Sentimental Christianty

There's an interesting discussion occurring off-blog about Lonnie Hendrix's recent "God and Jane Fonda" posting. Here's a couple of excerpts from that post.

I have been saying for several years now that Christianity is NOT an intellectual experience. True Christianity is not found in a set of doctrines or teachings. Like God, it cannot be fully or adequately explained by ANY book or pamphlet. Paul wrote in many places that Christianity cannot be explained or understood using man's words and wisdom - that it is OUTSIDE of that realm. Christianity must be experienced on an emotional level - in the gut. I'm not saying that you have to experience Christianity in the same way (or using the same words) that Fonda did, but I am saying that you can't be a TRUE Christian by comprehending and/or adopting a set of beliefs as your own. Choose your own words, but you must be "begotten again" or "reborn."

Try to forget the literalist and fundamentalist baloney. Abandon the apologetics. You're never going to get there on that road... It turns out that the HEART and SENTIMENTALITY are what it's all about! You've got to FEEL it on the inside. Wipe that smug, self-righteous smirk off of your face and let God and Christ into your heart.

Do read the entire piece.

I guess I know where Lonnie is coming from. I certainly agree strongly with many of these statements, but I still did a double take. I'm not so sure that something called Christianity can be primarily "experienced on a emotional level - in the gut." That's where values come from, the still, small voice, the conviction that something is right - or wrong. But Christianity has no exclusive market on that. Isn't that the whole point of Romans 1:19-20?

And I'm not sure that the heart and sentimentality are what it's all about either. It took more than sentimentality to motivate the reformers and abolitionists who fought the slave trade, who campaigned for women's suffrage, who work today for a just society worth handing on to future generations. There were few more "sentimental" varieties of Christianity in the years leading up to World War One than German Protestantism, especially in its Pietistic form, but that seemed to matter not at all as nationalism swept across the face of Europe, and the pastors fell in behind the Kaiser in whipping up unquestioning patriotic fervor.

My point, I guess, is that to identify good feelings and sentiments with Christianity creates a category error. And to focus on good feelings and intentions can lead to quietism and withdrawal from the great issues which should command our attention and passionate advocacy. Christianity, under any positive definition I'd be comfortable with, is as much about the hand as the heart.

Christianity, Lonnie contends, comes to us from outside the realm of human words and wisdom. Again, I know what he means, but can anything beyond instinct and lower animal behaviour really be conveyed outside the realm of language? Even if that was true, which I personally doubt, there is no other place that it - or anything good - can be expressed other than in this messy realm with all its uncomfortable paradoxes.

Doctrine, apologetics... on these I agree wholeheartedly with Lonnie. But if you strip them away, I wonder if what you're left with is best described as something other than Christianity. And, in my view, intellectual rigor, engaging the mind, at least at a basic level, is a non-negotiable element in negotiating one's way through life - and that includes faith commitments of whatever stripe.

As Lonnie often says, what do you think?

O Tannenbaum, O Tannenbaum

If you were ever a member of the old Worldwide Church of God (or one of its offshoots) you know about the Christmas tree passage in Jeremiah 10. I certainly had it underlined and highlighted in my wide-margin KJV from that era.

"For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." (Jeremiah 10:3-4)

Clearly a precursor to the tinsel-decorated Christmas tree. As verse 2 thunders, "Learn not the way of the heathen".

How clear could it be? Well, maybe not as clear as we thought. The Remythologized blog has an entry called "No, Jeremiah 10 isn't a Christmas Tree." The writer finds textual reasons to show that the word 'workman' (he translates it as 'craftsman') refers to an idol maker. The passage is about a wooden idol, not a decorated tree.

The argument goes further than this though.

"Does it really make sense to argue that Christians should not make use of symbols with pagan origins or associations when Christians are either: a) totally unaware of a symbol’s history, or b) using the symbol with no pagan (or completely different) intentions? My problem with the Hebrew roots movement [he could have sad Churches of God] is that the standard of purity it uses to beat up Christian holidays and symbols cannot even be applied to the Bible. I’ll give you some examples:

"John uses a snake as a symbol for Jesus (John 3:14); it is well known that many of the Biblical proverbs have Egyptian origins and influences (If you don’t believe this you simply haven’t ever picked up an academic commentary on Proverbs.); Psalm 104 is very reminiscent of an earlier hymn to Aten; Psalm 29 seems to be modeled after Baal texts (for example); both Jesus and YHWH are given the Baal’s deity title “cloud-rider” in both testaments... or consider that the book of Revelation is crawling with Greco-Roman astrology. (Ever read Revelation 12?)

"What examples like these show is that symbols are not magically evil. John uses a snake to represent Jesus and it’s totally kosher in his mind. We talk about Jesus “riding on the clouds” and it’s not an issue that this was a title that originally belonged to Baal. The history of a symbol or its uses in pagan contexts doesn’t make it evil or unusable by Christians, it’s the intention behind the symbol that makes it good or bad."

All of which seems sage advice to me.

The demonic and the depressive (2 of 2)

I drive past the local Anglican parish church several times a week. An oppressive stone building, it sits on a main intersection in town. I've only been inside once, around age ten, when my parents drove up from Hamilton for a cousin's wedding. It seemed a fairly strange place to an out-of-town Lutheran kid, not least because of the impressive (brass?) eagle lectern which utterly fascinated my younger self. These seem to be features exclusively associated with Anglican churches and, I'm reliably informed, represent "St. John the Evangelist."

I wouldn't say this particular church is the ugliest I've seen. Churches of a similar age in Melbourne, judging from a trip there several years ago, probably trump this particular structure decisively. These buildings reflect a colonial age in which Christian worship was a rather dour, serious activity. Hushed voices, patronising ten-minute homilies, often cheerless hymnody, no room for spontaneity. The architecture was designed to put you in your lowly place. You attended because it was expected. Good people went to church in the same way good businessmen belonged to service groups like the Lions Club or Rotary. Which denomination largely depended on your family background. Scottish? Tick Presbyterian. English? Tick Anglican. Irish? Tick Catholic.

But times have changed, and the preference these days is for the bubble-gum flavoured mush that the happy-clappy charismatic, prosperity-focused churches vomit forth. The traditional churches haven't kept up. Perhaps they shouldn't even try, but the sad truth is that they're now so out of step with the surrounding culture that their demographic is rapidly sliding into senescence.

On an optimism-pessimism continuum, traditional churches tend to teeter at the depressive "op shop" end. Not that I'm against op shops, they provide a valuable service, but this is often as far as social engagement goes in the historic denominations - at least on a parish/congregational level. When your community PR and profile is mainly associated with this kind of down-in-the-mouth venture, it isn't likely that you're going to attract or retain millennials. It's worthy. It's earnest. But worthy and earnest need to be balanced with something from the joyful end of the spectrum. It makes more sense to me (but what do I know?) to have many local churches vigorously supporting a single initiative alongside other non-religious charitable groups with minimal - or no - church branding.

This whole thing is summed up for me in the audience response to a lecture at Auckland University some time ago by Amy-Jill Levine. Levine is both a New Testament scholar and Jewish. She constantly used humour in her presentation, and very effectively. The attendees were the local Christian theological set. What amazed me was how the humour completely went over the heads of at least half the listeners. I was sitting a couple of seats along from a couple of what seemed to be young religious professionals. They seemed genuinely immune. Certainly they were unappreciative - not even a smile, perhaps they were just puzzled. It was a hard room to play to. The thought that these blokes were going forth into pulpits the following Sunday was genuinely worrying. It still is.

The demonic and the depressive (1 of 2)

City Impact's Mortlock

The New Zealand Herald has unmasked the worst demon-spawned sects that create havoc across the country's Christian landscape.

Of course, that's not the kind of language the august Herald chooses to use, nor that of the expert commentator they quote, but that's how I see it.

I'm using the term "demonic" and "demon-spawned" in a metaphorical sense. There are no fallen angelic entities that correspond to the literal definition many people still quaver in fear of. Demonic is still a useful descriptor, however, for high demand religious movements which mercilessly exploit gullibility through manipulation - and line the pockets of their leaders in the process.

Only one of these cults (and yes, I'm aware that in the academic realm where religious studies are pursued "cult" is a word avoided at all costs) is not a "prosperity gospel" franchise; the faux-Amish Gloriavale community. Gloriavale is however perhaps the most controlling of these entities, especially if you're a woman or someone with any kind of thirst for independent thinking.

Not surprising to find "Bishop" Brian Tamaki's Destiny Church on the list, nor City Impact Church led by Peter Mortlock. The others include C3, Victory, Life NZ, Equippers and Arise.

"Combined, the religious charities have amassed assets worth more than $214m."

That won't sound like much by American standards, but New Zealand is a small, overwhelmingly secular nation with a population of under 5 million. 

What's the appeal of groups with rubbish theologies and narcissistic leadership models? Peter Lineham of Massey University, whose background is Open Brethren, notes:

"All of these churches hold to what we call the ­prosperity ­doctrine - which argues that the sign of God's love for you will be that you become rich and that you will earn God's love by the generosity of your gifts to the church."

Frankly, you'd have to wonder how stupid someone would have to be to embrace this kind of abuse. Yet many do, and with great enthusiasm. At that point abuse also becomes self-abuse.

But where are the prophetic voices in the more mature Christian community? The voices calling out the prosperity gospel and exposing it for what it is? Where are the prominent Baptists, Presbyterians and others who are willing to decry these caricatures of churches? For God's sake, surely this calls for - at the very least - a measure of indignation.

The silence is deafening. The truth is probably that the virus has infected their denominations too, and that any attempt to effectively address the issues would have catastrophic consequences in low-energy denominations which try and project a smiling, non-threatening, irenic face to the world.

And so the "demons" go unopposed.

No longer abiding (and other stuff)

The tiny Abiding Church of God is apparently no longer abiding, given that its website is down and its FB page hasn't been updated since last year. The group first came to public notice just last year as a splinter from Dave Pack's Restored Church of God (RCG). Maybe the webmaster just gave up, or perhaps the whole mini-sect has imploded. Does anyone care? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

If you haven't already seen it on Gary's blog, there's an excellent interview with Dennis Diehl available on the Ra-Men YouTube channel. Gotta say it, Den does an exceptional job. The interviewer is "Amon-Ra", who recently took Pack's idiotic take on creationism apart (one largely shared by other COG bodies) one bleeding chunk at a time. Great questions, great responses. The presentation lasts just under an hour.

What's happened with the Painful Truth blog is a bit of mystery. There are only three current posts up, then everything seems missing till it starts again back with May 2011 posts. What happened to everything in between? Douglas?

Note: the Abiding website is up again. Whew, what a relief.

Siesta time for Otagosh

UPDATED.

Keeping two blogs running is a demanding task, at least as far as I'm concerned. Over the years the balance has shifted back and forth between Otagosh and Ambassador Watch. The idea was to post more theological material - particularly related to biblical studies - on the former, and Church of God stories and commentary on the latter.

To simplify things I've decided to include all new Otagosh stories on AW first. The existing blog won't disappear. If you just want to view the latest posts that relate to the kind of things Otagosh has covered you can weed out the often surreal COG content with the Otagosh-specific link http://ambassadorwatch.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Otagosh 

Every so often, time permitting, I'll reblog relevant posts back over on AW as well. We'll see how it goes.

Gavin
 

The dangers of rose coloured glasses

Ah, the good old days before the world went to hell in a handcart. Things are just so bad these days, and they're only going to get worse. Oh, to wind things back to simpler Fred MacMurray My Three Sons times.

That's a popular narrative today. These are unsettling times.

But were they any less unsettling twenty, forty, sixty years ago? Really?

Pam Dewey has been busy producing a short (20 minute) "docucommentary", The Best of Times, part of her ongoing MythAmerica project. Here's the link where Pam introduces her work (which she also narrates) and where you can access it. Just hit play and don't forget the set it for full screen.

The Plain Truth About Balaam's Ass

If you thought you already had a handle on the famous talking donkey tale, you might want to check out Paul Davidson's blog. Things are not as simple as they seem. Paul provides a mixture of archaeological data along with some impressive textual detective work that explores the contradictory information found in the Bible. This is one of the smartest biblical commentators I know of, and he makes a pretty watertight case. The Balaam character evolved down the years from a prophet of God to a pagan bad guy.

If you needed any further evidence that the Bible can't just be read at face value, this about clinches it.

Rehashing Ernie

If you were around in the 1970s you'll remember the name Ernest L. Martin. Arguably Ernie was the greatest threat to the WCG at one stage, a former high-flying faculty member at Ambassador College with a disarming personal appeal. He was the Herman Hoeh of "the resistance" (like Hoeh his doctorate was unaccredited) and hugely influential as members started questioning things for themselves in the wake of the 1974 ministerial crisis. Martin talked and wrote openly about the New Covenant, the irrelevance of tithing and Sabbaths and something he termed "progressive revelation". He also adopted a form of "universal reconciliation" - inspired in part by Alfred. E. Knoch's Concordant Publishing Concern.

Not to say that Ernie was a "liberal" by non-COG standards. In many ways he continued to embrace a very wooden, literalist understanding of the Bible. Theologically tolerant he was not. I well remember a peevish letter he sent to Christianity Today making fun of an article on the Trinity. Many in the ex-WCG community however considered him a scholar without peer, especially as he churned out book after self-published book on everything from the Jerusalem temples to the star of Bethlehem. He died in 2002, and is modestly immortalized with a short Wikipedia entry.

Martin's magnum opus was supposed to be a fresh translation of the Bible putting the various books in what Martin considered their original order. After his death the task was passed on to James Tabor, from where it seems to have been slowly killed off.

In recent times Ernie's legacy has been faithfully promoted by David Sielaff. Sielaff continues to beat the prophecy drums, and to turn up to events like a recent "prophecy conference" in Colorado Springs. In his latest monthly newsletter to the dwindling faithful he explains how his views differ from the prophecy-obsessed evangelical fringe which he seems to freely mingle with. Sielaff also regurgitates a 1977 article on prophecy by his master.

The disciples of Ernie and his Foundation for Biblical Research (since morphed into Associates for Scriptural Knowledge) once made up the most radical wing of the WCG diaspora. Today what remains is looking very tired and shopworn. 

Everybody forgets Fred

Pack, Flurry, Meredith, Thiel, even Weinland. The narcissistic sect leaders we all so love to comment on and critique. If this was a soap opera, these would be the stars. Stringing along would be the leaders on a leash; Kubik and Frank (it's a shorter list) under the "also starring" label. Everyone else is relegated to an occasional "guest appearance". I suspect David Hulme is looking at a complete contract cancellation.

But trotting alongside patiently, often barely noticed, is Fred Coulter. Fred parted ways from the mother-ship shortly after Ted jumped into the shark-infested waters in 1978. Prior to that he was a California-based pastor, produced his own self-published Harmony of the Gospels and occasionally hosted a call-in radio show. Fair to say that, even then, he was a bit outside the usual ministerial stereotype. Perhaps he jumped before he was pushed. Fred established the Biblical Church of God (BCG) and produced a magazine called Bible Answers.

Alas, Fred had a Spanky moment (or more accurately, in later years Spanky was to have a Fred moment). Problems arose. The peasants were revolting. People were getting ideas above their station. Fred relaunched with the Christian Biblical Church of God (CBCG)... leaving the stroppy underlings out of the picture.

While Fred doesn't have a lot of profile, it isn't through lack of effort. In some parts of the world (New Zealand is one of them) the faithful followers of Fred are batting in the big league (the big league here being any COG sect with a mailing address and a minister).

It seems to me that Fred isn't to be counted among the more abusive COG leaders, which may be why he flies under the radar as much as he does. Listening to his sermons is an acquired taste - he makes Rod Meredith sound simply riveting by comparison. Don't believe me? Try his 1 hour 20 minute ramble on Brexit.

CBCG has recently held an Elders' Conference. Counting spouses, kids and curious members, over 150 are said to have turned up at the Hilton Cincinnati Airport Hotel. Actual elders? 17, including Lyall Johnston from New Zealand. Other registered attendees? 7.

(Lyall is an interesting chap. I knew his parents and brother's family in Invercargill many years ago. Genuinely nice people. Lyall returned here several years ago in the wake of WCG's dissolution and - please correct me if I'm wrong - attempted to get credentialed as a mainline minister. He apparently took on the job with Fred after the Stephen Gough fiasco and an initial transfer of leadership to son Chris Gough.)

Being a sprat in the fishpond doesn't stop Fred from thinking big. Some years ago he translated the New Testament into a kind of updated King James Version (A Faithful Version). No mean feat. How many COG translations other than Fred's can you think of? The Old Testament followed, but as I understand it he just bought an existing translation then edited it to fit his agenda, tweaked the proof texts (Hebrew isn't on his CV), then bunged it on the front of his New Testament. Full page ads in the BAR followed lauding the excellencies of this Bible, though he had to scrape pretty deep to find any favourable reviews to quote.

Speaking of the Bible, hallelujah, there's an app. The Fred Bible on your Android or Apple device. I needed to have a lie down and slowly sip a cup of weak tea just to bring my excitement under control. Sadly, I have too many thirsty apps on my phone as it is, so I guess I'll give this one a miss.