how not to forgive

I’ve been trying to figure out how to “relaunch” my blog. Specifically, I want the “new and improved” version to be less negative. You know, more rave than rant I guess. And, more in line with with my role as a minister.

In my search for a topic, however, it looks like it’s going to start with a “rant.” But, at least it’s a very important rant, and I think quite in line with my role as a minister. Brandon had linked to this post on Gary Lamb’s blog (and here is Brandon’s reaction). Apparently, Lamb is a very important in the church planter circles (I say apparently not sarcastically, but because I am a bad pastor and don’t keep up with such trends like I am supposed to, and had not heard of Lamb prior). If you read the link, you find that one of Revolution’s (the name of Lamb’s church) trailers was stolen.

Lamb responds by writing an “letter” to the person or persons responsible. He starts by telling them that God loves them. Then, he says that the church forgives them. He points out that they don’t want to, but God says that they should, so they do.

I think that this attitude is valid to an extent. Forgiving is not our natural reaction when we have been wronged. It’s something that we have to learn how to do. We start by doing so out of obedience, even if we don’t want to. And, as we grow, it becomes natural, to the point that we do it because that’s the person that we are, and not so much out of obidence.

But, if you’ve clicked the link, you see what Lamb means by “we forgive you.” And, quite honestly, if this is Lamb’s idea of “forgiving,” then I don’t want to see what he’s like when he’s holding a grudge. He calls them names (scum bag, lowlife), and assumes that they stole it to buy crack. Mostly, he threatens physical violence on them. Not only does he want the people to be beat up, but he wants to be the one to do it. And, he wants it to be slow and painful.

Two things alarm me the most. One is that this blog post, while “addressed” to the culprits, is really addressed to the congregation. In other words, this is his teaching his church about forgiving. Secondly, he takes pride in being “probably the only church you have ever heard of that will honestly break your legs once your are found.”

It’s not often that one takes pride in being a church that ignores the words of Jesus. There is no “turn the other cheek” (or in this case, give them your other trailer) or “vengence is mine says the Lord.” Lamb wants vengence to be his.

I will say this: I don’t know Gary Lamb. So, I’m trying to be careful not to judge him personally. We all have shortcomings, including pastors (even me, I know, it’s hard to believe). And, I know firsthand what it’s like to have a blog post come back and bite you because it’s taken out of context, and I know firsthand what it’s like to have a blog post come back and bite you because it was stupidly written regardless of it’s context. All that to say, I don’t think Lamb is a bad guy for writing this, nor do I think he is a bad pastor. My guess is that it comes from one of two places. One is that it’s just an area he needs to grow in. If so, that’s for his church leadership team to handle with him (which is actually a weakness in church planting, but that’s another post). If not that, then it’s an attempt at being real by being totally “honest.” If that’s the case, then he’s failed. The idea in such a post would read, “I want to do all this to you, but I won’t, because I forgive you.” The “real” emotion is addressed, but then the correct reaction is then given. As it is written, Lamb’s post says, “I say I forgive you, but really, I don’t and if I had the chance, I would get revenge.”

friday queue cleaning–april 11, 2008

The queue is kinda boring this week.  A lot of the same old stuff going on.  Obama and Clinton still don’t get along.  Clinton’s husband seems to still be losing it.  Howard Dean doesn’t seem to like John McCain very much.  A general and an ambassador said that we still have work to do in Iraq.  The Republicans were happy about that, and the Democrats didn’t seem to like it.  The 3 candidates seemed to think that going on American Idol was a good idea.  And the earth continues to simultaneously get warmer and cooler. 

So, I’m bored with the news this week.  Part of it was that I’ve had a particularly busy week, so I haven’t paid much attention.  But, there is one story that has caught my eye; the pope’s US visit.  In particular, his plans to seek reconciliation for the clergy sex abuse scandal.

I hope he seriously pursues this, though many beleive he’s just going to play lip service to the issue.  Frankly, even that would be a start.  The whole issue angers me deeply, in part because I am a “clergy member (not a Catholic)” and take the role very seriously.  I’m quite forgiving when clergy members make mistakes, as I have done quite often.  I am not so forgiving when they abuse their influence.  Which is the case here.

I’m not upset with the church over the sexual abuses themselves.  I think that anger should be directed at the indivdual offenders.  I am angry at the church’s handling of the situation.  Had they dealt properly with each incident when it happened, it would have helped with the victim’s healing (which is the primary role of the church), would have prevented a majority of the subsequent attacks, and ultimately would have prevented the scandal from being as big as it was.  It still would have been a tragic situation.  Certainly, one occurence, even handled correctly, is too many.

But, to the scale at whch it happened is ridiculous.  And the problem is that the church, acting out of it’s percived “infalliablity” became an enabler.  Offenders were simply moved to a new parish when they could find new victims.  They were placed in a situation where they didn’t have accountablity for their actions.  Most people, if they were found to be guilty of this crime, would go to jail, unable to continue.  Guilty priests were kept in positions of authority.

One idea that gets kicked around is that the vow of celibacy is to blame.  That the sexual tension just builds up to the point where they can’t contol themselves and they take it out on kids.  This, of course, is a complete lack of understanding of the roots of pedophilia.  Celibacy does not lead to pedophilia.  Neither does homosexuality, which is another attempt at explaining why this happened.  The idea is that religious homosexuals became priests since they couldn’t morally have sex anyway, but again, it all built up until they took it out on some kids.  Again, celibacy does not lead to homosexuality.

The problem is simply this: pedophiles became priests.  Pedophiles go into all lines of work.  However, when they are found to be pedophiles, they continued to be priests.  They do not continue in other lines of work when found out.  They go to jail.  So, with the priests, they were able to accumulate a large number of victims.  Thus, the scandal was huge.

Even I, as a single, non-catholic pastor, feel the effects of this stigma.  Many people distrust me, believing me to be a ticking time bomb waiting to go off at some moment. 

But, that’s not what upsets me about all of this.  Rather, it’s the betrayal of the very essence of what ministry is supposed to be about.  The trust was betrayed when the abuses occured.  But, it continued when the issue was covered up and healing was not pursued.  It continued even further when, finally when it all came to light, the church took it quite lightly, even accusing the American media of “persecution.” 

So, even if the pope only pays “lip service” to the issue, it will be a start if that “lip service” includes a confession that the church really dropped the ball on this.  While that’s not enough, no progress can ever be made until that step is taken.

sound of silence

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said, the words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whisperd in the sounds of silence.

–Sound of Silence, Simon and Garfunkel

 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I John 4:7-8 (TNIV)

For those of you who are unaware of where my office is located, we have space in the basement of a bank.  Our floor can be accessed through the main lobby, but also there is a fire escape that leads to a door to the basement.  This serves as our unofficial “front door.”  This afternoon, I noticed that someone had written on our door (it is glass).  It said:

God is love–Period

This is atypical of your usual church door graffiti.  Generally, it’s something to the effect of God being not real or Christians being a bunch of morons.  Which makes me wonder where it comes from.  It’s usually done at worst out of hate, and at best out of misguided mischievousness.  This, at a glance, seems to not be the case here.  The message is written in marker on glass.  I attempted to rub off part of the hyphen to test the damage, and it comes right off.

Instead of vandalism, this is a profound message.  And that makes me wonder who wrote it.  While I know that such theological statements written on the church door is not unprecedented* (see Martin Luther), it is something I have never encountered before.

And it is a theological statement.  Prior to the hyphen, “God is Love,” is simply a quote of scripture (see above).  After the hyphen, “period,” is theology.  And it makes me wonder about who wrote this.

Is this an indictment of our ministry?  Is it an encouragement?  Is this person mad at us specifically?  Do they even know us?  Are they mad at Christians in general, and we just happened to be the door they took it out on?  Or, was it simply a message from a brother or sister out there, sharing what they deem to be the most important?

I wish I knew the intent of the author, but since I don’t know who that is, I’ll have to merely go with the interpretation of the reader, which makes this not only theological, but also artistic.  It also comes at a time where many in our group have been discussing the nature of love, which makes it also prophetic.

Since we rent and do not own our space, I’m sure it will be washed off sooner rather than later.  And, it makes me wish I had a camera.  While I don’t know the intent of the artist, I do know this:  If it’s a criticism, it’s a good criticism, and if it’s an encouragement, it’s a good encouragement.

* So technically it’s not a church door, since we technically are not a church.  But, we are part of the church, so it is a church door.

off your soapbox

I came across this blogpost the other day.  For those of you who don’t like opposing view points, it’s pretty harsh on religion, and there is profanity involved.

It really reasonated with me, though.  I have the exact opposite religious views, and yet, I feel the same way he does on this subject.  He writes about his grandfather’s funeral which he recently attended.  He contrasts 2 speakers:  one a family member, giving a eulogy, and the other, a pastor, who ends up giving what amounts to a sales pitch.

It took me back to a couple of years ago, to my great-grandmother’s funeral.  The pastor in that service ultimately took it as an oppertunity to make his sales pitch.  Some would call this “evangelism.”  But, it’s not.  Evangelism is about spreading the “good news.” 

I get that it’s well meaning, but it’s bad pastoring.  Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not had to perform a funeral.  Being that I work with college students, I may never have to do one, although Barnes has me lined up to do his should he pass on before I do (for those of you who don’t know my from my Cincinnati days, I am ‘the Colonel’ that he is referring to).  So, I get that it’s probably a bit tougher that I even realize (and I expect it to be pretty tough).

But, I do know this:  the role of a pastor at a funeral is to offer comfort and hope.  It is not to manipulate emotional people into making “a decision.”  It is to celebrate the life of and to mourn the loss of a loved one.  It is not a soapbox for your agenda.

And I get it, there is going to be a religious aspect to it.  And, there should be.  I get that atheists such as the one I linked too won’t necessarily like that part of it.  And, as he points out, at his funeral, he doesn’t want a pastor there.  That’s a valid request, in my opinion.

But, if you are a pastor asked to officiate a funeral, there is an expectation of some “religious content” on your part.  And, I think that, if done properly, most who dissent to your faith won’t really mind.  Talk about hope, talk about comfort, share some verses to those subjects.  Talk about the life of the person.  If you don’t know them, then have someone else talk about them.  And, if that’s the case, keep your part short.  Pray.  Read some verses. 

The guy at my great-grandmothers funeral did none of that.  Rather, I recall 2 things that he said.  One, he told a story about a woman on her deathbed.  She called all of her children together (she had like 30 or something) and told all of her “saved” children (which was 29 of the 30) “see you later.”  But, to her one heathen child, she said “goodbye.”  I’m sure you can piece together the rest of the story. 

But, that emotionally manipulative story isn’t the worst part.  Later on, he warned us, “If you aren’t a Christian, don’t ask me to do your funeral.”  Put aside the fact that once you are dead, you don’t really ask anyone to do anything.  The reason he doesn’t want to do your funeral if you are not “Christian” is that a lot of pastors seem to think that part of the funeral service is for them to sort of “certify” your passage into heaven.

If they can’t certify it, then it gets kind of akward for them.  I was at another funeral once where the person we were mourning had gotten into some bad things and was then trying to get his life back in order.  Part of that was going back to church, but he was working through whether or not to make a “decision,” and had not “formally” done so, at least in the presence of the pastor.  So, much of the eulogy was spent with the pastor trying to convince himself that this guy was in heaven. 

So, while I didn’t find it to be a particularly comforting funeral, at least this guy had stumbled onto the fact that there was a complexity to such matters, even if he hadn’t completely bought into the notion.  The guy at my great-grandmother’s funeral was not so gracious, though.  In fact for him, the only comfort or hope he could possibily offer is in the certification of passage into heaven.  Beyond that, he has nothing else of comfort to say.  That makes him a bad pastor. 

But, I’ll give him credit on one point:  at least he asks for permission to keep his mouth shut in such a situation.  One of my seminary professors told us a story once about when he was still a church pastor.  I don’t remember the details of how it came about, but he had formed a relationship with a family of non-believers.  I think that one of thier teenage daughters was dating a guy who did go to a different church.  Anyway, the daughter and the boyfriend died in a car accident.  So, my prof. was at the hospital grieving with the family.  The boyfriends pastor showed up and started berating the family, telling them, “It’s your fault that your daughter’s in hell now.”

That’s not pastoring.  That’s not even evangelism.  A pastor comforts.  An evangelist shares good news. 

My professor was a good pastor.  He told the guy to take a hike.  And made sure that he did so.

To the author of the blogpost:  I’m sorry for your loss.  And, I’m sorry that my collegue took your time of grief as an invitation to further his agenda. 

PS:  A few days ago, Bill Simmons of ESPN.com posted this article about the funeral of a teenager in LA.  It’s another example of why he is the best sports writer around right now.

frc and nambla: frc’s reply

So, I finally received a reply to my concerns that I sent to the FRC last week.  Little of it involved any clarification to my concerns.  Basically, they sent four “points.”  The first basically said this would bring us closer to “government controlled health care” (ie socialized medicine).  Secondly, this would “bring up the price of health care.”  This may be vailid, but a stronger argument could be made that covering mental health conditions would be cheaper in the long run.  A very significant portion of our “welfare state” are in that state due to mental health.  Also, a lot of our current high cost medical conditions are “psychosomatic” in nature.  In other words, it’s a lot cheaper to treat stress than it is to treat a heart attack.

The third point is that “consumers should not be forced to purchase something they do not need.”  I’m not sure what they exactly mean by this, but I’m assuming that it means that those of us without a mental illness should not have to buy insurance for it.  But, that’s what insurance is.  You don’t buy car insurance after you have a wreck, you don’t buy fire insurance after the fire.  You buy insurance hoping that you do not need it. 

And then, there is the fourth point:  lack of a conscience clause.  I’ve covered this in detail in my previous post on this matter, and won’t rehash it here.  But, they added a new wrinkle to it:

H.R. 1424 lacks a conscience clause, there appears to be no protection for an employer to reject healthcare coverage for an abortion procedure if they choose to extend mental health coverage to its employees.

What?  I’m not a medical professional, but I have enough psychology training and counseling classes to know that psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and social workers do NOT perform abortions.  More to the point, legislation requiring health insurance to cover mental health would not require health insurance to cover abortions.  That would be the same as saying that requiring insurance to cover heart disease would require it to cover abortions.  The FRC’s stance makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the greatest irony, however, is that in disputing the DSM-IV as the guideline in determining what conditions are to be covered, they are actually advocating government control over mental health care.  If you use the DSM-IV, you are having the mental health professionals determine what is and isn’t mental illness.  Under the FRC’s criteria, they would have politicians pick and choose what would be coverable. 

And nobody wants that.

gilligan’s deadly sins, part 2

So, it turns out that I was wrong in my analysis of how the Gilligan’s Island characters represent the new deadly sins.  It turns out that Ginger should NOT represent drug abuse.  Andy sent me a link, and it looks like Mary Ann should be the one who represents drug abuse. 

7 deadly sins: new characters on Gilligan’s island

Back around 1996, when email forwards were funny, I got one telling me about how Gilligan’s Island represented the 7 deadly sins.  Each character represented one of the sins.  There are two variations, but it goes something like this:

Professor–Pride
Ginger–Lust
Mary Ann–Envy
Mr. Howell–Greed
Mrs. Howell–Sloth

Those tend to not vary. However, the last two, there are 2 versions.

Skipper– In variation 1, Anger. In variation 2, he is anger and gluttony.
Gilligan– In variation 1, Gluttony, in variation 2, he is Satan, and prevents them from ever escaping.

Thus, we have a great parable on the deadly sins. But, yesterday, we are given an update on the deadly sins, and 7 new modern ones are added.  And, it’s quite difficult to add them into the Gilligan’s island motif.

It seems that in reality, the pope is picking on just a couple of characters, and giving the rest a free pass.  As I see it, it seems to work out best as follows:

Professor: Genetic manipulaton and human expirementation
Ginger: Drug use
Mr. and Mrs. Howell: economic gluttony, harming the environment, causing poverty, social injustice.
Skipper: ??
Mary Ann: ??
Gilligan: Still Satan??

So, as you can see, it’s the wealthy business types that get hit the hardest in the new set of sins. But, academia also gets a couple of punches as well.

While I apreciate the Roman church attempting to address new issues, and I’m even glad that they chose to address most of these issues, I find a problem with the list. Of course, neither list is explicitly “biblical,” though both are drawn from biblical issues. But, the brilliance of the original list is that none of them are behaviors. Rather, they are attitudes that leads to sinful behavior. Anger leads to things such as murder and violence, greed leads to stealing and oppression, lust leads to adultery. Conquer the seven deadly sins, and you in turn conquer most of the others.

The new list is mostly behavioral, and in large part covered in the original list. For example, social injustice, causing poverty, and economic gluttony are really covered in greed. In other words, if you conquer greed, these three are no longer an issue. On the other hand, genetic engineering does not have a neat parallell on the original list. And really, it doesn’t fit in the theme of “deadly sins” since it is a behavior and not an attitude that leads to behavior (and some would argue that it doesn’t belong on a list like this to begin with. I’m not here to argue either side of that at this point).

So, while I’m glad that the church is taking a stab at some more modern issues, some of which I’m passionate about, I’m not sure that this was the most effective approach to these issues.

frc and nambla, on the same side?

I’m not a big fan of most of the right-wing Christian political activist groups, such as Focus on the Family or Family Research Council (to be fair, I’m not so keen on some of the left-wing groups like Sojourner’s, but that’s another post alltogether).  I saw on slacktivist (see link to the right) the other day that the FRC has another alert out.  This is what the FRC does, send out alerts hoping to get evangelicals worked up into a Frenzy.  The current alert deals with the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act that is currently before the House.  In essence, the bill mandates that if an employer is giving health coverage, then mental health coverage must be provided in that. 

 FRC is opposed to this.  And, honestly, I can think of reasons to be opposed to this.  Health care is supposed to be a benefit, so in theory the government shouldn’t be regulating benefits.

But, somehow, the health care system in this country has become messed up to the point that employer provided health insurance is how most of us receive our medical care (although, in the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that I am not a part of that number.)*  Now, it’s not the fault of our employers that the system has fallen into this state.  But, the truth is, mental health is part of our health, and mental disorders are medical conditions.

Which brings us back to the FRC’s objection to the Wellstone act.  They are not objecting to it on the free market grounds that you would expect a good conservative to push (this is a point that slacktivist made, so I can’t take full credit for it.  It’s possible I may have come up with it on my own).  Rather, they object to some of the things that would be covered under the Wellstone Act.

According to the FRC’s Alert:

Of even more concern, though, is the fact that rather than limit the coverage mandate to severe and debilitating illness, the bill uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as the basis for identifying conditions that must be covered.

What??  The problem is in the use of the DSM-IV as a determination of what mental conditions would be covered under this act?  For those of you who did not take Psych 100 in college, the DSM-IV is the Diagnostic and Statistical manual, produced by the American Psychological Association.  Basically, pretty much every mental disorder is listed, and it’s the standard tool that counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists use in treating patients. 

And, when I say “standard” I mean “standard.”  This is the big gun.  And here’s the thing:  even Christian counselors use it.  I went to a fairly conservative seminary, and this was a standard textbook for the Master of Arts in Counseling students. 

That’s not to say that the DSM-IV is without some controversy.  There are disputes, as with any collaborative effort such as this, over some entries in the DSM-IV.  And, of course, the DSM is not infallible; the IV indicates that this is the fourth edition of the book, so changes are constantly being made. 

 All that being said, there is not a dispute over the usefulness of the DSM.  It remains the standard, and to deny that as the FRC tries to do would get you ostracized in most psychological circles. 

But, the FRC goes on to explain why they are upset over the DSM.  It includes disorders such as caffeine addiction and jet lag.  You know, the minor stuff.  I mean, imagine being an employer and having to pay to have one of your employees be treated for jet lag.  It’s an outrage, and the FRC is not going to stand for it!

Of course, that does sound pretty silly, making employers pay for a rather “minor” condition.  But, that’s the thing, they wouldn’t be.  You don’t get treated for jet lag.  It’s like if you go to your family practitioner when you have a cold.  You go, they diagnose, and tell you to rest for a couple of days. 

The reason that jet lag is in the DSM (and this is a point slacktivist makes that I wouldn’t have come up with on my own) is because symptoms often overlap, and so a psychologist needs to be able to tell jet lag from depression, in the same was your family doctor needs to be able to tell a cold from bronchitis. 

But, of course, this really isn’t at the crux of the FRC’s objection to the Wellstone act.  For there are other conditions that are listed, which aren’t so minor.  This includes gender identity disorder, necrophilia, and pedophilia.  Apparently, the FRC doesn’t want these covered, though it isn’t clear why.

I mean, why wouldn’t you want necrophilia and pedophilia treated?  The FRC wants a “conscience clause” where certain employers wouldn’t have to cover these conditions that they have moral objections to.  Which is odd, since again, if you have moral objections to pedophilia, you would want the pedophiles to get treatment that makes them not pedophiles anymore.  So, it would make more sense to force people to cover the conditions that they have moral objections to.

The reason, of course, is that groups like the FRC are conditioned to jump out and oppose any “benefit” (real of perceived) that groups they opposes might get, that they fail to see that giving them this “benefit” would actually prevent them from engaging the the behavior that they oppose.  But, since “benefit” legislation is the realm of the liberal, they have to fight it. 

In fact, the alert says that “mental health parity” is a big goal for liberals.  I’m not real sure what they mean by that, but really, shouldn’t that be a goal for all of us.  I mean, wouldn’t the world be a better place if pedophiles weren’t pedophiles anymore, and sociopaths were no longer sociopaths.  I would think that would have great benefits to all of us.  I mean, I don’t have kids, so pedophilia doesn’t directly affect me.  Still, I don’t want to see kids molested, and I can’t think of any moral reason that would keep me from invoking a conscience clause to not cover it in a health care package.

I emailed FRC for a clarification on their objection to this legislation.  I haven’t heard back. 

 *One of the great ironies in my life is that a few years ago, I was doing temp work for Medicaid, but I myself was not covered on any health insurance policy, and I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

another natural disaster averted

So, I remember back in the 80’s, acid rain was all the rage.  I remember learning all about it in school.  I even remember a very special “Diffr’nt Strokes” (there were a lot of those) telling us about the horrors of acid rain (Kimberly washed her hair using rain water and the acid rain turned it green).  For those of you who didn’t grow up in the 1980’s, acid rain was basically rain with sulfuric acid (I think) in it.  It was caused by air pollution mixing with our rain.  This was supposed to be the end of all life as we know it . . . the acid was going to corrode everything that made our life worth living.

One day, people stopped talking about acid rain, though.  I’m not really sure why.  But, as we got into the 1990’s, we had a brand new crisis on our hands . . . the hole in the ozone layer.  Down in Antarctica, the ozone layer, which prevents too much ultraviolet light from reaching the earths surface, had a big hole in it.  This was due to chloroflourocarbons, which we used to make our deodorant into a spray form and made our cars nice and cool in the summer.  Eventually, the entire ozone layer was supposed to disappear, and again, this would have disaterous results for all of the world.

Eventually, we found that the ozone just kinda fluctuates down there, and while CFC’s in fact react with ozone in that way, they are too heavy to reach that layer, so it was unlikely our use of CFC’s was behind the whole disaster.  So, eventually, we quit talking about the ozone layer.

So, you’ll have to forgive me if I was a teensy bit skeptical about the environmental crisis of this decade, “global warming.”  Apparently, our CO2 emmissions are too high, trapping the sun’s heat on early, causing our tempratures to go up.  This too was apparently a disaster waiting to happen.  Only this time, I heard everything from Iowa becoming a costal state to yet another Ice Age movie (or an actual ice age, I can’t really remember.  I suppose neither is a good idea).  Then, the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” came out, and that made me wish that I had never done anything that might have in any way contributed to global warming.  Not because of the scenarios it predict, but just that the movie existed in the first place.  Though South Park’s parody almost makes the movie worth it.

Notice that I include “Global Warming” in the past tense.  Yes indeed, it looks like the scare might just be over, according to this article (thanks Tommy). Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a bit bummed that I won’t be able to drive 3 hours to the beach.

Here’s my thing:  I’m all for trying to keep the environment in good shape.  I think the Bible commands us to be good stewards of creation.  And, as one who lives in the environment, I think it’s a good idea to breath air that isn’t toxic and drink water that isn’t poisoned.

What bothered me about the whole global warming thing was the hyperbole.  I mean, “The Day After Tomorrow” crammed in every single disaster movie ever made, ranging from “The Perfect Storm” to “Armageddon” and even “Volcano.”  I think there may have been an alien invasion thrown in there, but I wasn’t paying that close of attention.

So, now that it’s over, maybe we can get to some non-hyperbolic discussions of environmental issues.  I think it could be fun.

But, a new decade is coming in a few years.  I wonder that that “crisis” is going to be.

doctor dollar

Late last week, I was watching “Nightline.”  Along with their election coverage, they had a peice regarding Sen. Charles Grassley’s investigation of several “word of faith” preachers.  If you aren’t familiar with the concept of “word of faith,” it is also called the “name it and claim it gospel” or the “prosperity gospel.”  Essentally, it is the stereotypical “televangelist” message, where if you call the number at the bottom of the screen and pledge a bunch of money, God will make you rich. 

I haven’t done much checking up on what my new US senators are all about yet.  In moving my residence out of Kentucky, I simply assumed that wherever I went my Senate reputation would improve.  While I haven’t done the research to verify this, Sen. Grassley’s efforts in this area are certainly a welcome start.

Unfortunately, the government cannot simply shut these guys down.  After all, soliciting donations is a legitimate means of supporting ministry.  I myself am counted among those who make their living in such a way.  The fact that these guys do so by preaching a false and manipluative gospel, or that they receive an excessively large salary by doing so, is not grounds for such government regulation (1st amendment applies in many ways to this).

 Thus, it is up to those who adhere to the true gospel and stand up to these abuses in whatever means are possible to protect those who may be suceptible to this manipulation.* 

In light of that, some feel that Sen. Grassley’s investigation is not warrented.  But, there is an area in which the government can get involved: taxes.  Of course, all of these “ministries” are non-profit and tax exempt.  Which is the point.  One of the “abuses” that is rampant in this “line of work” is charging many lavish items as “business (or in this case, ministry)” expenses, and then use them for personal use.  This circumvents the tax code, since it is done under the non-profit umbrella.**

The recent scandal in ORU is an example of this.  And, not so coincidently, the ministers under investegation by Grassley practically comes off of a list of board members at ORU (I was unaware of how many members of the board are word-faith ministers).

One such pastor is the aptly named “Dr. Creflo Dollar.”  Dollar really is his last name, which in his mind proves that God has a sense of humor.  Dr. Dollar was the focus of the Nightline story.  In his veiw, the government has no business looking into his finances in this matter, so in a move that put him in a category with Benny Hinn, he refused to comply with Grassley’s request.

Of course, this leads to the whole discussion between right to privacy and having something to hide.  The assumption is that non-compliance in such a matter is indication of one’s guilt.  I think that this assumption is in most cases fair, but it’s not always fair.  In this case, I was inclined to assume guilt.

What was interesting is that I found Dr. Dollar credible in this interview.  Now, that’s not to say that I don’t have issues with the gospel he presents.  I do not.  However, I found him to be more complicated that say, the likes of Benny Hinn and Richard Roberts (who through his theology has associated himself with them).

Dr. Dollar is African American, and so is much of his congregation.  He is based in Atlanta, but has a satelite church in New York City, which he also preaches at every Sunday (thus the rationale for owning one of his private jets).  Normally I wouldn’t bring this up, but it is important in this case. 

While much of his “God wants you to be rich” message is troubling to me, he is in many ways engaging many of the issues facing urban African Americans, and is committed to helping them out of the “ghetto (his word, not mine).” As he said to his interviewer, many of the people he ministers to “cannot balance their checkbooks.”  Meanwhile, a significant portion of his congregation are now thriving financially, and credit his ministry.

Obviously, this raises many questions that could only be answered with further study, but at least on the surface, it appears that while, in my estimation, his ministry lacks in the gospel, it is at the very least a good financial training seminar (ala Dave Ramsey). 

Then, there are the questions of his “possessions”: the planes, the mansions, and of course, the Rolls Royce.  The Rolls Royce was a gift from his congregation.  As he pointed out, black congregations like to bless their pastors.  I know this to be true, and given the size of his congregation (30,000ish), a Rolls isn’t out of the question.  One might say that a pastor should decline such a lavish gift.  I have a hard time demanding that, however.  Receiving a gift can be a very gracious and humbling thing.  Honestly, I don’t know where I stand on that, so I give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

As for the rest of his purchases, he claims that all of that comes not from his ministry work, but from investments and other business ventures.  And this is the crux of the issue.  If he were to comply with Sen. Grassley, he could verify that, and we’d be done with all of this.  But, his refusal casts a cloud of suspicion, which is fair given all of the issues we’ve had with TV evangelists over the years, most recently Richard Roberts.

For what it’s worth, I think that while he promotes a false gospel, I believe Dr. Dollar in his assertion that he is not living his excessive lifestyle at ministry expense.***  Then again, I don’t know enough about it to say so with any certainty.  However, his defense follows a different thread than most.  Richard Robert’s wife, when confronted with an excessive shopping bill, attempted to justify it, saying, “If I wear it once on TV, it’s a ministry expense.”  Dollar, on the other hand, does not attempt to justify it, simply claiming, “I bought that stuff with my own money,” money which he claims that did not come from the ministry.  Maybe I’m reading to much in that, but I think that subtle difference says a lot.

*I’ll write more about why this is important later.

**Obviously there are many other ethical implications in this, but I’m not sure what else lends itself to government jurisdiction.  If you know of any, please let me know.

***One could say the car was at the “expense of the ministry.”  However, a special collection was taken to this end, and people knew they were doing so to buy the pastor a car, so I don’t count it.

disciples of whom?

Recently, I overheard someone talking about the church they attend.  Among the things that they described, the mentioned the “quality of the worship (for those not attending ‘contemporary churches’, they meant music).”  Their assessment was that it was “okay, but not as good as ‘fill in the name of previous music minister.’

This is something I have dealt with personally in the past.  Most people have the tact not to make such comparisions to your face, but one of the things that we vocational pastors have to learn to deal with is that there are some people who don’t seem to realize the potential that you might take being told that you aren’t as good as their previous preacher/worship leader/youth minister as an insult. 

I’ve had people, in the past work hard to get me to conform to their previous music minister.  But, how that makes me feel really isn’t my issue.  As I said earlier, it comes with the territory, and you learn to shake it off and not take it personally.  After all, I have no delusions that what I do is going to be universally appealing to everyone.  That’s not possible.

No, for me the bigger issue is this:  am I the one that worship minister/campus minister B is being unfavorably compared to?

Over the years, particulalry as a music guy, the superlatives have been sent my way. I have been called the “best” and have been referred to as their “favorite,” both to my face and behind my back.  While I have serious doubts as to the “best” lable being accurate, I have fewer doubts as to the “favorite” lable, and I suspect that those who say, “best” mean “favorite.”

And, just like I’m not writing this to talk about how people don’t like me, I’m not writing it to talk about how much people like me either.  But, I think it raises a question about ministry.  Who are we making disciples for.  Are we creating disciples of Christ, or are we creating disciples for ourselves?

Obviously, this is too complex of a question to answer in a blog post, or even an entire blog.   But a trend that I think is tangibly observable is that very often we create a loyalty in people that ultimately causes trouble for other pastors who either step into their position or when the “disciple” moves onto another situation.

Again, the reasons are complex, and any solution is even more difficult to put a finger on it.  Part of the reason is the relational nature of ministry.  When a minister moves on, it’s not just the pastor leaving, but it’s also a friend leaving.  I know from personal expirence that often times losing the friend creates a defensive situation in which the new guy isn’t given the chance to succeed, at least in your mind.

But, I think the greater issue is that so much of ministry is “personality driven.”  When we preach, or lead music, or whatever, we put a lot of ourselves into it.  And, as people get used to our way of doing it, like so many other things in the church, this becomes the “correct” was of doing things.  This personality aspect is in part why criticism is so frustrating, but more to the point, its often why another person has so much trouble duplicating the success of his predecessor. 

The thing is, I don’t see how ministry can be done without one putting himself into it, but it again it raises the question, who are we creating disciples of?