I was once told by someone who had just met me in person that I was not what she expected. She said my writing was fierce and angry, but sitting in front of her, I was nothing like that at all. Of course she fell prey to a common fallacy of generalizing a very limited experience (of me, in this case) to what is a much larger and more complex reality. But I don't want to bash her logic.
Instead, I want to apologize...in the old sense of offering a defense...for this blog. It is intended to be a very real and raw and unfiltered record of my experiences. As such, the tone vacillates, mostly across the more troubling spectrum of human emotions, since obviously, I'm not wrestling with much in the busy or more pleasant times; leastways, I don't have time to write about them.
So it occurred to me that the few of you who read this, especially any random surfers who hit on it, may easily get the impression that I'm a hateful and angry person. And in some aspects you would be absolutely correct. But that certainly isn't all I am. Nevertheless, mistaking my state is less of a concern than if you were to mistake my intent toward others.
While I most certainly reference and sometimes quote actual events and people, some of whom might actually read this blog on occasion, you'll also notice that I never use names or identifying characteristics. And as an added safeguard, I'll let you in on a little secret: I sometimes even swap pronouns or other subtle indicators just in case someone starts to think they know who I'm talking about.
Why? Because my intention is never to judge or condemn the person. We are, all of us, much more than any single incident. More even than a history or a portfolio of behavior. We are complex, living people who change and grow and fail and succeed. I have felt the daggers and darts of judgement and misunderstanding and I would never be the source of pain to another.
Like Paul, I am keenly aware, more than most, of my own failings. As raw as this blog is, you are not privy to my most inner thoughts and feelings. The climate in my head is a harsh and terrible place of extremes built in arid arid regions of asceticism, glaring plains of self-scrutiny, tempestuous seas of emotion, and dark mires of spiritualism. Trust me, no one survives there, even myself. My point is that I expound externally nothing harsher than I have already applied to myself. And while you have the option of turning off my blog, I can't get out of my own head. I am very much the subject of the old Linkin Park song. But while this explains it somewhat, it does not excuse my virtiolic.
The difference, I think, is in the target. If you read carefully, you'll notice that my attacks are always directed at a fallacy of logic or belief. Particularly where that fallacy has a negative impact (intended or not) on another and usually weaker party. You see, the vitriolic is toward the idea and it's manifestation in behavior. Not the person. If we were all to play so nice as to not offend anyone about anything they do, the result would be that the weakest and softest among us bear the undue burden of our mistakes. So I'm sorry, I have to speak against it. I know you are not your actions or even your ideas and are therefore not receiving the bullet that you assume to take. No one has the right to allow their problems to harm another without their consent, even if your personal well-being is so entangled with your behavior that you feel personally wounded when I speak against it. In fact, the wound, even as fallacious as your affront is, will likely do you good by forcing you to pay attention to it and perhaps disentangle yourself from yourself somewhat, though even that is categorically not my intent.
As I have said before, I am a sheepdog. I help the shepherd herd the sheep. I know my flock and I will continue to uncompromisingly attack those demons and shades that would harm them, even the ones that pretend to be shadows of holy and upstanding people. If my jaws happen to snap a little too close for comfort, please remember I'm aiming for the leech on your neck and the wound you feel is from it digging in, not from me. Just like any dog, grudges are not held. When things are safe and good, you're welcome to lay your head on my back and we can gnaw a bone together.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Monday, August 11, 2014
Money
Ok. Nothing tricky here. Just some thoughts on money that occurred to me today on my drive home from work. I hear many modern Evangelical Christians talk about money. It's perhaps the most distasteful topic someone can preach on. We often assume this is because people are so addicted to money. Servants of Mammon, to use a Biblical reference.
But I don't think this is necessarily so. Obviously there are plenty of people calling themselves Christians who most certainly are wrapped up in money, and if not money itself, then the culture of consumerism, which is simply the same vice, a step removed. But then I believe there are a great number of people (I know several who are decidedly NOT part of this culture of money) that still take issue with it. Why is that?
I think first, it has to do with context. Most people who preach about money are doing it in a context where the method of parting with it (for our own good, they say) is to give it to the speaker. OK. So you just told me how bad the money is and I should improve myself by giving the bad stuff to you. Classic con game!
I'm not saying pastors asking for money are intentionally trying to con people, though I know undoubtedly some are. I think most actually believe their own rhetoric. Which often includes the ever-popular story of the rich young ruler in the Gospels. This is where Jesus tells a man to be perfect he must sell his possessions and makes the famous camel through the eye of the needle comment. I will resist the urge to digress into the misinterpretations of this story, since they are much more eloquently discussed by so many more qualified people than me. Suffice to say, the speaker most often obviously hasn't followed this himself, so he's got no right to talk.
Other rhetoric centers on the verse about serving God and Mammon. I've heard lots of exposition on Mammon as a god of wealth or a symbol of the corrupting power of money, but my favorite mammon speech is that it's actually a spirit which curses all money. Conveniently the way to remove this curse often has to do with giving money to the speaker, but I'm getting ahead of myself. In this speech, the pastor tries to convince the crowd that money is not bad, it's only the cursed money. This is my favorite because it expertly circumvents the problem of the church receiving the vile stuff which they then use with relish. The biggest problem here is that it is not anywhere found in the Bible. It's all made up once they depart from the one line that says 'Mammon'. I think it's a popular tactic because it allows the speaker, who is generally an educated person with some training in logic and apologetics to self-delude. Ignoring issues that include how it got cursed in the first place and why God allows a good thing to be emphatically cursed. The answer is often that it's God's way of making us give to Him what's His, as if God were a peevish and selfish gangster who would use curses and spiritual thugs to enforce his will. Instead of the source of love and light near which no unclean thing may approach and from which our definition of "good" is derived.
Back on the practical level, as I was getting to above, the first twinge of dissonance occurs, often subconsciously, by the fact that the speaker is taking our money! If it's bad, you, pastor, don't want it either! And if it's cursed until we give it to you, why is not cursed again once you take it? Is it the act of giving that removes the curse? What if I was to re-give a pure gift, a birthday present. Is that cursed? Someone gave it to me! If it's cursed once I get it even if given to me, why is it not cursed when you take it?
The answer propounded to this is that it's cursed until I give it to God (i.e. your church, as His agent). But first I have to ask, what year is this? Curses and Spirits? Real or not, is your audience even buying that? And secondly, I can make up stuff too, bro! If we're just going to pull it out of any random word, I can present you with just as much Biblical proof that God has chicken wings! And I'm not kidding about that. Ask me.
Seriously, you just can't ask people to give up money because it's bad for them and then take it yourself. You really can't even ask for money that you'll use at all without seeming like what you're doing: MOOCHING! to put it kindly. That's what we call it in any other relationship and you're human too, bro.
Here's what you can do. If your motive is really to help your listeners become better people by letting go of money. Then don't take it. Lead by example. Take up a collection that is 100% going to someone else reputable and unaffiliated with your organization (not a parishioner, either). Give it away. See if that boosts your totals that week. No games, no shaving, or calling your building fund an 'outreach opportunity'. No lame rebate guarantee "if God doesn't bless you" (I've actually heard this one too). Simply say, "to prove the principle, all money collected today is going to Samaritan's Purse." Or whatever charity. Unless of course you're with Samaritan's Purse, in which case I don't think you're using these tactics anyway, but if you are, give it to someone else.
Better yet, do what Jesus himself did and tell them to give it to the poor... unspecified. That's what he did with the Rich Young Ruler. He didn't take it for his ministry! He set the challenge and sent him off to do it.
The other approach you could take is to specifically tell people what the money is for. I've watched a struggling church receive a dismal offering at collection time, but then the same crowd dump their pockets for a guy who was building schools in Africa. Same day! Same service! One plate got pittence, the other overflowing! Why? Because the school builder was offering a tangible product. People were buying in, plain and simple. This of course does nothing to stir people from their money-driven mindset, in fact it might reinforce it. But at least the money flows to a place where it can do some good and no one looks like a shyster.
But I haven't even mentioned the elephant in the room yet. This is of course the fact that churches in general are so into money themselves! They need it. The organization requires funds to support the overhead and the ministries, etc. Sounds a whole lot like a non-profit corporation to me...Oh wait, that's what it is. The modern church organization has become no different than the Red Cross, the World Wildlife Fund, or the ASPCA. Of course, they'll tell you it takes money to reach people. But I emphatically and totally disagree. It takes money to run your organization, yes. But Jesus himself and countless others have reached many people without a dime. Yes, you, modern church, are more addicted to money than the majority of people you preach to. Seriously! The people you preach to gave some of theirs away and aren't out begging for it!
Your faith was founded by a guy who left his home and career. A guy who gave up everything. A guy who never asked anyone for money and never gave it to anyone either. Sure he used it, but only for it's intended purpose: as a medium of trade. But he really and truly didn't rely on it. He even sent his first disciples out with the command to take no money so they would be forced to see God's provision for them.
Bottom line is that you can't tell a kid not to smoke with a cigarette in your hand. It is the definition of HYPOCRITE! And we see it. Your mental gymnastics (or the bugaboo ghost stories) won't get around this plain and simple fact. Even if that isn't your intent, avoid the appearance of evil, yeah? Give it up!
I speak for the trees.
But I don't think this is necessarily so. Obviously there are plenty of people calling themselves Christians who most certainly are wrapped up in money, and if not money itself, then the culture of consumerism, which is simply the same vice, a step removed. But then I believe there are a great number of people (I know several who are decidedly NOT part of this culture of money) that still take issue with it. Why is that?
I think first, it has to do with context. Most people who preach about money are doing it in a context where the method of parting with it (for our own good, they say) is to give it to the speaker. OK. So you just told me how bad the money is and I should improve myself by giving the bad stuff to you. Classic con game!
I'm not saying pastors asking for money are intentionally trying to con people, though I know undoubtedly some are. I think most actually believe their own rhetoric. Which often includes the ever-popular story of the rich young ruler in the Gospels. This is where Jesus tells a man to be perfect he must sell his possessions and makes the famous camel through the eye of the needle comment. I will resist the urge to digress into the misinterpretations of this story, since they are much more eloquently discussed by so many more qualified people than me. Suffice to say, the speaker most often obviously hasn't followed this himself, so he's got no right to talk.
Other rhetoric centers on the verse about serving God and Mammon. I've heard lots of exposition on Mammon as a god of wealth or a symbol of the corrupting power of money, but my favorite mammon speech is that it's actually a spirit which curses all money. Conveniently the way to remove this curse often has to do with giving money to the speaker, but I'm getting ahead of myself. In this speech, the pastor tries to convince the crowd that money is not bad, it's only the cursed money. This is my favorite because it expertly circumvents the problem of the church receiving the vile stuff which they then use with relish. The biggest problem here is that it is not anywhere found in the Bible. It's all made up once they depart from the one line that says 'Mammon'. I think it's a popular tactic because it allows the speaker, who is generally an educated person with some training in logic and apologetics to self-delude. Ignoring issues that include how it got cursed in the first place and why God allows a good thing to be emphatically cursed. The answer is often that it's God's way of making us give to Him what's His, as if God were a peevish and selfish gangster who would use curses and spiritual thugs to enforce his will. Instead of the source of love and light near which no unclean thing may approach and from which our definition of "good" is derived.
Back on the practical level, as I was getting to above, the first twinge of dissonance occurs, often subconsciously, by the fact that the speaker is taking our money! If it's bad, you, pastor, don't want it either! And if it's cursed until we give it to you, why is not cursed again once you take it? Is it the act of giving that removes the curse? What if I was to re-give a pure gift, a birthday present. Is that cursed? Someone gave it to me! If it's cursed once I get it even if given to me, why is it not cursed when you take it?
The answer propounded to this is that it's cursed until I give it to God (i.e. your church, as His agent). But first I have to ask, what year is this? Curses and Spirits? Real or not, is your audience even buying that? And secondly, I can make up stuff too, bro! If we're just going to pull it out of any random word, I can present you with just as much Biblical proof that God has chicken wings! And I'm not kidding about that. Ask me.
Seriously, you just can't ask people to give up money because it's bad for them and then take it yourself. You really can't even ask for money that you'll use at all without seeming like what you're doing: MOOCHING! to put it kindly. That's what we call it in any other relationship and you're human too, bro.
Here's what you can do. If your motive is really to help your listeners become better people by letting go of money. Then don't take it. Lead by example. Take up a collection that is 100% going to someone else reputable and unaffiliated with your organization (not a parishioner, either). Give it away. See if that boosts your totals that week. No games, no shaving, or calling your building fund an 'outreach opportunity'. No lame rebate guarantee "if God doesn't bless you" (I've actually heard this one too). Simply say, "to prove the principle, all money collected today is going to Samaritan's Purse." Or whatever charity. Unless of course you're with Samaritan's Purse, in which case I don't think you're using these tactics anyway, but if you are, give it to someone else.
Better yet, do what Jesus himself did and tell them to give it to the poor... unspecified. That's what he did with the Rich Young Ruler. He didn't take it for his ministry! He set the challenge and sent him off to do it.
The other approach you could take is to specifically tell people what the money is for. I've watched a struggling church receive a dismal offering at collection time, but then the same crowd dump their pockets for a guy who was building schools in Africa. Same day! Same service! One plate got pittence, the other overflowing! Why? Because the school builder was offering a tangible product. People were buying in, plain and simple. This of course does nothing to stir people from their money-driven mindset, in fact it might reinforce it. But at least the money flows to a place where it can do some good and no one looks like a shyster.
But I haven't even mentioned the elephant in the room yet. This is of course the fact that churches in general are so into money themselves! They need it. The organization requires funds to support the overhead and the ministries, etc. Sounds a whole lot like a non-profit corporation to me...Oh wait, that's what it is. The modern church organization has become no different than the Red Cross, the World Wildlife Fund, or the ASPCA. Of course, they'll tell you it takes money to reach people. But I emphatically and totally disagree. It takes money to run your organization, yes. But Jesus himself and countless others have reached many people without a dime. Yes, you, modern church, are more addicted to money than the majority of people you preach to. Seriously! The people you preach to gave some of theirs away and aren't out begging for it!
Your faith was founded by a guy who left his home and career. A guy who gave up everything. A guy who never asked anyone for money and never gave it to anyone either. Sure he used it, but only for it's intended purpose: as a medium of trade. But he really and truly didn't rely on it. He even sent his first disciples out with the command to take no money so they would be forced to see God's provision for them.
Bottom line is that you can't tell a kid not to smoke with a cigarette in your hand. It is the definition of HYPOCRITE! And we see it. Your mental gymnastics (or the bugaboo ghost stories) won't get around this plain and simple fact. Even if that isn't your intent, avoid the appearance of evil, yeah? Give it up!
I speak for the trees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
