Category: Reflections

American Idol and Evangelism

Posted on

So I was watching American Idol tonight (yes I do watch it) and the whole issue of how Christians interact with the world came up. One of the contestants is a self-proclaimed Christian named Mandisa. She has a decent voice, but isn’t my favorite. Tonight’s theme was 21st century songs and she chose a gospely praise song by a group called Mary Mary. From the moment she started I was uncomfortable. Having existed in the Christian subculture I remember the weirdness of celebrating anything Christian when it appears in the “secular” world (and to try to push anything Christian into that world as often as possible). In fact when that was done, it was celebrated as evangelism, as not being ashamed of Jesus Christ, etc… So I understand her choice in choosing a very preachy praise song to sing on live tv, but I cringe instead of celebrate. Obviously the judges didn’t know what to think. Randy said something about the song choice not working. Paula tried to be understanding of Mandisa’s spirituality, but ended up insulting her. But Simon I think got it right when he called her choice indulgent. As he expounded with another contestants indulgent song choice – this is American Idol and they need to respect that – in other words not make it their personal playground and soapbox.

So why did the whole thing bug me? One – it plays into the sacred/secular distinction that evangelicals have so bought into – only if something is labeled Christian can it be good or serve Christ. Why can’t Mandisa be a good singer for Christ on the show without going outside the assumed bounds and preaching. Two – it shows the lack of respect Christians have for nonchristians. By forcing a very Christian song into an arena where others would not understand it is arrogant (and indulgent). I’m sure Christians were proud of her and will blame antichristian liberal bias if she gets voted off. But why can we lament lack of respect for our beliefs when we refuse to respect others’ and force our beliefs on them? I think there is a time and a place for evangelism – one that respects others and allows for dialogue. Tonight’s drama just reminded me in a small way of how often Christians are out of touch and miss the point.

Read more

David Wilcox Song

Posted on

So David Wilcox is one of my favorite musicians (can’t wait for his new album). I recently came across these lyrics. This song isn’t on any cd, but I thought they were interesting and wanted to share them…

A Different Kind of War

There was a long haired guy who drew a crowd outside
He got them all angry over national pride
He was talking of the war that’s on our shore
And how we’ve never had to fight so hard beforer
It’s a war to fight and a war to win he said
But how do we strike and where to begin?
We want to kill those guilty of the crimes they’ve made
But they don’t live in one city; there’s no fortress to invade
This war is psychological and it starts right here
So in my defiance, I will not live in fear
Because fear is their weapon so I won’t give in to that
They know that fear turns to rage, and thats just their trap
The way they win is to make us strike back
They want us to launch a dreadful counterattack
The more people that die at the hand of our nation
The more hate it will breed in the next generation
In this kind of war, they’re not after our land
They want their children’s blood on our vengeful hands
They want to make us act like an angry mob
So we look like a bully that hates their god
Their plan is to hurt us with our own brute force
Like a herd stampeding down a deadly course
If they can get us running with a rage like this
They can lead the free world off the edge of a cliff
And the cliff is to fall for the trap they’ve sprung
To make us play the role of the vengeful one
They want us to chase them and hunt them down
To kill their people and burn their towns
The few guilty people are happy to die
If they can make us kill a few thousand more besides
Becuase the death of the innocents just fuels the flame
Until the next war starts and its all the same
And the future unfolds for a hundred years
As the terror grows and it breeds more fear
So who will decide the future of our nation?
Will we follow along with their invitation?
The invitation is to trust our hate
To let revenge define our fate
To never see that it’s a different war
And we can’t fight the same way we fought before
We’re not hunted by a tiger, or a lion or a shark, its more
Like FIRE that’s the danger and the enemy’s a spark
But the trickiest spin that the devil could twist
Was convincing the world that he didn’t exist
If you don’t believe in evil, then they’re just dangerous men
And you’ll fight fire with fire, and you’ll be just like them
An eye for an eye, time after time
Eye after eye until the whole world is blind
If our enemy is evil, like a virus of the mind
And its moving through the body of all humankind
Then the evil brilliance of this virus which is hate
Is that our natural reaction makes it replicate
We want to shoot at a target thats easy to find
But the enemy is in us – all humankind
We want to kill the invader like we could in the past
But you can’t kill a virus with a shotgun blast
This is not a nation that we’re up against
If it’s good against evil what’s our best defense?
The man on the street was drawing a crowd
Some people got angry and voices got loud
The crowd answered back to the sidewalk guy
That we must have revenge for the people that died
But the man kept talking about love and light
As if that were any way to fight the fight
And a scuffle started and they hauled him in
He was convicted of crimes and convicted of sins
And for national safety and religious pride
That sidewalk preacher was crucified

David Wilcox – copyright 2001
© 2006 David Wilcox

Read more

Grid Blog for Int’l Women’s Day: issues with the issue

Posted on

So I wanted to be part of this gridblog thing about dismantling patriarchy for the international Women’s Day (March 8) click here for more info . Yes, some may call all this extreme, but I see it as a vital issue. Granted it has been some time since I’ve personally encountered sexists in the church, I mostly run across them online or in publications. But I’ve come to realize that the oppression of patriarchy is still alive and well, just often conveyed in more subtle forms. Even among those who generally think women in ministry is vaguely okay the bias is still alive and well. So here’s my incomplete and personal list of the things that bug me in regards to this issue – basically what I find stupid and annoying in the way the women in leadership issue is dismissed or denied.

1. The lip-service issue. In many Christian circles the powers that be say they have no problem with women in leadership, but pragmatically it is never realized. There is never a female pastor appointed (although the books say its okay) and never ever are women asked to guest preach when the pastor has to be away. Not only is it not done, it is never considered.

2. The equating being female with sin. Okay so this isn’t the main intention of most people who hold this stance, but it is what I hear. When the argument is given that when women are called by God to serve it is wrong to quench the spirit/tell God he is wrong by denying her an outlet to do so – the most common response I hear is “well what about the homosexuals who think they are called by God?” I don’t want to get into that whole other debate here, but the people who give that response are people who do think homosexuality is a sin. So when they say that, it comes across as if to be a woman is a sin as well.

3. The brush-off. This is one I hear often in the Emerging Church. That we care about women and think they should be in leadership, but there are more important issues that we need to be talking about. So this issue, and women in general, just get ignored.

4. The let’s all just get along response. The “I personally think women should be in leadership, but I understand that others don’t agree and that’s okay – I respect what they think.” I’m all about respecting others opinions, but there are things that are justice issues and should be fought for. What if you substituted black people or the handicapped in for women? Would we still be okay saying that we respect people’s opinion if they say blacks can’t be in leadership in the church or would we fight to change that?

5. The separate but equal issue. The argument that since God has given women the much harder leadership role of being a mom and taking care of the house, therefore this higher calling grants her leadership even if it isn’t the “mundane” forms she seems to want to have.

6. The play with the big boys issue. The “of course women are accepted in leadership as long as they act like men” issue. Women must buy into traditional male power structures, talk like men (i.e. interrupt everyone by talking louder and over them), have the same time and money to attend seminaries and conferences, write books, and network like men (forgetting that the men aren’t also the primary caregivers and housekeepers), and basically be labeled a feminazi bitch in order to exist in that world.

7. The token woman issue. The “we can look all equitable and stuff if we stick one women (or minority or better yet a female minority) into a leadership postion (staff member, conference speaker,…)” thing. Of course she can’t deliver a real Bible message, just something about health or social issues or children).

I’m sure there are many other participants in this gridblog who have more intelligent things to talk about. These are just some of the thoughts that come to mind when I consider “dismantling patriarchy.” I look forward to reading other’s thoughts as well as seeing the results of this effort.

Edit — So there are many great posts so far ( click here for the list of participants). Stories, theology, deep thoughts, and funny stuff. Since I always seem to post funny stuff I want to highlight this post about why men shouldn’t be ordained. Its really funny in the ironic sort of way. Enjoy.

Read more

Biblical Interpretation

Posted on

Okay get ready for a long post…
In a recent discussion on women in ministry on Char’s blog I posted the following rambling thoughts about Biblical interpretation:

“I think I get caught up often in trying to determine what was going on historically in the NT church so that I can claim it as a norm for today. but when I take a step back I realize that I generally don’t agree with that sort of approach to the bible. I don’t think that the NT church was the pure and unadulterated form of being a Christian and that we just have to uncover all the facts about it in order to be the real Christians we are supposed to be. I see faith and god’s purposes in this world as being fluid rather than static.

But that does not mean that the attempt to discover how things were in the NT (as much as that can actually be done) is not a worthwhile attempt. I fully acknowledge that our views of the NT (especially in regards to women) are heavily influenced by our culture. We are looking at the bible through the lenses of years and years of male dominance – there are a lot of agendas that are at stake in the discussion. There see to be many present Christians who are literally afraid to even address the topic thoughtfully(just look at the knee-jerk reaction to the Da Vinci Code..). I think we have gotten it wrong about women in the early church and that needs to be made known, but I don’t see then that we should necessarily copy whatever we determine what it was that was going on.

I personally prefer the concept of trajectory. If through history God was asking his people to give more love and freedom to oppressed groups (women, slaves, gentiles, children…), and if in different ages his people were pushing what was the norm for their culture, we need to look at where the general approach was pointing and follow that trajectory to where it leads. It took centuries for people to finally grasp the revolutionary things that Paul wrote about releasing slaves and treating them as equals. And it was the Christians who led the abolitionist cause because it was fulfilling the plans God had. No one today says that its okay for some to read the bible and think that black people are lesser or cant serve god as well as whites, but that was the norm among Christians at one point. perhaps someday people in the church will be just as scandalized to hear people talking about women being lesser and not being able to serve as well as men…”

So then I was slowing making my way through N.T. Wright’s The New Testament and the People of God and came across this really cool analogy he wrote about Biblical interpretation and the authority of scripture. I’m posting the part about what he compared it to and I think it has some interesting things to say about how we act/live/teach as Christians today. –

“Suppose there exists a Shakespeare play, most of whose fifth act has been lost. The first four acts provide, let us suppose, such a remarkable wealth of characterization, such a crescendo of excitement within the plot, what it is generally agreed that the play ought to be staged. Nevertheless, it is felt inappropriate actually to write a fifth act once and for all: it would freeze the play into one form, and commit Shakespeare as it were to being prospectively responsible for work not in fact his own. Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who could immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves.

Consider the result. The first four acts, existing as they did, would be the undoubted ‘authority’ for the task at hand. That is, anyone could properly object to the new improvisation on the grounds that some character was now behaving inconsistently, or that some sub-plot or theme, adumbrated earlier, had not reached its proper resolution. This ‘authority’ of the first four acts would not consist – could not consist!- in an implicit command that the actors should repeat the earlier parts of the play over and over again. It would consist in the fact of an as yet unfinished drama, containing its own impetus and forward movement, which demanded to be concluded in an appropriate manner. It would require of the actors a free and responsible entering into the story as it stood, in order first to understand how the threads could appropriately be drawn together and then to put that understanding into effect by speaking and acting with both innovation and consistency. … part of the initial task of actors chosen to improvise the new final act will be to immerse themselves with full sympathy in the first four acts, but not so as to merely parrot what has already been said. They cannot go and look up the right answers. Nor can they simply imitate the kinds of thing that their particular character did in the early acts. A good fifth act will show a proper final development, not merely a repetition, of what went before. Nevertheless, there will be a rightness, a fittingness, about certain actions and speeches, about certain final moves in the drama, which will in one sense be selfauthenticating, and in another gain authentication from their coherence with, their making sense of, the ‘authoritative’ previous text.”

Read more

Marriage

Posted on

So recently I have had a number of conversations among different groups about the nature of sex and marriage. Most of the conversations are with people that make certain assumptions about the two and call those assumptions biblical. While I agree for the most part with the general conclusions that are reached, it troubles me when people assume that their 21st century, American, evangelical ideas are the true biblical ones or “the way it has always been.” How we view marriage today (a loving covenant between a man and a woman that implies longevity, commitment, submission, and love)is a fairly recent concept. For most of Western history marriage was based more on political and economic forces than personal choice. To assume that what we mean by marriage is what the bible means by marriage disrespects history and the context of the biblical writers.

For a brief and interesting overview of the history of marriage in western society check out this article.

As a tangent, one of the historical facts I discovered that fascinated me was the existence of compulsory marriage in Imperial Rome. Augustus imposed fines on single people and thus made marriage a political and economic transaction. So when Paul talks about remining single, he is not just referring to sexual and spiritual issues, but taking a stand against the empire.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Read more

Things Overheard at Walmart

Posted on

So I was at Walmart yesterday and as I was shopping I overheard part of a conversation between two employees. One was a white women and the other an Afgani woman. The Afgani women was telling her coworker about a recent incident in Afganistan in which some American soldiers were walking through a residential area. A small boy came to the door of his house and begged them for some food. A soldier then pushed him and slammed the door on him – breaking the boy’s hand as he did so. The women then said that stuff like that happens all the time over there, but that Americans have no clue about what’s going on. She then said that things were better under the Taliban.
I moved on at that point, but that snatch of conversation made me think and ask a lot of questions. I knew that American arrogence exists – it has to for us to just go in and impose our will on other countries. But this personal “I am above the law and morality” attitude of soldiers is just sad. Does being in the army give a person a power trip where they feel like they can do stuff like that? Or are the people who join the army the type people who like violence and would abuse children anyway? What standards are they held to or does anyone even care? just some random questions…

Read more

Hurricane Thoughts

Posted on

Watching the news over the last few days has been overwhelming. The horror of what these people are going through is unimaginable. What is most sad is how little is being done. People are dying because there is no way out, they don’t have food or water, and the hospitals can’t care for the sick. This is America – we have the resources to do more. Instead if you even suggest that enough isn’t being done your allegience to the country (actually to Bush) is questioned and its the questioning and not the real issue that is given attention. Why does it have to be political??? I understand that there are dangers to be considered, but helping people is dangerous, its hard. All of our lives are affected. What really gets me are the people who are complaining about gas prices and not being able to drive through the area over the holiday weekend. How selfish can you get!? If this is really America – the “its all about me and my needs” crowd, then no wonder so little has been done. And the blogs where I have read such sentiments are written by Christians – people who are supposed to follow the whole “whatever you did to the least of these my brothers, you did to me” idea.

Its hard to know what to do. Donating money and praying at this point seem to be the only options. Here are links to World Vision and World Relief if you are looking for a way to donate. Sorry this was more of a rant – but its all a bit emotional overload…

Read more

July 4

Posted on

So its the fourth of July. Its raining here – which is something we really need, but annoying since its the 4th and all that. That hasn’t stopped our neighbors from setting off firecrackers all day. They must have hundreds. I really can’t see the appeal of basically lighting your money on fire.

But anyway. We spent most of the day at a commissioning service for a friend of Mike’s from England. It was cool, but it was at this church that had all the scary aspects of the 4th of July/patriotism stuff. Flags, handouts, signs and meetings all based around American civil religion. Some of the proclaimed evangelistic stuff was actually all about trying to convert people to believing that America is a Christian nation. Its crazy – it just totally misses the point and sets up major roadblocks to the faith. In a way its just basic idolatry – people worshiping a false god (America) and calling it true religion. I like my country and really appreciate freedom, but America is not God and does not deserve my reverence like that. I’ll celebrate its birthday, but will not tie it to my faith. I like the way Tony Campolo refers to it – “America may be the best Babylon around, but it is still Babylon.” I will have no other gods before God.

Read more