Yesterday’s post was poorly written. The point of it was not to say “iPhone bad. You who buy iPhone bad.” That’s not what I think – it’s too simplistic. So allow me to take another run at this idea and this time use myself as the example so as to not offend any more friends.
I grew up in a soldiers home. My father gave me replicas of the cannons he fired in Vietnam. They were decorations in my room wen I was a kid.
We went to parades and football games where he taught me to stand as the “colors” were marched by us and place my hand over my heart, and sing the national anthem with tears in my eyes.
He hated Democrats. Hate is not too strong a word here. They were to blame for the fall of…everything. They were godless, corrupt, socialists. That’s the message I got from hearing him mutter under his breath at the news each night.
So, my view of the world as a young adult was:
It doesn’t matter that my father actually never told me these things or believed them himself. It’s what I came to believe by interpreting his life simplistically – as a child does.
Fast forward. Terrorists crash two planes into the New York skyline. I’m ticked off. But I’m also uneasy, for reasons I can’t explain, about declaring a war whose progress can’t be measured on an enemy so hard to define. I start reading about the history of war and stumble upon a theology I’d never encountered before: Christian non-violence.
I reject it immediately. I label it: liberal. I label those who buy into it: hippies.
And I move on.
But it keeps popping up. I read a couple books about the history of the Church and discover that most early Christians believed this cock-eyed theology of non-violence and lived it to their premature deaths. They thought it was a core teaching of Jesus’ and necessary to live out in order to imitate Him on earth.
I couldn’t reject it so easily then. And after much study and debate with my father (hoping he’d change my mind) I came to believe what the liberal hippies believe. But doing so, believing a theology that contradicts what I value, who I am, how I live was not natural. What was natural was creating a theology/god that allowed me to keep loving what I loved, living how I lived, and being in agreement with my father whom I greatly respect and hate to disappoint or dishonor.
Yesterday’s example centered around technology and extravagant purchases. It was a poor example only because A) it’s hard for us to define “extravagant” and B) we think we need technology, we really do.
So, in response to A some said, essentially, “Hey, back off stick boy. God has blessed me with this wealth of mine so stop judging me. I don’t just buy over-sized cars, expensive phones and designer jeans with it you know. I also sponsor a kid. Do want me to be Amish or something?” Well, OK. Not the point of my post.
In response to B some said, essentially, “Hey, back off stick boy. God uses technology to save people so stop judging me.” Well, OK. Again, not the point of my post.
My point was simply this – and it was my fault for communicating it poorly and in a hurry with kids in my lap early in the morning: Some pastors and worship leaders have been salivating over the iPhone for weeks on their blogs. They are the same guys who FREQUENTLY blog about their other expensive purchases, things they think are technologically cutting edge, cool, “must have”s etc. This is fact. No use arguing on this point. These men do this. And I’ve not said they shouldn’t. BUT I did say “that’s disturbing.” My bad. “That” is a pronoun and it seems to point to these guys blogging about stuff they buy or want. I’m not real keen on that practice but that’s not what I intended “that’s” to point the reader to. What disturbs me is that the iPhone (mentioned in the previous sentence) costs $600 when it does the same thing our laptop and cell phones do now. I did not intend to “judge” these bloggers for their blogging practices. I meant to only describe what they do, mention the iPhone as the latest example of the kind of thing they think is blogworthy, and then move on to the bigger point. Sorry for the confusion.
Then I asked the question – though apparently not well: Is it coincidence that these guys ALL work at churches where the Sunday morning experience is also expensive to create and house, technologically cutting edge, cool and marketed as a “must have” for those who enjoy such things? Is it a coincidence or did these guys have a hand in creating a theology/methodology that validates (as opposed to contradicts) their own value system and lifestyle? Is it a coincidence? OR, you could have answered, are they just more at home in such a church that values what they also value?
The point is WE ALL, I think, create a theology/church that makes us feel comfortable with what we value and how we live. We ALL tend to reject a theology/church that requires us to change our values and how we live.
Does that clear things up for anyone?
I think people are way too sensitive about what you said before. I appreciate your attempt to appease the masses yet think your post yesterday was well written and you saying, “I’ve noticed many blogging pastors and worship leaders posting their on-line orgasms over the iPhone.” is much more gracious than me saying “shut the frick up already” which i was tempted, but didn’t do.
nothing against iphones or pastors or megachurches or hummers or whatever…
but i think some people might have taken your last post waaaaaaaay out of context.
Anne said frick.
Los
Anne also said “hummer.”
::anne turns red then sighs::
This could turn into something bad, so I am going to stop.
gutter-rats.
What?? YOU said it.
::quickly switches object of conversation::
Ok, if we are going to get all sexual here, as much as I appreicate Los doing a Mad Church video on his blog yesterday, when he is “reading” the book, it sounds like he’s reading something else tucked away in the book.
Sorry I just had to get that off my chest.
Ooooh…I said chest.
Who’s getting sexual? We’re talking about you’re secondary cursing and the mention of an SUV…right?
::wonders how she so easily got trapped in such sophomoric humor and goes back to more serious matters::
So the issue becomes how soft our heart is in hearing the truths of God from the Scriptures that were written to supplant these poor man-made theologies (though, granted, man-made theologies will sometimes coincidentally align with the Word).
The reason I don’t think anyone took Shaun’s post out of context is because the ensuing discussion necessarily follows. If we believe A and then create A-based theology/practice then we must be able to biblically answer why A is true and if our A-based theology is helping or hurting the kingdom of God and the name of Christ. If either can be shown lacking biblically or practically, then those pieces must be examined.
The discussion is difficult because, as Seth pointed out, for this specific instance, there is nothing about not owning an iPhone in Scripture. However, the personal conjecture of, “I think it’s ok to do this or that” is not to terribly helpful either. The bible doesn’t speak explicitly of the Trinity, but the Trinity can certainly be deduced. Likewise, specific spending habits are not given in the Word, but I think there is enough wisdom and mention of the will of God to come up with a more robust theology of money (or theology of anything we hold because of our socialization and not explicitly from the bible) than most of us currently have.
What I’m driving at is that socialization (i.e. what we learned from mom/dad/grandpa/culture) is only one part of the picture. Romans 12:1-2 shows us that our past ways of thinking are not to be our lifetime way of thinking when we come under God’s mercy through Christ. 2 Tim. 3:16 serves to show us that Scripture is our final authority. And for what purpose? That we may equipped for good works!
So all our preferences and opinions in our A-based theology are subject to critique – not primarily by me or other people, but the bible. But if that critique comes THROUGH me or someone else, that person is only the messenger. And, yes, that message is often delivered with a staggering lack of grace and love, but often as well, the truth remains no less true.
Awe now hang on. I agreed with you, mostly. (I made the Amish comment to Andy to make an example of taking an extremist viewpoint on buying stuff.) I don’t drive an oversized SUV and if I wear hip jeans they were bought for me or I got them at Ross because I can’t afford to buy them full price. Period.
I have STRONGLY disagreed with how the church spends its money and I am not advocating in any way shape or form a name it claim it lifestyle. (Those that are blessed should bless others before they bless themselves.)
My only point was that there are exceptions to that thar nifty philosophy that you penned. The one that went something like: “if you want the iphone then you want the fancy stuff at church too and that’s a fact.”
One of them being me. I think you can own an iPhone or a Laptop or a G.I. Joe with the kung fu grip and not be a materialistic theologian nor approve of the Jumbo Tron screen at church. That may seem like a contradiction but I have my theology to back it up.
So still agreeing that there is a theology behind my philosophy, just disagreeing that ALL that love the iphone must love the Jumbo Tron and the Fog Machine dadgummit. Nitpicky but…
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Hope that is clear.
Of course you can, Seth. Never said you couldn’t.
As a patriotic kid raise on war it was possible for me to embrace pacifism but not natural.
How many canons would I have had to own, how many parades would I have had to salute at, how many war movies would I have had to cheer during before such thinking became natural? Don’t know. How much stuff can I own before stuff justifying my stuff buying via a theology of my own design becomes natural? DOn’t know. One iPhone? On iPhone, a macbook, a 5000 square foot house> An iPhone, macbook, big ole house, Range Rover, two tropical vacations a year? Don’t know. Not trying to make a “fact”/rule here. Pointing out the temptation in us all.
Totally agree that a love of jumbotrons is not built into the circuitry of the iPhone. Duh. That’s why I limited the discussion of iPhone buyers to these guys…only. THESE GUYS ALL love them some iPhone AND some jumbotron. And, no, jumbotrons aren’t evil either. They’re just a tool. But a theology that says you must have tis tool or that tool (and those tools happen to be both expensive and new) to “reach” people is concocted by some to justify their buying them is it not? And that is, well, if not evil, it’s cousin.
-Shaun
sacred cow tipper (apparently)
Seth, because I know you better than most folks here I hope you don’t mind the sarcasm in my comments – I figure you know I’m only attempting to be funny…at your expense of course.
I almost blogged about your church today in this post. How do you think your pastor (my father-in-law) and his values and lifestyle affect the theology and methodology and everything else at your church?
Of course I know him better than you in some ways but you know him well enough to think that one through. Whatcha think?
I need a shower
If you can’t be sarcastic, then what’s the point? (A motto about life in general.)
I have always been a bit pleasantly perplexed about our church. It is chalked full of wealthy folks but they are also extremely generous in their giving and I never get the feeling that too many of them, if any, live close to what they could be living. Half the church could be in gargantuan mansions, (and that includes Phil I just bet. Well maybe not gargantuan, but much bigger than he has.)
I think Phil is in general a balanced guy when it comes to gizmos and he mostly just wants things to work. The feelings towards gizmos are pretty nonchalant in general at WTBC. Our Sunday Night service is more into the Ed Young Jr. way of things.
I think most purchases and techno advances might be done in a round-about attempt to keep up with the those other big-hitters down I-59 that have those big TV shows- Olsteen and the Rev Ed. But again, I think that Phil just sees that it is working well and therefore sees it as a good idea.
But even still, it always seems that Phil knows that the church is in one of the RICHEST part of Houston and he really just wants to reach people and doesn’t want a lack of “relevance” to interfere with that. So in that way I guess you could say that his theology does and doesn’t reflect the trends. It is more relative in that way than it is relevant. Sort of a “whatever gets the job done, do it” way about things. Does that make sense?
If it were Politics we were talking I would say Phil is a Democrat that lives among and ministers to a bunch of die-hard Republicans.
There is really an array of ideologies at our church if you haven’t noticed and it would be an interesting blog.
If you’ve got the tamales to take on the ole’ Pater in Law.
jumbotron….ewww.
Of course people insert themselves into their theology/methodology. To a certain extent, it’s impossible not to. I’m not saying that makes it right, it just is what it is. Paul spoke freely in the New Testament of the war that goes on between flesh and spirit and I think our spiritual formation showcases that battle better than almost anything. What becomes important then, is the *awareness* of those things in us that seem “natural” but are not Christ-like. Without the awareness and the willingness to think critically about those things, we’re lost to the mercy of our circumstances.
Over the last year, I’ve started trying to figure out what of my theology/methodology is America-based and what’s truly Bible-based. It’s amazing how often the two get mixed up.
THANK YOU, MICHELLE! Well said.
I think you’ve nailed step one to combatting this tendency in us…when it’s a problem: awareness.
And then, for me, step two has been community. This is one reason I believe community is not an elective for the Christian – it’s a necessity. And why I don’t think church leaders should be the only ones teaching us what the bible means, who God is, how to live today in light of these truths, etc. They’re tainted too.
A bunch of us together talking about what Paul or Jesus or John meant and how that meaning changes how we think and fell and live forces us to experience other perspectives informed by difference values and lifestyles than our own and suddenly – for me – it becomes more obvious what theology I’ve built on my own limited view of things and what is actually grounded on something more substantial.
And community – when it’s people who trust me enough to be honest with me – can speak up and tell me when I’m justifying my behavior with a bogus theology and applaud me when I arrive at interpretations of God and scripture that actually go against my usual behavior.
What else helps combat this tendency in us? For you? “Trust the holy spirit” – sorry to sound unspiritual – loses something in translation for me. I’d like something more concrete…but, then again, maybe I’m looking for an answer that sits better with my personality and not the true answer. AHHH! It’s everywhere!
While I think multiculturalism as it is often promoted is a bit of a crock, there is something to be said about not being too enamored with ones own culture/peers/country/generation, etc. These things can become an idol that blinds us to what God really wants. Every person/generation/society has blind spots, but it is really tough to spot them from the inside. As we are open to other cultural expressions of Christianity, it can help us to see the excesses in our own experience. It doesn’t mean one will always agree with the majority, but it sure helps in spotting the particular weaknesses of the culture we swim in.
I’ve often thought about this concept in the context of books about the church and Christianity. People will go hog-wild about the latest book outlining a culturally relevant concept in Christian discipleship/living. They buy up these books by the thousands/millions and then spread the gospel according to Hirsch/Warren/Ratzinger. It’s not a bad thing, but for the millions of copies books by our peers that are sold, how many people have read something written by someone who lived 100 years ago? How about 500 years ago? How many people have read something on Christianity that was written by an extra-Biblical writer who knew and conversed with an apostle? How many people could name one? If they did read the writings of somebody who knew an apostle, would they take their comments as seriously as they take the comments of Hirsch/Warren/Ratzinger. People (Americans especially) are enamoured with themselves. This pride/self-confidence can make it really difficult to see outside the box.
MB
I understood the original post to mean exactly what it was meant to say…so no explanation or apology needed as far as I’m concerned. I just figured the questions were rhetorical. There are no right or wrong answers I guess…only opinions.
But I do think it’s important to at least concede that “event” churches–although grotesque to some–may be the only way to get some souls to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let’s face it, Church has been making Christianity boring for centuries. We have to expect that a society that is so used to being entertained would eventually expect it from its religion too. It’s the grotesque churches that aren’t even teaching the Bible anymore that scare me more.
Some people need the flash. In my opinion (which I admit may be wrong), these are the same folks who slow down to “look at the pretty flashing lights” whenever there’s a traffic accident. (Just get out of my way because I’ve seen enough tragedies in my life, I really don’t have any desire to slow down and watch someone else’s.) But that’s their thing. I have mine. And I’m sure there are many who would consider my church experience to be blase’ at best.