Christianity Today commits a deeply troubling gaffe

“A note from the editors of Leadership Journal: We should not have published this post, and we deeply regret the decision to do so. The post, told from the perspective of a sex offender, withheld from readers until the very end a crucial piece of information: that the sexual misconduct being described involved a minor under the youth pastor's care. Among other failings, this post used language that implied consent and mutuality when in fact there can be no question that in situations of such disproportionate power there is no such thing as consent or mutuality.”         -  Marshall Shelley, editor, Leadership Journal (13 June 2014)

            Several emotions overwhelmed me upon reading the original “post” in Leadership Journal referred to in the retraction above - curiosity…disbelief… anger… anxiety - ultimately, sadness. Deep, deep sadness!

            Exactly thirty years ago while a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I researched sexual abuse in evangelical circles at a time when no religious groups whatsoever were giving it any attention.  According to an article I’d encountered in the Chicago Tribune, incidents of sexual abuse in religious circles were equal to if not greater than that in society at large.

            A seminary classmate advised me of the prevalence of this sinister evil at a prominent evangelical denomination’s school for missionary kids he’d attended while his parents were missionaries in Africa. A survey I conducted of some three hundred evangelical churches across the American mid-west revealed that, while 90% of pastors had encountered some variation of this hideous monster in their careers, a similar percentage had no idea what to do about it.

            Today - three decades later - after listening to countless stories of betrayal in this regard from both women and men, I simply cannot adequately process what I read in the self-professed leading journal of North American evangelicalism! In merely reading the opening paragraphs by the anonymous writer, I detected the telltale signs of the twisted rationale of the sexual abuser/predator.

            While engaged in a prospering youth ministry, his marriage was undergoing challenges and the pressures of ministry were growing - yada, yada - a “texting” relationship with a girl in his youth group eventually evolved into what the author presents at some length as a mutual, consensual affair.

            Several of us vehemently protested the self-deception and naiveté of which the article reeked.

            One would hope Bible-thumping evangelicals might be leading the parade in sniffing out this kind of rot. Evidently we are not. Little more than a year has elapsed since disgraced pastor Jack Schaap of the First Baptist (mega)Church in Hammond, Indiana, was sent to jail for sexual relationships with minors. News reports to date in 2014 include numerous stories of similar allegations, arrests, charges and convictions of fundamentalist pastors across North America. I was nonplussed a month ago in a lengthy conversation with a Canadian pastor whose denomination has yet to implement any policy regarding sexual indiscretions among adults in ministry let alone having anything on the books with respect to dealing with the sexual abuse of children.

            I serve on the board of an international agency committed to educating and advocating those who will listen concerning a heinous evil lurking among us that viscously discredits the gospel of Christ. As much as I applaud the apology and retraction of Leadership Journal, that such an article ever saw the light of day in the first place is intensely troubling.  

            I, for one, am beyond fed-up with the preoccupation of evangelicals with preserving institutional and personal reputations at the expense of protecting minors. Didn’t some philosopher named Millstone once have something to say in that regard?

WE LIVE IN A CULTURE OF DEVOUT WORSHIPERS!

“The easiest practice of reverence I know is simply to sit down somewhere outside, preferably near a body of water, and pay attention for at least twenty minutes. It is not necessary to take on the whole world at first. Just take the three square feet of earth on which you are sitting, paying close attention to everything that lives within that small estate.” – Barbara Brown Taylor, in An Altar in the World

            Oh, and, as I’m sure Ms. Brown Taylor would concur, preferably leave your smart-phone indoors.

            Settling aboard a flight the other day, I was again reminded we live in a culture of devout worshipers. As I glanced about the cabin, I noted virtually every head was bowed in reverence although I’ve long since learned such does not equate to every eye being closed.

            Perhaps I was particularly sensitive to the reality having just paraded through business class where I’d struggled to resist declaring “look up, look up, your redemption draweth night!” (By the way, who’s the rocket scientist that suggested boarding airline passengers front to back? but enough from cattle class.)  Further, I was departing on a one week self-imposed sabbatical from social-media so my anti-technology antennae were on full-alert.

            Can somebody please tell me what’s up with our mind-boggling obsession with mobile technology that threatens to strangle what’s left of the few social-skills that survive in the public domain? I mean, honestly people, I’m not interested in an epitaph that reads: “I too was addicted to that hand-held god. Call me!”  What does the future hold for a populace scarcely managing a grunt of acknowledgement at a seatmate prior to frantically consulting that ubiquitous albatross for the latest spam?

            And, let’s not be mistaken here, this less-than-smart preoccupation with the so-called smart-phone is as rampant within circles of people of faith as it is without. I weary of walking into pastors’ meetings to find ninety per-cent of attendants cuddled up in a corner yakking on cell phones. If my self-esteem is directly related to the amount of time I spend on an IT-drip than I’ve got bigger problems than I know and so does my congregation!

            Ok, ok, to be fair, at least the infatuation with smart-phones has solved one problem well summarized by the wag who asked: “What’s the similarity between the guy trying to give up smoking and a newcomer to a nudist colony? Neither of them are sure what to do with their hands.” So is that what this is about, then – feverishly scrolling, punching buttons, scanning puny screens, all in an effort to avoid the awkwardness of our social insecurities?

            If so, Jesus must be immensely proud of us for trying to convert the world to the unique nature of the Christian perspective all the while aligning ourselves yet again according to the pattern of the status quo! I suggest we do well to periodically consider that the greatest communicator of all time did so without the aid of a smart-phone and its incumbent access to the myriad of communication venues swirling in cyberspace.

            So I took Ms. Brown Taylor’s advice to practice some reverence and went and sat by the sea for seven days sans electronic encumbrances. Curiously, it may have appeared to onlookers that I was essentially doing nothing; but such a conclusion would be inaccurate. I was ‘revering’ or ‘reverencing,’ words that come instructively close to ‘refreshing.’

            Or, to cite the late, great prophet Richie Mullins, I was clearing my head because “the stuff of earth competes for the allegiance I owe only to the Giver of all good things.”

It's past time to stop exploiting the Sherpas!

“[The Sherpas] carry the weight of every expedition, confront the most terrible of hazards and come to the rescue of every benighted party.” – Wade Davis, author of Into the Silence: The Great War, Mallory and the Conquest of Everest

            Recent news of the deaths of 16 Sherpa guides in an April 18 avalanche in the Khumbu ice field on the south side of Mt. Everest leaves me stunned! I’m dazed not only because it’s always tragic when so many people die at once, but perhaps even more so because of an emerging story behind this horror.

            Unless you’re into mountain-climbing and its history, which I am not, you’re likely unaware that on June 7, 1922, seven Sherpas similarly died assisting an expedition led by Charles Bruce. Compensation to their families amounted to less than 60 British pounds each.

            Word is that today’s Sherpa earns roughly $6,000 per season to make numerous treks guiding climbers paying up to $100,000 for a chance to reach Everest’s infamous summit. The government of Nepal, which receives millions of dollars in licences and climbing fees, is reportedly offering the families of the latest victims something around $400 in compensation.

IN BUYING POWER, THAT AMOUNT IS LESS THAN WHAT THE BRITISH DISPERSED ALMOST 100 YEARS AGO! Should we really be surprised that, following the most recent fatalities, some 400 Sherpas who worked on the mountain have walked off the job, shutting down all expeditions just as the annual climbing season begins?

Contrary to public perception, Sherpas are not mountain-climbers by nature. In fact, there is not even a word for mountain summit in their language. In keeping with their Buddhist heritage, the idea of risking one’s life while in this incarnation in order to crawl across rock and ice into nothingness is the apex of delusion.

It was the British mountaineer, Arthur Kellas, who back in 1916 first identified the Sherpas’ capacity for endurance and their cultural disposition to embrace the intimidations of life with apparent calm. Thus they became the foundation upon which all subsequent Himalayan climbing expeditions have relied.

Hopefully it goes without saying that it is long past time to stop the exploitation of the Sherpas by those fortunate enough to live in the first-world! Regardless of whether society is based on a Christian or Buddhist worldview, fair treatment of your fellow man is Diplomacy 101. Shame on all who think and act otherwise!

Can the technology, if you can!

"As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome." — Noam Chomsky

            As part of a recent family getaway, I was ordered “offline” while out of the country!

            No smart-phones allowed at our son’s “destination” wedding, I was told - meaning no e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, or Linked In. No Instagram or Instagrunt! Access to lots of pints, for sure, but not to Pinterest!

Books were permitted, thankfully, enabling me to encounter the ever-perceptive Chomsky’s insight as noted above.

Sure enough, the sun rose every morning on schedule despite the fact that North America, the self-anointed center of the universe, was far away. I didn’t even know there’d been an early May snowstorm in Alberta until I returned. So sorry to have missed dat!

Among the many reflections that occupied my thinking while on my social-media sabbatical was how easy it is in what we call “normal life” to become swamped by the trivial. That led to some meaningful thought on what it means to live in a culture where so much of our time and energy is consumed by that which is comparatively and ultimately inconsequential.

One of the things that gets we preacher-types in hot water very quickly these days, of course, is any attempt to define for the masses what pursuit or priority qualifies as consequential or inconsequential. So, in the interests of living another day, let me simply articulate several personal apps I derived from my ocean-side musings while on social-media holiday.

I will endeavor to live my life with a greater aversion to the insidious lure of social-media to be encumbered by a virtual placard about my neck that declares: “Do not disturb! I’m too busy with “my stuff!”

I will better engage the necessity of realizing that preoccupation with “my stuff” is at the core of much that is ignoble and ugly in an increasingly narcissistic culture. It is NOT “all about me.”

I will commit to spending more of my mental energy each day via the perspective of considering how much importance the people of South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine or the West Bank would attach to my “problem.”

And I will persevere in asking all people – regardless of race, handicap, sexual orientation, political or religious preference – “hey, wuzzup!?” and truly mean it, no strings attached.

PRAIRIE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY AND "ANTI-GAY" ALLEGATIONS

Prairie Christian Academy and "anti-gay" allegations

“Can a man scoop a flame into his lap and not have his clothes catch fire?”  Proverbs 6:27

            In the late 1930s, Fergus Kirk, co-founder of Prairie Bible Institute (PBI) at Three Hills, Alberta, Canada, pulled his sons from the local public school in opposition to the nature of certain literature considered required reading.  For his insurrection, Mr. Kirk spent a few days cooling his heels in jail presumably on charges of some form of parental-approved truancy.

            Against this background, Prairie High School – from which I graduated forty years ago next month – was formed. The school, now known as Prairie Christian Academy (PCA) and operated under the Golden Hills School Division, initially functioned without government accreditation. When provincial endorsement was eventually acquired, the ideological orientation in Alberta was significantly different from that which prevails in Alberta today.

             For one thing, the premier at the time was a lay preacher, William Aberhart, who had established a fundamentalist Bible school in Calgary known as the Prophetic Bible Institute (PrBI). Aberhart’s successor, Ernest C. Manning, had studied at PrBI and regularly preached on the Alberta radio airwaves.  It was not uncommon in those days, for someone directly associated with PBI – a graduate of the school, in one instance - to serve as MLA for the Three Hills area. In brief, the conventional wisdom that governed the public square within Wild Rose Country during the 1940s was decidedly different than that which prevails in the 21^st century.

            Such came to mind recently when stories of “anti-gay” Christian schools like PCA and Calgary’s Heritage Christian School (HCS) garnered front-page headlines about government funding being awarded private schools perceived to be at odds with Alberta human rights legislation. PCA, for instance, reportedly received seven million dollars to modernize its facility.

            This scenario involves nuanced matters that cannot be adequately addressed here. That fundamentalist Christians are also taxpayers is but one of many relevant issues in the discussion. Nevertheless, one pertinent point crosses my mind as I observe the debate unfold.

            As the Fergus Kirk anecdote suggests, one doesn’t need advanced training in neuro-science to grasp that conflict between the standards of Christ-followers and those of the political-corporate world(s) is inevitable. If, as schools like PCA and HCS maintain, they’re primarily committed to “truth” as they perceive it, it’s incumbent on their decision-makers to seriously consider that, last time I checked, truth is not driving the bus when it comes to the political and corporate sectors. Power and profits dominate therein and whatever ethical or ideological compromises need to be made to attain and retain such is merely the price of “doing business.”

            When I thus read the spokesperson for the Palliser School District (to which HCS belongs) declare that the offending statements regarding sexual behavior had been removed from HCS’s website, I can’t help but shake my head in disbelief. That’s because, as I know and you know, simply removing such from the web is irrelevant to the fact that those lifestyle expectations will remain in force at HCS. My point is not whether or not places like PCA and HCS are entitled to believe and require whatever it is they believe and require; the issue at stake here is that Truth requires far more than merely rearranging window dressing. 

            The Bible verse noted above – which I’ve lifted from its strictest context because I firmly believe that money/materialism represent the immorality-of-choice in the North American religious world – is most instructive here. Hop into bed with any government or corporate entity these days and you will indeed pay a price - the magnitude of which cannot be calculated by QuickBooks.

Suppose we just leave out that three-letter word!

 “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” - Alistar McGrath

            One of the curious realities of Canadian life early in the 21^st century is the increasing number of people who affirm some variety of belief in a Higher Power, Supreme Being, Intelligent Designer or Super Intellect, yet retain no firm conviction about regularly visiting a place of worship.

            The explanations for this actuality are numerous and I hear many of them in the course of regularly interacting with Canadians who tell me they “don’t do church.” I’m fascinated by the commonalities I hear when people confide that, apart from perhaps Easter or Christmas, regular attendance at a church, synagogue or mosque doesn’t rank very high on their “to do” lists.

            Hypocrisy, irrelevant, too busy, guilt-trips, kids’ schedules, boring, judgemental people, dull monologues … are among the favorite themes I encounter.  All of these explanations have some degree of merit, to be sure, and chances are good I can best any story that specifically elaborates on any one of them.

            I too get frustrated with church-people. I too regret my own frequent failings. I, likewise, lament that church-goers often can be more of a “Nosy Nellie” than a “Compassionate Carl.” I fully understand the sentiments of that bumper sticker I periodically see: “Jesus: Save Me from Your Followers!”

            The disparity between the truth represented in the quotation above and what many Canadians have experienced in church life is instructive. Many choose to become what I call “closet theists.” They readily grasp that the concept of this ordered world developing and functioning as the result of mere happenstance requires a greater faith than they possess. Yet, the nonsense they’ve encountered in organizations that ostensibly serve as conduit to the relevant Higher Power, Supreme, Intelligent Designer, Super Intellect, ultimately proved unbearable. Accordingly, they are wary of that three-letter word and anything or anyone that purportedly represents it - God.

 

           Unfortunate, that!

            I was recently privileged to spend some time with a friend who is a professional folk-rock musician on the club circuit. One of his latest songs is titled: “Not a Good Time for God” in which he laments mankind’s expertise at corrupting the “G” word.

 

           In our visit together, like Alistar McGrath, we recommitted to positively representing the Mastermind we’ve experienced as Friend.

What makes cyber-opinions "Christian?"

The eminent American preacher, William H. Willimon, tells of being approached by an eager reporter for a student newspaper who was looking for a juicy quote.

"Dawk-tuh Will-uh-mawn," the writer drawled, "whawt's yo' view of ho-mo-segs-u-al-i-tuh?"

"I believe everything Jesus said about it," the former Dean of the Chapel at Duke Divinity School replied.

Confident they had something of substance, the reporter proceeded to publish the quote verbatim.

The humorous point of, of course, is that contrary to what that reporter assumed, Jesus never made any overt comments or judgments regarding homosexuality.

WARNING: The primary topic of this post is not homosexuality so seekers of juicy table scraps may wish to click on...

Willimon's anecdote lends itself to several important points but one will suffice for the purpose of this post.

Amidst the scores of "Christian" perspectives, views, blogs, tweets, et al, that daily soar through cyberspace, we do well to periodically inquire regarding what makes an opinion essentially "Christian."

Is it the merely the reputation/legacy of the blogger, poster, or opinion-writer? Is it the opinion's theological proximity to what any particular denomination/tradition considers orthodox? Is it the necessary evidence required to ensure the source will not risk losing that contract with that publisher or that invitation to be keynote speaker at that next big conference?

It's long past time we started applying serious scrutiny to the origins of the thinking that fuels the myriad of messages that encumber cyberspace.

Some of them are far more closely aligned with Churchianity than Christianity - "Christ" being the operative dynamic in that observation.

Some of us are convinced there is a BIG difference between Churchianity and Christianity. Accordingly, it would be appreciated if more communicators would consider such before hitting SEND.