Recently, I received an email from an agnostic reader who asked my opinion about a problem. I thought my response might generate some conversation.
Dear Allen (the name has been changed),
Sorry it has taken me longer than expected to answer your email. Reading it again, I'm not quite sure what to tell you. I am the last person who would defend Christian denominations and their activities. Anglicanism is a mess. Thankfully, I am not an Anglican. But do I understand your situation correctly? You used the word "proselytize." Your brother-in-law is trying to "proselytize" you. I take this to mean that he is concerned for your rapidly aging soul. At our age (I'm 66 as well) that is no unimportant issue. We could be dead tomorrow (if not sooner). In answer to his concern, you raise your objections about what Anglicans are doing in Africa. Do I have that down right? So how in the world should you deal with this damnably irritating individual (whom you love and respect) regarding his futile attempts to save you? Is that the question?
In my experience, with all such people delicacy and sophistication simply do not work. No matter what his concerns may be that you are on your way to hell, you have every right to your opinions and privacy. In particular, within the confines of a family, no one should browbeat another. Sadly, I think there's no other alternative than a fairly brutal response. I suggest that you tell him with the utmost clarity that his attempts to save you will never work. You have made your decision regarding Christianity. While somewhat clinically fascinating as an example of spirituality, it will never be of any deeper personal interest to you. As a sophisticated man you are quite prepared for what you consider to be the minimal risks involved with this decision. The minor risk being that Jesus Christ is exactly who the Bible says he is and that your rejection of eternal salvation offered through him means that you will go to hell. While you don't believe this fantasy for a New York minute, you accept the logical potential that there is a very tiny percentage of possibility that it could be true. After all, in the insanity of our quantum universe almost anything could be true, if not in this dimension, then in some other. Accepting this tiny percentage of possibility and standing against it will prove one of two things - either you are a man of great moral courage who has risen above primitive ignorance or you are an arrogant, smug eternally self-destructive fool. One way or the other, I would inform your brother-in-law that you are ready, willing and able to take the risk.
Perhaps he is not fully aware of the important values held by every good agnostic. As gently as possible, I would inform him that you carry in your proverbial wallet an important piece of self-identification. It is your Professional Searchers Card and it qualifies you to dabble endlessly (well, not endlessly) at the smorgasbord of world spirituality - a dab of this, a titillating morsel of that. He needs to understand that Professional Searchers are members of a very exclusive club. Their self-esteem (some would call it arrogance or overweening pride, but why quibble?) is found at all costs in maintaining their life-long objectivity. The most important clause in the contract of club membership is that a Professional Searcher is not allowed ever to actually find anything of eternal and life-changing importance other than belief in the power of his own intellect and the rather entertaining illusion that he is master of his fate and captain of his soul. To invest in anything beyond this would mean an instantaneous and very humiliating loss of membership and the status accruing to it among his many sophisticated friends. Which, you might mention, brings up the most egregious claim of historic Christianity.
To be a Christian demands abject, self-mortifying humility. Not only must one believe in the anachronistic concept of sin, one must accept that he is a sinner deserving of hell before a Holy God. That is bad enough, but it gets infinitely worse. One must actually humble himself, ask forgiveness for his sins and then turn away from them, depending only on Jesus Christ, and his death on the cross to pay the eternal penalty for all the evil crap that he has done. You might mention to your brother-in-law that, not only is this unnecessary in your case, it is personally insulting and goes against every modern concept of psychological well-being, all of which, in one way or another, depend on stoically coping with human evil and murderous destructiveness, while desperately struggling to maintain a positive, life-affirming attitude - indeed, a truly heroic endeavor in the face of your own ever-approaching death.
So there we have it. The time for charm and patience is at an end. Give it to him with both barrels.
Of course, there is another way. I spent a significant portion of my life as a card-carrying Jackass. It was a great relief to get that card out of my wallet. For such a little piece of plastic, the thing was an amazingly heavy load that pulled my trousers down to my knees. Strangely, for a long time I was completely unaware that I was wandering through life as a bare-assed idiot. I was oblivious to the cool breeze swirling around my posterior because I was smugly pleased that my intellectual hair was combed and my tie was straight. But what am I blathering about? That was only me.
All the best,
Coleman Luck
Monday, February 13, 2012
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Freaks Rule
A friend read this recently and brought it back to my memory. It was written quite a while ago, but I think there is still a message in it for our pitiful, corrupted culture.
Freaks Rule
By
Coleman Luck
I grew up in the Chicago area. In the mid-fifties I was in the sixth grade. During those years I had a paper route. Talk about anachronisms, the only guys who have paper routes these days are middle-aged immigrants from Cambodia who drive around in mini-trucks plastering two thousand driveways a morning. Anyway I had this paper route and it was a miserable job – dogs in the summer, freezing your tail off all winter long, and once a month I had to collect. That meant wandering up and down the streets on a Saturday trying to get jerks to cough up a couple of bucks to keep me in business. But I was good at it. In sixth grade I won an award. I’ve forgotten what it was for, but the prize I will never forget. It was an evening at Riverview.
Now anybody who grew up in Chicago during that period remembers Riverview. It was one of those great old sleazy amusement parks, a bloated carnival on a permanent location with a wooden roller coaster and a pot load of other dangerous rides that looked like they’d disintegrate the moment you sat down on them. All summer long Riverview advertised on the Chicago TV stations. Their main pitchman was a local personality named “Two-Ton” Baker, a really fat guy who did noonday programs for kids. (Another anachronism: kids coming home from school for lunch.) So all summer there’d be these commercials showing old “Two-Ton” taking up two seats on a roller coaster yelling to display his sheer joy and probably to prove that if the thing held him it’d hold anybody. Anyway, you get the picture.
Riverview was the last gasp of an era. It died with the coming of the giant Nazi-World theme parks that we have today where everything is perfect all the time even the plants which they change constantly to make sure everything is always blooming. Riverview was an honest straightforward temptation. It whispered to kids, “Come walk in my shadows. Come listen to my rats crawling around behind the boards. Come debauch.” We loved it.
So I won this trip to Riverview and the greatest part of it was that my parents wouldn’t be going along. I’d be with a group of paperboy “winners” just like me, young delinquents in training. (This was long before girls would stoop to do such nasty jobs as paper routes.) And, the peak of ecstasy? Our “chaperones” would be the paperboy “supervisors” from The Daily Journal. Now my parents didn’t know it but these guys were absolute losers, basically lazy drunks who had been promoted far beyond their level of competence. Going with them was like going alone. They gave us cash and went off to a bar. Oh joy from heaven. Sixth grade. Money. And Riverview without adults.
When I say this was an old style amusement park I’m not joking. On the boardwalk it had a freak show. Can you imagine such a thing today? Try to picture a freak show at Disney World. Aren’t we glad that we’ve matured as a culture to the place where such things would never be allowed? Of course one could argue that Riverview simply had an appreciation for diversity, but we won’t go there. So after you’ve gorged yourself on delicious little bags of dead meat euphemistically called “hot dogs” and braved all the dangerous rides at least six times, where’s an eleven-year-old boy who appreciates diversity gonna be found? THE FREAK SHOW.
So, I bought my ticket and walked in.
I found myself in a stark ugly little room standing with a small crowd in a roped-off area. There was nothing fancy about this. It was as down and dirty as you can get. Three feet beyond the rope sitting on wood pedestals and little chairs were seven or eight freaks. And they were the full Monty. Nothing fake here. It was a collection of poor sad human beings with bodies that looked like they’d been created in a Hollywood visual effects house. The instant you walked in, there was a seriousness about the place. Nobody laughed. Nobody talked. The freaks looked at you and you looked at them and then you left. But while I was there, something happened in that room that I will remember as long as I live.
One of the freaks was a little old woman, probably in her sixties. No more than three feet tall, her face was deformed beyond ugliness and all of her limbs bent in the wrong direction. She was just sitting there and you could imagine that she’d done this all her life.
Suddenly into the room walked a man carrying a little girl about three years old. Why this idiot had brought her there no one could imagine. I was eleven and I was appalled. Of course at the time there was no rating system on freak shows so how could you blame him? Anyway, the man with the little girl stopped in front of the little old woman. The instant the child saw this frightening creature she became terrified and started to sob. It was a horrible moment. Then, as I watched, that little deformed grandmotherly lady started to cry too. Quietly, without a sound, the tears ran down her face. After all the years of being stared at, all the years of loneliness and pain, the humanity in her eyes was overwhelming. And then she spoke. That little woman began to talk to the little girl. Softly, with a voice like your grandmother's and mine she tried to comfort her, to take away her fear, to reach out with words because her arms weren’t long enough and they bent in the wrong direction. It was one gentle heart whispering to another. Now eleven-year-old boys are not known for their deep sensitivity, but if I live to be a thousand I will never forget that scene.
Over forty years have passed since that night. Riverview is long gone and I was thinking about freaks the other day. We’ve heard a great deal over the past months about the idea that we are a nation ruled by law. Untrue. We are a nation ruled by stories. The stories we love reveal who we are and what we are becoming. Based on that fact, William Jefferson Clinton belongs in the White House. He has the moral right to remain there for the rest of his life. Why? Because he is the living embodiment of our collective story. And, if we were going to make that story into a film, it would be titled, “Freaks Rule.” Not the good honest freaks of Riverview, the true freaks. Us.
We are the freaks who stand inside the rope watching others wallow in degradation and pain and enjoying the view. We are the fathers who sit up late at night after our wives and children are in bed sucking cyberporn off the Internet. We are the mothers titillated by the human fecal matter that we chew and swallow dished up on so-called “reality shows.” We are the hip and cool young executives screwing each other’s brains out after hours on the conference table and then popping pills to stave off the effects of sexually transmitted disease. We are the teenagers, the generation of nightmares swimming in fake blood and gore loving vicarious mayhem and terror. Freaks all. Freaks who have managed to be born with the ability to hide our true ugliness.
What is the breadth and depth of our freakhood? Nothing less than this: As a nation, we are Monica Lewinsky. That poor young woman is simply our surrogate freak, our national daughter sent to spend her holy year of shrine prostitution in the temples of power. Monica knew the proper position of a worshiper. On her knees. And we worship with her falling down before the starry host of freaks that we have created in sports and politics and Hollywood, desperate for our own fifteen minutes of glory. We need a new Statue of Liberty and Monica could be the model. Coiffured and bereted, twenty stories tall, staring out at the world from New York Harbor, she could proclaim, “Give me your proud, your arrogant and your vain so that I can show them the pleasures of liberty.” As much as you hate to hear it, friends, that is our national story. And stories rule.
But in my heart I wish I could change our story and tell a new one so radical that everyone would freeze in shock. Maybe I could make it into a film. Here’s the basic outline: Let’s imagine that someone new was placed in the Oval Office. Maybe for just a month. Of course, the President’s chair would be too big for her. She’d need several phone books just to be seen. She wouldn’t be able to write very well. No rose-garden bill-signing parties jammed with the fatuous elite. After all, her arms would be short and they’d bend in the wrong directions. When the TV cameras focused on her many of us would be filled with anger and revulsion. We’d demand to know why such an aberration had been allowed to live, why her mother hadn’t ended her life in a merciful abortion.
But she wouldn’t listen to our raging. There’s nothing we could say that she hadn’t heard a thousand times. In fact she probably wouldn’t talk to us at all. Instead she’d talk to our terrified children. And with her soft words and tears maybe they’d be able to see beyond her ugliness into eyes filled with love, beautiful beyond comprehension, because in her suffering she had seen the Face of God.
If only we had a true, honest freak in the White House to begin a new national story. And, I think thirty days would be long enough. At that freak show in Riverview, it took only five minutes for an eleven-year-old boy.
© Copyright Coleman Luck 1998 Free to use with attribution.
Freaks Rule
By
Coleman Luck
I grew up in the Chicago area. In the mid-fifties I was in the sixth grade. During those years I had a paper route. Talk about anachronisms, the only guys who have paper routes these days are middle-aged immigrants from Cambodia who drive around in mini-trucks plastering two thousand driveways a morning. Anyway I had this paper route and it was a miserable job – dogs in the summer, freezing your tail off all winter long, and once a month I had to collect. That meant wandering up and down the streets on a Saturday trying to get jerks to cough up a couple of bucks to keep me in business. But I was good at it. In sixth grade I won an award. I’ve forgotten what it was for, but the prize I will never forget. It was an evening at Riverview.
Now anybody who grew up in Chicago during that period remembers Riverview. It was one of those great old sleazy amusement parks, a bloated carnival on a permanent location with a wooden roller coaster and a pot load of other dangerous rides that looked like they’d disintegrate the moment you sat down on them. All summer long Riverview advertised on the Chicago TV stations. Their main pitchman was a local personality named “Two-Ton” Baker, a really fat guy who did noonday programs for kids. (Another anachronism: kids coming home from school for lunch.) So all summer there’d be these commercials showing old “Two-Ton” taking up two seats on a roller coaster yelling to display his sheer joy and probably to prove that if the thing held him it’d hold anybody. Anyway, you get the picture.
Riverview was the last gasp of an era. It died with the coming of the giant Nazi-World theme parks that we have today where everything is perfect all the time even the plants which they change constantly to make sure everything is always blooming. Riverview was an honest straightforward temptation. It whispered to kids, “Come walk in my shadows. Come listen to my rats crawling around behind the boards. Come debauch.” We loved it.
So I won this trip to Riverview and the greatest part of it was that my parents wouldn’t be going along. I’d be with a group of paperboy “winners” just like me, young delinquents in training. (This was long before girls would stoop to do such nasty jobs as paper routes.) And, the peak of ecstasy? Our “chaperones” would be the paperboy “supervisors” from The Daily Journal. Now my parents didn’t know it but these guys were absolute losers, basically lazy drunks who had been promoted far beyond their level of competence. Going with them was like going alone. They gave us cash and went off to a bar. Oh joy from heaven. Sixth grade. Money. And Riverview without adults.
When I say this was an old style amusement park I’m not joking. On the boardwalk it had a freak show. Can you imagine such a thing today? Try to picture a freak show at Disney World. Aren’t we glad that we’ve matured as a culture to the place where such things would never be allowed? Of course one could argue that Riverview simply had an appreciation for diversity, but we won’t go there. So after you’ve gorged yourself on delicious little bags of dead meat euphemistically called “hot dogs” and braved all the dangerous rides at least six times, where’s an eleven-year-old boy who appreciates diversity gonna be found? THE FREAK SHOW.
So, I bought my ticket and walked in.
I found myself in a stark ugly little room standing with a small crowd in a roped-off area. There was nothing fancy about this. It was as down and dirty as you can get. Three feet beyond the rope sitting on wood pedestals and little chairs were seven or eight freaks. And they were the full Monty. Nothing fake here. It was a collection of poor sad human beings with bodies that looked like they’d been created in a Hollywood visual effects house. The instant you walked in, there was a seriousness about the place. Nobody laughed. Nobody talked. The freaks looked at you and you looked at them and then you left. But while I was there, something happened in that room that I will remember as long as I live.
One of the freaks was a little old woman, probably in her sixties. No more than three feet tall, her face was deformed beyond ugliness and all of her limbs bent in the wrong direction. She was just sitting there and you could imagine that she’d done this all her life.
Suddenly into the room walked a man carrying a little girl about three years old. Why this idiot had brought her there no one could imagine. I was eleven and I was appalled. Of course at the time there was no rating system on freak shows so how could you blame him? Anyway, the man with the little girl stopped in front of the little old woman. The instant the child saw this frightening creature she became terrified and started to sob. It was a horrible moment. Then, as I watched, that little deformed grandmotherly lady started to cry too. Quietly, without a sound, the tears ran down her face. After all the years of being stared at, all the years of loneliness and pain, the humanity in her eyes was overwhelming. And then she spoke. That little woman began to talk to the little girl. Softly, with a voice like your grandmother's and mine she tried to comfort her, to take away her fear, to reach out with words because her arms weren’t long enough and they bent in the wrong direction. It was one gentle heart whispering to another. Now eleven-year-old boys are not known for their deep sensitivity, but if I live to be a thousand I will never forget that scene.
Over forty years have passed since that night. Riverview is long gone and I was thinking about freaks the other day. We’ve heard a great deal over the past months about the idea that we are a nation ruled by law. Untrue. We are a nation ruled by stories. The stories we love reveal who we are and what we are becoming. Based on that fact, William Jefferson Clinton belongs in the White House. He has the moral right to remain there for the rest of his life. Why? Because he is the living embodiment of our collective story. And, if we were going to make that story into a film, it would be titled, “Freaks Rule.” Not the good honest freaks of Riverview, the true freaks. Us.
We are the freaks who stand inside the rope watching others wallow in degradation and pain and enjoying the view. We are the fathers who sit up late at night after our wives and children are in bed sucking cyberporn off the Internet. We are the mothers titillated by the human fecal matter that we chew and swallow dished up on so-called “reality shows.” We are the hip and cool young executives screwing each other’s brains out after hours on the conference table and then popping pills to stave off the effects of sexually transmitted disease. We are the teenagers, the generation of nightmares swimming in fake blood and gore loving vicarious mayhem and terror. Freaks all. Freaks who have managed to be born with the ability to hide our true ugliness.
What is the breadth and depth of our freakhood? Nothing less than this: As a nation, we are Monica Lewinsky. That poor young woman is simply our surrogate freak, our national daughter sent to spend her holy year of shrine prostitution in the temples of power. Monica knew the proper position of a worshiper. On her knees. And we worship with her falling down before the starry host of freaks that we have created in sports and politics and Hollywood, desperate for our own fifteen minutes of glory. We need a new Statue of Liberty and Monica could be the model. Coiffured and bereted, twenty stories tall, staring out at the world from New York Harbor, she could proclaim, “Give me your proud, your arrogant and your vain so that I can show them the pleasures of liberty.” As much as you hate to hear it, friends, that is our national story. And stories rule.
But in my heart I wish I could change our story and tell a new one so radical that everyone would freeze in shock. Maybe I could make it into a film. Here’s the basic outline: Let’s imagine that someone new was placed in the Oval Office. Maybe for just a month. Of course, the President’s chair would be too big for her. She’d need several phone books just to be seen. She wouldn’t be able to write very well. No rose-garden bill-signing parties jammed with the fatuous elite. After all, her arms would be short and they’d bend in the wrong directions. When the TV cameras focused on her many of us would be filled with anger and revulsion. We’d demand to know why such an aberration had been allowed to live, why her mother hadn’t ended her life in a merciful abortion.
But she wouldn’t listen to our raging. There’s nothing we could say that she hadn’t heard a thousand times. In fact she probably wouldn’t talk to us at all. Instead she’d talk to our terrified children. And with her soft words and tears maybe they’d be able to see beyond her ugliness into eyes filled with love, beautiful beyond comprehension, because in her suffering she had seen the Face of God.
If only we had a true, honest freak in the White House to begin a new national story. And, I think thirty days would be long enough. At that freak show in Riverview, it took only five minutes for an eleven-year-old boy.
© Copyright Coleman Luck 1998 Free to use with attribution.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Let's Get Rid of the Word "Sin"
It’s time to face reality. This word has lost all functional meaning in postmodern society. When people hear it now, it connotes one of several unintended definitions. For many it’s nothing more than irrelevant religious jargon flung about to promote judgmentalism as in, “You’re just tryin’ to guilt me, man. Who are you to tell me how I should live my life?” Then there is the titillating definition of sin. Sin is secret pleasure, something you enjoy and the fact that others think it’s wrong makes it all the sweeter. When you sin you’re cutting-edge and part of a secret club of cool, hip, sick (or whatever your cliché) people. I think for most postmoderns, especially those under thirty, the word “sin” doesn’t mean anything at all. It flies right over their heads.
I have heard countless preachers and Bible teachers try to define sin so that people could really understand the seriousness of it. They’ve gone back into the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible. They’ve used illustrations. I’ve done all of that myself. It isn’t working. There is no traction here. The sin tire is bald. So I suggest that we drop the word altogether and replace it with one that really communicates what sin is. Instead of sin, let’s use the word shit.
I know there are many sweetie-pie Christians who will cringe at this word. These are the nice people who think Jesus is just all about huggy relationships. Thomas Kinkade is their kind of artist. They love the gagging syrupy treacle of so-called Christian “worship” music. They want their religion full of positive, inspiring, feel-good language. And the word shit just doesn’t feel good. It’s ugly, filthy and offensive, right out of the gutter. Certainly, we wouldn’t want to offend people by using it in our lily-pure churches. We wouldn’t want to describe the actions of men like the Reverend Ted Haggard, the Reverend Eddie Long and a host of others as shit. Most of all, I don’t want to characterize my little harmless indiscretions as shit.
But let me tell you something, shit communicates. To see what I mean, let’s try it in some well-known Bible verses (with apologies to the New International Version):
How about the story of the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus? John 8:6-11 - But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you doesn’t have any moral and spiritual shit in his life let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of moral and spiritual shit."
Romans 6:23 - For the end result of all our moral and spiritual shit is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8: 1-3 - Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of moral and spiritual shit and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by our shit-filled nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of shit-filled man to be an offering for all the moral and spiritual shit that we have committed.
1 John 1:5-10 - This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all our moral and spiritual shit. If we claim to be without moral and spiritual shit, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our filthy shit, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our moral and spiritual shit and purify us from all our filth. If we claim we have not committed such shit, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Did that offend you? I make no apology.
When I was a teenager I had a friend who worked part-time at our town’s sewage treatment plant. He gave me a tour. During the tour, he told me about a guy who fell into a huge vat full of shit. Probably the story is apocryphal, but as I stood in front of such a vat while he told it, I was impressed. Anyway, my friend said they pulled the guy out and cleaned him off, but it didn’t do any good. He died of infection.
Here’s the message of the Bible: Sin isn’t just some trite judgmental term or some titillating little secret pleasure. It really is deadly moral and spiritual shit and unless something is done about it it sticks on you forever killing you slowly with a thousand infections.
Just imagine walking around every day of your life covered with shit. You wreak to high heaven and you’re dying, but you refuse to accept that fact. You think everything is cool. If you do detect a slight odor you cover it up with the perfume of an occasional good deed or positive thought. All that does is make you smell like a two-dollar whore with dysentery. That’s how we look and smell to a totally clean and Holy God.
One of the reasons we ignore our shit is because the whole world is filled with shit-covered people and we think we smell better than most, so we’re fine. Do you disagree with that? If so, what planet are you living on? If we’re honest we know we’re not cleaner than anybody else. We fit right in because we’ve done lots of bad shit to ourselves and others. So no lazy-ass excuses!
Well, here’s a “duh” question: If you’re covered with shit what do you need? That’s right, A BATH. A good hot bath will wash away physical shit (assuming you haven’t sucked it into your body like the guy at the treatment plant), but it won’t do anything for moral and spiritual shit. That’s the amazing part of God’s story. He loved us so much that He sent His only Son Jesus into this shit-filled wreaking world. (Would you send your son to swim in one of those vats?) And why did He do it? To pull us out and wash us clean so we wouldn't have to die forever. Our soul-shit can be washed clean only by the blood that Jesus shed on the Cross.
But here’s the warning: If you don’t think you need that blood bath to wash the shit off your soul, if you think everything is cool and you smell great, you will never get into Heaven because shit-covered people aren’t allowed there. And it’s logical. Would you want a shit-covered person for a roommate?
The question is how honest are you? If you know that you’re covered with shit and you can’t stand your own wreaking smell (believe me, I’ve been there), if you’re sick of it and you long to be clean, God is waiting for you to tell Him that and ask for a clean new life. He can do it, He WILL do it, because He’s God and He loves you - even covered in a thick coat of nasty brown. So how long are you going to stay this way? Get a bath before you die, because then it’s too late.
© Coleman Luck 2011. www.colemanluck.com Free to be reproduced (if you dare) with proper attribution including website. (For pity’s sake, you don’t want anybody to think you wrote this.)
I have heard countless preachers and Bible teachers try to define sin so that people could really understand the seriousness of it. They’ve gone back into the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible. They’ve used illustrations. I’ve done all of that myself. It isn’t working. There is no traction here. The sin tire is bald. So I suggest that we drop the word altogether and replace it with one that really communicates what sin is. Instead of sin, let’s use the word shit.
I know there are many sweetie-pie Christians who will cringe at this word. These are the nice people who think Jesus is just all about huggy relationships. Thomas Kinkade is their kind of artist. They love the gagging syrupy treacle of so-called Christian “worship” music. They want their religion full of positive, inspiring, feel-good language. And the word shit just doesn’t feel good. It’s ugly, filthy and offensive, right out of the gutter. Certainly, we wouldn’t want to offend people by using it in our lily-pure churches. We wouldn’t want to describe the actions of men like the Reverend Ted Haggard, the Reverend Eddie Long and a host of others as shit. Most of all, I don’t want to characterize my little harmless indiscretions as shit.
But let me tell you something, shit communicates. To see what I mean, let’s try it in some well-known Bible verses (with apologies to the New International Version):
How about the story of the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus? John 8:6-11 - But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you doesn’t have any moral and spiritual shit in his life let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of moral and spiritual shit."
Romans 6:23 - For the end result of all our moral and spiritual shit is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8: 1-3 - Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of moral and spiritual shit and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by our shit-filled nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of shit-filled man to be an offering for all the moral and spiritual shit that we have committed.
1 John 1:5-10 - This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all our moral and spiritual shit. If we claim to be without moral and spiritual shit, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our filthy shit, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our moral and spiritual shit and purify us from all our filth. If we claim we have not committed such shit, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Did that offend you? I make no apology.
When I was a teenager I had a friend who worked part-time at our town’s sewage treatment plant. He gave me a tour. During the tour, he told me about a guy who fell into a huge vat full of shit. Probably the story is apocryphal, but as I stood in front of such a vat while he told it, I was impressed. Anyway, my friend said they pulled the guy out and cleaned him off, but it didn’t do any good. He died of infection.
Here’s the message of the Bible: Sin isn’t just some trite judgmental term or some titillating little secret pleasure. It really is deadly moral and spiritual shit and unless something is done about it it sticks on you forever killing you slowly with a thousand infections.
Just imagine walking around every day of your life covered with shit. You wreak to high heaven and you’re dying, but you refuse to accept that fact. You think everything is cool. If you do detect a slight odor you cover it up with the perfume of an occasional good deed or positive thought. All that does is make you smell like a two-dollar whore with dysentery. That’s how we look and smell to a totally clean and Holy God.
One of the reasons we ignore our shit is because the whole world is filled with shit-covered people and we think we smell better than most, so we’re fine. Do you disagree with that? If so, what planet are you living on? If we’re honest we know we’re not cleaner than anybody else. We fit right in because we’ve done lots of bad shit to ourselves and others. So no lazy-ass excuses!
Well, here’s a “duh” question: If you’re covered with shit what do you need? That’s right, A BATH. A good hot bath will wash away physical shit (assuming you haven’t sucked it into your body like the guy at the treatment plant), but it won’t do anything for moral and spiritual shit. That’s the amazing part of God’s story. He loved us so much that He sent His only Son Jesus into this shit-filled wreaking world. (Would you send your son to swim in one of those vats?) And why did He do it? To pull us out and wash us clean so we wouldn't have to die forever. Our soul-shit can be washed clean only by the blood that Jesus shed on the Cross.
But here’s the warning: If you don’t think you need that blood bath to wash the shit off your soul, if you think everything is cool and you smell great, you will never get into Heaven because shit-covered people aren’t allowed there. And it’s logical. Would you want a shit-covered person for a roommate?
The question is how honest are you? If you know that you’re covered with shit and you can’t stand your own wreaking smell (believe me, I’ve been there), if you’re sick of it and you long to be clean, God is waiting for you to tell Him that and ask for a clean new life. He can do it, He WILL do it, because He’s God and He loves you - even covered in a thick coat of nasty brown. So how long are you going to stay this way? Get a bath before you die, because then it’s too late.
© Coleman Luck 2011. www.colemanluck.com Free to be reproduced (if you dare) with proper attribution including website. (For pity’s sake, you don’t want anybody to think you wrote this.)
Monday, September 6, 2010
Response to Jack
Jack's comments to my last post are important enough to warrant a new post.
Jack,
Thanks so much for your comments. I do appreciate them. It appears that you are a devout Christian so I will frame my response with that in mind. On the face of it, your arguments seem so reasonable. How could anyone disagree? I’m sure your motives are pure. You want the best for our country. You want Christian people to participate in a political/spiritual revolution that you hope will save America from its precipitous slide toward destruction. And Mr. Beck seems to offer the right attitudes, information and leadership. While he is a talented individual and while much (though certainly not all) that he says is correct, I contend that with him comes a huge amount of baggage that no thinking Christian will want to carry. I believe that accepting his leadership will bring very powerful unintended consequences that will not make things better, but far worse. I hope you won’t be offended if I analyze your comments. I fear they prove that what I said in my original post is correct. Let’s take them one by one:
1.“When Glenn Beck calls our country back to God, each person comes back to God in the way that is consistent with their faith - it's not a syncretistic move.”
I have to be honest. In my opinion this is a very disturbing statement coming from a Christian. On the face of it it sounds wonderful. But let’s be rigorous in asking logical questions. As you know, Glenn Beck casts the widest possible net in calling people back to “God.” Always he uses “God” singular, doesn’t he? So we have to ask, what God? Only the Judeo/Christian God? I doubt that he would want to limit his call to that. After all, there are Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus in this country who are loyal citizens. Is he leaving them out? I’m sure he would say no.
So is he calling Mormons and Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and Christians and Jews all back to the same God? That’s the implication of your statement. “Each person comes back to God in the way that is consistent with their faith.” Do you mean that Jesus and Allah and Buddha and Krishna and Yahweh and the Mormon “father god” who physically copulated with Mary to produce Jesus, et al. are all just different names for the same Supreme Being? Is there just one God and many ways to reach Him? If that’s what he’s saying, I’m sure you would disagree, as would thinking people of most faiths. People really do worship different gods. Trying to make them all into one Being simply doesn’t work.
Does that mean that Mr. Beck is calling devout people of all religions back to their particular god? And are all of them equal? As a Mormon he isn’t a Universalist. If Mormons believed in Universalism, why send out thousands upon thousands of young missionaries to convert people? Then why does he use the language and inclusiveness of Universalism? The only answer can be that for him the end justifies the means. He is doing it to build a spiritual/political constituency to accomplish what he considers to be righteous goals.
But is this legitimate?
Should a Christian buy into that agenda with him, accepting his statements of Universalism in order save the country? God forbid. There is spiritual destruction built into it. It’s clear that Mr. Beck isn’t presenting himself simply as a political leader and philosopher. On that basis I wouldn’t waste my time writing about him. He is presenting himself as a spiritual religious leader. Accepting him in that role and the baggage that comes with it is precisely what I mean by syncretism.
The heart of religious syncretism is the subtle redefinition of words and having the new definitions accepted without serious thought. There are many ways to accomplish this agenda. To get Christians to agree even on a tacit level that we are all worshipping the same god and accepting the spiritual leadership of a cultist to boot is the ultimate in religious syncretism. That leaven will permeate the whole loaf. At the very least, Mormonism is accomplishing through him one of its most cherished goals, to be considered nothing more than another Christian denomination. And polls tell us that is exactly what is happening. You may be sophisticated enough in your faith to make all the subtle distinctions necessary to accept Mr. Beck’s political call without accepting his spiritual agenda. How about the millions of people who aren’t? Where does the New Testament Law of the Weaker Brother come into this?
2.“Our theological beliefs are not the same, but we are co-belligerents with those calling us back to a the belief that America was founded on the morality of the Christian faith, and the belief in a Creator who gave us these rights as listed in the Declaration of Independence.”
You have stated well a popular belief that Mr. Beck speaks about constantly. But is it true? Or more explicitly is he telling the whole truth? Was America founded simply on the “common morality of the Christian faith?” Mr. Beck and many others love to quote what I call the statements of Civic Religion made by our Founding Fathers.
What was the true religious foundation of America? Where was America spiritually born? It wasn’t in Philadelphia in 1776. It was in that amazing period called the Great Awakening. Mr. Beck has talked about this event in glowing terms, but he never gets to the heart of it. And there is a reason why. To do so would get far too specific for his religious agenda. Like everything else having to do with religion, he chooses to present the Great Awakening in vague terms about “coming back to God.”
But look at the history of it. For years in the early part of the 18th century, the Great Awakening swept through the colonies. It was based on the powerful preaching of George Whitefield, the Wesleys and others. That preaching was anything but a general call to “come back to God.” It was a specific call for sinful people to repent to escape the Judgment of God. It was a call to place their faith in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation. And untold thousands heeded it. In large part, it was out of a new freedom from sin and guilt found in Christ by so many people that the desire for political and governmental freedom was born. So, if you want to find the Christian foundation of America go back to the preaching about sin and repentance and salvation only in Christ that transformed this country so long ago. This foundation meant all the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The French Revolution was a blood-bath based largely on the “values” of the so-called Enlightenment totally apart from true Christianity.
The Great Awakening translated into an understanding among our Founding Fathers that they had to speak the religious language of the masses. Were there true Christians in their number? Absolutely! But also there were Deists, agnostics, Unitarians and Freemasons. At that period, even many of the non-Christians felt that Christianity was an important element in the foundation of a civil society. In their writings they chose a common religious language that would build consensus and be as inoffensive as possible. This became what was handed down to us over the past centuries, a Civic Religion that talked about God and prayer, etc., but rarely mentioned Jesus Christ. Christians could read into it whatever they wanted. Like sheep that’s exactly what we have done. For a long time it worked.
This social contract held until the 20th century when attacks on religion became rampant. Now it has completely fallen apart. In my opinion, that was inevitable. The amazing thing is that it held as long as it did for there is no lasting power in Civic Religion because it cannot redeem the soul. In the past, Civic Religion depended for its existence on agreement about the value and purpose of America, common morality and a strong work ethic. All of that is gone and will not return without another TRUE Great Awakening. Even in our Christian churches common morality has vanished. Glenn Beck is calling us back to a Civic Religion that is utterly powerless except to build dissension. All of his words about faith, hope and charity are nothing more than pretty ideals without individual and collective repentance for sin and redemption through the shed blood of Jesus Christ God’s only Son. So if you are a “co-belligerent,” fighting under Mr. Beck’s banner, you are fighting for a losing cause. Not only will it prove futile, there is something far worse than our current crisis that it could bring.
Here is an interesting thought. As much as Mr. Beck talks about faith, in Mormonism salvation is gained through works. In a slightly different form salvation by works is the heart of Liberation Theology, the faith of Barack Obama.
3.“There is no pure theologian who is going to take this leadership. No one is without their own particular slant on faith. Are we not going to rally to a cause we think is in the right direction until we find a person who thinks exactly like we do? We have to learn how to live as saints in an imperfect place… We have to make decisions and move ahead without everyone involved being the purist we want them to be. Too much is at stake for us to not act.”
I know you don’t mean this as a statement of lack of faith, but certainly it can come off that way. I’m afraid I have no idea what you mean by a “pure theologian.” I don’t think a single one of the prophets or apostles of the Bible would have considered himself a “pure theologian” not even St. Paul. Do you mean by pure theologian someone pure in his beliefs about Jesus, someone raised up by God to speak the truth and call people to repentance in Jesus Christ as the foundation for a just and compassionate society?
So, because we are frightened and impatient and no one like that seems to have appeared (or at least no one who has the platform of Fox News) are you saying that we should follow the next best thing – someone raised up by Rupert Murdoch? Somehow this reminds me of King Saul in First Samuel 13 who couldn’t wait for God’s anointed, took things into his own hands and destroyed his kingdom.
Following our own natural desires (so many of which are based on fear) is much easier than prayer and waiting on God. We like the spiritual feeling that comes with being part of a great movement. It is an actual physical high to be surrounded by huge masses of like-minded people. That’s why we have mega-churches and rock concerts. But this is a delusion. All through the Bible it was the lone voice crying out truth in the wilderness that made all the difference. The first measure of learning to be a saint in a fallen world is that we learn to be true to the Bible and let that, no matter how uncomfortable, be the guide of our decisions. Has God lost His Power to raise up a Whitefield or a Wesley or are we so weak, miserable, fearful and faithless that we will settle for what we consider the next best thing?
4.“Glenn Beck's call to return to God is no different than Benjamin Franklin's. Should the Christians of Franklin's day have refused to vote in favor of America becoming an independent nation because Benjamin Franklin wasn't a real Christian? Should they have refused to offer up the prayer that Franklin called them to, because not everyone in the room had the same theology?”
Okay, I hope you will forgive me if my fallen shark-like nature rises to this blood. I would never put Glenn Beck on the level of a Benjamin Franklin. He’s far too moral. Think about it this way. Imagine that old Ben were living in our day. He’d have his own reality show. He would be a kind of fat, gray, intellectual male version of the Kardashians. Each week we would watch him gleefully fornicate his way through France and England dropping pearls of wisdom in every bed. (Did I just write that?) I could imagine half a season on the Hellfire Club alone. He would be a regular at the Playboy Mansion and on Letterman. He and Bill Clinton would share a cigar. (It’s getting worse, I’ve got to stop.) Let’s face it, if all the devout Christians of Ben’s day had known the truth about his hidden life, when he gave a call to prayer he would have been laughed from the room. I hope those Christians didn’t make their decision to vote for America based on his spiritual leadership.
The great evangelist George Whitefield wrote about several contacts that he had with Benjamin Franklin. In those meetings Whitefield implored him to repent of his sins and give his life to Jesus Christ. Ben politely refused. Franklin attended Whitefield’s mass outdoor meetings in Philadelphia where Jesus Christ was faithfully preached. His only interest was in measuring the amazing distance that Whitefield’s voice carried in the open air (over a mile) and how powerful he was in taking offerings for the poor. A look at Franklin brings an important point. As Christians we can appreciate his intellect, follow his great political and governmental wisdom, like him personally and find him endlessly entertaining, all without accepting him as a spiritual leader. Though he may have offered an occasional prayer, thank God Franklin was not interested in that role.
5.“And why aren't you registered with a political party? You are letting down the country. You can't vote in primary elections in California. If every Christian did that because he was a "Christian" and therefore too pure to be involved in the political process, the world would be handed to Satan just as Hollywood was handed to Satan in the 1920s.”
Jack, forgive me if I expel an evil chuckle. I’m letting down the country if I don’t vote in California primaries? Really? We do know how effective and important California primaries are, don’t we? But I assure you my decisions are not based on any conception that I am too Christian and “pure.” I’m afraid my attitude toward elections was presented brilliantly in an hilarious episode of South Park. I can’t quote from it, it’s too obscene, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
I’m sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil. And almost always the lesser of two evils is our only choice. I refuse to be forced into voting for the lesser of two evils because if I don’t the country will go down the rat hole. We have been voting for the lesser of two evils for decade upon decade and look where it’s gotten us. That doesn’t mean that the person I vote for has to agree with me on every issue. And certainly the person doesn’t have to be a Christian. I’m at the place where if a candidate makes stirring claims to be a Christian I probably won’t vote for him because very likely he is either a fool or corrupt or both. How sad is that? Unfortunately, based upon past experience it’s realistic.
And as far as Hollywood is concerned, I know something about the history of my industry. Don’t be so certain that Hollywood was handed to Satan in the 1920’s because of a lack of Christian involvement. And a side point: I dread to think of the kinds of films that Hollywood would have been making if so-called “Christian moguls” had been in control. All we’d be getting are Christian “dog movies” where our little spiritual canine buddies folded their paws and said “grace” before every meal.
A last thought about Glenn Beck. One of the clearest indicators that something is deeply wrong is the way Christian guests on his programs fawn over him, showering him with ego-fattening flattery for his “spiritual leadership.” Is there not one person who is willing to confront him gently and lovingly about the lost state of his soul? Or are we so self-centered that we don’t care?
Once again, thanks so much for your comments.
Coleman
Jack,
Thanks so much for your comments. I do appreciate them. It appears that you are a devout Christian so I will frame my response with that in mind. On the face of it, your arguments seem so reasonable. How could anyone disagree? I’m sure your motives are pure. You want the best for our country. You want Christian people to participate in a political/spiritual revolution that you hope will save America from its precipitous slide toward destruction. And Mr. Beck seems to offer the right attitudes, information and leadership. While he is a talented individual and while much (though certainly not all) that he says is correct, I contend that with him comes a huge amount of baggage that no thinking Christian will want to carry. I believe that accepting his leadership will bring very powerful unintended consequences that will not make things better, but far worse. I hope you won’t be offended if I analyze your comments. I fear they prove that what I said in my original post is correct. Let’s take them one by one:
1.“When Glenn Beck calls our country back to God, each person comes back to God in the way that is consistent with their faith - it's not a syncretistic move.”
I have to be honest. In my opinion this is a very disturbing statement coming from a Christian. On the face of it it sounds wonderful. But let’s be rigorous in asking logical questions. As you know, Glenn Beck casts the widest possible net in calling people back to “God.” Always he uses “God” singular, doesn’t he? So we have to ask, what God? Only the Judeo/Christian God? I doubt that he would want to limit his call to that. After all, there are Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus in this country who are loyal citizens. Is he leaving them out? I’m sure he would say no.
So is he calling Mormons and Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and Christians and Jews all back to the same God? That’s the implication of your statement. “Each person comes back to God in the way that is consistent with their faith.” Do you mean that Jesus and Allah and Buddha and Krishna and Yahweh and the Mormon “father god” who physically copulated with Mary to produce Jesus, et al. are all just different names for the same Supreme Being? Is there just one God and many ways to reach Him? If that’s what he’s saying, I’m sure you would disagree, as would thinking people of most faiths. People really do worship different gods. Trying to make them all into one Being simply doesn’t work.
Does that mean that Mr. Beck is calling devout people of all religions back to their particular god? And are all of them equal? As a Mormon he isn’t a Universalist. If Mormons believed in Universalism, why send out thousands upon thousands of young missionaries to convert people? Then why does he use the language and inclusiveness of Universalism? The only answer can be that for him the end justifies the means. He is doing it to build a spiritual/political constituency to accomplish what he considers to be righteous goals.
But is this legitimate?
Should a Christian buy into that agenda with him, accepting his statements of Universalism in order save the country? God forbid. There is spiritual destruction built into it. It’s clear that Mr. Beck isn’t presenting himself simply as a political leader and philosopher. On that basis I wouldn’t waste my time writing about him. He is presenting himself as a spiritual religious leader. Accepting him in that role and the baggage that comes with it is precisely what I mean by syncretism.
The heart of religious syncretism is the subtle redefinition of words and having the new definitions accepted without serious thought. There are many ways to accomplish this agenda. To get Christians to agree even on a tacit level that we are all worshipping the same god and accepting the spiritual leadership of a cultist to boot is the ultimate in religious syncretism. That leaven will permeate the whole loaf. At the very least, Mormonism is accomplishing through him one of its most cherished goals, to be considered nothing more than another Christian denomination. And polls tell us that is exactly what is happening. You may be sophisticated enough in your faith to make all the subtle distinctions necessary to accept Mr. Beck’s political call without accepting his spiritual agenda. How about the millions of people who aren’t? Where does the New Testament Law of the Weaker Brother come into this?
2.“Our theological beliefs are not the same, but we are co-belligerents with those calling us back to a the belief that America was founded on the morality of the Christian faith, and the belief in a Creator who gave us these rights as listed in the Declaration of Independence.”
You have stated well a popular belief that Mr. Beck speaks about constantly. But is it true? Or more explicitly is he telling the whole truth? Was America founded simply on the “common morality of the Christian faith?” Mr. Beck and many others love to quote what I call the statements of Civic Religion made by our Founding Fathers.
What was the true religious foundation of America? Where was America spiritually born? It wasn’t in Philadelphia in 1776. It was in that amazing period called the Great Awakening. Mr. Beck has talked about this event in glowing terms, but he never gets to the heart of it. And there is a reason why. To do so would get far too specific for his religious agenda. Like everything else having to do with religion, he chooses to present the Great Awakening in vague terms about “coming back to God.”
But look at the history of it. For years in the early part of the 18th century, the Great Awakening swept through the colonies. It was based on the powerful preaching of George Whitefield, the Wesleys and others. That preaching was anything but a general call to “come back to God.” It was a specific call for sinful people to repent to escape the Judgment of God. It was a call to place their faith in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation. And untold thousands heeded it. In large part, it was out of a new freedom from sin and guilt found in Christ by so many people that the desire for political and governmental freedom was born. So, if you want to find the Christian foundation of America go back to the preaching about sin and repentance and salvation only in Christ that transformed this country so long ago. This foundation meant all the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The French Revolution was a blood-bath based largely on the “values” of the so-called Enlightenment totally apart from true Christianity.
The Great Awakening translated into an understanding among our Founding Fathers that they had to speak the religious language of the masses. Were there true Christians in their number? Absolutely! But also there were Deists, agnostics, Unitarians and Freemasons. At that period, even many of the non-Christians felt that Christianity was an important element in the foundation of a civil society. In their writings they chose a common religious language that would build consensus and be as inoffensive as possible. This became what was handed down to us over the past centuries, a Civic Religion that talked about God and prayer, etc., but rarely mentioned Jesus Christ. Christians could read into it whatever they wanted. Like sheep that’s exactly what we have done. For a long time it worked.
This social contract held until the 20th century when attacks on religion became rampant. Now it has completely fallen apart. In my opinion, that was inevitable. The amazing thing is that it held as long as it did for there is no lasting power in Civic Religion because it cannot redeem the soul. In the past, Civic Religion depended for its existence on agreement about the value and purpose of America, common morality and a strong work ethic. All of that is gone and will not return without another TRUE Great Awakening. Even in our Christian churches common morality has vanished. Glenn Beck is calling us back to a Civic Religion that is utterly powerless except to build dissension. All of his words about faith, hope and charity are nothing more than pretty ideals without individual and collective repentance for sin and redemption through the shed blood of Jesus Christ God’s only Son. So if you are a “co-belligerent,” fighting under Mr. Beck’s banner, you are fighting for a losing cause. Not only will it prove futile, there is something far worse than our current crisis that it could bring.
Here is an interesting thought. As much as Mr. Beck talks about faith, in Mormonism salvation is gained through works. In a slightly different form salvation by works is the heart of Liberation Theology, the faith of Barack Obama.
3.“There is no pure theologian who is going to take this leadership. No one is without their own particular slant on faith. Are we not going to rally to a cause we think is in the right direction until we find a person who thinks exactly like we do? We have to learn how to live as saints in an imperfect place… We have to make decisions and move ahead without everyone involved being the purist we want them to be. Too much is at stake for us to not act.”
I know you don’t mean this as a statement of lack of faith, but certainly it can come off that way. I’m afraid I have no idea what you mean by a “pure theologian.” I don’t think a single one of the prophets or apostles of the Bible would have considered himself a “pure theologian” not even St. Paul. Do you mean by pure theologian someone pure in his beliefs about Jesus, someone raised up by God to speak the truth and call people to repentance in Jesus Christ as the foundation for a just and compassionate society?
So, because we are frightened and impatient and no one like that seems to have appeared (or at least no one who has the platform of Fox News) are you saying that we should follow the next best thing – someone raised up by Rupert Murdoch? Somehow this reminds me of King Saul in First Samuel 13 who couldn’t wait for God’s anointed, took things into his own hands and destroyed his kingdom.
Following our own natural desires (so many of which are based on fear) is much easier than prayer and waiting on God. We like the spiritual feeling that comes with being part of a great movement. It is an actual physical high to be surrounded by huge masses of like-minded people. That’s why we have mega-churches and rock concerts. But this is a delusion. All through the Bible it was the lone voice crying out truth in the wilderness that made all the difference. The first measure of learning to be a saint in a fallen world is that we learn to be true to the Bible and let that, no matter how uncomfortable, be the guide of our decisions. Has God lost His Power to raise up a Whitefield or a Wesley or are we so weak, miserable, fearful and faithless that we will settle for what we consider the next best thing?
4.“Glenn Beck's call to return to God is no different than Benjamin Franklin's. Should the Christians of Franklin's day have refused to vote in favor of America becoming an independent nation because Benjamin Franklin wasn't a real Christian? Should they have refused to offer up the prayer that Franklin called them to, because not everyone in the room had the same theology?”
Okay, I hope you will forgive me if my fallen shark-like nature rises to this blood. I would never put Glenn Beck on the level of a Benjamin Franklin. He’s far too moral. Think about it this way. Imagine that old Ben were living in our day. He’d have his own reality show. He would be a kind of fat, gray, intellectual male version of the Kardashians. Each week we would watch him gleefully fornicate his way through France and England dropping pearls of wisdom in every bed. (Did I just write that?) I could imagine half a season on the Hellfire Club alone. He would be a regular at the Playboy Mansion and on Letterman. He and Bill Clinton would share a cigar. (It’s getting worse, I’ve got to stop.) Let’s face it, if all the devout Christians of Ben’s day had known the truth about his hidden life, when he gave a call to prayer he would have been laughed from the room. I hope those Christians didn’t make their decision to vote for America based on his spiritual leadership.
The great evangelist George Whitefield wrote about several contacts that he had with Benjamin Franklin. In those meetings Whitefield implored him to repent of his sins and give his life to Jesus Christ. Ben politely refused. Franklin attended Whitefield’s mass outdoor meetings in Philadelphia where Jesus Christ was faithfully preached. His only interest was in measuring the amazing distance that Whitefield’s voice carried in the open air (over a mile) and how powerful he was in taking offerings for the poor. A look at Franklin brings an important point. As Christians we can appreciate his intellect, follow his great political and governmental wisdom, like him personally and find him endlessly entertaining, all without accepting him as a spiritual leader. Though he may have offered an occasional prayer, thank God Franklin was not interested in that role.
5.“And why aren't you registered with a political party? You are letting down the country. You can't vote in primary elections in California. If every Christian did that because he was a "Christian" and therefore too pure to be involved in the political process, the world would be handed to Satan just as Hollywood was handed to Satan in the 1920s.”
Jack, forgive me if I expel an evil chuckle. I’m letting down the country if I don’t vote in California primaries? Really? We do know how effective and important California primaries are, don’t we? But I assure you my decisions are not based on any conception that I am too Christian and “pure.” I’m afraid my attitude toward elections was presented brilliantly in an hilarious episode of South Park. I can’t quote from it, it’s too obscene, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
I’m sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil. And almost always the lesser of two evils is our only choice. I refuse to be forced into voting for the lesser of two evils because if I don’t the country will go down the rat hole. We have been voting for the lesser of two evils for decade upon decade and look where it’s gotten us. That doesn’t mean that the person I vote for has to agree with me on every issue. And certainly the person doesn’t have to be a Christian. I’m at the place where if a candidate makes stirring claims to be a Christian I probably won’t vote for him because very likely he is either a fool or corrupt or both. How sad is that? Unfortunately, based upon past experience it’s realistic.
And as far as Hollywood is concerned, I know something about the history of my industry. Don’t be so certain that Hollywood was handed to Satan in the 1920’s because of a lack of Christian involvement. And a side point: I dread to think of the kinds of films that Hollywood would have been making if so-called “Christian moguls” had been in control. All we’d be getting are Christian “dog movies” where our little spiritual canine buddies folded their paws and said “grace” before every meal.
A last thought about Glenn Beck. One of the clearest indicators that something is deeply wrong is the way Christian guests on his programs fawn over him, showering him with ego-fattening flattery for his “spiritual leadership.” Is there not one person who is willing to confront him gently and lovingly about the lost state of his soul? Or are we so self-centered that we don’t care?
Once again, thanks so much for your comments.
Coleman
Friday, September 3, 2010
Glenn Beck and Barack Obama - Blood Brothers
Last weekend Glenn Beck held his massive rally in Washington, D.C. planned and executed as a kind of patriotic/spiritual awakening dedicated to the children of fallen military heroes. I didn’t attend. I’ve only seen clips on television. From all appearances he did a magnificent job. Mr. Beck is a powerful speaker who can touch the hearts of his hearers. And he had a lot of them. Estimates are that above half a million traveled from all over the U.S. to stand with him in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
I believe in patriotism. My ancestors fought in the Revolution. I am a combat veteran who was proud to serve my country even when most people in my country weren’t proud of Vietnam veterans. So why do I have such a gnawing concern about the patriotic Mr. Beck and his activities? As I watched him speak a cold feeling came over me. Suddenly, I was struck by how very much alike he is to our President.
What???
Really????
How in the world could that be true? The most ignorant fool can see that they are polar opposites. And indeed, in so many ways they are. But it is in their very polar opposition that their deep similarity resides. How is this so? Think with me for a moment:
1. Both men come from humble backgrounds. Both are gifted speakers with a lot of charisma. Even so, a decade in the past it would have been impossible to believe that either man would rise to such national prominence in such a short time. It can be argued that this is the nature of American media and politics. Granted, but somehow the rise of these men still feels “different.” And by “different” I don’t mean good.
2. Both men would disavow it, but it’s clear that they are zealots. They have firmly entrenched beliefs that set powerful agendas. Many have been surprised by the eagerness of President Obama to do exactly what he said he was going to do during his presidential campaign. We’re not used to leaders who believe much of anything other than increasing their own power bases. What we’re used to are lawyers - hired guns whose main concern is finding defensible positions and lining their pockets with gold.
Though President Obama is an attorney, he doesn’t act like one. Or maybe it’s just that he is his own client. As a zealot he has decided exactly what he wants to accomplish and doesn’t care what others think or desire - even people in his own party. Of course, he would like a second term. He would like cooperation from all parties. I’m sure that he would like to be liked. But for none of that is he willing to sacrifice his beliefs and agenda. That’s something new for America. What we’re used to in our leaders is charming intelligent political whoredom. We haven’t seen Mr. Beck in governmental leadership, but I have a feeling that if he were in elected office he would perform in exactly the same way.
Though they would vigorously deny it, it’s clear that both men sense an almost messianic calling about their lives and work. Guided by that vision they are committed to the transformation of American society. The lengths to which the President is willing to go to accomplish his vision are becoming clearer with each passing day. Certainly, if Mr. Beck were in the Oval Office he would be equally committed to carrying out his mission.
3. Both men follow aberrant theologies that they claim are Christian. Both know the language of popular religion and use it to their advantage whenever possible. I’ve written about Mr. Beck’s strange Mormon beliefs, though to hear him talk you would think he was an evangelical Christian. He isn’t. He is a member of an enslaving cult that has misled millions. Is that an overstatement? Study the history of Mormonism. Study its theology. If you are a believer in historic Christianity, ask yourself where that aberrant theology came from. Talk to those who have escaped the chains of Mormonism and have spent their lives trying to help others get free.
That said, in my opinion, the President’s religious beliefs are just as aberrant. It seems clear from his church background, values and career choices that he holds to a form of Liberation Theology which is nothing more than Marxist socialism beneath a thin Christianized veneer. It transforms Jesus Christ into nothing more than a social revolutionary. It is a pseudo-religious collectivist philosophical system devoid of any interest in the salvation of the individual through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. The breeding ground for Liberation Theology was in the Roman Catholic priesthood in Central and South America. As a philosophy it has proven very effective in creating social revolutionaries, while destroying the spiritual effectiveness of the Church.
This is why the President can avow that he is a devout Christian who prays every day, yet never has the slightest interest in attending church. He can speak about individual salvation only through collectivist rhetoric. The truth is that he has little interest in any form of historic Christianity. Like Mormonism, Liberation Theology presents a different Jesus than the one found in the Bible. While it does not fall under the classic description of a cult, in my opinion its aberrational theology and the passionate willingness of its adherents to lead people away from the historic Faith places it in that category.
4. Both men are polarizing figures with millions of followers and powerful voices in the media. However, neither represents a majority in the United States. But that isn’t what is important. The two poles have quite enough force between them to blow the country apart.
Now I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am not a member of the Tea Party. I am not a Libertarian. I insist on being a Christian which, in my opinion, means analyzing every single philosophy and issue on its merits, standing in favor of some and opposing others. I am deeply concerned about the destructive actions of the President and his Party. Unfortunately, he has taken the philosophical lead of a string of Presidents and Congresses that have gone before him. This includes not only suicidal economic policies, but maintaining a war that should never have been fought and that we cannot win. As far as economic decisions are concerned, I believe that he is by far the worst President in history. All of the disastrous legislative extravagance of the past he has made his own. But that hasn’t been enough. He has added to it a monumental profligacy that, if not reversed, will prove the ruin of freedom. And through all of it he claims that he is saving the country. Forgive me for being cynical, but for my taste we haven’t had a good President since Abraham Lincoln.
I know those are strong words. Against their backdrop let me say that I fear the destructive influence of Mr. Glenn Beck even more. The President follows an aberrational theology, but at least to this point he hasn’t tried to be the country’s evangelist/pastor. Mr. Obama’s destructive actions are very clear. Mr. Beck’s are much more subtle, but because they are targeted directly at the Christian Church and Christian people they are even more dangerous.
Over the past decades much has been done to destroy the Church from within. For many reasons, especially the leaders we have chosen who do not confront us about our sins, Christians have lost their moral authority. But that can be regained. However, it will not come because a charismatic leader arises who touts a vague spiritual/patriotic message about “coming back to God.” But that’s as far as Mr. Beck can go because he is desperately concerned to be “inclusive.” The reason he wants to be inclusive is not simply because of a desire for national unity. He knows that if he really deals with the Biblical definition of sin and salvation that is the core of historic Christianity, if he really accepts Jesus Christ for who the Bible says He is as apart from the aberrational theology of his prophet Joseph Smith, everyone in his cult would have to repent and turn away from Mormonism. So scrap the idea of hearing anything about Biblical repentance from Mr. Beck. He may use terms that sound Christian, but Mormonism is based on salvation by works to get to Heaven. St. Paul wrote clearly about such false “gospels” in the New Testament Letter to the Galatians.
So what is at the heart of Mr. Beck’s message? He is calling Christians to join all “people of faith” in the worship of a Vague God acceptable to every “believer” of every stripe. This is nothing less than the call to a new syncretism in the name of national unity and restoration. What is syncretism in this context? The marriage of Christianity with various systems of unbiblical belief. It has plagued the Church almost from the very beginning.
Should Christians work together with others for the good of their country? Absolutely. Should they share friendship and love with people who do not agree with them? Again, absolutely. Should they dialog with others about faith and politics? Of course and with good will. What they shouldn’t do is worship with them and worship is what was happening on the National Mall. The very nature of that kind of worship is worship of a false god.
We are seeing the continued blending of heretical theologies with historic Christianity and through ignorance and fear we are accepting it. We do so because the enemy of my enemy is my friend and because we worship celebrity. We are so weak-willed, blind and faithless that we are willing to let someone who does not agree with our faith subtly misrepresent our faith in the public square. And no one confronts him. The end does not justify the means. We are going to pay the price for this. I truly believe that because of the unfaithfulness of the Christian Church, the whole country is going to suffer far more than we have ever imagined.
In the months and years ahead we are going to hear about faith and love and unity and the Fatherhood of God and church and morality and patriotism and on and on ad nauseum. As you listen to the emotional messages and sing the hymns, watch what all of it will bring.
I believe in patriotism. My ancestors fought in the Revolution. I am a combat veteran who was proud to serve my country even when most people in my country weren’t proud of Vietnam veterans. So why do I have such a gnawing concern about the patriotic Mr. Beck and his activities? As I watched him speak a cold feeling came over me. Suddenly, I was struck by how very much alike he is to our President.
What???
Really????
How in the world could that be true? The most ignorant fool can see that they are polar opposites. And indeed, in so many ways they are. But it is in their very polar opposition that their deep similarity resides. How is this so? Think with me for a moment:
1. Both men come from humble backgrounds. Both are gifted speakers with a lot of charisma. Even so, a decade in the past it would have been impossible to believe that either man would rise to such national prominence in such a short time. It can be argued that this is the nature of American media and politics. Granted, but somehow the rise of these men still feels “different.” And by “different” I don’t mean good.
2. Both men would disavow it, but it’s clear that they are zealots. They have firmly entrenched beliefs that set powerful agendas. Many have been surprised by the eagerness of President Obama to do exactly what he said he was going to do during his presidential campaign. We’re not used to leaders who believe much of anything other than increasing their own power bases. What we’re used to are lawyers - hired guns whose main concern is finding defensible positions and lining their pockets with gold.
Though President Obama is an attorney, he doesn’t act like one. Or maybe it’s just that he is his own client. As a zealot he has decided exactly what he wants to accomplish and doesn’t care what others think or desire - even people in his own party. Of course, he would like a second term. He would like cooperation from all parties. I’m sure that he would like to be liked. But for none of that is he willing to sacrifice his beliefs and agenda. That’s something new for America. What we’re used to in our leaders is charming intelligent political whoredom. We haven’t seen Mr. Beck in governmental leadership, but I have a feeling that if he were in elected office he would perform in exactly the same way.
Though they would vigorously deny it, it’s clear that both men sense an almost messianic calling about their lives and work. Guided by that vision they are committed to the transformation of American society. The lengths to which the President is willing to go to accomplish his vision are becoming clearer with each passing day. Certainly, if Mr. Beck were in the Oval Office he would be equally committed to carrying out his mission.
3. Both men follow aberrant theologies that they claim are Christian. Both know the language of popular religion and use it to their advantage whenever possible. I’ve written about Mr. Beck’s strange Mormon beliefs, though to hear him talk you would think he was an evangelical Christian. He isn’t. He is a member of an enslaving cult that has misled millions. Is that an overstatement? Study the history of Mormonism. Study its theology. If you are a believer in historic Christianity, ask yourself where that aberrant theology came from. Talk to those who have escaped the chains of Mormonism and have spent their lives trying to help others get free.
That said, in my opinion, the President’s religious beliefs are just as aberrant. It seems clear from his church background, values and career choices that he holds to a form of Liberation Theology which is nothing more than Marxist socialism beneath a thin Christianized veneer. It transforms Jesus Christ into nothing more than a social revolutionary. It is a pseudo-religious collectivist philosophical system devoid of any interest in the salvation of the individual through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. The breeding ground for Liberation Theology was in the Roman Catholic priesthood in Central and South America. As a philosophy it has proven very effective in creating social revolutionaries, while destroying the spiritual effectiveness of the Church.
This is why the President can avow that he is a devout Christian who prays every day, yet never has the slightest interest in attending church. He can speak about individual salvation only through collectivist rhetoric. The truth is that he has little interest in any form of historic Christianity. Like Mormonism, Liberation Theology presents a different Jesus than the one found in the Bible. While it does not fall under the classic description of a cult, in my opinion its aberrational theology and the passionate willingness of its adherents to lead people away from the historic Faith places it in that category.
4. Both men are polarizing figures with millions of followers and powerful voices in the media. However, neither represents a majority in the United States. But that isn’t what is important. The two poles have quite enough force between them to blow the country apart.
Now I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am not a member of the Tea Party. I am not a Libertarian. I insist on being a Christian which, in my opinion, means analyzing every single philosophy and issue on its merits, standing in favor of some and opposing others. I am deeply concerned about the destructive actions of the President and his Party. Unfortunately, he has taken the philosophical lead of a string of Presidents and Congresses that have gone before him. This includes not only suicidal economic policies, but maintaining a war that should never have been fought and that we cannot win. As far as economic decisions are concerned, I believe that he is by far the worst President in history. All of the disastrous legislative extravagance of the past he has made his own. But that hasn’t been enough. He has added to it a monumental profligacy that, if not reversed, will prove the ruin of freedom. And through all of it he claims that he is saving the country. Forgive me for being cynical, but for my taste we haven’t had a good President since Abraham Lincoln.
I know those are strong words. Against their backdrop let me say that I fear the destructive influence of Mr. Glenn Beck even more. The President follows an aberrational theology, but at least to this point he hasn’t tried to be the country’s evangelist/pastor. Mr. Obama’s destructive actions are very clear. Mr. Beck’s are much more subtle, but because they are targeted directly at the Christian Church and Christian people they are even more dangerous.
Over the past decades much has been done to destroy the Church from within. For many reasons, especially the leaders we have chosen who do not confront us about our sins, Christians have lost their moral authority. But that can be regained. However, it will not come because a charismatic leader arises who touts a vague spiritual/patriotic message about “coming back to God.” But that’s as far as Mr. Beck can go because he is desperately concerned to be “inclusive.” The reason he wants to be inclusive is not simply because of a desire for national unity. He knows that if he really deals with the Biblical definition of sin and salvation that is the core of historic Christianity, if he really accepts Jesus Christ for who the Bible says He is as apart from the aberrational theology of his prophet Joseph Smith, everyone in his cult would have to repent and turn away from Mormonism. So scrap the idea of hearing anything about Biblical repentance from Mr. Beck. He may use terms that sound Christian, but Mormonism is based on salvation by works to get to Heaven. St. Paul wrote clearly about such false “gospels” in the New Testament Letter to the Galatians.
So what is at the heart of Mr. Beck’s message? He is calling Christians to join all “people of faith” in the worship of a Vague God acceptable to every “believer” of every stripe. This is nothing less than the call to a new syncretism in the name of national unity and restoration. What is syncretism in this context? The marriage of Christianity with various systems of unbiblical belief. It has plagued the Church almost from the very beginning.
Should Christians work together with others for the good of their country? Absolutely. Should they share friendship and love with people who do not agree with them? Again, absolutely. Should they dialog with others about faith and politics? Of course and with good will. What they shouldn’t do is worship with them and worship is what was happening on the National Mall. The very nature of that kind of worship is worship of a false god.
We are seeing the continued blending of heretical theologies with historic Christianity and through ignorance and fear we are accepting it. We do so because the enemy of my enemy is my friend and because we worship celebrity. We are so weak-willed, blind and faithless that we are willing to let someone who does not agree with our faith subtly misrepresent our faith in the public square. And no one confronts him. The end does not justify the means. We are going to pay the price for this. I truly believe that because of the unfaithfulness of the Christian Church, the whole country is going to suffer far more than we have ever imagined.
In the months and years ahead we are going to hear about faith and love and unity and the Fatherhood of God and church and morality and patriotism and on and on ad nauseum. As you listen to the emotional messages and sing the hymns, watch what all of it will bring.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
A small gift to you this week
"Again and again I admonish my students in Europe and America: Don't aim at success - the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run - in the long-run, I say! - success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it." Viktor Frankl - Concentration camp survivor, psychotherapist and noted author.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
What's Wrong With Glenn Beck?
If you disagree with him politically I’m sure you would say that everything is wrong with Glenn Beck. I haven’t watched his program consistently. It’s been rather sporadic. But I’ve found that when I do watch him I agree with most of what he says. In fact, in a number of cases I don’t think he’s gone far enough in his analysis of the historic antecedents to our current crises. He is a gifted and passionate speaker capable of trenchant analysis. And clearly, his opponents view him as a dangerous force. He has become a kind of national teacher. I’m sure that Mr. Beck would agree that teachers should be held to a higher account, especially teachers with classes that number in the millions.
One of the things that he stands against is what might be called a Culture of Tolerance. Everyone is so afraid of being viewed as “Intolerant” that we refuse to speak any kind of truth at all because obviously our “truth” may be different from someone else’s “truth” and we don’t want to offend. More than anything, we are terrified of being considered “bigots.” The dictionary defines bigot as “a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.” The heart of bigotry focuses on religion and bigots come in a wide variety of persuasions, both theistic and atheistic.
In my opinion, freedom of religion is the foundation of all other freedoms. I’m proud to be a direct descendent of Roger Williams the founder of Rhode Island and, more importantly, the father of freedom of religion in America. He founded his colony based on freedom of worship, this after he was driven away by the Puritans because of his differing theological beliefs. (He was a Baptist.) One of his friends was a woman named Mary Barrett Dyer. Mary was a Quaker who had the temerity to believe that women should be able to teach the Bible. She insisted on teaching the Bible in Puritan territory. In a paroxysm of “holy intolerance” the good Puritans of Boston hung her. I’m proud to say that Mary is one of my grandmothers. Religious toleration runs in my blood. However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t confront each other with mutual respect about our differing belief systems. We shouldn’t fear strong disagreement. It is in that spirit that this post is written.
Am I the only theologically conservative Christian who finds Mr. Beck strangely disturbing? Here is my problem. We live in a day of gross inconsistencies in the lives of so many of our leaders. People say one thing and live out another. Whether it is the Treasury Secretary who cheats on his taxes or a “family values” governor who cheats on his wife, inconsistency is the hallmark of our age. With that in mind, Mr. Beck seriously puzzles me. Here is a man who is dedicated to understanding and presenting historic truth about what has happened in our country. He does it fearlessly because he knows how important historic truth really is. What you believe really does matter. So here is a man of intellectual lucidity who has chosen to be a Mormon.
There, I said it. I turned over the rock that no one wants to touch for fear of being called intolerant or bigoted. How dare I do such a thing? Should the fact that Mr. Beck is a Mormon really matter? From what he has said, he is not a Mormon by birth. He was raised a Roman Catholic. When he talks about it at all, he underplays his religion, stating that he and his family just liked the friendliness and family orientation of the Latter Day Saints. They feel at home there. All well and good! I believe in religious freedom. But Mr. Beck is a national teacher who freely quotes the Bible as an authority source. I think we need to hold him to the same standard that he uses on others.
Let me ask you a question. Imagine that Mr. Beck was saying exactly what he is saying now on his various programs, but instead of being a Mormon he was a Scientologist or a Muslim. How would you feel about him then? Wouldn’t your trust of him drop like a stone? Wouldn’t you carefully evaluate every word he said? Though you would agree with him, you would find him constantly disturbing and every time you listened to him you would be asking yourself, “What’s this guy’s real agenda?” So why isn’t that happening with Mr. Beck?
There are several reasons. First, over the past fifty or so years, the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints has spent a great deal of time and treasure to convince American Christians that they are just another Christian denomination. And they’ve been very successful at it. I think today that many evangelical Christians view Mormons in just that way. Second, Mormons are such genuinely nice family oriented people. As opposed to Muslims or Scientologists who often don’t appear to be very nice at all. When we think of Mormons we think of Donny and Marie Osmond. We think of the wonderful Mormon Tabernacle Choir that sings so many great old hymns. And then there’s Glenn Beck himself. Couldn’t you imagine spending an afternoon with him and his family sitting around the pool sharing hamburgers and potato salad? Of course you could. And how about Mitt Romney that square-jawed, good-looking guy? Clearly, he is a straight-talking true family man who could be on track to become the next President. Doesn’t he look Presidential and doesn’t he say all the right things in the most charming manner?
When you think of Scientologists what do you think of? People who are nutty as fruitcakes, who spend untold thousands of dollars to get “clear” with weird lie detectors strapped to their bodies. You think of arrogant little Tom Cruise arguing from his vast Scientology education and jumping on couches. You think of the worst of Hollywood. And when Muslims come to mind…well, we don’t even want to go there.
A long time ago I took a graduate level course in what is called Christian Apologetics. That doesn’t mean learning how to apologize because you’re a Christian. It means knowing how to make a reasoned defense of the faith against those who attack it. Essential to that is understanding what other religions believe. My teacher was a man named Dr. Walter Martin. He is dead now, but while he was alive he was considered one of the greatest cult experts in the world. In our class we spent a lot of time studying Mormonism. Dr. Martin was well known to the Mormons and they disliked him intensely because he was a powerful debater who did not suffer foolishness lightly.
This is not the place to go into all the very strange things that Mormons believe. Just a few points will suffice such as their belief that Jesus and Satan are brothers, or that God the Father (who is a glorified man) came down and physically copulated with the Virgin Mary so that Jesus could be born into a physical body, or that the spirits who followed “brother” Satan were cursed into being born with black skin. (In recent years, because of great political pressure, this belief has been jettisoned, but for many decades from the foundation of their religion, it was an article of faith.) We won’t go into all the fantasies that their scriptures teach about Native American history. Not one archaeological discovery has proven their beliefs to be true. Why bring up the embarrassing issue of a “family” religion that, during its seminal years, was utterly destructive to families because of its belief in polygamy and forced marriage? (Another foundational article of faith that they were forced to disavow, but which is still held sacred by many Mormons.) Why mention the horrendous view Mormon theology teaches about women? In one of their holy books, The Pearl of Great Price, woman is called the shoe on man’s foot as he ascends into Heaven. And all of this is only the beginning.
Where did the Mormon religion come from? A young man named Joseph Smith who was a Freemason and a believer in ceremonial magic was using his magic to try and find buried treasure. In the course of his search he claims to have had a supernatural experience. An angel named Moroni came to him and led him to a set of golden plates. The translation of the writing on those plates led to the Mormon scriptures. Sadly, the plates were lost so they are unavailable for examination.
The truth is that the foundation of Mormonism has much in common with the foundation of Islam. In both it is purported that an angel came to a solitary man and gave him a revelation that the religions of his day were wrong and inadequate and he was to be the founder of a new religion based on “Truth.” Each man was informed that he was God’s uniquely chosen prophet. Both religions rely on strict “works of obedience” in order to achieve eternal salvation. Both paste together their theologies from bits and pieces of the theologies that were dominant at the time of their founding. Both account for the historical Jesus, but utterly demolish His Person and work as presented in the New Testament. On the face of it, Mormonism is no more a Christian denomination than is Islam. The truth is that, based on the reports of eye witnesses, the ceremonies that take place in the Mormon temple have much more in common with Freemasonry and ceremonial magic than in anything found in historic Christianity. In that sense they relate to Scientology. Before he founded his “church,” L. Ron Hubbard was an occultist and ceremonial magician as well. And isn’t it strange that both Scientology and Mormonism are so deeply concerned about activities on other planets?
Now there are those who would say, “All religions are the same. They’re all based on so-called “revelations” that are impossible to prove, so why make an issue of Mormonism? It’s no different than what you call historic Christianity.” There I would disagree. All of orthodox Christianity hinges on one event, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If that event did not occur in physical reality the whole edifice crumbles to dust. The point of the biblical record is that there were many eye-witnesses to Jesus’ death. And after His resurrection there were hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw Him alive. The experience of His death and resurrection was not limited to a solitary individual. It came to many people and those people were so certain of what they had seen that they were willing to die violent deaths themselves in defense of what they knew to be true. Now, you may call all of that fantasy, but at the very least you must admit that it is vastly different than Joseph Smith or Mohamed talking to an angel.
So Mr. Glenn Beck puzzles me. How can a man of his perspicacity who is so concerned about discovering and understanding the truth of political history, who wants our children to be taught the truth, be willing for his own children to be indoctrinated into the wild fantasies of a cult? And, God help him, I think his children are girls. I can’t believe that if he applied the same passion and scholarship to Mormonism that he wouldn’t run screaming from it. So why hasn’t this happened? Why is there such gross inconsistency and why doesn’t it bother anybody? Shouldn’t the fact that he is a Mormon make me view him with the same caution that I would exercise if he were a Scientologist or a Muslim? If he uses the Bible as though he were a Christian shouldn’t he be held to account? Why does he never use his own “scriptures?”
And I have a larger concern. I’m concerned about the mainstreaming of this cult into the deepest levels of American culture, even into the Christian church itself. Now I don’t think Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Donny and Marie and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir are locked in some kind of vicious conspiracy. I think that in their political desperation Christians have become blind. What dominates now is that old philosophy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But in the very desperation of that embrace, just exactly what is it that we are accepting and how will it affect our future?
Visit my website: www.colemanluck.com
One of the things that he stands against is what might be called a Culture of Tolerance. Everyone is so afraid of being viewed as “Intolerant” that we refuse to speak any kind of truth at all because obviously our “truth” may be different from someone else’s “truth” and we don’t want to offend. More than anything, we are terrified of being considered “bigots.” The dictionary defines bigot as “a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.” The heart of bigotry focuses on religion and bigots come in a wide variety of persuasions, both theistic and atheistic.
In my opinion, freedom of religion is the foundation of all other freedoms. I’m proud to be a direct descendent of Roger Williams the founder of Rhode Island and, more importantly, the father of freedom of religion in America. He founded his colony based on freedom of worship, this after he was driven away by the Puritans because of his differing theological beliefs. (He was a Baptist.) One of his friends was a woman named Mary Barrett Dyer. Mary was a Quaker who had the temerity to believe that women should be able to teach the Bible. She insisted on teaching the Bible in Puritan territory. In a paroxysm of “holy intolerance” the good Puritans of Boston hung her. I’m proud to say that Mary is one of my grandmothers. Religious toleration runs in my blood. However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t confront each other with mutual respect about our differing belief systems. We shouldn’t fear strong disagreement. It is in that spirit that this post is written.
Am I the only theologically conservative Christian who finds Mr. Beck strangely disturbing? Here is my problem. We live in a day of gross inconsistencies in the lives of so many of our leaders. People say one thing and live out another. Whether it is the Treasury Secretary who cheats on his taxes or a “family values” governor who cheats on his wife, inconsistency is the hallmark of our age. With that in mind, Mr. Beck seriously puzzles me. Here is a man who is dedicated to understanding and presenting historic truth about what has happened in our country. He does it fearlessly because he knows how important historic truth really is. What you believe really does matter. So here is a man of intellectual lucidity who has chosen to be a Mormon.
There, I said it. I turned over the rock that no one wants to touch for fear of being called intolerant or bigoted. How dare I do such a thing? Should the fact that Mr. Beck is a Mormon really matter? From what he has said, he is not a Mormon by birth. He was raised a Roman Catholic. When he talks about it at all, he underplays his religion, stating that he and his family just liked the friendliness and family orientation of the Latter Day Saints. They feel at home there. All well and good! I believe in religious freedom. But Mr. Beck is a national teacher who freely quotes the Bible as an authority source. I think we need to hold him to the same standard that he uses on others.
Let me ask you a question. Imagine that Mr. Beck was saying exactly what he is saying now on his various programs, but instead of being a Mormon he was a Scientologist or a Muslim. How would you feel about him then? Wouldn’t your trust of him drop like a stone? Wouldn’t you carefully evaluate every word he said? Though you would agree with him, you would find him constantly disturbing and every time you listened to him you would be asking yourself, “What’s this guy’s real agenda?” So why isn’t that happening with Mr. Beck?
There are several reasons. First, over the past fifty or so years, the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints has spent a great deal of time and treasure to convince American Christians that they are just another Christian denomination. And they’ve been very successful at it. I think today that many evangelical Christians view Mormons in just that way. Second, Mormons are such genuinely nice family oriented people. As opposed to Muslims or Scientologists who often don’t appear to be very nice at all. When we think of Mormons we think of Donny and Marie Osmond. We think of the wonderful Mormon Tabernacle Choir that sings so many great old hymns. And then there’s Glenn Beck himself. Couldn’t you imagine spending an afternoon with him and his family sitting around the pool sharing hamburgers and potato salad? Of course you could. And how about Mitt Romney that square-jawed, good-looking guy? Clearly, he is a straight-talking true family man who could be on track to become the next President. Doesn’t he look Presidential and doesn’t he say all the right things in the most charming manner?
When you think of Scientologists what do you think of? People who are nutty as fruitcakes, who spend untold thousands of dollars to get “clear” with weird lie detectors strapped to their bodies. You think of arrogant little Tom Cruise arguing from his vast Scientology education and jumping on couches. You think of the worst of Hollywood. And when Muslims come to mind…well, we don’t even want to go there.
A long time ago I took a graduate level course in what is called Christian Apologetics. That doesn’t mean learning how to apologize because you’re a Christian. It means knowing how to make a reasoned defense of the faith against those who attack it. Essential to that is understanding what other religions believe. My teacher was a man named Dr. Walter Martin. He is dead now, but while he was alive he was considered one of the greatest cult experts in the world. In our class we spent a lot of time studying Mormonism. Dr. Martin was well known to the Mormons and they disliked him intensely because he was a powerful debater who did not suffer foolishness lightly.
This is not the place to go into all the very strange things that Mormons believe. Just a few points will suffice such as their belief that Jesus and Satan are brothers, or that God the Father (who is a glorified man) came down and physically copulated with the Virgin Mary so that Jesus could be born into a physical body, or that the spirits who followed “brother” Satan were cursed into being born with black skin. (In recent years, because of great political pressure, this belief has been jettisoned, but for many decades from the foundation of their religion, it was an article of faith.) We won’t go into all the fantasies that their scriptures teach about Native American history. Not one archaeological discovery has proven their beliefs to be true. Why bring up the embarrassing issue of a “family” religion that, during its seminal years, was utterly destructive to families because of its belief in polygamy and forced marriage? (Another foundational article of faith that they were forced to disavow, but which is still held sacred by many Mormons.) Why mention the horrendous view Mormon theology teaches about women? In one of their holy books, The Pearl of Great Price, woman is called the shoe on man’s foot as he ascends into Heaven. And all of this is only the beginning.
Where did the Mormon religion come from? A young man named Joseph Smith who was a Freemason and a believer in ceremonial magic was using his magic to try and find buried treasure. In the course of his search he claims to have had a supernatural experience. An angel named Moroni came to him and led him to a set of golden plates. The translation of the writing on those plates led to the Mormon scriptures. Sadly, the plates were lost so they are unavailable for examination.
The truth is that the foundation of Mormonism has much in common with the foundation of Islam. In both it is purported that an angel came to a solitary man and gave him a revelation that the religions of his day were wrong and inadequate and he was to be the founder of a new religion based on “Truth.” Each man was informed that he was God’s uniquely chosen prophet. Both religions rely on strict “works of obedience” in order to achieve eternal salvation. Both paste together their theologies from bits and pieces of the theologies that were dominant at the time of their founding. Both account for the historical Jesus, but utterly demolish His Person and work as presented in the New Testament. On the face of it, Mormonism is no more a Christian denomination than is Islam. The truth is that, based on the reports of eye witnesses, the ceremonies that take place in the Mormon temple have much more in common with Freemasonry and ceremonial magic than in anything found in historic Christianity. In that sense they relate to Scientology. Before he founded his “church,” L. Ron Hubbard was an occultist and ceremonial magician as well. And isn’t it strange that both Scientology and Mormonism are so deeply concerned about activities on other planets?
Now there are those who would say, “All religions are the same. They’re all based on so-called “revelations” that are impossible to prove, so why make an issue of Mormonism? It’s no different than what you call historic Christianity.” There I would disagree. All of orthodox Christianity hinges on one event, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If that event did not occur in physical reality the whole edifice crumbles to dust. The point of the biblical record is that there were many eye-witnesses to Jesus’ death. And after His resurrection there were hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw Him alive. The experience of His death and resurrection was not limited to a solitary individual. It came to many people and those people were so certain of what they had seen that they were willing to die violent deaths themselves in defense of what they knew to be true. Now, you may call all of that fantasy, but at the very least you must admit that it is vastly different than Joseph Smith or Mohamed talking to an angel.
So Mr. Glenn Beck puzzles me. How can a man of his perspicacity who is so concerned about discovering and understanding the truth of political history, who wants our children to be taught the truth, be willing for his own children to be indoctrinated into the wild fantasies of a cult? And, God help him, I think his children are girls. I can’t believe that if he applied the same passion and scholarship to Mormonism that he wouldn’t run screaming from it. So why hasn’t this happened? Why is there such gross inconsistency and why doesn’t it bother anybody? Shouldn’t the fact that he is a Mormon make me view him with the same caution that I would exercise if he were a Scientologist or a Muslim? If he uses the Bible as though he were a Christian shouldn’t he be held to account? Why does he never use his own “scriptures?”
And I have a larger concern. I’m concerned about the mainstreaming of this cult into the deepest levels of American culture, even into the Christian church itself. Now I don’t think Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Donny and Marie and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir are locked in some kind of vicious conspiracy. I think that in their political desperation Christians have become blind. What dominates now is that old philosophy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But in the very desperation of that embrace, just exactly what is it that we are accepting and how will it affect our future?
Visit my website: www.colemanluck.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
