Simple, Complex, Easy, Hard

Something simple and easy: Washing a car.

Something simple and hard: Pushing a car.

Something complex and easy: Driving a car.

Something complex and hard: Building a car.

So what is Christianity? Simple and easy? Simple and hard? Complex and easy? Complex and hard?

Have you found it to be different than most people say?

In Defense of the Edifice Complex

One of the cleverest phrases to come out of the emerging church is right there in the title to this post: Edifice Complex.

In case you’re not sure why this is clever, I’ll explain. An “Oedipus Complex” (pronounced Ed-i-pus) is a romantic love or desire for one’s own parent.

To be fair, it was not the emerging church community who coined this term. It’s been used more widely in regard to politics and business than religion.

More Buildings. Bigger Buildings.

No matter what arena (no pun intended) of life it refers to, an Edifice Complex implies a fixation on the need for more buildings, or bigger buildings, or nicer buildings, to accomplish one’s purposes. Often this obsession relates to visibility: the more impressed people are with the number and/or size of your buildings, the more favorable will their opinion be of you and your operation.

So it’s easy to see why the emerging church would level this accusation at the institutional church. The phenomenon of the 90s was Megachurch; swelling and bloating as the influx of attendants reaches into the thousands and even tens-of-thousands.

The phenomenon of the 21st century has taken us in a different direction… Multi-site churches. Rather than build larger and larger buildings, as these churches grow they establish more and more campuses. Usually this involves a whole separate staff for each site, with the exception of the grand exalted senior pastor, who is “beamed” in each Sunday by closed-circuit television, or failing that, by tape.

Forgive me for sounding cynical. I will state outright that many Megachurches, and many Multi-site churches are populated and run by wonderful people, and are doing huge amounts of good in their respective communities. But if there were examples to point to of the Edifice Complex, look no futher. More buildings… Bigger buildings.

Just in case you’re in danger of some type of clarity, I’m now going to flip this whole thing upside-down. Because in our rebellion against the Edifice Complex, many of us have become suspicious of church buildings altogether. Some have come to believe that the church should not own property or equipment, or have a maintenance or housekeeping staff. Because the church is simply people, and people can meet anywhere! Especially when we are keeping things small and intimate.

And I would agree to that last sentiment. We can meet anywhere. Even in larger groups we have far more choices than many Christians seem to realize. But there is an important aspect of humanity that is getting left out of the equation here, and that is:

A Sense of Place

It is ironic that, even as our society’s Edifice Complex has raged out of control, we have been losing our sense of place. On the other hand, it may not be ironic at all. The more buildings we build, and the more quickly we build them, the less of ourselves we invest in the quality of those spaces, and the less relevance they will have in our lives.

I have few complaints about my workplace. It may not be fancy or well-appointed on the inside, but it is a 100-year old building in a historic district, and I like that. But when I go to my friend Raeganne to get my hair cut, I go to a brand-new building that looks 100 years old, and sometimes I wish I could work there instead. You could show up an hour early and sit down to wait without ever picking up a magazine, and yet you’d be entertained. I wish I was sitting there as I write this, so I could describe the décor in detail. But this salon, called Mojo Pie, is one of the wackiest places you’ll ever experience. It’s as if a pirate and a hippie got married and took up interior design together. When you’re there, you feel like you’re someplace.

Even as our sense of space has increased (especially in Texas) our sense of place has flown out the window. Our memories are wrapped up indelibly in the places they occur. The aesthetics of our daily commutes guide our thoughts, and the layout of our homes determine our movements. Each place has a feel, a personality, and a spirit of its own.

It is obvious that God understands this. He tied every story, and even the vast majority of spiritual concepts, to physical places: Jerusalem, Egypt, Athens, the Temple, the Tabernacle, the Stone of Help, the Jordan River, the Garden of Eden, the Camp, the Altar, the Desert. Our story is wrapped up in specific years, in proper names, and in real locales… it is a story with flesh on its bones. Even “The Word” is more a Person than it is a concept.

So for a church to have a sense of space is only natural. To want to own that space is not necessarily wrong. But to entertain that sense of space without a sense of place is a big mistake, and a failure to understand the human spirit. We need to think about how life really happens, and mold our spaces into places that will put flesh on the bones of our own stories, as they unfold from day to day.

If we’re going to have edifices, then so be it. But let’s not build them and decorate them so hastily and thoughtlessly. Let’s invest ourselves in them, to become the stuff of relationship, of emotion, of growth, of challenge, of memory, of welcome, and of the body-life that God intended us to live.



+

Don't Call Me That

If you look at our website, brochure, business cards, etc, you will see that word behind my name.

Pastor.

Despite all the title-wrangling that's gone on with the emerging church movement, I think one title that has stayed fairly well intact is the word Pastor.

Assuming we even knew what it meant to begin with.

But a pastor is a shepherd, right? In Latin it's the same word. A pastor works in the pasture, shepherding sheep. Of course Jesus is the great high shepherd, or head shepherd, thus the Head Pastor. (Oops. We've been calling certain people "Head Pastor", haven't we?) But Paul and other apostles make it clear that God has designated some to lead in this shepherding kind of way, and we do so under the leadership of the Head Shepherd.

Yesterday I caught a clip of Hank Hanegraaff on the Bible Answer Man radio show, where he was talking about the importance of "protecting the pulpit." Maybe that's why pastors grip it so hard when their preaching gets emphatic... they're protecting it. I actually got images of bullet-proof mylar and security guards on either side, lest anyone should take a shot at the holy lectern. Would you take a bullet for the pulpit?

I'm not saying good ole' Hank is all wet. If you have been entrusted with the role to disseminate God's truth to the community of believers, people will tend to trust whom you trust as well. And that is implied when the pastor invites someone else to speak at the pulpit.

So in essence it's an issue of stewardship. But the problem is, there's something about that "protecting the pulpit" attitude that threatens to swing toward arrogance and vainglory. As if we all as believers are called to be miniature Christs, but pastors are the XL minis. And as in any case of security (think national security, especially if you're a Democrat,) it is easy to secure something so well that you strangle it. (Your neck is in danger, sir! Here, let me protect it snugly with my two hands! Tighter now...)

The truth is that there are many types of pastors. God knows every community of believers is different, and needs a different brand of leader. Some really do need a solid theological expert who can humbly but boldly lift the group to the next level of understanding. But to presume that this is the primary type, or worse, the only type, is foolish.

How do I know? For one, because God called me to do it. Yes, I know a few things, and I like to teach. But I am seriously unqualified to be the ordained protector of the sacred podium.

It is false images like that that spring to mind when people call me "Pastor".

Mark Driscoll, in his autobiographical book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, writes about an experience early on in his church-planting ministry, when a young man calls him in the middle of the night, distraught about his inability to give up masturbating. After Driscoll gives him some very crude, direct, and groggy advice, the young man says, "Alright. Thanks, Pastor Mark." Driscoll recalls this as the first time he was ever called Pastor, and it made an impact on him.

I get called Pastor sometimes, but I usually ask people not to. It may be the title on my card, but you don't hear people getting called "Sales Representative Tim", or "C.E.O. Warren".

I think God has called me to be the type of pastor that holds the pulpit loosely, that stands up for what God has given me, but also empowers the gifts of others. I think there's a lot of community to be had in the process of opening things up, and gently enabling the harmony of voices that God intended when he gave us such a beautiful array of gifts. And this is not necessarily the first thing people think of when they call me Pastor.

Just "Ryan" will be fine, thanks.

And Don't Forget To Tip Your Waitresses...

You know I am really passionate about a topic when I never run out of metaphors or illustrations to get my point across. And here's the second one in a row in the food service category.

Last night Christina and I were having dinner with another couple at a restaurant downtown. The table we sat down at was a bit grimy, so we asked our waitress if she could clean it up. She acquiesced, but none too enthusiastically. When it was time to order, Christina and I ordered a single entree, to split, and the other couple ordered the same entree, to split. The waitress didn't seem too excited about that either, and I wondered if it was because she knew our check, and thus her tip, would be minimal.

All in all the service wasn't terrible, but it was painfully austere. Until she brought the check, that is. That's when she started joking around about who's bill was whose, and suddenly acting like she was one of those fun and friendly waitresses. I wanted to ask her who she was... because our waitress is the one without that smile on her face. But I didn't say that. I just played along, since I was more concerned about our conversation with the other couple than with our waitress' behavior.

But when Christina and I talked about it on the way home, she made me realize that our server had intentionally waited until check time to put on her happy face, so as to supplement her tip. And why not? After all, it's a lot of work being a good server. It's exhausting to be friendly and helpful all the time. And according to the primacy/recency effect, people only really remember the first thing, and the last thing, and not necessarily even the first thing if the food is good. So why not save your energy, and simply make a good last impression to boost your bottom line? Makes sense.

But, as Christina said, it also makes one feel used. It makes it painfully obvious, upon reflection, that your server is only interested in one thing: him- or herself. Even most good servers probably don't actually care about you, the customer, as a person, but at least they believe in serving you well, and doing a good job from start to finish. That way you're free to believe they care about you and like you. But when they make it so obvious that they're fishing for tips, it's hard to want to tip them at all.

But here's the payoff... this is often the impression that evangelism makes on the world. We have an agenda: to boost our numbers, to earn our badges, to seek out the prospects and expand the army of God. This is our sacred duty, and we'll do anything to accomplish it, by gum! Even pretending we like you! Whatever gets the job done...

Come on, world... just look how hard we've worked to serve you well, and all the time with a big, toothy grin on our faces. And we ask nothing in return, except a paltry tip of 10%.

And we better get it, too, or you never know... one of us might just spit in your communion cup.




+

La Comunidad Autentica

Several weeks ago, my boss hired a new employee named Diana to help out with the increasing workload. She is from Mexico, and has been a legal resident of the United States most of her life. Fortunately, she's happy to answer our questions about her home country, and her first language.

A week or two after she came on board, Andy (my boss) asked her if there were any truly authentic Mexican restaurants in Springfield. At first she said no. But then she changed her mind and said there's a place called Tamale King that's pretty close.

Christina and I actually ate at the Tamale King once. It's remarkably bare-bones, with linoleum floors, fluorescent lighting, and cafeteria-style tables and chairs. Two clues as to its authenticity were its wall of Latino grocery items, and the TV suspended over the counter playing Univision non-stop.

I'm not sure how many Mexican restaurants there are in Springfield, but there's at least several dozen. Of course the majority of them aren't even trying to be authentic: Taco Bell, Taco Bueno, Chipotle, Qdoba, Carlos O'Kelly's, etc. These are the franchise eateries that have stuck to the formula for success... put a lot of fattening American food in a tortilla, dip it in cheese, and give it a Spanglish name.

After that you've got your independently-owned places that are shooting for authentic... Tex-Mex, that is. It's still pretty Americanized, but closer. These are the joints that are always trying to convince you they're authentic. It's a great PR word. They play canned Mariachi music over the speakers, they hang ponchos and sombreros on the wall, and they may even sell funky sodas you've never heard of.

According to Diana, we've now described every "Mexican" restaurant in Springfield but one. And that one, Tamale King, doesn't seem to care if anybody thinks they're authentic. No wacky red-green-and-yellow decor, no trumpets and giant guitars, not even a fully Spanish name. Nevertheless, the proof is in the Mexican Bread Pudding.

It's obvious by the sincere attempts at authenticity in the restaurant industry that customers care about getting "the real thing". But why? It seems like a perfect world for an epicurean white guy like myself. Dozens and dozens of restaurants, all lined up to give me something spicy and exotic, but catered specifically to my caucasian sensibilities. What could be better?

So I think the restaurants in the Tex-Mex category have discovered something significant. White people don't really want authentic Mexican food. They just want to think they're getting authentic Mexican food. Why else would they go to all the trouble to dress it up, instead of just calling it what it is? You know... Spicy Burger Chopped Up Inside Taco Shell. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)

Where am I going with this, you ask? Authentic is not just a buzzword in the culinary arts, it's practically a movement within the Church. Indeed, it's become a veritable silver bullet. "Let's all be seeker-sensitive, I mean let's have a revival, I mean let's be postmodern, I mean let's be missional, I mean let's be authentic! That's all we really need!"

Check me out, I'm guilty too. What's the unofficial slogan of the Front Porch? "Arts, Culture and Authentic Community." Not even a complete sentence, is it?

I am not writing this post to say that we are the Tamale King of churches (there's a slogan for you.) We are not a lone reed of integrity in a sea of spiritual pretenders. But if I can blow the horn in my sleep, perhaps I can give the whole Church a wake-up call.

Whether people really want authenticity, or they just think they do, the fact is that they need it. We need it. The temptation, as a church leader, and especially as a church planter, is to get a focus group, figure out everybody's preferences, and then create an experience especially for them. Just like the Taco Bells and Qdobas, it's a proven success strategy, and everybody wants to be a winner.

But what does it cost? Yes, the Chalupas are cheap, but the identity crisis is out of everyone's price range. Because the most fundamental human need is to know who you are... whose you are. And what you're worth. And every step we take toward a plastic spiritual utopia is a step away from that ultimate goal. It's a concealing, not a revealing, and down the road I get to find out just how many layers I've managed to wrap around the real ME... the person God created me to be.

So the question is out there... Do you really want Authentic Community? Because you have to take the sides that come with it, namely Repentance, Transparency, Intimacy, Forgiveness, even Awkwardness... ew. All concepts which can be pretty hard to swallow.

So... no room for dessert? Check please!



+

Walking on Eggshells

Last Sunday morning one of the things I talked about at The Core was some of the things we can learn from other religions. I know this thought sends shivers down the spines of many Christians, and to others it's too little, too late.

If you know me at all, I don't have to assure you that I haven't gone soft. When it comes to the Bible, Jesus, etc, I still believe basically the same things I have believed most of my life. But even if we Christians are right about the most important aspects of spirituality, do we really need the arrogance that often comes along for the ride? Is it right to treat all other religions as if they are full of morons (no... not Mormons. There is actually one religion which is full of Mormons.) who managed to get everything wrong? Or do we have the humility to learn from our "enemies"?

It made me think of (surprise!) a metaphor. Namely, holding a belief is a lot like holding an egg. (You may have heard this metaphor used with parenting.) If you hold it too loosely, it will roll off and break on the floor. If you hold it too tightly, it will bust in your hand.

My point to the post-modern crowd is, there's nothing wrong with a little certainty. And to the modern crowd that there's nothing wrong with having an open mind. Because the danger of rejecting certainty is that, rather than validating all beliefs, it actually refutes all beliefs... considering all of them unworthy of really believing in.

And the danger of rejecting open-mindedness is that you can come to protect your beliefs so savagely that you actually weaken them in the process. Let me explain.

A true belief is able to stand up to scrutiny and skepticism. When we shield our beliefs from all such attacks, we insinuate that they cannot endure the onslaught, and thus, may not actually be true.

Either way, your egg is a goner. The only question now is... do you want it scrambled or fried?

Starbucks: A Follow-up

This post is a continuation of Starbucks: Keeping a Tight Lid on Freedom of Speech.

Following is the overly tactful and judicious e-mail I received from Starbucks Customer Relations:

Ryan,

Starbucks is committed to contributing to our communities and to the environment. We provide our support through monetary contributions, product donations and through The Starbucks Foundation.

Starbucks provides donations and sponsorships to nonprofit organizations in the following areas: the work of young social entrepreneurs, literacy, the environment, local communities, and programs in coffee-growing communities.

We believe our partners (employees) are the best resource we can offer, therefore we also support organizations in which they are active volunteers. This ensures that our investments touch the neighborhoods where Starbucks partners live and work.

Please note that as a rule, Starbucks does not donate to individuals, programs that promote or endorse a specific religious affiliation, political candidates, or for-profit organizations. This includes the donation of space inside of our store locations (ie: community boards).Sincerely,

Julie S.
Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company

And here is my response:

Julie,

It is obvious that Starbucks is trying to make a positive impact in the communities it occupies. However, I am very sad to hear that you consider the usage of your community board as a "donation of space" and therefore something that cannot be extended to religious or political entities.

Although this type of policy is certainly within your right as a private corporation, it is nevertheless an attempt, in my opinion, to homogenize the atmosphere of dialogue within your restaurants, and avoid anything which might run counter to the beliefs or loyalties of your customers. The only possible result is a bland environment which insults people's intelligence by assuming that they cannot co-exist with ideas which are not complementary to their own.

I say this not for my own benefit. (There are plenty of other places to put up my harmless and extremely unoffensive posters. In fact, not only have I lost interest in promoting our worship gathering at Starbucks, I've lost interest in your company at every level.) I say this because I believe the public deserves better, and that Starbucks has failed to live up to the culture of insightful and challenging dialogue that has characterized the coffeehouse environment for centuries.

Sincerely,
Ryan Wiksell.

Starbucks: Keeping a Tight Lid on Freedom of Speech

I'm never buying anything from Starbucks again.

Or at least not from a certain location, depending on how things pan out.

Last night I was driving around putting up posters for the Front Porch, at a few non-downtown locations for a change. Three Panera restaurants, a Borders bookstore, and... Starbucks.

As you may know, every Starbucks store has a magnetic board for community fliers and announcements. I went to the South Campbell location, and found that there was plenty of space for my poster... if I moved a few things around. It took me a minute, and business was slow, so one of the baristas asked me in a friendly tone if I was having fun. I said sure. I got my poster put up, and I headed out.

But I had a different experience altogether at the East Sunshine location, near Bass Pro. It was even slower there, and the situation was the same with the magnet board, so I started moving things around.

I was almost done when an employee behind me (presumably the manager) bluntly informed me that if I put up my poster, he would have to take it down immediately. Why? Because it's corporate policy that nothing religious be placed on the community board. Nothing religious or political, he said. I could be wrong, but I sensed a smirk on his face.

Frankly, I was stunned. Religious and political censorship? In a coffee house? How many alliances and visions and revolutions have been birthed in coffee houses over the centuries? Paris... London... Boston... the coffee house was the community heartbeat for intellectual dialogue and sociological progress. Can you imagine if all these historic conversations had been interrupted by 19 year-old baristas with a warning not to cross corporate policy?

Does this manager mean to tell me that announcements for peace rallies, get-out-the-vote campaigns, church charity drives, and biblical counseling are all contraband?

You should see what's left over. There was a notice of a lost dog, a certificate of thanks awarded to Starbucks for community investment of some kind, and a newspaper clipping. That's it.

I will allow the possibility that this particular manager was mistaken, in addition to being rude. I sent an e-mail through their corporate website, asking if he was correct about corporate policy. If he was not correct, I hold nothing further against Starbucks, only their East Sunshine location. If, however, the coffee giant has gone so far as to turn their entire chain into an oppressively polite family dinner table, then I will have nothing further to do with them.

You may still want to go there... that's up to you. But if you must discuss your opinions about Bush or Obama or Moses, I suggest you keep your voices down.



+

P.S. Or, if you must have your say, simply have your religious or political thoughts published on their cups... like Rick Warren did.

Now Taking Questions...

Last Wednesday our QAF Sessions focused on gathering questions from participants, to be used in future QAFs. Here is the list I took down. If you are plan to participate in the QAF Sessions in the near future, please add a question to the comments. If you can't join us, feel free to add a question anyway, but I will probably be quicker to use questions from participants than non-participants.

I am not a Bible Answer Guru, and I don't know any. So conclusions and right answers are not really the point here, so please don't try to answer them in the comments. The point is that we are able to ask these questions, and able to discuss them openly, with no fear of dirty looks for being honest. So here are the questions that were asked Wednesday night.

• Is there a feminine or female side of God? Does God have a gender at all?
• The Bible seems to imply that we are judged by what we do. How does salvation by grace fit into that?
• Is it wrong to be so content with life that you don't care what happens to you after you die?
• How reliable is Scripture? Have human hands compromised it in the inscription or translation process? How perfect can our translations possibly be?
• Why does Biblical history seem absent from academic history books?
• Is it wrong to focus your education on attaining job security?
• Is it a sin to do what you want if you don't know what God wants you to do?
• Do we have to suffer in order to serve God?
• What is the point of suffering?
• Does God cause disaster, as it seems to say in Isaiah 45:7?
• How do we reckon with some of the disturbing character traits of God?
• How can we say God is good when he instigates massacres like the flood?
• How literally should we read the Bible (i.e. "Bind these words upon your head...)

+

One-ity

I have been fantasizing lately about founding a network of churches for one simple reason: the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17:21-26. I'm going to do a little dreaming out loud here about what such a network might look like.

First of all, I can't imagine moving on this for at least a year. I've got to get my own two feet underneath me first, as pastor of The Core. Nevertheless, I can't get this off my mind, so I'm going to throw out a few ideas, and let you respond to them, either positively or negatively.

"One In Christ" Network (needs a better name)

1. It will not be a denomination, as evidenced by the following:
a. Other memberships will be permitted, and not monitored whatsoever
b. It will not attempt to be set apart from other groups by a unique doctrine, except to be known for its commitment to the unity of those who follow Christ, and subscribe to basic, historic, orthodox Christian beliefs.
c. It will seek to connect and "network" Christians and churches together, rather than divide or control them.

2. Member churches will agree to the following beliefs:
a. The 66 books of the Bible are completely true and reliable, designed to govern us, and not be governed by us.
b. God is all-powerful, sovereign, and triune, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
c. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and our only means of reconciliation to God by his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead.
d. Although we cannot earn our own salvation through works, we are called to a life of righteousness and a heart of obedience, as prescribed in Scripture.
e. God himself is the owner of all truth, and calls us to develop our theologies with the utmost humility, always listening respectfully to the perspectives of others, and never belittling our ridiculing our brothers and sisters.

3. Member churches will be characterized by the following values:
a. a recognition that all Christians are indeed ONE as we are found IN CHRIST.
b. a commitment to actively love and pray for others, regardless of their beliefs.
c. a latitude in regards to secondary doctrines, realizing that the most important concepts of Scripture are marked by clarity, and secondary concepts are often marked by ambiguity, leaving room for honest, intelligent Christ-followers to disagree.
d. a desire to seek out partnerships and collaborative opportunities with those from differing Christian traditions
e. a rejection of all divisive actions and attitudes (with an understanding of the difference between divisiveness and mere division.)

4. The Network will be characterized by the following initiatives:
a. conferences, workshops and gatherings to promote unity and inter-denominational reconciliation.
b. support for new churches who wish to minister missionally and non-denominationally.
c. mediation in specific circumstances of denominational antagonism.
d. ecumenical projects to care for the poor and needy.
e. general work to represent Christianity to the world as a body unified in Christ.

That's all I can think of for now... what do you think? Is this something Christianity needs? And is it feasible?

Area Church Makes Its Home in the Clouds

DALLAS | It seems a new light has dawned on the religious landscape of America. This Sunday, First Bapticostal Church of Dallas celebrates the completion of its new campus, and the mood is, shall we say, elevated.

"You wouldn't believe the price of real estate these days," commented FBC's Executive Pastor, Jerome Bunkmaster, "Hoo boy! We must a paid a million dollars for our last piece of property, but you can't buy the space for a playground for that nowadays! I think we made the right decision."

Church leaders describe the search process for the needed 60 acres of land, conducted last year, as exhausting. With 7,000 members and climbing, the congregation needed a new home with some elbow room.

"So I looked toward the heavens," Bunkmaster said, "and pleaded with God to find us a new home. And that's when it hit me!"

As of this Sunday, First Bapticostal Church is the first church in the world to be located, literally, in the clouds. Advances in technology have opened up a world of possibilities to churches seeking relocation. Bunkmaster describes the cloud which forms the foundation of their church as a type of space-age hovercraft with a solid silver lining.

Although the inauguration is not till this Sunday, last night's Wednesday evening service served as a members-only dedication ceremony. Songs included "When We All Get to Heaven", "I've Got a Mansion in Glory" and "We'll Be Caught Up In the Air to Meet our Savior Jesus."

Members seem to like the new arrangement. Sylvia Johns joined FBC in 1944, and never looked back. "I sorta always knew we wasn't supposed to be walkin' around on the dirt like them other, um... unchurched people. Always sunny up here, too. I just can't wait for that new planned community they got slated for phase two."

Indeed, the plans call for more than just a church building. The official blueprints include a small neighborhood, a school, a post office, a clinic, a grocery store, and a Starbucks. "You gotta admit," Bunkmaster chuckled, "otherwise, the commute's a bit expensive, but no more than those pesky property taxes. And this way we'll only have to associate with our own good churchfolk. Except on Sunday mornings."

Three rope ladders will be available to visitors to climb up for Sunday morning's services, and an elevator runs for members, or visitors with a minimum $100 offering. Catapults are also provided free of charge, to accommodate the disabled.

Evangelism's Code of Conduct

On Thursday, the Chicago Tribune featured an article about the World Council of Churches and the Vatican teaming up to establish a code of conduct for Evangelism.

Now I can't say that when the WCC and the Vatican link arms, that I'm necessarily gonna be right there with them. And it could be that the code they eventually establish (if they can agree at all) would be rubbish. But I have to applaud them at least for making this effort. I believe it's a worthy one.

It makes me want to write my own code of conduct... like a gentleman's agreement. Not enforcible, but public enough so that can even non-Christians can hold us accountable to it.

Although I think my motive for doing so would be different from the Vatican/WCC initiative. They seem mostly concerned about governments on the brink of passing anti-evangelism legislation. It is thought that an established code of conduct might persuade them that evangelism is not dangerous, and should not be banned. They may be right, or it may be that these goverments are not so much worried about evangelism being pushy or annoying... they're worried about it being effective. Then the only way to appease them would be to prove that the WCC and the Vatican only intend to engage in ineffective evangelism. I could see it, actually.

Maybe the reason that I don't have this motive is that the U.S. is not on the brink of such legislation. Some people would argue with me, and it may very well be the case in 10 or 20 years, but not just yet. So my motive is more about helping the community to understand that we are also displeased with the nature of much of the evangelism that goes on, and we are committed to curbing it, even as we strive to obey the command to spread the Gospel.

So I'm going to jot down some preliminary, off-the-top-of-my-head ideas for an Evangelistic Code of Conduct. Here goes...

DON'T...

1. interrupt people's lives purely for the sake of evangelism.
2. hand anyone a tract until you know they're interested in reading it (and maybe not even then.)
   
3. use tracts that look like money (ever!)
4. wear a sandwich board or hold a sign or use a bullhorn (or shout as if you wished you had one.)
5. use scripture with people who clearly don't care about it.
   
6. wear a big, fake smile and slap people on the back and say "awesome" all the time.
7. argue (ever!)
8. force people to hear your message in order receive something else that they want.
9. lose interest in a person once they've said they're not interested in the gospel
10. separate your "real life" from your "ministry life."

DO...

1. listen carefully and respectfully
2. be yourself, and talk like you talk.
3. be willing to admit that you don't know.
4. be willing to admit that Christianity is not easy.
5. apologize for the times that you, or Christians in general, have failed to exhibit the love of Christ.
6. meet people's needs with no strings attached.
7. invite people into your life.
8. consider living among the people you're ministering to (or minister to the people you're living among.)
   
9. pray earnestly for unbelievers, and for your ability to be Christ to them.
10. enjoy people's company, plain and simple.
    

OK... I know I'm missing a lot, so you'll have to add a comment to help me out. Go ahead... click that little "add a comment" link... I know you can do it.

Death of a Salesman

"The only thing you got in this world is what you can sell."

I've been known to say it before, and more and more Christians are beginning to realize it. The concept of Evangelism has been deteriorating into pure salesmanship. The greatest news, the most perfect message humankind has ever heard, and it is relegated to little more than Girl Scout Cookies. And it doesn't even seem to be concerned about the here-and-now... only the afterlife. Do you know if you'll go to heaven when you die? Let's say a prayer and secure your place there right now, ok?

"After all the highways, and the trains, and the appointments, and the years, you end up worth more dead than alive."

Is a man or a woman merely a soul wrapped up in flesh? Are these bodies and brains simply tools to make sure the soul ends up in the right place? No... God created all of it to glorify him... to express, innovate, create, love, communicate, challenge, dance, rest, laugh. Can you 'love your neighbor' and only care about his or her soul?

"You can't eat the orange and throw the peel away--a man is not a piece of fruit!"

But the modern state of Evangelism is dangerously close to this kind of dichotomy. Ask them if they go to church anywhere. Tell them your testimony... they can't argue with that. Make sure they realize they're a sinner. Then ask them if there's any reason why they shouldn't pray for salvation right now. If that doesn't work, try just being their friend, and keep praying.

Is friendship a stratagem now? Is it the secret weapon in our evangelistic arsenal? To reduce relationship to a step in the three-step plan is to cheapen people... to deny their holistic value.

"I am not a dime a dozen! I am Willy Loman, and you are Biff Loman!"

If we don't come to our senses... if we don't change our course quickly, many of us are in danger of waking up and realizing that all the conversions under our belts have amounted to nothing.

"Nothing's planted. I don't have a thing in the ground."

Because we haven't loved. We have set our minds upon a task... a commission, but we have made the very mistake Paul warned us about in I Corinthians 13:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing."

Jesus commanded us to love everyone... and simply that. It is the highest form of human interaction, and the most complete way to be Christ-like. Everything we do, including (or especially) sharing the gospel, has to be governed by authentic love for people, not by strategies or sales pitches.

I am so passionate about this, I want everyone to have an opportunity to come together and help each other rid themselves of the proselytizing instinct... to let the salesman in each of us die a sudden death. I want us each to devote our lives to true relationship, to caring about people no matter what they believe, and ridding ourselves of the hidden agendas. The times we spend with people in this capacity will communicate the truth far better than any four spiritual laws.

"There's more of Willy in that front stoop than in all the sales he ever made."

In the fall, we're going to start getting together on a regular basis to work through the evangelistic misconceptions that have built up in each of us over time. We'll call these gatherings "Death of a Salesman", and we'll have them as often as necessary. If you have any interest in helping The Core build authentic community, or in providing hospitality at the Front Porch on a regular basis... I can't stress enough the importance of this gathering. Go ahead and e-mail me if you would like to take part.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind... and love your neighbor as yourself."

League Leader in Total Conversions

About three years ago I was pondering the idea of becoming an ordained pastor within a certain denomination. So they had me fill out this application, of sorts. Everything was going along fairly well until I hit the question that asked, "Over the past two years, how many people have you led to faith in Jesus Christ?"

Here's what I did:

I got mad, and threw it away. Not because my answer would have been zero, but because I am appalled by the mindset that would produce a question like that. So I forgot about the whole ordination thing for awhile.

Here's what I should have done (or rather, should have thought):

"Hm... how many people have I led to faith in Jesus Christ? Gosh, that's a little oversimplified. I mean, isn't it the Holy Spirit that leads people to Jesus? So I guess the real answer is:

0.

But the fact is, I did personally share the gospel and pray with 2 people for salvation, so I suppose my answer could be:

2.

But what about those people with whom I shared the gospel, who I found out later prayed for salvation with someone else? That counts, right? So now we're up to:

7.

Hm. It only asks about conversions, and doesn't have a blank for "assists". So I guess I should just include them in my answer. There's that one guy who had questions I couldn't answer, so I set him up to meet with my pastor, who led him in "the prayer".

8.

And those people I brought to church who went down for the altar call...

20.

And the two girls who were sitting around with a group of us Christians, who actually prayed with one of the ladies, but I answered several of their questions pretty well, I think.

22.

If we're talking about conversions and assists, maybe we can also count them like quarterback sacks, or innings pitched... in fractions. There was this guy that a friend and I led to the Lord simultaneously. And another one that was a three-man effort. So that's 1/2 plus 1/3... so now we're up to:

22 5/6.

That's pretty close to 23. Let's round up.

23.

As long as we're on the sports motif... you gotta give the coaches a little credit, right? Because I did teach that evangelism class for the youth group. Out of the 8 kids I taught, 3 of them were downright naturals. I heard they each earned an average of 5 conversions over the last two seasons years. So that's...

38.

Oh man... I almost forgot about that time I was an altar worker at a Billy Graham crusade.

249.

And I suppose there are plenty of times that someone observed me saying or doing something, that made it easy for the next guy to come along and lead them to faith. Those would be impossible to count... so I'll give myself the benefit of the doubt:

1,328.

OK... 1,328 it is. Hey, I'm a shoo-in for ordination!"

If you know me at all, I don't have to tell you that there's some fiction in there. But I think my point stands regardless... that God is definitely thankful that I'm on his team :-)~

None of Your Beeswax (or, Waning Eloquent)

Take heed, ye blog readers, to sacred Scripture, and let us hear the words of the Lord.

"Take a sharp sword and use it as a barber's razor to shave your head and your beard. Then take a set of scales and divide up the hair. When the days of your siege come to an end, burn a third of the hair with fire inside the city. Take a third and strike it with the sword all around the city. And scatter a third to the wind. For I will pursue them with drawn sword. But take a few strands of hair and tuck them away in the folds of your garment. Again, take a few of these and throw them into the fire and burn them up. A fire will spread from there to the house of Israel."

Thus saith the Lord.

Let it not be said that I, Coreman, preach only vain philosophies and intangible precepts. Let it neither be said that I brush away the commands of Almighty God for the sake of poetic figuration or "cultural relevance". As I once observed so crudely adhered (and crudely phrased) upon the fender of an automobile, "God said it; I believe it; that settles it." Indeed, I adhere to a literal reading of scripture, much like that store-bought automotive paraphernalia.

Therefore, in the interest of obedience to our Sovereign Lord, I will lead by example. I will find a sword at some local goth emporium, then shave my face and head with it. I will then burn some, scatter some, and tuck the rest away, God be praised. And I expect that you, my loyal blog readers, if you be loyal indeed, will do the same.

OK, that's enough of that. Hopefully you've gathered that I'm not making fun of those who read the Bible literally, but I am challenging you to realize that not every Bible command is directed at every Bible reader.

One pet topic of mine that serves as an example of this is Tithing. It seems to me that the only time you'll hear the word "Malachi" mentioned from the pulpit is in a sermon about giving to the church (typically delivered during budget shortfalls.) The passage is Malachi 3:6-12, and you don't have to read it very carefully to see that God is having a conversation with the "sons of Jacob", otherwise known as the Israelites. They had been in the practice of ignoring God's command to bring tithes and offerings into the storehouse, and God was angry (though even in his anger, he promises amazing blessings if they will turn and obey.)

Is there still something very important for us in 2007 to learn as we read this passage? By all means, yes. Can we glean spiritual truth from Ezekiel 5:1-4, quoted above? Definitely. God's Word is eternal, and no matter how much or how little is written to us, it is all written for us. On the matter of giving, it is easy to see from the entirety of Scripture that God wants us to be generous, both sacrificially and joyfully. Isn't that enough? Why should we have to perilously re-contextualize an otherwise obscure passage to make people understand why they should give?

I've got another favorite example of latching onto a scriptural command that doesn't apply to you. When I think of it, I am reminded of the old beer commercials where the guys in a bar are divided into two factions, bellowing back and forth "Great taste!" and "Less filling!" Except in this scenario the men and women are split down the middle of the sanctuary, orthodox synagogue style, shouting "Wives submit to your husbands!" and "Husbands love your wives!"

When I read the third chapter of Malachi, and see in verse 6 where it says, "So you, O descendants of Jacob..." I immediately think, "OK, the stuff coming up is addressed to the nation of Israel, and is probably not intended to be a universal precept. So when I read it, I should not automatically presume that God's precise intention for my life is contained here, but I should ask him what he wants to teach me through this."

This is what should happen when you read Ephesians 5:22-28. If you are a man, and you read verse 22, which begins with the word "Wives," you should realize that this command is essentially none of your business. And women should do the same with verse 25 and following.

Just imagine if those of us who are married took that energy we normally spend wishing and complaining about how our spouse isn't being obedient to God, and re-focused it on actually being obedient ourselves?

What if we husbands could manage to just plumb forget how our wives are supposed to treat us? In fact, let's do it right now. (I would make a similar admonition to you ladies, but I plumb forgot what I was supposed to tell you.)

Normally at this point, I would close out the post with some pithy one-liner, but all I can think about is how I'm supposed to love my wife as Christ loves the Church.

Um, so yeah... love your wife. If you have a wife. If you are a wife... you're on your own, I guess. Also if you're single. Sorry.

The Cross and the Bench

Allow me to paint you a picture.

You've got two big, flat pieces of wood, and a quasi-church-coffeehouse-type building. The pieces of wood are as old as the building itself. You don't need them for framing or construction, but they're too cool and historic to throw away. What do you do with them?

One of our volunteers at the Front Porch had a suggestion: a cross! Why not? When a Christian has two big pieces of wood and a quasi-church whatever... a cross is a natural solution.

I love this guy, who suggested this. He is one of the most genuine, friendly, helpful people I know. But on this point, I had to disagree. When I see two pieces of wood that ought to be used somehow, you know what I think?

A bench. Right outside the front door. Maybe even a place for a Christ-follower to have a cigarette with a stranger (note: smoking is bad for you.)

More importantly, a bench on the sidewalk is a place for conversation. It's a place to sit down, relax, and get to know somebody. And since it's on a sidewalk, there's no telling who might walk by and want to join you, or recognize you from somewhere else and stick around to chat.

If you want my opinion about the cross... Jesus' death was the most important event in all of history (with the possible exception of his resurrection... or maybe Creation.) The cross represents the turning point of mankind, and it is the hinge (better yet, the crux) on which our spirituality turns. I love the cross.

But do I wear one? No. Do we display them in our home? Not really. Do I want to have a cross up at the Front Porch? Probably not.

Because, no matter how much you love the cross, you have to ask yourself why you would want to keep one around. If you have a good reason for it, more power to you. But I can also see some ways that being in the constant presence of symbols of our faith has brought about complacency.

What religion is Jack? Christian. How do you know? The fish on his car.

Does ABC Plumbing charge a fair price? Probably. How do you know? The cross in their ad.

Our symbols can so easily define us... to others and to ourselves. When we are surrounded by them, we feel that we have made our point. But what might happen if our symbols disappeared? What if we suddenly forgot all our cliches and buzzwords? Then how would people know what we believe?

We might have to resort to caring for the poor, visiting the sick, and listening to the weird. We might have to fall back on things like love, prayer, and worship (the real kind... from the depths of our heart.) We might decide to actually spend time with people... and be Christ to them.

I'm not saying that Christians never do these things. But if that's all we had to define us, maybe we'd be a little more gung-ho about it, don't you think?

So once again, I love the cross. But if you're out and about, and you see a little miniature bench that I could glue to my fender, call me.

100% Human

Whether or not you believe it, you've probably heard about Jesus being fully man, and fully God. Also that he was perfect and sinless.

When we imagine a man like this, I think a lot of us tend to see him as a little bit dull. Sure, he healed people, and drew huge crowds and walked on water and shocked the establishment and drove the crooks out of the temple with a home-made whip. But perfect??? How drab.

I imagine we think this way because we tend to see our foibles, our idiosyncrasies, and, yes, our sins, as the source of our colorfulness. We laugh at each other's stumbles, and in our better moments, we laugh at our own. So how could there be anything funny or interesting about the perfect man?

It's definitely a good thing to celebrate our differences, and come to terms with our faults. But if we take one glance at the word "holiness" and fall asleep, we've probably got some re-orientating to do. Yes! I'll re-orientate myself to holiness! But then I look at all the people who seem obsessed with the H word, and decide I'm not interested in becoming a fellow borg... a mindless conformist, stripped of my individuality and color.

I believe Jesus, in addition to being fully God, was the most human human who ever lived. He was, truly, 100% human. By comparison, I'd say I've never topped 40%, if that. All the things that people are supposed to be, he was (and is.)

So ok, we've established that we're supposed to be "Christ-like". So what? So now we have to break out of that mind-prison that tells us that the result of a whole kingdom of people who are very much like their king, is monotony.

Did Jesus have a personality? Yes. Did he have a unique individuality and creativity? Yes. Otherwise he would have been less than human. Is he calling us to adopt those traits of his, consequently surrendering our own individualities? NO.

To follow Christ, to be found in him, and to become like him, is to simultaneously become your best self--the self that God made you to be. Rather than a church full of a combination of conformists and rebels, I think God envisions a stunningly vibrant and diverse body of fascinating individuals, all bound together for a common purpose.

Because it is not our faults that make us who we are, it is our gifts.

Atheists For Jesus

There it is in black-on-white: Atheists for Jesus. So, of course, it's a joke, right? Probably one of those snarky shirts they sell at Spencer Gifts or something.

Except that the man wearing the shirt is no joker. His name is Richard Dawkins, one of the most formidable atheist apologists of modern times. And this is the picture from a serious article he wrote entitled "Atheists For Jesus."

Although it is a very interesting read, most of it is not about how an atheist can be "for" Jesus. Most of it is about the nastiness of a Darwinian world, and the social ills that inevitably follow from such a theory. Dawkins is seeking a "nicer" society, and is literally willing to look anywhere. If you're short on time, or like to save your really deep thinking for trying to remember where you left your keys, I'll cut to the chase.

[Spoiler warning] At the end of the article, Dawkins says, "...perhaps the oxymoronic impact of 'Atheists for Jesus' might be just what is needed to kick start the [cultural trend] of super niceness in a post-Christian society. If we play our cards right - could we lead society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into kinder and more compassionate uplands of post-singularity enlightenment? I think a reborn Jesus would wear the T-shirt. It has become a commonplace that, were he to return today, he would be appalled at what is being done in his name, by Christians ranging from the Catholic Church to the fundamentalist Religious Right. Less obviously but still plausibly, in the light of modern scientific knowledge I think he would see through supernaturalist obscurantism. But of course, modesty would compel him to turn his T-shirt around: Jesus for Atheists.

Before I address Dawkins' central point, I would like to loiter on that last phrase a moment. "Jesus for Atheists". It stings the ears of cultural Christianity, and comes off just as false as the inverse. Although we have no way of knowing what sort of t-shirt Jesus would wear, or what slogan he would adopt (if any,) I think I can see some truth in this. Jesus was "for" all types of people that he didn't agree with, and whose lifestyles he didn't endorse. It's like the corny people who say, "Whether or not you believe in God, God believes in you." I don't think anybody is claiming that Atheists are Jesus' favorite people, but it is not hard to imagine that he would treat them much like he treated the tax collectors of his own day. (Jesus had a way of doing the most good for the people who could do the least good for him... and knew it.)

Dawkins is expressing an admiration for Jesus which often rubs Christians the wrong way, for two reasons. One, "How can the same man say such good things about our Savior, and such bad things about us, his followers? Since we are striving to be like Jesus, you must lump Jesus together with us, for good or for ill." And Two, "How can anybody show respect for a man who claims to be God and requires everyone to relate to him as such, unless he or she believes that claim to be true?"

And this is where I'm going to duck out of my promise to address Dawkins' central point. Because the natural thing to do here, as a God-fearing Christian blogger, would be to bring in the secret weapon: the THREE L's.

Skeptics beware! Because if you rile us so much as to express an admiration for our Lord and Savior, we will corner you into a moment of decision! Liar, Lunatic or Lord... pick one! Logically, these are your only choices!

For the record, and for all you C.S. Lewis fans, I believe this is true. But is this really our best move? Is there nothing positive about a culture that, overall, has a good impression of Jesus? Is this not a priceless opportunity to re-evaulate the places that centuries of Christendom have taken us, and ask ourselves if we are really imitating Christ? Ask yourself: Do we take after his post-Pentecost disciples, or do we more closely resemble the Pharisees and Judaizers?

Naturally, we are not called to live for anyone's pleasure but God's. Since no one has a perfect concept of Jesus, we cannot expect anyone to be perfectly pleased with our impersonations of him (especially since our attempts are so imperfect.) But people like Dawkins have ascertained correctly that Jesus was not "for" the Spanish Inquisitionists, or the Medieval Crusaders. Neither is he "for" the modern-day legalists or guilt-mongers.

As a Christ-follower myself, I can relate to the rhetorical reflex that comes with hearing an atheist speak glowingly of Jesus. But what do you say we avoid the asinine alliterations for a change? In fact, let's axe the acrostics and get rid of the rhymes while we're at it. We want to win every conversation so badly, and with memorable methods, that we compromise on correct communication, which undermines our understanding.

See how ridiculous we can sound? Maybe it's time we start getting real with each other, and stop making assonances of ourselves.

Publicity Anonymity (or, Stuck in the Middle with You...)

UPDATE 2/23/07: A lot of people have been coming to this blog post from "SBC OUTPOST" since yesterday. But I think most of those people would actually be more interested in reading the post that Roger Moran quoted in his diatribe: The Sound of the Underground. One other thing... although The Core is not SBC affiliated, it is something we are exploring. So it's not as if this controversy has no bearing on us whatsoever. Thank you.

On the blog SBC OUTPOST, Marty Duren writes about a steaming rampage by Missouri Baptist Convention layman and resident hot-head, Roger Moran. You can read it here (it's received 98 comments so far.)

As you'll see if you read all of Mr. Moran's statement, quoted within the post, The Core is being anonymously indicted for a number of things that he himself finds theologically reprehensible. I will reproduce that portion of his statement which is about us below. I am inserting bracketed numbers in order to make comments about specific assertions of his.

One of our [1] new pro-alcohol [2] emerging [3] church plants in Springfield, MO recently offered to those making a contribution to their church a copy of Brian McLaren [4], the undisputed leader of the far-left wing of the emerging church movement. [5] McLaren is best known for his statements calling for a 5 to 10 year “moratorium” on any “pronouncements” against homosexuality and his statement rejecting the substitutionary atonement of Christ. [6]

On the website [7] of this new church plant in Missouri, the pastor bashes the name “Christian” [8] stating that he doesn’t want to become “known as a bad tipper, judgmental jerk, or a nationalist warmonger.” He concludes by stating:

"By that token, I believe Jesus would be a terrible Christian. I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if he chose never to show up in church on Sunday, or had a beer at a frat party, or frequented a gay bookstore. And you know what the Christians would say? 'This man doesn’t honor the Sabbath' or 'This man hangs out with sinners.'” [9]

[1] The word "our" is incorrect, asserting that The Core is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, or Missouri Baptist Convention, which it clearly is not.
[2] The Core is not pro-alcohol, and has made no statement to that effect. My comments that he quotes further on down, about Jesus and alcohol, do not advocate drinking. And even if they did, a sentence in a blog does not an official position make.
[3] I have used the word "emerging" occasionally, but never in direct reference to The Core. It is not entirely unfair to characterize us this way, but it is far from objective, or official, and is essentially meaningless.
[4] If we were able to give out "copies of Brian McLaren" we would certainly be deserving of rebuke for having cloned a human being. Incidentally, you'll notice that Mr. Moran is deliberately omitting specific references, leaving out my name, the name of my blog, the name of our church, and the title of Brian McLaren's book in question, in order to avoid accountability for his rhetoric. The title of the book is "More Ready Than You Realize." I have to confess that I am aware of McLaren's reputation, and have only read this one book of his. But I can imagine very few mentally stable Christians who would object to anything contained therein.
[5] This whole statement is silly. It is impossible to tell what he means by "far left wing of the emerging church movement" and even if it wasn't, there is no way McLaren is the "undisputed leader" of it.
[6] McLaren has since apologized for the homosexuality comment, and the substitutionary atonement comment is unsubstantiated. (I am not trying to defend McLaren; I am just striving for accuracy.)
[7] Moran is not quoting from our website, he is quoting from my blog. This distinction may seem trivial, but it is not. Statements on a church's official website are much more authoritative about the character of that church, whereas a pastor's blog is often used as a sounding board to create dialog (at least that's what mine is for.)
[8] I am not "bashing the name 'Christian'" in the blog post in question (The Sound of the Underground.) I am "bashing" (if that word must be used) what we Christians have made of it.
[9] I stand by this statement of mine. The key phrase is "I would not be one bit surprised if..." By that I mean that I am not confident that Jesus would do these things, but I am confident that it's possible. In regards to the gay bookstore, a reading of the comments following said blog post will reveal that I don't believe Jesus would be their best customer, or start slapping people on the back and congratulating them for their gayness. But I am convinced that Jesus would be where the "people" are. And by "people" I mean, those who are most open to Him. This would preclude the legalists who have decided in advance that the Messiah is going to look and act just like them.

I was going to say more about all this, but I think that'll have to do for now. Let me just finish this off by recognizing that Mr. Moran does not speak for the SBC or the MBC as a whole, and I would frankly be a little surprised (and saddened) if they take him seriously.

Two and a Half Lesbians?

Six years into his vice-presidency, I can finally say that I'm proud of Dick Cheney.

Sure, he's had his bright spots. We all smirked when he retreated to his "undisclosed location." We all laughed when he finally represented the true feelings of Americans by shooting a lawyer. And we all smiled when he announced his intention to never run for president.

But this morning I was actually proud of him. When it was announced that his lesbian daughter Mary was pregnant, parents Dick and Lynn Cheney went on record saying that they were "looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild."

I know I am about to shamelessly repeat myself here, but I don't care. Every pregnancy is worth getting excited about. A new life has been created with endless opportunities and possibilities. The little person growing in Mary's uterus is an infinitely valuable, hopelessly beautiful human being. Right now. And Mom and Pop Cheney are right to be excited.

But then comes the fallout. That is, the reaction from the Conservative Right. I will let Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America speak for them when she says, "It's very disappointing that a celebrity couple like this would deliberately bring into the world a child that will never have a father." She also described the pregnancy as "unconscionable."

How can we say that every fetus is a treasure, and call any pregnancy unconscionable?

If Mary Cheney did indeed take deliberate steps to become pregnant (which is likely,) can we say that we are disappointed with her choice? I suppose. But can you imagine what the reaction from the Conservative Right would have been if the Vice President had a single, heterosexual daughter who got pregnant? That's right... silence. OK, maybe a few tiny potshots, but that's it. Millions of children are growing up in fatherless households, so why single out this one? Why can't they just come out and say what they mean? "We Conservatives are concerned that this new child will be trained up in the ways of homosexuality."

The fact is that the Christian Right is suffering from a combination of two diseases. 1) Celebrityphilia (although they're not alone), and 2) Homophobia. By Homophobia, I am referring to an excessive emphasis on the evils of homosexuality. Do I believe that homosexuality is contrary to the design and desire of the Creator? Yes, I do. But do I think it is the kingpin of abominations, worthy of all our spiteful energy? Not even close.

Mary Cheney is a lesbian. And she wanted to be a mommy, too. Does anyone here honestly mean to ask gays and lesbians to stop wanting children?

Dick Cheney is a father. And he has a 35 year-old daughter who took a different path. Is the Christian Right actually deluded enough to believe that he should still be trying to run his daughter's life?

So who are they really angry at? Or are they just plain angry?

If we as Christians really believe that love is the answer, then maybe we should get started.