastor or elder or other religious head honcho who has been divorced and remarried.

The problems cited above are examples of the distortion of reality by evangelicals in order to silence their consciences. There is another distortion, which is somewhat related to this first distortion, although it has somewhat different manifestations. This distortion consists of the teaching that God is some giant ATM machine in the sky, and that if we only have the right PIN number, we can have anything we want. Examples of this teaching abound, from the Rev. Creflo Dollar to Joel Osteen to T.D. Jakes. I saw how well that teaching worked when I was growing up and knew a relative who religiously watched Rev. Ike (“You can't lose with the stuff I use!) on Saturday night television. She also sent away for a “prayer cloth” from some “Brother Al.” But to this day she hasn't gotten rich like she wanted to.

This teaching is also to be seen in the peculiar wedding of religion and patriotism promoted by the Religious Right. In their view, America is God's chosen nation, and we can do no wrong. Our material prosperity is an undeniable sign of God's blessing and choosing of this nation. The back-story of that prosperity is ignored – the fact that our standard of living depends on the exploitation of the resources of many poor nations under terms which are not fair to those nations. If this back-story is mentioned at all, it is explained away by what I call a “cultural Calvinism”: the teaching that just as God has chosen some to be saved and some to be damned (at least, according to Calvin), God has also chosen certain nations and races to be prosperous, and He has consigned the rest to be servants of the blessed nations. In their view, any crisis large enough to threaten the United States with serious suffering would automatically mean that the Rapture and the end of the world were not far off, because God would never let us suffer deeply.

But as I have so often said, the world in general, and America in particular, are facing functional, structural limits to growth, material prosperity and increased consumption. America is in a precarious position, with an economy that runs largely on oil at a time when oil supplies are tightening. We also have a debt of over 9 trillion dollars, and this debt is owned by foreign countries. Our financial system is going into shock due to bad government policies and the pillage of this country by the rich. We have made a mess of the environment. I think we'd better start facing our impending suffering as adults, rather than hiding under the pillows like children.

Regarding the end of the world, the Good Book itself says that “no man knows the day or hour.” I am a Christian; therefore, my prayer is Maranatha! But I know that the adult thing to do is to continue to live my life day to day with the expectation that on the next day I'll have to do it all again. God has not promised to rescue this nation from all difficulty. After all, just in the last century we went through two world wars, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl and the Cold War, and the world didn't end. God has not promised to rescue us from taking responsibility for our actions.

I have no interest in returning to a strict, legalistic church. But if I am going to be part of a church, it must at least not water down the Faith. It must not try to sweep me off of the straight and narrow into a seat on some “celestial railroad” which doesn't actually quite get to Heaven after all. We need to live in this world with the understanding that a thing isn't true or right just because we lust for it.

Note: All Scriptures are quoted from the World English Bible (http://www.ebible.org/web/), a public domain translation. No royalties are owed to anyone for its use, and it may be freely quoted in all settings, both public and private.

Lust and Boundaries, or 'Scuse Me While I Kiss...

Around two or three years after my “escape” from an abusive, fringe church, I checked out a Quaker church near my house. I had been doing a lot of church hopping in the intervening time, but had not been able to find a place that I was comfortable with. What I was looking for was a nice, traditional church (yet attended by with born-again Christians), that was not invasive or trying to be “cutting-edge.” The rather old meeting hall of this Quaker church seemed to me to be a sign that perhaps this place might have what I was looking for.

As I walked in the door, I spotted a rather large elderly man in the vestibule, who greeted me and began approaching me as he saw me walk in. “Does this church have a traditional service?” I asked.

He threw a big fleshy arm around my shoulders and said, “Sure!” He continued talking, but I don't remember anything else he said, because I was frankly more than a bit distracted by his arm around my shoulders. I was thinking to myself, “We've known each other for thirty seconds. Just who on earth are you?” I disentangled myself from his embrace and stepped back. As I stepped back, he began advancing on me. I remember trying to get details about when the traditional service was, backpedaling toward the door all the while as this man continued to advance. Finally I said, “Thanks, you've answered my questions, goodbye,” and made a hasty exit. As I walked away I was inwardly on the verge of exploding, and wanted more than a little to pop this guy in the jaw.

As I calmed down, I began to think about this incident in a more analytical fashion. I had asked this man – a total stranger – a simple, objective question, a simple request for factual information, much as if I had been at Lowe's or Home Depot and asked one of the floor clerks where the galvanized 16-penny nails were. Yet he had treated me as if I were some obviously distressed soul who needed a dramatic display of “affection.” As Jimi Hendrix is mistakenly quoted as saying, “'Scuse me while I kiss this guy!”

The only explanation I could come up with for this incident was that somewhere, while I had been kept out of touch with the larger realm of American evangelicalism, some famous evangelical must have written a book or produced some teaching video series telling churchgoers to hug every stranger that comes through their doors. Someone must have been teaching that strangers don't usually visit a church unless they have a “felt need,” and that the best way to “reach” these people is to start to relate to them immediately on a level of advanced emotional and physical intimacy without having gotten to know them first.

This is really very strange. Truly everyone needs other people, and no man is an island unto himself. But our society has evolved rules, norms and expectations which govern acceptable ways of establishing intimacy between people who begin as strangers. Those who violate those rules and norms are met with disapproval, and find themselves excluded from the intimacy they seek, because by their violations they brand themselves as unsafe people. So it is that at work, for instance, it is acceptable to get to know others first as co-workers. If in the course of working together, two or more people find that they share similar interests or views, they may even become friends. If two co-workers of opposite sex find that they are really fascinated by each other, their intimacy may progress from an initial co-worker relationship, through the friendship stage, and onto romance. But everything proceeds according to societal norms, rules and expectations which are designed to keep one party from harming the other or forcing himself or herself on another person without their permission.

This concept of acceptable and unacceptable approaches to other people was strongly ingrained in me when I used to live in California and worked at two technical offices. Every year we went through harassment training, in order to comply with California employment law and for the purpose of meeting company insurance requirements. One company named its training program, “The No-Zone.” The programs at both companies did a very good job of teaching circumspect behavior, and contributed greatly toward making work a safe place for everyone.

The principle of social rules and norms which govern intimacy extends beyond the work environment. Total strangers properly educated in these norms proceed with caution and courtesy when they first meet. It is not expected that a person must immediately bare his soul or tell his deepest secrets to a perfect stranger, nor is it expected that a person must tolerate a total stranger who tries immediately to jump to the deepest level of intimacy, bypassing all other stages. Rather, when strangers meet, the expectation is that they proceed properly through the opening stages of acquaintanceship and trust-building. Behaving in a trustworthy manner is the price of admission into higher levels of intimacy. And this is the way it should be, since after all, we live in a fallen world, and “not all men have faith.”

It seems that many modern, “cutting-edge” churches have never heard of the No-Zone. These churches are instead teaching the deliberate short-circuiting of long-standing norms of intimacy – from the Sunday morning “greeters” who maul visitors – total strangers – in unwanted bear hugs, to the discipleship “grace groups” which demand that anyone who joins such groups agree to share his deepest secrets with the other members of the group, to the people who quote Acts 2:44 and insist that everyone at their church must unconditionally share all their possessions with everyone else. I remember one house church I visited where a couple was insisting that we should all greet each other with a holy kiss, and they talked about a man they knew who practiced this greeting on everyone he met at his church. 'Scuse me while I kiss this guy!

These churches teach by example and by selective use of Scripture that Christians are to have no boundaries, that we are each to be completely open and accessible on all levels to anyone who calls himself a Christian, even if we have just met. Those members of or visitors to these churches who insist on establishing boundaries which cannot be passed until trust is earned are usually met with disapproval, because they are not being nice. Churches which seek to tear down wise boundaries use proof texts such as “All who believed...had all things in common,” (Acts 2:44), “Give to him who asks you,” (Matthew 5:42), and of course, “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20).

But these churches and teachers fail to recognize a few things. First, while the Lord Jesus does certainly command Christians to fervently love one another and to share our resources with those in need, He also recognized that there would be those who tried unjustly to “work the system.” He did not leave the Church defenseless when faced with such a threat, but told us that if a brother sins against another brother (as in violating the other brother), the church is to follow a method of discipline which will lead to the expulsion of the sinning brother if he does not repent. This process of discipline is to be started by the brother who was violated. (Matthew 18:15-20). This teaching is usually neglected or distorted by obvious fringe, cultic churches, but it seems increasingly to be neglected by some contemporary praise-band styled churches as well.

They fail to recognize also that the apostle Paul, seeing how certain so-called Christians were freeloading off of the charity of churches, wrote thus: “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks in rebellion, and not after the tradition which they received from us. For you know how you ought to imitate us. For we didn’t behave ourselves rebelliously among you, neither did we eat bread from anyone’s hand without paying for it, but in labor and travail worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you; not because we don’t have the right, but to make ourselves an example to you, that you should imitate us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: 'If anyone will not work, neither let him eat.' For we hear of some who walk among you in rebellion, who don’t work at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are that way, we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12, World English Bible, emphasis added)

Finally, they fail to recognize that Christians are not obligated to instantly believe everyone who says, “I too am a Christian,” without checking that person out first. Revelation 2:2 states how the Lord commended a certain church because they tested the claims of certain men who tried to pass themselves off as apostles.

Now don't get me wrong. I am all for intimacy. Churches should devote themselves to becoming places where strangers can enter into intimacy through the reconciliation which is in Christ. But churches must use wisdom in fostering that intimacy. Boundaries and the building of trust by trustworthy behavior are good things, because they provide protection for believers who have to live in a world of sinners, where not all have faith. Intimacy can't be rushed. Those churches which insist on tearing down personal boundaries are churches where people regularly get hurt, places which are often deliberately set up to turn their “sheep” into lamb chops. What sort of advertisement is a church that is not safe for its members? No stranger in his right mind will visit such a church.

One other thing. If you see me visiting your church, remember that I don't hug dudes, man.

Lust - An Introduction

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” – Exodus 20:17

“Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth: sexual immorality, uncleanness, depraved passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry...” – Colossians 3:5

Let's begin with a simple definition: lust is evil desire. That is, lust is wanting something that you shouldn't have. Moreover, it is wanting something you shouldn't want. There are reasons why some things shouldn't be had and why some things should not even be wanted. If we start from God's point of view, we see that He created mankind to be an expression of His will, His pattern, His ways. Therefore, everything we do has a symbolic significance. Our lives are first to be an expression of absolute devotion to God. This is why the Bible contains such strong warnings against idolatry. Our lives are also to be an expression of God's character in His dealings with humanity. This is why the Bible places such great emphasis on sexual purity and morality, and fair and merciful treatment of one's neighbors.

The problem with lust is that in wanting things we shouldn't want, or in wanting things we shouldn't have, we are actually guilty of wanting things that belong to others – whether God or our fellow human beings. Much has been written by others about what it means to give God first place in our lives, and how idolatry is a violation of the Lord's rights. But I want to focus on lust as a violation of our fellows, because all the posts of this blog up to this point have described how many prominent figures in the evangelical church have been guilty of violating their fellow human beings.

There is an interesting Bible passage which reads thus: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions...” – Romans 1:18-26.

Here is what I believe this passage is saying, especially when taken in its context. The verses immediately preceding this passage state that the righteous shall live by faith. Moreover, the only way to be righteous is by faith. Faith is believing something. And the faith we are to exercise consists of believing in God's revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ. But when people turn their backs on that revelation, they have nothing else to live for except their own dark, fallen lusts. Those who indulge in lusts are showing that they do not know God very well.

And this is the problem that has been displayed in many of the figures we have considered so far. From those who are involved in “Christian culture” - publishing of books, movies and music – solely as a means to get rich, to those who are interested in religion solely as a means to get political power, to those who are involved in the ministry solely to build up a religious empire for themselves – all of these people are examples of people who boast that they know God and that we should listen to them, who boast of what great teachers they are, yet who by their actions show that they don't know God very well at all. Too many leaders and so-called “teachers” in American evangelicalism are like this – they fool people into listening to them by pretending to be whole and mature, yet they are inwardly twisted and broken.

Part of the problem may be that some of these people started out well, genuinely wanting to serve the Lord in a significant way. But along the way, they came to believe that serving the Lord meant building up a big religious empire as a monument to Him, and they became hyperactively busy in their efforts. The problem lay in making themselves so busy for the Lord that they had no time to spend with Him. Moreover, they ran out of time for paying attention to themselves, for making sure that they were growing into the sort of people they ought to be. Believe it or not, the Bible places a great premium on this. Pick up a King James Bible sometimes and read how often it says in the New Testament that we are to “take heed to ourselves.” Or in other words, “Pay attention to yourself,” or as one Army drill cadence I learned says, “Why don't you check out your mind? Been that way all the time?” The lack of time spent in personal devotion and personal reflection has allowed these people to be defeated by lusts un-looked-for and unguarded.

But there have also been those who deliberately started out on an evil path as wolves in sheep's clothing, knowing good and well what they were intending to do. They have passed themselves off as great Christian teachers in order to fleece their flocks. One characteristic of their teaching has been to twist the Scriptures in order to legitimize their evil treatment of fellow Christians. Among the many forms this twisting has taken, I will examine two: false teaching regarding personal boundaries and false teaching regarding Biblical discernment. False teaching regarding personal boundaries has conned many Christians into accepting almost criminal mistreatment from church leaders. False teaching regarding discernment has given people convenient excuses to rationalize and justify their un-Biblical mistreatment of fellow Christians. These two errors will be the topic of my next post.

Note: All Scripture quotations are from the World English Bible, a public domain translation whose translators allow quotes free of charge, without sticking out their hands to collect royalties while shouting “Gimme!”