Once I was staying in the hospital with my mom. Mom was 82 and had just had a serious stroke. I stayed in the room with her for a week because she was really a mess, and as far as family went, I was it.

It was in the early hours of the morning, and mom had been awake, fighting the nurses, talking out of her head and refusing to sleep or cooperate at all. She didn’t realize what was going on, of course. Months later she wouldn’t believe me when I told her about nights like that.

So there is my 82 year old, sick, delirious, difficult mom, and on the television in the room there comes an ad for a generic megachurch.

Now generic megachurches are a hobby of mine, so I paid attention.The problem was the sound was down, and I couldn’t hear the narration. All I could do was look at the images that generic megachurch was putting out there in their ad.

There were lots of shiny, happy, healthy, smiling young people and couples, with their shiny, happy, smiling children, leading their smiley, happy suburban lives, all enhanced by their happy, exciting participation in the weekly services at generic megachurch.

Even the senior adults in generic megachurch’s ad were kind of shiney, happy and healthy, seventy going on forty sort of senior adults.

I looked over at mom: disheveled, distraught, pitiful. Not a pretty picture. Completely messed up at the moment and needing help to get through the night.

I looked at generic megachurch’s “people:” perfect.

Mystical experience arrived. Jesus- who seems to not need the volume control on the television- interrupted the program and engaged me in conversation.

“Michael, are you watching this little show?”

“Yes, I am.”

“Good. Which is more like the church: the ad or your mom?”

“Is this essay or multiple choice?”

“Essay.”

“I’d say that the church would like to think it’s like the shiny, happy people in the ad. That’s typical of what most of the church wants to say to the world: Come to our church and your life will be great like this ad.”

“Exactly. to be honest, those images of the shiny happy people make me want to vomit. They aren’t really human. They are what humans want to believe they are really like. The rich young ruler is a good example. He wanted the great life now and for God to make it even better with eternal life. When I told him that his disease of mammon addiction was desperate and needed the radical cure of following me, he walked away. That’s exactly what these success images would do if they were real people and I confronted them with going to the poor, the ugly and the undesirable.”

“You know, Jesus, when we miss it, we don’t just miss it by an inch do we? We go for a mile or more.”

“Most of the time. I think if you read my messages to the church in Revelation 2-3 (translation of your choice, but I use the original greek), you’d see that the church thinks it looks like those images of health and success, but with my super-real super-truth vision, I can see that the success and beauty obsessed church is really much like your mom there: pathetic, sick and needing me to care for her every need.”

“We just don’t want to admit that we always need you completely. We never get to the point where you’re just the icing on the cake. You’re always the doctor, the medicine and the cure that requires someone to die for us. You, of course. We want to be happy and well, but we’re always sick and pathetic.”

“You’re getting it, Michael. That’s why the church should be a place for the old and the ugly, the fat and the forgotten, the overlooked and the obscure. The sinful and the just plain confused. The church isn’t a modeling agency. It’s a hospital for very sick people. The difference between the hospital and the country club is what we’ve got here. If you’ll pay attention.”

Mystical experience over.

That one has stayed with me. We want to believe we’re one thing, and we are quite another. We want shiny happy pastors, pictures, people and programs. What we need to do is say, “We’re all the prodigal. In the mud, on his needs, in his pathetic condition, and the God of Jesus always shows us the God who runs out to meet us and love us as the messes that we are.”

Even when we’re at the party, and we’ve cleaned up a bit, we’re still the prodigal. We’re still mom. We’re never the lies and illusions we want to believe.

Our beauty is in the eye of the eternal beholder, and always will be.

Michael Spencer is the popular blogger, podcaster, and self-described post-evangelical also known as, The Internet Monk. Don't miss his next appearance on Steve Brown Etc. this Friday as we discuss, how gays and lesbians hear evangelicals.

Michael has been blogging since 2000. He has a master's degree in Theology, is currently a campus minister living in a Christian community in southeastern Kentucky, and has been a teacher in churches and schools for more than 30 years.

At GetReligion, we were only able to touch a few of the stories written and aired from coast to coast. For example, there was that New York Times news feature about the significance of his visit to cat lovers. Click here, if you decide that this was an essential angle of the visit. (The Rt. Rev. Douglas LeBlanc is smiling.)

In general, I think that the coverage of the pope’s visit has been pretty good, which is a comment about the media coverage and about Benedict’s ability to make his subjects rather clear. It was a serious visit, with content as well as massive photo ops. However, there is something about pope news that brings out one of my least favorite tools of modern journalism — the dreaded scare quotes.

The final New York Times report on the Yankee Stadium Mass included some classics. It covered the contents of the sermon (text here), but there must have been some uncomfortable moments at the editing desk. This starts right in the lede:

Before a crowd of nearly 60,000 people at Yankee Stadium, Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday ended his first visit to the United States as leader of the Roman Catholic Church with a reminder to the faithful that “obedience” to the authority of the church, even in a country that prizes individual freedom, is the foundation of their religious faith.

What is the precise meaning of those quote marks — framing the word “obedience”? Is this a statement that the pope does not know what the word means, that significant numbers of Catholics cannot agree on what the word means, or that the Times disagrees with the pope’s definition of the word? Or, perhaps, the newspaper’s editors have decided that this term is irrelevant in the modern world?

There are many other interesting wordings to discuss, given the time. Here’s another key one:

But at Yankee Stadium on a cool, brilliant Sunday afternoon, with an adoring audience of people waving yellow cloths, one of the colors of the Vatican, Benedict acted chiefly as pastor to America’s 65 million Catholics, laying out in simple terms their obligations to a church that represents what he has called the “one church” established on earth by God.

“Authority. Obedience. To be frank, these are not easy words to speak nowadays,” the pope said in his homily during the Mass, held on an acre-size platform built over the Yankees infield, “especially in a society which rightly places a high value on personal freedom.”

Clearly, Benedict understands that there are conflicts over the meaning of words like “obedience.” Otherwise, he would not be preaching this sermon. But the really interesting language here, for me, is the part about “a church that represents what he has called the ‘one church’ established on earth by God.” What in the world is the meaning of the words “he has called,” in terms of the facts of history? One does not have to accept that Rome is or was the “one church” established by Jesus Christ. People will debate that ‘til the end of time. But it is crazy to suggest the “one church” claim is a mere personal opinion of this one man.

There are three levels to the language issues in this kind of story.

At one level, journalists are making sure that readers understand that just because the pope says something does not make it true for everyone.

On another level, journalists seem to be making sure that readers understand that just because the pope says something does not make it true for Catholics. To put that another way, just because the pope says something doesn’t mean that Catholics have to believe something. That’s the reality in the day in which we live, of course.

But many of these scare quotes seem to have another purpose. Often, they seem to promote the idea that there is no historical reality, no consensus of belief, about some of the claims that the Catholic Church — a voluntary association, not a democracy — makes about its own doctrines and disciplines. People do not have to agree with those claims, but it is not factually accurate to pretend that they do not exist.

To cut to the chase: The pope is not just another Catholic. The word “obedience” does have meaning — a defined meaning — in Catholic thought. One does not have to agree with it, but the definition is there. The “one church” claim is not a matter of papal opinion. It’s a serious claim made, and debated, through the centuries.

Journalists are supposed to do their best to cover the divisions and debates within religious bodies — like the post-Vatican II Catholic church. But journalists are not supposed to deny — whatever the motive — the factual contents of centuries of church history.

Let me be clear. Skepticism is a good thing. But it’s wrong to mangle history and the facts. Here’s an example from one of the final Washington Post pieces about the visit:

Benedict’s stops in Washington and New York dramatically raised American Catholics’ familiarity with — and affection for — their 81-year-old pontiff. Experts said it was too early to know if it would also affect the depth of their faith or their trust in an institution rocked by sex abuse scandals. The visit made Benedict a more familiar and less authoritarian figure, they said, but the chasm between American Catholics and the pope is wide, particularly regarding subjects like same-sex unions and married priests.

In that last sentence, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the chasm between “some” or “many” American Catholics and the pope is wide? Are all American Catholics united in their opposition to their church’s teachings on these topics? Are active, daily- or weekly-Mass Catholics more or less likely to accept the church’s teachings on this kind of topic?

You know what conservative Catholics think. They think that there is a wide chasm between the pope and ex-Catholics and liberal Catholics who work in major newsrooms, when it comes to these kinds of controversial topics. It would be good if our major news organizations went out of their way not to give journalism-bashers many reasons to think that way.

UPDATE: Sigh. From the Times website. What a world.

Articles most frequently e-mailed by NYTimes.com readers.

1. Cat Lovers Appreciate Soul Mate in Vatican
2. The Way We Live Now: Why Bother?
3. Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
4. Roger Cohen: Of Wine, Haste and Religion
5. Finding Your First Apartment

Professor Terry Mattingly writes the nationally syndicated On Religion column for the Scripps Howard News Service in Washington, D.C., which is sent to about 350 newspapers in North America. He's also a regular contributor at GetReligion.org and the author of the book Pop Goes Religion: Faith in Popular Culture.

Our central sacrament, regardless of what Christian tradition we represent, is the Lord’s Supper. Here the body is again central. In mystery, we partake of the body and blood of our Savior. And we believe he was raised from the dead in both body and soul.

But most Christians seem to be uncomfortable with their bodies. We find them baggage that weighs us down and prevents us from reaching our fullest spiritual potential. We somehow wish that we could shed them. We even speak of death as if it were liberation from bondage to our human flesh when in fact it is a sowing of our flesh into the earth from where it shall be raised fully and materially on the Last Day. We are not destined to ever be “bodiless spirits” floating around in heaven somewhere up there, or out there. This idea is closer to Descartes than to Paul and Jesus.

The assertion of a strong dichotomy between the spiritual and the material is not Christian. It is dualism and it is gnostic, the most ancient of all Christian heresies. Yet you hear this heresy regularly in Christian churches, especially conservative Protestant ones.

The Starting Point for Understanding Our Sexuality

In my last post in The Guest Room (March 3, 2008), I ended by arguing that the Lord’s Supper is the proper starting place for understanding human sexuality. My point was that here there is real vulnerability. Here we have sacrifice and the real giving of a human body as a gift. This is the right place to begin all consideration of human sexuality precisely because this is the only place in which sex makes any real sense at all—it is a God-given reality that allows us to give ourselves away in a God-ordained way.

The Last Supper was clearly a risk. Jesus died because he loved so totally and took the risk. But, argues Timothy Radcliffe, to not take this risk “is even more dangerous” (What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 96). Here is how C. S. Lewis put it:

To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket—safe, dark, motionless, airless—it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell (The Four Loves, 111).

Love moves us out of ourselves where our individuality can then lead us to become real persons, living in communion as God the Father, Son and Spirit live. The Lord’s Supper, rooted in the Last Supper established by Jesus with his disciples, was a time of community. But the community of his brothers was collapsing all around him as Jesus took upon himself the sin of the world. He was giving himself so totally to human persons that no person ever gave himself in this way. Says Timothy Radcliffe: “The Last Supper invites us not to run away from a crisis, but to embrace it, confident that it can bear fruit” (What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 96).

The Place for Chastity

Chastity is not popular in our day. To be chaste is to embrace a quality or state of sexual abstinence. This includes a commitment to modesty and decency as well. This sounds fussy and foolish in our time. We have popular culture reminding us regularly that virginity is to be given away fairly soon in one’s life or you are totally weird!

But the message of the Church is not chastity for the sake of chastity. It is chastity for the sake of love. “Chastity heals our loves by liberating them from fantasy,” says Timothy Radcliife (What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 97). Fantasy produces wild, bizarre mental images that do not correspond to anything in reality. Fantasy is not the same thing as imagination. Imagination is a positive creative force that leads us to form mental images that will actually allow us to understand or appreciate reality more deeply. A good imagination is to be cultivated while fantasy will always get you into real trouble.

This distinction is especially important when we think about sexuality. Fantasizing about sex as an object or an action is dangerous. Imagining the reality of a love bond with a person you have committed yourself to in a covenant is different altogether. Indeed, any human relationship that flourishes will need some creative imagination if it is to soar. Fantasizing will kill your real human relationships. Imagination (understood in the way that I have defined it) will help a good relationship be even better.

Further, chastity forces us to “get real.” It fosters the imagination that leads to hope. And it corrects despair. This is precisely how a single person can live without sex and yet not fall into fantasy and personal devastation. (Singleness can be a calling and thus a unique gift. It appears to be an unusual gift, however, since the answer to loneliness generally offered to us in Scripture is marriage, an even more wonderful creational gift! Far too many evangelical teachers have not appreciated this point and have urged single adults to deal with fantasy in the wrong way.) Imagination focuses on the future in a proper way. Fantasy creates something in the moment and leads to despair. W. B. Yeats wrote, “”We fed the heart on fantasies, the heart’s grown brutal from the fare.” Chastity liberates us and makes our hearts human and tender.

Chastity helps us shape our lives into “a coherent story [that] can be told of it” (Radcliife, What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 98). Because God has become, in the human body of Jesus Christ, we are called to be incarnate in our bodies. Chastity is generally thought of as the suppression of desire. But chastity is about living in the real world, the world that uses imagination but is not the world of fantasy.

Thomas Aquinas taught that no one can live meaningfully without sensual pleasure. He even said the one who teaches you that pleasure is evil “is bound to be caught in some pleasure” (Summa Theologica II.II.151.1).

Pleasure

Pleasure is the feeling and delight that we take in something that brings us joy. It is satisfaction and gratification. Pleasure is a God-given gift to us. I am thus suggesting, as the Church has always taught when it was at its best, that sexuality is given to us for our pleasure.

And I am further suggesting that fantasy kills real pleasure. There are two forms of fantasy that will kill sexuality and make it unhealthy: infatuation and lust. Infatuation will make you foolish and thus you will lose sound judgment. When we treat sex with infatuation it loses its giftedness and power to bring pleasure. At the other end of the spectrum is lust. Lust, in the Christian sense, is excessive desire, or seeking for unrestrained gratification. Christian virtue is found between these two mirror opposites.

The cure for both of these errors is to have true love and thus to give yourself to someone that you live with day after day. By this you will soon see that they are not God, nor are you. And you will also see that they cannot fulfill your fantasies. You will be healthier the more you surrender yourself to the giftedness of this relationship in this manner.

This is also precisely what happens at the Eucharist. We see that we are not God. We are delivered of all our spiritual fantasies. We imagine, if we are using our minds wisely as framed by the Holy Scripture, that the glories that are to come, as well as the sacrifice that brought this gift to us, are what remain real in this broken world.

Conclusion

But even sexuality, as good a gift as it is, can not satisfy our desires fully and completely. Augustine was right when he said that we are capax Dei, or made for God. “Our hearts find no peace until they rest in you” (Confessions, Book 1, 1, 3).

We find no comfort in another person until we realize each of us is truly alone before God. Every one of us needs solitude and space. This cannot be done away with, and marriage is never meant to remove it. A good marriage recognizes this reality and even nurtures it while at the same time it seeks deeper and deeper communion with the one loved.

In our modern context we are always faced with the danger of making the other person an object for our desire. We do not receive the personhood of the other, in all their goodness and weakness, and thus we cut them up into pieces that we devour and use. The words of Matthew 5:29 ring in our ears if we know the teaching of Jesus. He is not teaching self-mutilation here. I think he is saying something like this—if we do not wish to be mutilated by others then we must not lust after them. This practice and discipline of chastity is thus given to us so that we can live well in the real world.

The Church has a message for all—single, married or homosexual. Sexuality is a gift to be used in a way that bonds a man and a woman in a covenant. And this covenant is mysteriously connected with the covenant meal, the Lord’s Supper. Here we see that God gives us himself. We do not set the Table. In receiving his body and blood we do not take the meal on our terms but rather on his. We come at his invitation. We partake as he gives himself to us. We celebrate what he has done and is even now doing. There is profound mystery here, just as there is in the gift of sexuality. This mystery must be taken on his terms or it will be destroyed by human fantasies that are self-destructive. If we could grasp this we would have a message for this generation that doesn’t sound so much like judgment as blessing.

John H. Armstrong will be our guest on Steve Brown Etc. this weekend. Armstrong is founder and president of ACT 3, a ministry for the advancement of the Christian Tradition in the third millennium. He is a former pastor and church-planter, of more than twenty years, the author/editor of eight books, and the author of hundreds of magazine, journal, and Web based articles. John has served as the editor-in-chief of ACT 3 Review: A Journal for Faith, Church and Culture since its origin in 1992. But most importantly, he is our go-to professional religionist.

Munaf and Omar, both American citizens, were arrested in Iraq by American military personnel and have been in the custody of U.S. authorities operating as part of Multi-National Force Iraq. Both of these Americans are challenging attempts by the Bush Administration to deny them access to U.S. courts and transfer them into Iraqi custody, where they could very well be subjected to torture and given the death penalty.

The Bush Administration insists that even though the men are being held at a U.S. Army-run detention center near the Baghdad airport, the U.S. has no control over what happens to them. Because 26 other nations are represented to a lesser degree in the U.S.-led and dominated military command, the Bush Administration has reasoned that Omar and Munaf are not entitled to the habeas corpus protections found within the Constitution and, thus, cannot challenge their detentions in American courts.

Yet as Supreme Court Justice Breyer noted during the oral argument, "this multinational force operates subject to a unified American command, and the chain of command ultimately runs to the President. So as a practical matter it's the President and the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense, and the American commanders that control what our American soldiers do." Thus, regardless of whether the U.S. military holds prisoners within U.S. borders or on foreign shores, as long as they are in U.S. custody, they have a right to a hearing by way of the writ of habeas corpus.

Clearly, this really isn't about Omar and Munaf but is just another of Bush's blatant attempts to gut the Constitution and establish an imperial presidency. George W. Bush wants us to operate under the premise that whatever he says goes. As attorneys for The Rutherford Institute and the Constitution Project pointed out in a brief supporting Munaf's and Omar's right to habeas corpus proceedings: "If left unchecked, the Executive's proclaimed detention power would authorize the Government to detain indefinitely—and unlawfully—American citizens held in American custody, so long as the Government dressed up that detention with a multinational-forces fig leaf."

No matter what President Bush insists to the contrary, government officials cannot pick and choose when or to whom the Constitution's protections should be applied. America's founders believed that the right of habeas corpus was essential if American freedom and democracy were to be maintained. They fought the War of Independence in part so that the lawless capture and detention of prisoners would never occur again.

The right of habeas corpus is the foundation stone of American liberty. Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the most conservative of America's founding fathers, once said that the writ of habeas corpus was perhaps more important to freedom and liberty than any other right found in the Constitution. Believing that such arbitrary imprisonment is "in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny," the founders were all the more determined to protect Americans from such government abuses.

Indeed, the founding fathers thought this right was so important that it was enshrined within the body of the U.S. Constitution, rather than as an amendment. Latin for "bring forth the body," the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus ensures that if you're being held in a jail or prison and haven't been charged with a crime, you have the right to go before an impartial judge and ask, "Why am I being held? What is the evidence against me?"

In other words, the writ of habeas corpus prevents the government from locking you up and throwing away the key. It ensures that justice is served: that the guilty are rightfully punished and the innocent are not wrongfully imprisoned and left without any recourse for gaining their freedom. This is especially critical for those who are suspected of wrongdoing, especially if they are American citizens, and holds particular significance as the Bush Administration's so-called War on Terror moves into its sixth year and the Supreme Court prepares to issue its ruling in this groundbreaking case.

I am not saying that Munaf and Omar should be set free. Imprisonment would certainly be appropriate and necessary if the two men are guilty of what they were accused of. However, imprisoning American citizens without providing them access to the courts in order to challenge their detention represents a grave departure from the ideals of those who drafted the Constitution.

This case will no doubt have far-reaching implications for all Americans, including journalists who cover the war. U.S. troops have occasionally mistaken reporters for insurgents and have detained over a dozen journalists for months at a time without charge. One photographer, Bilal Hussein, was held for almost two years after being mistaken for a terrorist in 2006. If the government prevails in this case, many such innocent American bystanders will find themselves in a legal limbo, unable to petition American courts for their release.

Every prisoner's darkest moment is when he realizes that the outside world doesn't seem to care what happens to him. As Joseph Margulies, one of the attorneys for Omar and Munaf, wrote: "When I was in Iraq, I sat in cramped and bare concrete rooms with Shawqi Omar and Mohammad Munaf. After the nervous initial chatter about food and the weather, after the earnest discussion of legal cases and habeas corpus, after the long pause when conversations either come to an end or reach a more vital center, they began to speak of their fears, the greatest of which was that they had been, or soon would be, forgotten."

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead's weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

When I became aware of other kinds of Christians- around 1972- I was frightened of them. Methodists actually scared me. My best friend was an Episcopalian. He came to my church all the time. I would have sooner asked for a root canal than go to church with him. The first time I attended a mass, I got so frightened I actually ran out the back door.

All that to say that it's a miracle I heard the phrase "Palm Sunday" and had some idea that those words related to Jesus. Good Friday was a day the Catholic kids got out of public school to go to mass. Easter was resurrection day, but its deeper meaning involved wearing new clothes and bunny rabbits.

Yes, Easter and Christmas were what was left over of the Christian year when my fundamentalist tradition got finished with it. Advent? Lent? Pentecost? Holy Week? Good Friday? Those were the property and invention of those not-to-be-trusted Catholics.

"But isn't it all about Jesus?" Who's asking that question? Bring me that kid so I can smack him.

We had our own calendar at our church: Revivals. More revivals. Fourth of July. Halloween. (Oh yeah. Back in the day.) Thanksgiving. Valentine's Day. And the biggies- Mother's and Father's Days.

My tradition couldn't comprehend arranging the days of the year around the life of the Lord. Easter and Christmas were supposed to be about Jesus, but they were examples of the secular world ruining our Christian celebrations with their rabbits and Santa Claus.

The truth was that we were ruining it all by ourselves, by believing the ever-present evangelical lie that everything starts and ends with my church, my pastor and my Bible. My tradition was constantly susceptible to anyone who said we were going "back to the Bible" or were practicing "simple" New Testament Christianity. We called ourselves "old fashioned" Baptists, but as far as the Christian tradition was concerned, we were a plague of tradition eating locusts.

The fact is we were functionally rootless and woefully ignorant of whatever roots we'd once had. We had cut ourselves off from the whole of Christian history and were convinced that inside our building, with our preacher and our Bibles, we were as right as we could be. There was us, our parents, our grandparents and Jesus, a KJV English speaking Baptist white man from the United States. With short hair.

In fact, we were celebrating the secular calendar and then bizarrely carping about what we were major contributors to- the secular invasion of our little world.

Years have passed, and God has led me to an appreciation of what Robert Webber called "The Majestic Tapestry," or The Great Tradition that Christians all hold in common. I've learned that the Christian year is mine because it is about my Lord. The roots of my faith go deeper than the reasons Christians are in 20,000 different denominations, to the times when blood and necessity held Christians together in a common faith. Our Christian history is yours, mine and ours. I don't have anything that I didn't receive, and that process goes back considerably farther than I ever knew.

I've taught my children a different version of the faith. I am still a Baptist, but my daughter is an Anglican, my son a Presbyterian and my wife is a frequent attender at mass. As we enter Holy Week, we're one in ways deeper and more meaningful than my family ever celebrated in the past. We're all part of a church that embraces many traditions and differences.

As a post-evangelical, I am committed to undertaking the journey of salvage and recovery in my own tradition. We have sold, abandoned and thrown away the precious belongings of our ancestors. These aren't just antiques for appreciation; these are the pieces of our own identity as evangelical Christians.

We will never undo the reformation, nor should we. But we can come to a place we lament its necessity and we see beyond it to the centuries when there were no labels or denominations. We can take up the year, the liturgy, the heritage of saints, the path of devotion and the love of the whole people of God that characterizes "the majestic tapestry" on earth.

Have a wonderful Passion and Easter season. Appreciate the gifts these days give to all of us, and love one another as brothers and sisters.

Michael Spencer is the popular blogger, podcaster, and self-described post-evangelical also known as, The Internet Monk.

Michael has been blogging since 2000. He has a master's degree in Theology, is currently a campus minister living in a Christian community in southeastern Kentucky, and has been a teacher in churches and schools for more than 30 years.

I do know this. There are times when it is hard to cover the news and avoid the word “sin.”

Read the whole New York Times report that pulled her out into the spotlight. Doesn’t this leave you asking some questions? Is this whole story a parable for the post-feminist age or what? Has there ever been a responsible male in this young woman’s life? Would she know one if she saw one?

Her story is full of painful passages, but here is one that gets to me:

Ms. Dupre said by telephone Tuesday night that she was worried about how she would pay her rent since the man she was living with “walked out on me” after she discovered he had fathered two children. She said she was considering working at a friend’s restaurant or, once her apartment lease expires, moving back with her family in New Jersey “to relax.”

Or how about this?

On MySpace, her page says: “I am all about my music and my music is all about me. It flows from what I’ve been through, what I’ve seen and how I feel.”

She left “a broken family” at age 17, having been abused, according to the MySpace page, and has used drugs and “been broke and homeless.”

“Learned what it was like to have everything and lose it, again and again,” she writes. “Learned what it was like to wake up one day and have the people you care about most gone.

“But I made it,” she continues. “I’m still here and I love who I am. If I never went through the hard times, I would not be able to appreciate the good ones. Cliche, yes, but I know it’s true.”

Or how about this snippet of lyrics from a stereotypical song from her work as a dance-club singer?

I know what you want.
You got what I want.
I know what you need.
Can you handle me?

And on and on and on. Her side of the story is — naturally — unfolding on MySpace. Where else would it be?

But there are no issues in this tale linked to marriage, family, sexuality, sin, guilt, abuse, lust, greed, abuse of power or anything else. If there isn’t a religion ghost in this story, then there should be. Hypocrisy is just the starting point.

UPDATE: The Washington Post says that these kinds of public scandals used to be about sin. But that was a different America.

No more. The major advice from the Style gods to women today. Do not trust politicians. Why? They are wired for this kind of thing.

Think Clinton. Bill. Or Hart, as in Gary.

One reason is because they’ve got the ideal personality for it. Psychologists believe that certain types of personalities are more likely to engage in infidelity — and that those traits uncannily overlap with traits common to politicians.

“Extroverted, prone to be socially dominant, those are traits associated with infidelity and with good politicians,” says David Schmitt, a professor of psychology at Bradley University. “The ability to compartmentalize — not necessarily to viciously lie, but to hold back some truths in one context and then tell those truths in a different context, that’s almost the definition of a politician.”

So there. Still no ghosts around here. Nope.

Top photos: From The Smoking Gun

Professor Terry Mattingly writes the nationally syndicated On Religion column for the Scripps Howard News Service in Washington, D.C., which is sent to about 350 newspapers in North America. He's also a regular contributor at GetReligion.org and the author of the book Pop Goes Religion: Faith in Popular Culture.

Why Our Society Has a Difficult Time with This Connection

There are at least two reasons why moderns have a hard time seeing sexuality as Eucharistic. The first is obvious. The body has been massively trivialized in our society. Since sexuality is an activity of the body and the soul this trivialization of the human body leads to the even deeper trivialization of sex itself. In the common view of things sex is a form of recreation. Or just as wrong as this idea, sex becomes something we ignore or reject as harmful or ugly, though admittedly necessary for the procreation of the race. (But given our culture's desire for death, procreation is not an issue for many.) Homosexuality is accepted increasingly, followed closely now by transgendered sexuality. But close behind, to the surprise of some, is asexuality. A new asceticism, which is not Christian at all, sees sex as simply a bother, something to be tolerated at best.

Michele Kirsch, writing in The Times (London) in March of 2005 gave a number of quotes that underscore my point. I share two of them.

"It is more disinterest than disgust. Occasionally, when I contemplate everything the sexual act involves, I think, 'Ugh, why would I want to do that?' It is just something I don't feel the need to experience!"

And an asexual writer added, in an essay, titled, "My Life as an Amoeba":

"I find that being devoid of sexuality makes my life a lot easier. By not participating in that aspect of my life, my time is freed for other activities, building shrines, memorizing cure lyrics, studying forensic psychology."

Biblical and orthodox Christianity has a much better idea about sex and humanity. The Church cherishes sexuality as basic and inherent to our humanity. St. John Chrysostom captured this in a sermon on sex when he noticed people blushing. He became quite angry and asked the congregation: "Why do you blush? Is it not pure? You are behaving like heretics" (12th Homily on the Epistle to the Colossians).

Even Thomas Aquinas, not a source that you would readily think would underscore this same point of view about sex, suggested that thinking of sexuality as repulsive is a failure of true charity (love) and "a moral defect" (Summa Theologica II.II.142.1).

The second reason our society, and the Church, has a difficult time in seeing how the Eucharist relates to sexuality is that it views the human body as an object that belongs to us. My body is my body! But Scripture plainly says, "You are not your own." Look at the various modern books on the body. They fill the front tables of our favorite book stores. Man is a machine and the owner's manual is designed so that each owner can take charge over his or her own machine. The body is a possession, indeed the ultimate possession. Thus modern thought says "It's my body and I will do with it what I want." I can mark it, abuse it and do whatever I please with it.

This thinking about the body is deeply rooted in modernity. John Locke established his philosophy of the human person on the idea of "self-ownership." We are thus "a property in [our own] person." Against this philosophy the Church's teaching seems like pure restriction!

Timothy Radcliffe, a Dominican friar in Oxford, rightly says that the Christian view of sexuality "is about [the] living relationships of gift rather than of property exchange" (What Is the Point of Being a Christian? Burnes and Oates: London, 2005, 95). That's it-gift, not property exchange. Get this point fixed in your mind and you will have truly captured the startling truth that will lead you to see how sex and the Eucharist relate.

The Church's Doctrine of Sexuality

Let's be clear about this-the Church has not always handled sexuality well. But the essential core of the matter has been pretty clear, even more so in the East than the West. (We can thank St. Augustine for some of this mistaken stuff.) The Christian teaching is that we are to engage in sexual intercourse only with those to whom we are married in a covenantal bond. That bond is to be between a man and a woman and this relationship must remain open to procreation. (This is where the Roman Catholic Church opposes birth control because it sees it as artificially refusing to remain genuinely open to procreation. I believe their point is worthy of much more thought by all Christians, especially since the modern practice of birth control is rooted in many false ideologies, but in the end I am not convinced of Rome's position. Rome's position is not held by the rest of the Christian Church, East or West.)

The reality is clear, however. Vast numbers of Christians are divorced, remarried, living with unmarried partners, even sometimes with partners of the same sex. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 stands as a very stark and strong warning that the practice of certain sins, without repentance, will lead to spiritual death. Such will "not inherit the kingdom of God" says Paul. Sexual sins are on the list but note that there are other sins there, too; e.g., greed, slander and stealing. I hear next to no serious dealing with these words by those who promote sexual malpractice in the Church. )

We must be very clear about this. There is a Grand Canyon between what the Bible says about sexual ethics and what most of us practice in our actual churches. And sometimes attempts to correct this problem, attempts which are called for biblically, are almost as bad as the problems themselves. How we measure justice and mercy is always a challenge and simplistic solutions are very often neither pastoral nor wise.

This is part of what profoundly disturbs me about the present debate over homosexuality in the Church. I stand against all acceptance of homosexual practice as normative Christian behavior. But I am also troubled by the self-righteous way that we single out homosexual sin as if this sexual sin is the only one we should attack in trying to restore moral purity to the visible Church.

How Then Should We Respond?

Timothy Radcliffe suggests that one approach to this problem is to "strongly insist on the received teaching" (What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 95). This is the response of many conservative churches and Christians. When this is done there is a very real danger, and I've personally seen it in many contexts. The danger is this-our churches become sects, narrow groups with a virtual phobia about sex. Our sexual ethic becomes so tightly wound, at least emotionally, that we have a hard time relating to real people who live around us. We fear they will pollute our children, corrupt our homes, and destroy our culture. (We need to be careful here for sure but we also need to be wary of withdrawing us and our children from the world. We are not building ghettos for Christian saints but gospel communities that are inclusive in their invitation to come to the feet of Christ!) We forget that the gospel is good news, both for them and for us together.

But there is another problem here. Many conservative Christians cling to certain aspects of the Church's historic teaching on sexuality, while they ignore whole other areas of serious ethical teaching. The result is a form of hypocrisy that can be seen by the wider society from miles away.

If we allow people to be cavalier about sexual ethics, and do as they please, then are we not in danger of teaching them to disregard all other Christian ethical teaching as outdated and useless in the day-to-day world? Radcliffe, writing as a Catholic, says of some people: "Others remain Catholic, but feel either burdened with guilt or second-class citizens, excluded from Communion because they are in 'irregular situations'" (What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 95).

But if the Christian Church simply accepts (approves) modern sexual practices and ideas then she is in an even worse state. When this happens, we assimilate the world's views of sexuality and then miss the gift that God has actually given to us. This is also why we miss the connection with the Eucharist as I will attempt to show.

In his insightful essay, Radcliffe refers to the way that some Catholics resolve this tension with a "pastoral solution." In this approach the teaching of the Church is openly asserted, but "subtle hints are given that everybody is welcome" (What is the Point in Being a Christian?, 96). In evangelical churches we tend to talk about sex a lot. When we do we always make it very clear that we oppose homosexual practice. What we also do is make it equally clear, to most it seems, that we do not like homosexuals. This has had a massive impact upon us missionally.

A recent poll found that the number one thing most non-Christians thought of when the Church came to their minds was "intolerance and hatred for gays." This is likely not your own view, but it is the way your non-Christian neighbors see your church and mine. If we are serious about evangelization we have to find a solution to this very real problem. The "pastoral solution" that Radcliffe refers to is not the right one but it is a humane one, which is more than can be said for many of the approaches that we presently take.

What Is the Solution?

Timothy Radcliffe admits that he doesn't know what the real solution to this issue is. But at least in terms of how we uphold the Church's ethical standards, while at the same time we remain compassionate, humane and attractional to unbelievers and Christians who struggle deeply with sexual sin, such a solution must be sought. I agree with him after reading his few pages in his essay titled: "The Body Electric."

What Radcliffe profoundly reminds me of is that the "starting point" for understanding sexuality, and for teaching it in the modern era, is the Lord's Supper.

The Last Supper is the very real story of Jesus giving himself over, in body and soul, to his disciples and his enemies. His own disciples denied him and ran. One even sold him out! But his gift to them was his body. This gift reminds us that sexuality is not separable from vulnerability. There is a deep "tenderness" (Radcliffe) here that means someone is very likely to get hurt. Someone could be, and will be, used. There is an "extreme realism" about this matter, a realism that focuses our hearts on the idea that when we give ourselves up to someone else there is real danger.

A truly Christian sexual ethic says, "Give yourself up. Take this gift from God and give it to another much like Jesus gave himself up for you in his body and soul as he now gives himself to us in the Eucharist." This is how Jesus lived and died. This is love. Love gives and love surrenders. Only when this is taught clearly, and modeled powerfully, will the Church see why Christian sexual ethics matters at all. We lost this in the 20th century, not all at once but over the course of a hundred years or so. The Church slept through that revolution. Only now have some awakened to the depth of the sexual compromise, principally because of the homosexual debate that now rages. It would be a great tragedy if we followed a course in this new century that sees the primary objective of the Church's sexual teaching as that of opposing gays and lesbians.

Next Time: How the Lord's Supper can help us regain the proper understanding of sexual ethics and theology.

John H. Armstrong is founder and president of ACT 3, a ministry for the advancement of the Christian Tradition in the third millennium. He is a former pastor and church-planter, of more than twenty years, the author/editor of eight books, and the author of hundreds of magazine, journal, and Web based articles. John has served as the editor-in-chief of ACT 3 Review: A Journal for Faith, Church and Culture since its origin in 1992. But most importantly, he is our go-to professional religionist.

“Nearly 30 years after religious conservatives decided to re-enter the political arena—after abandoning it as ‘dirty’ and leading to compromise—what do they have to show for it? The country remains sharply divided and the reconciling message they used to preach has been obscured by the crass pursuit of the golden ring of political power. In the end, they got neither the power, nor the Kingdom; only the glory and even that is now fading.”
—Cal Thomas, former vice president of the Moral Majority

It’s one thing for Christians—or any other religion, for that matter—to get involved in politics. But it’s a different matter altogether when religious individuals allow politics to take precedence over their religious beliefs.

This is most evident as the race for the White House heats up and vocal Christians such as James Dobson attempt to steer the outcome by endorsing a particular candidate. Yet I can’t help but wonder exactly what these Christians are really putting their faith in. Are they after greater power and influence? Do they think a Christian in the White House will solve the problems that plague our nation?

It hasn’t done us much good yet. As Frank Schaeffer, author of Crazy for God, pointed out in a recent editorial, “In 2000, we elected a president who claimed he believed God created the earth and who, as president, put car manufacturers and oil company’s interests ahead of caring for that creation. We elected a pro-life Republican Congress that did nothing to actually care for pregnant women and babies. And they took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, and played them for suckers.”

David Kuo, who served as Special Assistant to President Bush from 2001-2003, elaborates on this in his book, Tempting Faith, when he describes the way in which the Bush Administration manipulated evangelical Christians: “Rove’s Public Liaison office had a religious outreach team in constant contact with evangelical and social conservative groups about every facet of the president’s policy and political agenda…. As part of their outreach they held weekly—or more often, as necessary—conference calls to update that community on events and announcements while simultaneously soliciting their feedback.”

Kuo continues, “This network of people covered virtually every area of evangelical Christianity. The calls began with an overview of what the president would be talking about in the coming week. If necessary, participants were asked to talk to their people about whatever issue was pending. Talking points were distributed and advice was solicited. That advice rarely went much further than the conference call. There wasn’t any malice or negligence behind this. It was just that the true purpose of these calls was to keep prominent social conservatives and their groups or audiences happy. In most ways it wasn’t a tough sell.”

In fact, Kuo says, it wasn’t difficult to convince Christians that President Bush was on the right side of virtually any tactic. “It should have been a whole lot harder because Christians should have demanded a whole lot more. But all too often, when put before power, Christian leaders wilt.”

Thus, we get to the heart of the problem when religion and politics merge. Rarely can they coexist without one trumping the other. Unfortunately, all too often, politics will trump religion. The result, as we have seen, is that religious individuals—Christians, in particular—smother their faith and become servants to political power. Yet for the Christian, politics and faith should never be synonymous; they are not two equal loyalties.

This is not to say that religious individuals should not be vocal in matters of politics and other national concerns. Indeed, our nation is clearly in need of moral guidance. Regrettably, apart from its ongoing tirades against homosexuality, the Christian Right has little to say about anything other than politics. They seem to have forgotten that politics, by its very nature, stands in stark contrast to what Christianity is supposed to stand for. Politics does not operate out of love, speak truth to power or seek the best interests of people. Indeed, politics is driven toward division, compromise, deceit and, inevitably, corruption.

Jesus Christ rejected politics as the solution for what ails us. Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), for example, and you will get a clear sense of his priorities. He was all about helping the poor, showing mercy (even to your enemies) and being a peacemaker. He did not bless the powerful; rather, he said, “Blessed are the meek.”

Neither did Jesus seek political favors or power. He was apolitical. In a sense, he could even be described as being anti-politics, given his tendency to attack and undermine political power. He had no qualms about getting in politicians’ faces, so to speak. Even with his back ripped open and bleeding, Jesus stood before Pilate, the man who had the power of life and death over him, and spoke truth to power: “You could have no power over me if it were not given you from above,” he admonished him.

Jesus understood that the legitimate use of power does not include using it to impose one’s will upon others. From the Christian standpoint, the proper use of power is to seek justice for all. Thus, if Christianity is to serve its true purpose and be a moral compass of society, Christians must remain clear of the constraints and compromises entailed in political affiliation and take stands for truth. Inevitably, speaking truth to power will mean standing outside the political establishment and criticizing the political Herods of this world, i.e., the government and its policies.

When it comes right down to it, the most appropriate role of religion in politics lies in its ability to define moral issues and speak truth to power. The voice of moral authority, enabled and enhanced by its spiritual roots and raised without dependence upon the legitimacy of the state, will always be the highest expression of true freedom.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead's weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

Why am I part of this group blogging effort? Do I have the celebrity status of Tony Campolo? Do I have the gravitas of John Armstrong? Am I involved in legal and cultural issues like John Whitehead? Do I have the brilliant mind of a Hugh Ross?

Those of you answering "No; you don't," can take another bite of dessert. You win.

I'm a 51 year old campus minister at a large boarding school in southeastern Kentucky. (Yes, I do write with an Appalachian accent.) I've been preaching for 35 years - yes, started when I was 16. The Baptists are like that. I've been a youth ministry specialist most of my life, but I've also pastored Baptist and Presbyterian Churches, and served as campus minister where I am now for 16 years. I've got college degrees, a real seminary degree and some graduate hours towards a doctorate I'll probably never finish. Right now I teach high school Bible, oversee a large campus ministry and preach about 16 times a month to hundreds of students from all over the world who come to the school I serve.

I've been married to Denise for almost 30 years, so send her some kind of a love offering. She needs a break. We've got two great adult children. One's married and an Anglican and one's single and PCA, so you can see what kind of parents we were. One will be a teacher and the other is a poet. That means one has a job and the other would be living in my basement, but I don't have one. We are very proud of both of them.

Most people know me because I write at "IMonk Radio" for those who can't get enough. (You should be very concerned about those people.)

My deal at Internet Monk.com is promoting what I call "post-evangelicalism," which is one of those trendy "post" labels I thought I made up, but I found out I was a little late on that. Since Steve's given me the mic over here, I should probably say what this "post-evangelical" attitude is all about.

1) Evangelicalism, as we've known it in its classic "Spurgeon to Billy Graham" style, is over.

2) Most of what's still moving in evangelicalism is not good. From church growth to prosperity gospel to the culture war, I'm not a fan of what's happening in the evangelical camp.

3) There are some good things happening in evangelicalism, but it's unclear what the final mix is going to produce. I'm betting on an Osteen-style evangelicalism with a Mark Driscoll-style opposition. I'm hoping for a passion for missions and a deep love for the Gospel of grace.

4) Post-evangelicals are trying to find what's valuable in the wreckage, and that means going back, back, way back to the roots of the faith. So I'm all about the ancient church, the creeds, the Christian year, simple liturgy, real music and Robert Webber.

5) Powerpoint has ruined preaching.

That's about it.

What can you expect from me?

a) Honesty. I say what I think when I write. As Shakespeare said, we should speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. Amen.

b) Vulnerability. I believe the incarnation made it OK to be human and say so. I talk about the human journey. Especially the struggles and the hard parts. Apparently, I'm good enough at this that I have a "reputation" for being a bit too honest.

c) Humor. I'm not morose and I hate dull. I preach to students and I don't like to waste time. I can have a bit of attitude, but I want to show you the provocative side of the Gospel.

d) Stuff about Jesus. Denominational Christianity has just about driven me nuts. Jesus is the only thing that seems to cure that headache, so expect to hear about him. I love him and he's quite fond of me.

e) The Other Angle. I like to look at things from places most people don't. It makes me think and feel when I take some risks in thinking and writing. I will put on the atheist's shoes and I will take the side of the theological underdog even if I disagree with him. The game is to write so you will read, and for you to read so you will live differently. I'm up for it.

I'm an unapologetic fanboy of Steve Brown. His example has inspired me for years. What an honor to be associated with him and the other names of this blog venture. I promise I won't waste your time. You matter, and what we talk about here matters.

So until next time, thanks for reading.

There's quite a bit of buzz out there right now in evangelical circles about a series of informational videos that are up and running at CitizenLink.org - which is part of the wider kingdom linked to an activist by the name of James Dobson. The videos feature clips of recent webcasts with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

Right now, everyone is asking - will Dobson endorse either (gasp) Mitt Romney or (gasp!) John McCain? It is in that context that the following blog item by Michael Scherer appears at Time, with the pushy headline: “A stealth Mitt Romney endorsement from the religious right's powerbrokers?”

The clip on Rudy Giuliani is harsh (note that reference to dancing in drag). No surprise. The McCain video says voters have no way of knowing what the senator will do next. No surprise. Then the video on Mike Huckabee is surprisingly critical. No surprise?

After praising Huckabee's social views, both Perkins and Tom Minnery, a policy expert at Focus on the Family, hammer the former Arkansas governor for his foreign policy views. Minnery suggests that Huckabee does not understand the cause for which American troops are dying in Iraq. Then Perkins suggests that Huckabee lacks the fiscal and national security credentials needed for a conservative presidential candidate. “The conservatives have been successful in electing candidates, and presidents in particular, when they have had a candidate that can address not only the social issues, [but] the fiscal issues and the defense issues,” says Perkins. “[Huckabee] has got to reach out to the fiscal conservatives and the security conservatives.” Ouch.

Now hang on, here comes the buried lede.

So what about Romney? He comes up roses. “He has staked out positions on all three of the areas that we have discussed,” says Perkins. “I think he continues to be solidly conservative.” Then Minnery defends Romney from criticism that he is too polished and smooth. “Mitt Romney has acknowledged that Mormonism is not a Christian faith,” Minnery adds. “But on the social issues we are so similar.”

Now wait just a minute. Romney said what?

There was, of course, the quote in the big religion speech in which he said:

“What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history.”

Yes, here we go again. But let's focus - oh ye comment-link clickers - on the journalistic fact here that must be chased. Where in the heck did Romney acknowledge that “Mormonism is not a Christian faith”? Did Scherer realize how controversial that statement is for millions of people on both sides of the issue?

What did Romney say and where and when did he say it? Or are the Dobson folks grasping at straws as they prepare their flock for an endorsement?

Professor Terry Mattingly writes the nationally syndicated On Religion column for the Scripps Howard News Service in Washington, D.C., which is sent to about 350 newspapers in North America. He's also a regular contributor at GetReligion.org and the author of the book Pop Goes Religion: Faith in Popular Culture.

There was an elf that met the children at the door. Also in this room was a store that had Barbies, action figures, Brats Dolls, and all of the most popular items that you would find in a Toy-R-Us catalog the day after Thanksgiving. In order for kids to get the merchandise, they had to say a memory verse and earn store credits. The first thing my kids said to me when I went to pick them up was ”Daddy, can we start going to this church?” Can you blame them? For kids, this was a dream church.

If you listened to the interview I just did on Steve Brown, Etc., you may recall a moment when Steve and Erik asked me what was wrong with evangelicalism, and I said it was over. Steve gave a more hopeful view and I admitted that there were some hopeful signs out there, well off the media radar and among ordinary people.

Well Steve, it was a moment of weakness. You were being nice and I fell under your influence. But then I read C. Michael Patton’s post “The Entertainment Driven Church,” and I realized I was right: Evangelicalism is over. Long live post-evangelicalism. (Whatever we are/it is.)

This is “the end” of evangelicalism, and it’s not dying with a whimper. Oh no. It’s going out with party hats and noise-makers. And Bratz dolls. And Barbie. And video games. And an elf. And the Word-faith message. And Starbucks.

The end of evangelicalism isn’t the deep vacuum of space. It’s the Borg ship. With pizza, a band and great commercials.

Is this Christianity? If you realize your answer no longer has any basis in reality, consider just being honest: No, it’s not.

Are the living dead in a George Romero movie “people?”

Given the choice between any gnostic cult, Buddhism, atheism or what this church is doing, which do you pick as closer to Christianity? Pray about it and get back to me on that one. You wouldn’t like my answer.

You see, it’s actually much worse than even Michael admits. Patton’s kids have already been infected with the virus. They’re all going to start blinking like Osteen. The pastor of this carnival? He’s already got his sermons in book form, with a picture of him looking very indy-spiritual-sexy on the inside cover. And he’s on the program of ten “pastor’s” conferences somewhere, so he can tell what “God” is doing at their “church.” How many people believe he’s the voice of God? How many want to be him?

Make no mistake about it. This operation isn’t connected to the rest of Christian history or teaching the doctrines of the faith because they LOATH THEM. They’re boring. They’re old. They want nothing to do with them. Aside from borrowing the five letters “Jesus” as the brand image for their message of “here’s how to get what you want in life,” and using Biblical texts to make bizarre points about your own power to create that wonderful salvation called “success in life,” there’s far more connection to Starbucks than to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church.

It might even be better if the kids stayed with the elf, because here’s Michael’s summary of the exposition for the day.

Mark 7:33 Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva;

“[He] put His fingers into his ears…He touched his tongue…and his ears were opened and his speech impediment was removed” (v. 35)=sometimes we don’t hear people rightly because we already have the wrong words in our mouth. Therefore, we have to have the right words in our mouth.

Michael finds a couple of nice things to say about the overall outcome of this talk, which proves that living near Tulsa is not a good thing. Run, Michael. Run.

And what is the response of the traditional Anglican church Michael visited? I really wish I knew. Do they understand that in some ways they are increasingly one of a very few outposts that are trying to hold onto the treasure that these megachurches are throwing out labeled “trash?” Do they understand how many people are going to wake up in that game show and say either “Is this it?” or “There is no God. I’m done.”? When they do- as thousands one day will- what then?

I wonder if that Anglican congregation has any idea that someone like Michael- who has been through amazing, terrible things in his life- might just be looking at all of this as more than an observer. He might be looking for where, in the worst of the darkness and the storm, will Jesus be found in community, Word, sacrament and worship?

This isn’t about kickin’ worship bands or big screens. Take them, take them. I don’t care. What I want to know is if we recognize that the disease is overtaking the evangelical body, and the time has come to think like people upon whom an evangelical dark age has come? The barbarians aren’t at the gates. They are running the city. We can’t shut the gates. We have to find places to survive. We can debate how big the hole in the side of the ship is all we want. The fact is: this ship is going down.

Christ’s church will survive and triumph. But in America and the West, the entertainment driven “church” is going to dominate. For those who will not be absorbed, for whom resistance is not futile, there are choices to be made.

Yes Michael, it was entertaining. But be afraid. Be very afraid.

The bus to Rome is leaving now, and it seems that every seat is filled. Oh…what’s that? Seems that a much larger bus to Atheism is pulling into the lot, and there are plenty of seats available.

***Music slowly fades out…..”This is the end…..”***

This piece was originally posted at InternetMonk.com. Go there often for regular posts and podcasts from Michael Spencer (a.k.a. The Internet Monk).

Michael has been blogging since 2000. He has a master's degree in Theology, is currently a campus minister living in a Christian community in southeastern Kentucky, and has been a teacher in churches and schools for more than 30 years.

The sad truth is that such a day has still not yet come. Maybe it never will fully come in America but people of good will and true faith must not stop trying to bring this about.

I believe that most white Americans do not want to be racists in any sense. It is not cool nor is it acceptable in the modern context. But wishing for this not to be so just doesn't make it so. King's vision of a color-blind society is perhaps as far away now as ever before. Many injustices, before the law, have been corrected. For these gains I am sincerely thankful. But much more needs to be done. People of justice, mercy and love ought to be at the forefront.

The contentious politics of color and race are also with us now more than ever. As much as Barack Obama has sought to not enter this race minefield others are forcing him to do it in ways that are very questionable, to cite just one contemporary example of how we handle this issue. Whites often think this is true because black leaders cause it when they emphasize "blackness" in some sense. Many of us think that we whites are, in reality, the truly color blind ones. We think that we can look at a man or woman who is African-American and quite easily ignore their color. I do not think this is the reality of the situation at all. Whether it is a function of residual white racism, or even reverse black racism, or some version of political correctness, thinking that I do not notice that a person is black is ludicrous. This does not mean that I must always be a bigot. It does mean race and ethnicity are so much a part of our American life and this culture that we can never fully avoid it. Each of us has some stereotypes, some prejudices, some residual impact of the influences that shaped our lives in this society. Trying to act like this is not so is neither healthy nor a real solution to the race problem in American culture. And the church is still at the center of much of this problem, not a part of the solution at all.

Cynthia Tucker, in her syndicated column, noted today that University of Washington psychology professor Anthony Greenwald, an expert on implicit biases and common stereotypes suggests that we cannot be as "colorblind" as we think. But this is not the end of the story. We can "learn to put aside [our] biases to make rational fact-based judgments about people who may be black or Mexican or Mormon." This strikes me as obviously right. If this is true then we can begin a process of change. But how? By first acknowledging that we have a problem. By admitting that we employ racial stereotypes and that by them we form opinions that are generalized and often wrong.

Greenwald administers an Implicit Association Test. When people who do not think they are racists in any sense take his test and then find out that they really are prejudiced about race they are often furious. They refuse to admit they have such stereotypes and that this connects them with racism in any sense, implicit or explicit.

As I read Cynthia Tucker's column, and I often disagree with her deeply on many issues, I found myself saying, "She is clearly quite right about this." It reminded me of a conversation last year with a black brother who is in the process of becoming a Roman Catholic priest. He was in my home one evening when we discussed the great movie, The Last King of Scotland. My friend is a mild and gentle Christian without any desire to make race a dividing point between us. He simply noted that he saw this movie, of course, as a black man. For this reason he saw it very differently than I did. The movie, as you probably know, features the story of the late dictator Idi Amin and the bloody trials he brought upon Uganda. But the movie puts a great deal of emphasis upon a young Scottish physician who served Amin, of course a white man. Even the title is "white." This real story is not about Scotland but rather about Africa. And the people in the movie who are the real heroes are the black people who help the white man escape so that he can give the real story of Uganda to the West.

What can we do about this, as both black and white Christians in America? We can begin by admitting that King's dream was right. And then we can further admit that we have a long way to go yet. We can also be more honest about our stereotypes and our fears. We can discuss these issues with people who are black, or white as the case may be, and then pursue helping one another to see how we are still bound by our racial experiences in this land. As a white Christian I believe that I should take the lead, since love always leads the way and because my inherited stereotypes help to perpetuate the problem at so many different levels. Denying it only hinders the dream. Facing up to it opens up real possibilities for change.

A Prayer for Today:

"God grant me the grace to be more open in hearing what you are saying to me through my black brothers and sisters. Help me to be quiet much more often, to listen much more attentively and to not assume that I am completely color-blind. Make me an agent of reconciliation in both your church and my culture."

John H. Armstrong is founder and president of ACT 3, a ministry for the advancement of the Christian Tradition in the third millennium. He is a former pastor and church-planter, of more than twenty years, the author/editor of eight books, and the author of hundreds of magazine, journal, and Web based articles. John has served as the editor-in-chief of ACT 3 Review: A Journal for Faith, Church and Culture since its origin in 1992. But most importantly, he is our go-to professional religionist.

Such conflicts become even more pronounced when “practicing” homosexuals present themselves for ordination. All across the country, gays and lesbians who are in committed lifetime relationships are asking to be ordained for pastorates in mainline denominations. And all across America there are horrified reactions to the mere suggestion that such ordinations be permitted.

It is hard to predict how arguments over the places that gays and lesbians should occupy in churches will be resolved. What seems unthinkable now might gain wide acceptance in a few decades. Consider the reality that some fifty years ago persons who had been divorced and remarried were barred from most pulpits, but today such ministers have become commonplace. Some eighty years ago, divorced persons were often excommunicated from the membership of many churches. But today, divorced and remarried persons are seldom excluded from even very conservative churches. If they were driven out of churches, the losses evident in Sunday morning congregations would be dramatic. Most churches have come to accept divorced couples as full-fledged members and have very few, if any, problems with such persons occupying key roles in church leadership. Given how attitudes can change, who can say if, for better or for worse, the same kind of acceptance of gays and lesbians could become normative in most churches?

Presently, there are wide diversities of opinions on such questions, and in the face of all these arguments, I would like to make a couple of proposals that might lower the level of tensions on these matters.

First, I would like to propose that we do away with the practice of maintaining church membership altogether. As outrageous as this might seem at first, I want you to consider the fact that in most instances church membership is meaningless. When two-thirds of those who are listed on church rolls are absent on Sunday mornings, and the level of commitment of significant proportions of those who do attend is shallow, it has to be acknowledged that church membership is hardly an indicator of true Christian discipleship.

In all probability, the early church did not maintain church rolls, but simply added to their fellowship “such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). In simple language, I propose that churches should not be comprised of those who are recommended by committees and approved by perfunctory congregational votes. Instead, the Church should be defined by those who are regularly a part of worshiping communities. Following such a suggestion certainly would end a lot of hassles over who should or should not be considered as bona fide members. Church would be defined as those who actively participate in the life and ministries of the churches.

Secondly, I propose that we do away with the concept of ordination. This seems like a viable option in the face of the fact that so many of the pastors of the fast-growing churches in America never went to seminary nor gained ordination from any denominational organization. Furthermore, I find nothing in the Bible that denotes that there should be a clergy with some special designation through ordination and who then belong to a select group who are the only ones worthy of administering Holy Communion. Personally, I believe in the priesthood of all believers, and that every Christian is ordained to ministry (I Corinthians 12:18-31). If you agree with me, and believe in such doctrines (and most Christians do), then why do we have a separate religious caste designated as “reverend”?

I suppose it’s my Baptist upbringing that motivates me to think like this. As a Baptist, I was brought up to believe that each local congregation should decide who should occupy the various leadership roles in the church, and no denominational hierarchy had a right to interfere. Following through with these suggestions would end a lot of denominational squabbles and allow individual Christians to belong to fellowships of believers who do not violate their personal convictions (Baptists call this “soul conscience”).

What I am proposing is that we simply recognize the realities of our times and acknowledge that church membership hardly clarifies whether or not a person is really a Christian; and that a denominationally recognized ordination is no real mark of somebody who is a faithful and effective preacher of the Gospel.

In an intensive class, taught January 2–6, on interpersonal and spiritual development I had students who have ministered in China, Latin America and Africa. They represented the Assembly of God, the Salvation Army and Wycliffe Bible Translators. One of these students, Chris Ladish, a Wycliffe missionary to Burkina Faso, introduced us as a class to an African concept that I believe might help many of my readers think more clearly about modern Christian thought.

The concept is based upon the word “barkey,” spelled phonetically as “bark.” The word comes from the Koromba, a people who live in northern Burkina Faso, in West Africa. Chris informed us that in the Koromba culture the word could be translated into English as prosperity, favor or even blessing. In the early stages of translation the word was the only one seriously considered by the Wycliffe workers for the biblical word blessing. Here the story gets very interesting.

Chris says the translation team sought to get at the primary sense or meaning of the word “barkey” as they dealt with both the language itself and the people who spoke it. This led to visits with the village men to gain a sense of their understanding of the term. As Chris, and his devoted team of linguists/translators, listened to the village men they came to understand that this term to be roughly equivalent with the idea of prosperity in our modern English use. The people told him that when you see two trees and one has lots of fruit on it, that productive tree had God’s “barkey” or Gods favor upon it. Or, to use another illustration from the tribal culture, if you are the owner of a small shop, and people patronize your shop making it grow and prosper, then you, the owner, are the recipient of “barkey.”

Chris observed that these contexts all showed the word “barkey” did carry the idea of blessing, or favor. The more work the missionaries did on this subject the more they were astounded by what they came to understand. They discovered that a much broader understanding of “barkey” made using the term for the biblical concept of blessing very problematic. Hidden in the use of this term, among the Koromba people, was the idea that those who experienced “barkey” (or God’s favor or prosperity) had arrived, they were leading a charmed life and everything they did was a result of their “barkey.”

What makes this extremely problematic, for faithful translators and Christian missionaries, is the close association of this idea to Muslim thought, which is also penetrating African thought and religion. In Islam one works for salvation and thus hopes for Allah’s blessing, or for the Koromba people, God’s “barkey.” Consequently, if a person earns God’s favor, or blessing, they have his favor in every way. To have “barkey” in one area of your life is to have “barkey” in every area.

In Christian thought a blessing is, in short hand, a “benediction.” It is used 71 times in the Old Testament, particularly in Genesis (the first use occurs in Genesis 12:2) and Deuteronomy, where it refers to God’s favor shown through his grace. It is a way to invoke, or invite, divine favor, often through gestures and/or words (Psalm 129:8) and the Lord is said to set before his people both blessing and cursing (Deuteronomy 11:26–29). The prophet Ezekiel evens speaks of the blessing of God as revival mercies, or “showers of blessing” (Ezekiel 34:26). Such blessing is a gift of grace and is never to infer that it makes the blessed one beyond question or future failure. When the word is used by humans in regard to other humans it connotes the idea of a wish, or a prayer, which goes back to the comment about giving or receiving benediction, as stated above.

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament says that “One’s status before God (being “blessed”) is not always expressed in terms of the individual or social conditions that bring what moderns normally consider to be “happiness.” So although it is appropriate to render [the Hebrew word for blessed or happy] as “Blessed.” The rendering of “happiness” does not always convey its emphasis to modern readers.

This brings me back to the concept of “barkey” among the Koromba. Rooted in a culture already influenced by Muslim teaching and practice they associate blessing with being completely favored by God in everything a person is and does. This, you see, was the problem for the translators.

But this idea of blessing, especially upon certain people, is a huge problem in the West as well. Think about this for a moment. Christians tend to look at a man, or ministry, and conclude that it is blessed by God. The work prospers and grows. The spokesman is powerful and attractive. The teaching is sound and helpful. Simply put, the mission is thriving and many people are being reached. Who can doubt the blessing of God upon such a person or work?

There can be no serious question that this kind of thinking carries over to virtually everything the favored, or highly honored, teacher or leader says or does. To suggest this teacher might be wrong is seen as treasonous, a denial of God’s gifting. And such prominent teachers tend to believe their press in many such cases. The combination is both dangerous and toxic.

We even have a text, often cited in my lifetime among evangelicals, to support this kind of thinking. I refer, of course, to 1 Samuel 26:11 where David, in reference to his desire to not harm King Saul, says, “The Lord forbid that I should put out my hand against the Lord’s anointed.” And when David finally hears of Saul’s death, at the hands of an Amalekite who thought he was doing David a great service, he responds by having that man put to death for striking down the Lord’s anointed (cf. 2 Samuel 1:11–16). What else do you need to fuel the fires of “barkey” type thinking among ordinary Christians? A work is blessed, the servant is above question, the ministry should get a free pass. And the more orthodox the teaching is, and the stronger the ministry seems in the face of evil and compromise, the less likely we are to question anything.

Am I suggesting that we should be suspicious of ministries and movements? Not at all. I am suggesting, however, that we realize the blessing of God upon a person at one point most definitely does not translate into the evidence of God’s blessing at all other points. Some of the greatest human instruments of good have been very flawed. And multitudes of good and generous people have been taken in by a kind of “barkey” thinking that is common in conservative circles where a high degree of respect for the Lord’s blessing is desired.

Look, I want people to respect me, I really do. I also desire that my friends and supporters love me, trust me and really listen to me. But I also have no desire, or emotional need, to convince people that I am always right. I do not need followers who think that I have permanent and unalterable “barkey” on my life. When I speak, write or teach, I assure you that there is no evidence that I always have the mind of the Lord in every word I share. My teaching and person is to be received by searching the Scriptures and thinking very carefully about what I have uttered and what I am (Acts 17:11).

I am no longer amazed at how Christians seek a “role model” (often a person who is doctrinally strong and quite opinionated) who builds a movement they can join in some way. It is the nature of how our culture works. We want to believe in someone who can lead us, teach us, and even protect us. But in the end the only man you can fully trust, and should trust because he alone has the full blessing of God at all times, is the man Christ Jesus. You should only listen to me if my words and my actions point you to him. And even then you should never assume that because I have been blessed by God, and there can be no doubt to my mind that I have been, you can believe everything I do is touched by that blessing.

All of this challenges a major problem in our churches—the cult of personality. I have discovered, over the years, that you can draw crowds for Christian meetings if you secure the right speaker. If you get an excellent person, with a deep and clear message from God, it is simply not enough. You need the “hot” person, the guy everyone wants to hear. I suppose this is not new, since the Corinthian Church was rebuked for the very same problem (1 Corinthians 1–3). We have not come that far from the very problems faced by Paul in one of the more problematic churches in the first century.

By the way, the translators in Burkina Faso decided that “barkey” was the word they would use for blessing, even with its negative consequences. They decided this for two reasons. First, the other choices available in the local language seemed too weak. Second, the small church pastors would need to fill the word in with appropriate meaning. That is exactly my point. Understanding the meaning of words in one’s own context and culture is always the work of faithful teachers of the Word. I just wish more evangelical stars would admit this and resolve to help people see the real dangers. I suppose I wish for too much, but I plan to keep on hoping we can change the way we who teach and lead care for those who actually hear us and appreciate our ministries.

John H. Armstrong is founder and president of ACT 3, a ministry for the advancement of the Christian Tradition in the third millennium. He is a former pastor and church-planter, of more than twenty years, the author/editor of eight books, and the author of hundreds of magazine, journal, and Web based articles. John has served as the editor-in-chief of ACT 3 Review: A Journal for Faith, Church and Culture since its origin in 1992. But most importantly, he is our go-to professional religionist.

Perhaps, if Hillary Clinton gets the nod from the Democratic Party, this dynamic woman, often defined by “Christian radio” as a common enemy of the Religious Right, will bring the increasingly diverse segments of this conservative movement together for the general election. That is, of course, if someone other than Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination for the Republican Party. If Rudy gets the nomination, it is significant that Paul Wyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, has declared that he is likely to support Hillary, should she be the Democrat’s nominee. He has said that Hillary, while not wanting to ma