Tag Archives: christianity

From Community to Cult

This has been a difficult post for me to contemplate, not to mention for me to actually write.  It is my hope that anyone who has faced (or is facing) similar issues will find some guidance and peace of mind. 

I grew up Presbyterian, but have attended mostly evangelical/charismatic ‘style’ churches for the last 20 years (see my earlier post).  Twenty years is more than enough time for some common problems to have been reinforced:  Many evangelicals have an underlying distrust (if not disdain) for intellectual thought, and have adopted a “fortress mentality” – where they attempt to combat the difficult questions and challenges of our culture with greater religious “emotional intensity” while never actually addressing or confronting the challenges leveled at them by those of different convictions.  Nancy Pearcey, in her book “Total Truth” (a book I’ve found to be a wonderful resource on Christian worldview), writes at length on this phenomenon, since it is a common scenario in many evangelical churches.  This vein of anti-intellectualism has caused evangelicalism to lend itself to a systemic distrust of questioning.  In some cases, it’s simply a moderate fear of “will I have the answers if someone questions my doctrine?”  That can be a healthy fear – if it leads one to confront those questions in their own life head on, rather than hide behind ‘religious experience’ alone.  However, in two specific instances, I have seen the ‘distrust of questioning’ taken to an extreme that I cannot find any Biblical support for.

At the heart of this is the desire – the need – for communal bonds.  For all that good that came of evangelicalism’s early days, there was a prevailing attitude of distrust towards the ‘religious authorities’ of the time.  In Total Truth, Pearcey writes, “Taunting religious authorities became so widespread on college campuses that in 1741 the trustees at Yale University had to pass a college law forbidding students to call college officers ‘carnal’ or ‘unconverted’” (pg 271).  The point here is that while there was good that emerged from what evangelicals know as the “Great Awakenings”, at the same time the old order of strong communal bonds within believing communities was disintegrating.  You cannot assault the institutions that made those bonds possible, without also dissolving the bonds as well.

The result is a problem evangelical churches have wrestled with for decades: how to foster real community.  Pearcey explains, “In the colonial period, the dominant political philosophy had been classical and Christian republicanism, which was highly communal.  But in the new liberalism…the ethos of self-sacrifice was replaced by one of self-assertion and self-interest” (pg 280).  In describing the emerging style of preaching at the time, Pearcey writes, “Increasingly, the populist preacher became a performer, stringing together stories and anecdotes…this method engaged the audience’s emotions while subtly enhancing the speaker’s own image by highlighting his own ministry and spiritual experiences.  The outcome of all this was the rise of personality cults, the celebrity system that has become so entrenched in evangelicalism” (pg 287).

And here is where the fine and dangerous line is crossed.  This is how many evangelical congregations have moved from the desire for real community, into the territory reserved for cults: “One of the dangers in personality cults”, according to Pearcey, “is that they easily lead to demagoguery…strong-willed leaders who, ironically, ended up exercising an even higher degree of dogmatism and control than pastors in traditional denominations, whom they denounced” (pg 289).

How those leaders assert their control can vary.  However, in my experience, the squashing of dissenting opinions seems to be a common symptom.  A close companion to that symptom is that members (especially leaders) in that congregation have no qualms about severing relationship with those they disagree with, regardless of prior history.  So, here’s a short quiz for you:  If you currently attend a church, how well do they handle disagreement?  If you disagree, are you ostracized, directly or indirectly?  What about others who have disagreed?  Does your church push for “unity” by attempting to enforce “uniformity”?  If the leaders of your church show no broken-heartedness over ‘severed’ relationships with those who’ve disagreed with them, may I humbly (albeit emphatically) suggest you find a new church?  As Christians, we should be among the best examples of the power of reconciliation.  We have several Biblical examples (Paul & Peter, Paul and Mark, to name two) of Christians who disagreed and came into conflict, and yet continued to support one another in the end.  If we have a pattern of cutting people out of our lives because they won’t “line up” with our “vision”, are we not simply acting like petulant children?  To borrow a paraphrase from Augustine: “In essentials, unity.  In non-essentials, liberty.  In all things, love.

Feeling Over Knowing

Recently, my wife and I visited a church in the Nashville area.  Everyone was very nice, welcoming and sincere – I say that because I have a complaint to make, and certainly don’t mean to malign anyone there.  During the worship service, we were singing a song that I had never heard.  It was building up to the climax of a passionate chorus and the first line of that chorus read “All I need is to feel Your love”.

In that moment I had inadvertently stumbled upon a portion of the complaint I have with evangelical Christianity.  I have become more and more convinced that the ‘currents’ of evangelical Christianity are hostile (mostly unintentionally/unknowingly, sometimes intentionally) to intellectual discussion, and obsessed with feeling and experience over any other aspect of ‘understanding’.  That statement may sound harsh, and to my evangelical peers, I can only say that I’m sorry if it does, please hear me out.

I understand the evangelical case against many mainline denominations.  I grew up Presbyterian, and as I began to read the Bible for myself, I questioned why certain topics and passages were ignored.  As a 15-year-old, I saw no real passion or vibrancy in the faith of those around me.  Instead, I saw a group of people adhering to a particular Protestant tradition – and many were not recognizable as Christians when I saw them during the week.  Something inside me knew instinctively that if a Creator existed, then He wasn’t limited to the ‘safe’ and ‘docile’ presentation of Him that I witnessed at that particular church.  In my teens I was introduced to evangelical churches, and discovered Christians who were passionate about their faith, and who wanted to impact those around them.  I was fascinated with Scripture, and being around others so passionate about their faith was a breath of fresh air.  It wasn’t until years later that I began to discern some issues.

Around 13 years ago, a conversation with a co-worker revealed to me just how ill-equipped I was to discuss hard issues – life, death, suffering, justice, purpose – with those who didn’t hold the same faith.  I began to see that there wasn’t really much of an effort in many of the evangelical churches I’d attended to understand the world around them.  No one seemed to be asking “how did we get to where we are?”, and “How do we answer the questions posed by a postmodern world?”  Oh, don’t get me wrong, those churches were asking “How can we make Christianity appeal to those who don’t believe?”  Some call it “seeker-sensitive” – but that’s just one of many frustrating examples of a language ghetto that is encouraged.  Absolutely no effort was being made to understand the mix of philosophies that had led Western culture to where it now sits.  As a result, many evangelical churches have accepted premises that find their roots in worldviews hostile to Christian thought.  We’re encouraged to share our faith, but without any foundation in apologetics.  And when we encounter someone who questions back, we’re given a trite response of encouragement, as if the sole failure is on the part of the ‘hearer’.

My Presbyterian heritage was fairly rich when it came to thought and teaching, though it was sorely lacking in many other respects.  But my complaint with evangelicalism is that anything smacking of tradition is dismissed as legalism and intellectual debate is dismissed as “the pride of man”.  There is such an emphasis on feeling and experience – both of which are an integral part of a much larger whole – but I fear it’s an over-emphasis.  Evangelical leaders lament the ‘consumer’ nature of many congregants, but their whole system lends itself to “what can I experience?” – since that’s all that appears to matter.  So, no, I’m sorry, I need much more than to just “feel” His love.  I need to understand how what Christianity teaches is relevant to my life – from the big, epic questions down to how I love my wife and sons, how I perform at my job, and how I take care of my property.  I need to stop chasing experience from weekly pep-rally service to service.  That kind of ‘consumerism’ only breeds an inability to understand or esteem anything other than the pursuit of the next ‘fix’.  That mindset, in my opinion, has dumbed-down religious discussion among evangelical Christians, it has robbed them of a critical tool in applying Christian teaching to daily life, and it has driven others away from Christianity as a whole.

More on this in the future….

Confessions & Promises

At the inception of this blog, I had in my mind the kinds of things I wanted to write about – life, philosophy, economics, history, government, science, religion, being a dad, relationships – maybe even fashion.  No, really, NOT fashion.  Anyone in their right mind would see some of those topics and say “Jim, stay far away from religion, government & economics!”  After all, aren’t there a million ‘political’ or ‘evangelical’ blogs out there churning out arrogant, close-minded, misguided, irrelevant or sincere-but-easily-misconstrued content?  Yes.  There ARE.  I cannot answer for them.

But I have some confessions to make.

I often hesitate to truly ‘let my hair down’ in conversation for fear of experiencing the “listener’s-eyes-just-glazed-over-because-you’re-talking-about-boring-deep-subjects” moment.  Maybe this blog is the chance I have to let your eyes glaze over without me knowing it.  I have hesitated to discuss certain aspects of my faith on my blog, not at all because of wanting to hide it, nor due to lack of understanding.  Instead, I’ve had a difficult time because, for years, I’ve felt like the outsider in evangelical Christianity.  I’m the guy who would ask the “But what about…” questions.  I’m the proverbial burnt piece of popcorn in the fluffed up culture of pop-Christianity.  I have been deeply changed as I’ve lived the Christian faith.  But I’ve begun to relate to Bono when he sang “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for…”.  I don’t think he was complaining that what God has done for us isn’t enough.  I think he was complaining about us.  If I were to take some liberty with the lyrics, I’d say “You broke the bonds, and you loosed the chains, carried the cross and all my shame, all my shame.  You know I believe it…but what the heck is up with this crowd of arrogant, anti-intellectual, hide-in-their-safe-ghetto-culture Christians?”  I haven’t found what I’m looking for, though I feel closer today than ever.  And I’m not finding it in the emergent-meets-re-hashed-social-gospel-church either.  I’ve hesitated in discussing certain aspects of my faith because of the manner in which some Christians have discussed their faith with others in my life – all to often it’s gone so horribly wrong.  The mere hint that someone might be devout in their faith evokes all kinds of ‘fundamentalist-idiot’ stereotypes – and there always seems to be a Christian who’s willing to provide another piece of anecdotal evidence for the stereotype to live on.  But I’m done worrying about stereotypes.

I confess that I want to discuss how religion, culture and government interrelate, but have hesitated to do so before because of the immediate suspicion with which I would be greeted.  “Yet another Christian who wants to cram his beliefs down the nation’s throat.”  Good grief, no.  What I want to do is plainly make the case for what I believe, see how it stacks up against the alternatives and then you decide for yourself.  I confess that I will get passionate at times, maybe even YELL.  So what, we all do that.  What I don’t want to be is another shrill voice in the same old “red vs. blue” argument.  I can promise you that will not happen.

I confess that I want to commit a portion of this blog to journal some of my observations of evangelical Christianity, but it will be uncomfortable for both of us at times.  I promise that I will endeavor to be honest, fair and humble.  I confess that I think many readers might jump to conclusions about me.

I confess that I’m the quintessential geek when it comes to history, economics, science and philosophy.  However, I love the thrill of taking what might normally be boring ideas, and turning them into something interesting for discussion.  I promise I will try to do that.  I confess that I hope you keep reading even if I drop a few boring entries in every once in a while…

What is the “Z”?

A couple of weeks ago I heard a fantastic speech given by one of my favorite college professors – Reed Arvin.  Reed has had an amazing life – writing, recording and producing for many years in the Nashville music scene, teaching music and technology (which I was privileged to be one of his students) and he currently writes full time.  (You can find out more about Reed here.)  During this speech, Reed made a number of great points – only a couple of which i will cover in this post….

Where does creativity come from?  Reed believes that there are three general ‘wells’ of creativity:

  • Personal creative genius
  • Value (seeing a need and creating something of value to meet that need)
  • The “Z” – zeitgeist.

The focus of the talk was on the 3rd well.  “Zeitgeist” is a German word that is most often translated as “the spirit of the age”, and more technically translated as “the ghost in time”.  “Don’t confuse ‘trends’ with zeitgeist”, he said.  “Trends are the ‘what’, zeitgeist is the ‘why’.”

Speaking primarily to an audience of music industry types, Reed argued that artists who worked in conjunction with the “Z” were often the most successful in breaking into the mainstream – even though their artistic quality was often far less than their peers.  He gave several examples – a poignant one being the success of hip hop artists like 50 Cent at the height of the housing market.  The “Z” at the time was that we were ALL going to get rich together.  Why?  Well one reason was real estate.  Remember the days were flipping houses was cool, chic and everyone could get in on it?  Fast forward a few years, and the “Z” has shifted.  Our nation, still reeling from the after-effects of the housing crash and having watched the creation of more public debt than can be paid by the generations currently alive, has found out the hard way that mortgage-backed securities weren’t the ‘magic beans’ we were promised.  We’re beginning to look back to how our grandparents (and their parents) lived.  Frugality, simplicity, family – all are now bubbling up to the top in many respects; blogs like “Pioneer Woman” are immensely popular.  The word ‘depression’ is used now by many to either describe the financial woes we face, or relate our struggles back to the Great Depression in hopes of unearthing the wisdom of prior generations in how to deal with these hardships.  Reed used a striking picture comparison to drive this point home:

Grapes of Wrath CoverRalph Lauren - Grapes of Wrath fashion show...


It’s no accident!  Ralph Lauren’s Spring 2010 fashion show is actually called “The Grapes of Wrath”.

Reed also made some salient observations about the show “Friends”.  “Friends” connected so well with so many people because of empathy.  “For the first time in the modern age, our friends are our family” he stated (paraphrased!).  Anyone who watched the show could either say that they related to the close family-like bond between friends, or they longed to experience the same sense of family and connection.  Reed even proposed that “Zeitgeist + Empathy = Popularity”.

It’s the idea of empathy that truly intrigued me.  Reed, having been involved in Contemporary Christian music industry circles for decades, made what I believe was his greatest point that night: one of the biggest failures in Christian media is a very heavy emphasis on earnestness instead of empathy.  “Earnestness asks ‘How can I get my message across?’  Empathy asks ‘How can I help my listener find themselves in my story?’”

Earnestness and passion aren’t necessarily bad – but empathy is what connects people.  It destroys the impersonal ‘caricatures’ that we often impose on each other.  It helps a Christian understand that it’s ok to show weakness or to appear as if they don’t have all the answers.  It stops us to listen, truly listen to someone else; it helps us get to know them as a real person.  It is the currency by which passion and earnestness can be exchanged without suspicion of motive.  What good is it for us to be earnest and passionate if we are not willing to genuinely celebrate and suffer with those in our lives?  If we’re not willing to listen, and only want one-sided conversations?