Glenn Beck: Restoring Jack Squat

I am continuously astounded that many on the far right – which has a large contingent of fundamentalist Christians – have been more than willing to overlook Glenn Beck’s Mormonism because they like his brand of low-brow, popcorn-density “journalism.”  I think that his particular blend of civil religion – one that confuses any reference to “God” to an endorsement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and cannot distinguish enlightenment Deism from orthodox Christianity – is so vague than many of these Christians on the right honestly can’t tell he’s coming from a different place from them theologically.

A friend of mine pointed me to an article by Dan Webster over at Episcopal Cafe’ that makes some interesting connections between Beck’s Mormon faith and his political program:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormon Church, believes Christianity fell into apostasy when the original apostles died. Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church, believes he was called by God to restore the gospel that Jesus taught but had been radically changed by second generation Christians and those who came after.

So when Beck says America has been “wandering in darkness” and that he is here to help lead the country back to God he is emulating the founder of his religion. He wants to restore America’s greatness just like his church believes it is called to establish the “restored gospel.”

I don’t agree with Webster on all points, but he makes some interesting arguments that I have not seen elsewhere.  Webster also points out that, while Beck is vague on his own theological proclivities, he isn’t shy about attacking the details of others’ faith.

He’s expressed discomfort with Obama’s brand of Christianity (hey, props for calling Obama Christian!) due to its affinities with liberation theology, which he calls “socialist.”  And to an extent, he’s right.  Where he is wrong is finding any expressions of a strong faith in Obama’s policies.  It may be there, to the President, at least.  But Obama’s not really talking about it; whether because it’s not there, or he’s trying to distance himself from Bush, his outspoken evangelical predecessor, is not really possible to know.  Beck has made too much hay out of something he knows little about.

In his piece, Webster argues that Beck is channeling Joseph Smith moreso than Martin Luther King, Jr.  And so far as that comparison goes, he’s spot on.  But Smith wasn’t really a restorationist; he wasn’t restoring an existing church, he was making a new one.  The LDS church is a creation of his own mind, which I think makes him equal parts huckster and genius.

Like Smith, Beck isn’t really trying to restore anything so much as create something that never existed and in the process garner a great deal of attention, wives, money, and power: a pristine, just, and prosperous America that is simultaneously the sole superpower and completely God-fearing (though,significantly, the question ‘whose God?’ is never asked).

I think that makes Glenn Beck more like the Pied Piper of legend.  A man playing a flute, making pleasant noises, leading us away like children…on a journey to nowhere.

CS Lewis and the enemy of friendship

In the chapter entitled “Friendship” in CS Lewis’ The Four Loves, he has a trenchant observation about the shallowness of so much of our conversation.  It occurs in his discussion about male and female friendship, and the difficulty of friendships between those who have little in common.  His argument is that someone with little to say will sabotage the conversation of others simply out of selfish discomfort.  Instead of real conversation, that person will insist upon,

Talk, by all means; the more of it the better; unceasing cascades of the human voice; not not, please, a subject.  The talk must not be about anything. (The Four Loves, [New York: Harcourt Brace 1960], p. 109)

Two thoughts occurred to me after I read this.  First, this describes so much of our entertainment these days – TV in particular – that it is almost funny.

Secondly, I’m reminded at how little patience I have for “small talk”.  There are times, of course, when we all have to fill a void in a conversation with something akin to cotton candy – weather, sports, gossip, etc. – but perhaps this is symptomatic of something more sinister.  That is, despite all our lip-service to being “real” nowadays, there is very little interest in or discussion of the truly real.  God, the good life, truth, beauty – these things are left out of what passes for conversation.  And if our conversations do not touch on anything that truly matters, it is worth asking whether the hollow relationships on which are based upon such chatter are friendship in any true sense.

Abraham Heschel and Jesus the Prophet

In one of my classes on Methodism, it was stressed that Wesley encouraged his preachers to proclaim Christ “in all his offices” -  prophet, priest, and king. In other words, the substitutionary act of Christ as the mediator of sin – a priestly act – should not override his prophetic and kingly ministries.  Christ ought to be viewed more fully in the multiple roles that he inhabited, regardless of theological proclivities.

I’m currently working my way through a sermon series on Jeremiah (going – mostly – with the lectionary).  As part of my preparation, I’m rereading Abraham J. Heschel’s classic tome The Prophets, or at least the parts that deal with the personalty of the Hebrew prophets and with Jeremiah particularly.  In doing so, I was struck by the ways in which Jeremiah’s rejection as a prophet is echoed later in Jesus’ ministry.

Jeremiah, of course, was branded a traitor by his own people for suggesting that Judah should submit to Babylonian rule.  You may remember that Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s home town.” (Luke 4:24)

In his chapter on the prophet from Anathoth, Heschel argues,

He who loved his people, whose life was dedicated to saving his people, was regarded as an enemy…What protection was there against such backbiting?  No one could look into his heart, but everybody was hurt by his words.  Only the Lord knew the truth. (The Prophets [San Francisco: Perennial Classics 2001], 157)

He goes on to quote from Jeremiah 17, including

I have not pressed Thee to send evil, nor have I desired the day of disaster, Thou knowest; that which came out of my lips was before thy face.

Heschel’s work is an absolute must-read on these fascinating individuals, whose office was both great and terrible.  Among many other gifts, the Jewish Theological Seminary professor has reminded me of just how strong Jesus’ ties to the Hebrew prophets were – and remain.

Friendship, the Christian Life, and Good Conversation…

The Bible knows nothing of solitary religion.

-John Wesley

I’ve been reminded today, on more than one occasion, of the importance of friendship to the Christian life.  One reason that the ‘lone ranger Christianity’ that seems to be so pervasive these days is a false gospel, a heresy, a perversion of Jesus’ message and life, is that we are simply not constructed to walk with God as if no one else exists.  We need people to hold us accountable.  People to fellowship and learn with.  “Iron sharpens iron,” as we hear in Proverbs 27.

In view of this conviction, I share with you a brief conversation, informal because of the context (Facebook), but still meaningful.  I found this edifying; perhaps you will agree.

We need each other.  There is no true discipleship without the companionship of others on the journey.

Pastor Mack (henceforth PM): I worry about Christians in China especially…

Shawn: Me too, but if there is one thing about the faith, it thrives best under pressure. God bless them.

PM: Yeah one of those amazing paradoxes. It also can’t bear success, which is i think why the US church is in shambles.

Shawn: Dude, you are so right. I don’t think that emergent church or any of these new movements is doing any [darn] good. I mean, do we need to be under pressure to appreciate what we have? It just sucks we can’t praise God as heartfelt in good times as when we need God in the painful times.

I don’t know what the answer is. Human condition, I guess.

PM: I guess there is no ideal time for the church, it’s always under threat either from direct persecution or the milder persecution of respectability.

So much of our faith today in America consists of little more than practical advice about being better dads and moms and citizens and financial planners, or how to think “positive,” it’s no wonder people have a hard time believing in God – we’re not really helping them meet Him.

Hal Lindsey on Ecumenism and Antichrist: Suffering through ‘The Late, Great Planet Earth’ Part II

I don’t know if there are purple hearts in the study of theology, but in helping some of you to avoid this atrocious book, I hope you can see that I am jumping on a grenade on your behalf.  I’ve never read anything that made me want to throw things, weep, and laugh all in such short succession.

Today, for your intellectual abuse stimulation I have a few bits of Lindsey’s wisdom about the ecumenical movement.  These are culled from chapter 10, “Revival of Mystery Babylon,” in which he argues that a renewed interest in the occult across the world, combined with a unified but apostate church, will serve to empower the coming Antichrist (who supposedly is coming from a renewed Roman empire, which Lindsey claims is basically the EU).  Now, be prepared for your laughter to be turned to mourning:

We believe that the joining of churches in the present ecumenical movement, combined with this amazing rejuvenation of star-worship, mind-expansion, and witchcraft, is preparing the world in every way for the establishment of a great religious system, on which will influence the Antichrist. (Lindsey, 104)

There is, in this chapter, an astounding gap: nowhere does Lindsey endeavor to explain what will become off all the other religions of the world and their practitioners.  One can only assume that he either thinks there will be no more Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims at this time, or else he puts all of them in league with the hippie kids dancing in the forest.  At any rate, it is a major flaw in his argument.  Not that the argument itself is strong to begin with, of course.

There is obviously a free-church bent here, insofar as the target is very clearly Mainline Protestantism (that is, all the major denominations such as Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians).  He also has a very stunted ecclessiology, simply saying that the “true church…includes all believers in Christ.” (116)  I wonder if he would include Mormons in that list? Jehovah’s Witnesses?  If the only criteria is “believing in Jesus,” understood in a purely intellectual and consensual way, then he really has a broader definition of church than he should be comfortable with.  I suppose it was too much to hope, at a minimum, for something like Luther’s definition of true Word and sacraments.

And now for a real gem:

When people move away from Christianity the church will lose its power and influence to a great religious movement, a satanic ecumenical campaign…

Years ago when we first heard about the ecumenical movement, we couldn’t pronounce it(*) but we thought it sounded like a great idea.  It seemed plausible that all the “good guys” (**) in the churches should join together to fight all the evil on the outside.  There are many fallacies in that way of thinking.  When all of the various churches begin to amalgamate in one unwieldy body, soon the doctrinal truths of the true church are watered down, altered, or discarded. (119)

At this point, I can only suggest that you find a bottle of Advil, take two – with water – and perhaps look into some blood pressure medication.  If you’re anything like me, you’re now infuriated. In the unlikely circumstance that you care about Jesus but aren’t infuriated by Lindsey’s sentiments, then go read John 17 and reconsider.

*I take this to mean that they don’t use big words at Dallas Theological Seminary, Lindsey’s alma mater.

**Oh, c’mon.  I don’t need to say anything here, do I? You know why this was stupid.

Suffering through ‘The Late Great Planet Earth’: Part I

In preparation for leading a Bible study at my church on Revelation – which is a source of concern anyway just because of the incendiary nature of conversations centered on the book – I’m attempting to look at all sides.  Attempting, I say, because I can’t pretend to give a fair reading of certain materials.  At a young age, I was influenced by the premillenial dispensationalist crowd.  I read the Left Behind books and all jazz.  Only later did I realize what a house of cards that whole system was and is - but not before wasting a good deal of time, energy, and money on trying to know things beyond my station in life.

At any rate, I’m reading The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey just to say that I did;  from the get-go, I have not thought I’d get anything from it – a prediction (nay, a prophecy!) that was right, unless you count the headache of actually going through it page by page.

But this book is so utterly terrible, so lacking in anything close to good Scriptural interpretation, so mind-bogglingly unsophisticated in its understanding of prophecy and history, that I need to vent.  And unfortunately for all of you, that means writing about it.  My reading copy is a 1992 Harper reprint that I found somewhere for $2; I thought one day I’d want to have it, if nothing else just to reference it.  Now, as research, I think it is important for me to read it so that I can say I have given this system a shot.  So here’s part I – my beef with the Introduction of the book:

Part I

Introduction and Preliminary Issues

“This is a book about prophecy – Bible prophecy. If you have no interest in the future, this isn’t for you.  If you have no curiosity about a subject that some consider controversial, then you might as well stop now.” (p. vii, the opening lines of the book)

Several things come to mind, not least of which is the desire to throw my computer monitor through the window of my office.  But that can wait.

First things first.  Right off the bat, we can see that we are dealing with a very narrow definition of “prophecy.”  He uses that specific phrase – “Bible prophecy” – to indicate his perspective.  Mickey Efird has pointed out that this is also just another name for the whole Darbyist system. 

But Lindsey here is telling us that prophecy is, in its totality, a future-oriented activity. “If you have no interest in the future, this isn’t for you.”  But what was prophecy about for those that wrote it?  For those that read it in the past?  In our own recent history, the prophetic tradition has been seen to be effective and powerful, not merely in “predicting” or looking at the future, but also (and primarily) for empowering God’s work in the world right now. 

Granted, it is an annoying cliché for seminarians to speak of their prophetic desire to “speak truth to power” – in truth, they are often just adolescents/young adults who want to rebel against the system like everyone else their age – but the power of the prophetic worldview remains.  Much power to fight injustice comes from the Bible’s great prophets.  Even the Special Forces have drawn inspiration from Isaiah’s comment to God: “Here I am, send me.” (Isaiah 6:8)

Secondly, there is no questioning at all of motivations behind this desire to know the future.  Here again on the first page, Lindsey notes,

As a traveling speaker for Campus Crusade for Christ [sigh] I had the opportunity to give messages on prophecy to thousands of people.  These messages have consistently proven to be popular with every age group. (p. vii)

But popular and edifying are not the same things.  They are often the opposite.  It is troubling that Lindsey never stops to ask why people are hungry to know the future, or if this is even a desire that should be encouraged.  It is our Lord Jesus, after all, that taught us to pray, “give us our daily bread.”  (Matthew 6:11)  The same Lord said, “Do not worry about tomorrow, for each day has enough troubles of its own.” (Matthew 6:34)  And lest we forget, he also said -  for me, this is the real clincher – “No one knows the day or the hour…not even the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)

He goes on to say,

This is not a complex theological treatise, but a direct account of the most thrilling, optimistic view of what the future could hold for any individual. (p. vii)

Will he is absolutely correct that nothing he writes is theologically complex.  We’re not even in the same neighborhood as theologically complex.  What I find preposterous is the notion that anything he writes is “thrilling” or “optimistic.”  He’s talking about massive wars, death and disease on a grand scale, and we are supposed to be thrilled?  I find that disturbing.

Lastly, a note on the final paragraph of the introduction:

In this book I am attempting to step aside and let the prophets speak. (viii)

An excellent sentiment.  Too bad it is total and complete poppycock.  When it comes to any Scripture, and especially those dealing with eschatology (study of the end times), we can never simply “step aside” and let them speak.  As a preacher, I am not a tabula rasa when it comes to the Bible.  Neither is Lindsey as an author.  We always come to Scripture with a hermeneutic of some kind, an interpretive lens through which read.  This is even, and perhaps especially true, for those who are the most radical sola Scriptura-minded.  Even if you go to 1st  Independent Fundamental Bible Church, someone has taught you how to read and interpret Scripture, whether formally or informally. 

When it comes to Lindsey, he should be honest enough to put his cards on the table.  He should be honest enough to say he didn’t invent this mode of Bible “prophecy.”  A book like this doesn’t come from reading the Bible in a vacuum.  His lineage includes folks like John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield.  His descendants include Tim Lahaye and the current crop of dispensationalists.

To conclude, I should confess to having no interest in the details of the many kinds of premillenials.  If you are looking for me to examine nuances in this field, you’re going to be disappointed.  People spend years and decades researching the nuances among different schemes of Bible prophecy.  I think this is a tragic, scandalous waste.   Jesus himself spent a great deal more of his own ministry doing things like eating with sinners, healing he sick, and teaching about the Kingdom than trying to help people figure out when he was coming back for them.

 Oh well.  More to come.

All this was from reading a two-page introduction.   I apologize in advance…

…and now its time to toss this monitor out the window.

Weighing In (Foolishly?)* On Prop 8

This time, I’m going to let someone else do the arguing for me…

The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of the state’s black voters, have just had their core civil right — the right to vote — stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his views on the state’s people.

Most arguments about gay marriage that center on civil rights focus on the “right” simply to get married – even though marriage licenses are issued by states as a privilege granted, not a right with which one is born.  Driver’s licenses, likewise, represent privileges granted by states, not simply a right that any Tom, Dick, or Harry is “owed.”

What is most interesting about the CNN piece I quoted above – other then that it appeared on CNN’s website! – is not so much the substance or the “what” but the who.  The author, “Bishop” Harry Jackson is an African-American pastor in Maryland.  He, of course, is qualified and able to make a civil rights argument in a way that I- privileged white male that I am – never could.

And it’s at least questionable that the judge in the case is gay.  This is a bit like having a Grand Dragon judge the legality of  a Klan march: it is by no means a moral equivalence, of course, but in both cases the judge’s personal stake in the argument would be so great that no thinking person could possibly wonder at the outcome.

More interesting to me is the makeup of the Californians who voted in Prop 8 in the first place.  Many of my liberal friends (yes, I have them, and they like me) cheered with facebook statuses and twitters saying “about time” and “equal rights for all” and “down with bigroty” and the like when the news came that the proposition was overturned.

Really?  Who do you think did the voting in Calfornia?  Is there suddenly a tea-party majority in the state that boasts LA and San Francisco and UC Berkely?  No.  The folks that voted in Prop 8 are also the folks that voted in Obama.

There is a real discussion to be had here.  It can’t be as simple as “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve,” but neither is it as simple as “Everyone in favor of Prop 8 is a homophobic bigot.”  Perhaps this seems like a pointless observation in today’s political climate, with our Glenn Becks and Michael Moores.  But for those of us, at least, who claim Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Savior, we are called to do better than our surroundings.

Too often we don’t.  Too often we fall unwittingly into the camps of the larger culture, parroting the very talking heads whom we should be questioning, doubting, and for whom we should be praying.  Jesus was never a shill for any party, though God knows people tried hard to own him.  We, too, should be so dedicated to him that we can make the same claim.

*I say “foolishly” because this particular issue gets more attention than it deserves, especially in Christian circles.  I daresay that if we were this concerned about poverty, everyone would be fed by now.  If nothing else, we have allowed our fascination with homosexual culture to completely dominate all our thoughts about sex, marriage, and relationships.  In bowing before the golden calf of the gay marriage argument, the Church has all but lost its witness on issues like sex before marriage and divorce.  And of course, it is foolish because it is doubtful this will change anyone’s mind.  But hey, let’s be honest, this blog is more about letting me vent and opening up a dialogue to sharpen my own saw – I’m pretty sure your mind is made up.

This Week in Clergy Ethics: Pastor Involved in Baiting Police

A pastor in Indiana is in hot water after apparently organizing a staged brawl at a public event to showcase – or test – the local police force’s response to a fight between two black men.

Reportedly, the two men involved in the altercation – at first verbal, then physical – were “trained” actors who were put up to this distasteful performance by a local pastor.  The organizes had requested a local officer come and give a presentation, and during the event two men in the crowd suddenly began fighting.  Says the source article,

James Harrington, pastor of the Mt. Vernon Missionary Baptist Church, said he set up the scenario to test a white officer’s reaction to a fight between two black men.

“Their job is to protect and serve, and even though they have families and children, that they don’t put any regard to their safety,” Harrington said. “I don’t think it was dangerous because it was in a controlled environment.”

Harrington denied that the officer was injured.”We are trying to do anything that we can to save the lives of our children,” he said. “We have to have live demonstrations of violence carried on by professional actors who are trained to do what they do.”

Seems like an odd way to help one’s children.  Am I being unnecessarily cynical in thinking that the intended outcome was perhaps a too-violent response from the police officer involved that could be used to fuel public outrage?

In any case, ’tis a strange way for a pastor to reach out to his community.  The officer involved was sent to the local hospital to be treated for back spasms after one of the – ahem – actors threw him to the ground.  The officer drew his taser (a show of commendable restraint) after being thrown and at that point was told that the incident was a ruse.

At least the pastor’s church has been smart enough to claim plausible deniability.