Desperate Houseflies: The Magazine

Feel free to pull out your trusty fly swatter and comment on what is posted here, realizing that this odd collection of writers may prove as difficult to kill as houseflies and are presumably just as pesky. “Desperate Houseflies” is a magazine that intends to publish weekly articles on subjects such as politics, literature, history, sports, photography, religion, and no telling what else. We’ll see what happens.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Balkanization

Hi guys, I have been on vacation for the past week and some days without much internet access, so I will post part three of the marriage series next week (though I reserve the right to make it four or five or seventeen parts if I think of that much to say). I saw this article on Salon and thought it was interesting. I'll say a little more at the end. P.S. I apologize for publishing on Monday this week, but I will be on a plane all day tomorrow and only have internet access this morning.

Verily, I sell unto you
Increasing numbers of evangelical business owners are hanging out their shingles with the word "Christian" prominently displayed. Are they bringing godliness to Main Street -- or making hay on holiness?
By Lynn Harris

Aug. 4, 2005

Christian Faith Driving School: The name might sound a bit dissonant to those who presume a certain separation of church and interstate. For the school's founder, however, the holy-meets-earthly title was a natural, even necessary choice. Mark Gadow, 40, has been a devout born-again Christian since the day that prayer alone, he says, healed his nearly debilitating joint pain. After 16 years in law enforcement, he was "called" to do something different, he says, and the school, based in Caroline County, Md., was born.

He does not "witness" about his faith until the last session of the program, but he does preach the "moral values" of "courtesy and consideration to other drivers," he says. "By the end of the course the students seem to think that they can call and talk to me as a friend or a mentor, or ask me to pray with them." Gadow recalls that the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration recommended against using "Christian" in the name of the school, suggesting that it might narrow his market. But he persisted, and now, four years later, he's turning students away.

Gadow is just one of an apparently growing number of small- and medium-sized-business owners who are proudly hanging out their shingles with the word "Christian" -- or at least with a telltale symbolic dove, fish or Bible verse -- prominently displayed. There are now Christian real estate agencies, cellular and long-distance services, financial planners, computer repair guys, furniture stores, bed-and-breakfast associations, diets, yoga and karate instructors, and goat breeders. These companies -- in contrast to religious bookstores, for example -- do earthly things in, they say, a Christian way.

Unlike Curves, Domino's or Coors, for example, which have been criticized for tithing their earnings to archconservative causes -- and unlike the Chick-fil-A fast-food chain, closed on Sundays because of its founder's religious beliefs -- these Christian companies link their work directly and overtly to their missions. ("Christian," in these cases, is generally taken to mean "born again," in which the business owner has a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" that guarantees eternal life, and the responsibility to offer others the same opportunity.) The mission statement of Houston-based auto-repair franchiser Christian Brothers Automotive ("Christian" as in Christian, not a surname), for instance, reads: "To glorify God by providing ethical and excellent automotive repair service for our customers, according to Colossians 3:17, 'And whatever you do in word and deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Father.'"

Such enterprises are "a byproduct of multiculturalism," says Alan Wolfe, author of "The Transformation of American Religion" and director of Boston College's Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life, noting that identity politics are not the exclusive domain of the secular left. "You identify who you are, take pride in your subgroup. It's no different in that sense from a business that caters to African-Americans or Hispanics. It's part of the general trend of segmentation in American life."

No statistics yet exist on the number or growth of these businesses, but there are certainly enough to support numerous regional and national Christian business directories. The largest such directory, the Shepherd's Guide, now covers over 100 cities (after launching with just Baltimore, Md., in 1979). "There seems to be more of a recognized movement of Christian businesses in the marketplace," confirms David Moyer, Shepherd's Guide vice president. "In years past you didn't so much make a statement of your religious life through your business. Today Christians -- and I believe rightfully so -- are making a commitment to say, 'I want to stand out for my belief.'" (According to Christian retail trade association CBA International, sales of specifically Christian products reached $4.34 billion in 2004, up by about 10 percent from 2000). The Christian Blue Pages has tripled the number of regions it serves; Chris Chandler, founder of the online business directory Christian eBuy.com, says that four years ago, he received one or two listing submissions a day. Now he gets 200. Why the increase? "Now people are seeing that they can be more open with their faith in the marketplace and the workplace. They're more emboldened," says Chandler. "I also think a lot of people feel that we're in the last days, and we've really got to share our faith."

The last days? One might have assumed that for evangelicals, these were the glory days. In fact, just as Chandler suggests, what's behind this surge in "Christian" businesses seems to be a little of both.

Mark Justad, executive director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Culture at Vanderbilt University, attributes the growing visibility of "Christian" businesses to, on the one hand, "an increasing public awareness of Christianity and people's comfort with identifying themselves as Christian." "Comfort" seems to be a gentle way to put it, though. "There's been a concerted assault on this thing called 'the separation of church and state,' and the boundaries of where religion can and should be expressed are shifting," he continues, noting that the explicit "Christianity" of particular businesses is related to the increasing acceptance of religious expression in secular workplaces in general. "There's an aggressive assertiveness on the part of one aspect of the Christian church, charging that this is a Christian nation, our roots are Christian, and we shouldn't have to pretend that we're not. They see it as 'pretending that they're not' if they're not bringing their whole lives into the mix. I'm sympathetic to that, but it does beg the question of how to live in a pluralistic society with many viewpoints, which is also part of the American tradition."

On the other hand, the act of identifying a business as explicitly Christian is "part of the ongoing culture wars, a statement that the culture still isn't Christian enough," says Justad. "You could see calling a business 'Christian' as an act of faith and an act of defiance at the same time."

Cynical readers may at this point be thinking, Faith, schmaith: Couldn't calling yourself "Christian" be nothing more than an act of savvy marketing?

Well, yes and no. Some so-called Christian businesses -- such as debt consolidators -- are guilty at least of the sin of spamming, and possibly of much worse. Debt Relievers Inc., for one, which also used the name Christian Debt Management, is currently under investigation for fraud by the Office of the Attorney General of Florida.

But many business owners express sincere horror at the notion of using the Lord's name purely for gain. "Heck, no!" exclaims Mark Carr, founder of Christian Brothers Automotive, when asked if his company's name could be considered a marketing ploy. "One of the guys in church criticized me for that, and I got down on my knees and said, 'Lord, I would never use your name to capitalize on it.' I get a few snide e-mails about it, but I have to blow them off because that stuff is nonsense. I'm proud to have that name on my building, man. It's not for marketing purposes, because that turns my stomach."

Others say that using the word "Christian" isn't so great for business to begin with. "If I was going to come up with a gimmick, I would come up with a better gimmick than that!" insists Irene Trammell, founder of This Is IT! Christian Fitness ... for Ladies in Pasadena, Md. (The "IT" represents her initials.) "I have made my market smaller by putting that sign up there." Trammell, who used to go in person to sell vitamins and nutritional supplements to area gyms, developed a distaste for the lyrics of the workout music and the fact that the women who were exercising could be seen from the street; one day she got into her car and heard a "still, small voice" -- a reference to the way God speaks to Elijah in 1 Kings -- suggesting that she start her own gym. "We have three big window shades in front, but I can hear through them what people are saying on the sidewalk: 'They're Christian? I'm not going in there!'" says Trammel. "It's actually unfortunate; this world is wicked and the name of the Lord sometimes repels people."
Perhaps even fellow Christians, suggests Justad. "Christianity is very diverse, and there are a lot of people -- Christians -- who I know would feel that putting a 'Christian' sticker on one's business lacks humility," he says. Scripture itself, after all, warns against flaunting one's own righteousness.

"There's a difference between Christianity in your heart and Christianity in your face," says James Twitchell, author of "Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld" and professor of English and advertising at the University of Florida at Gainesville.

But for many Christian business owners, it's not proclaiming their faith that would be insincere. The more liberally, or less devoutly, religious might see their lives divided into overlapping circles such as "personal," "professional" and "spiritual." But for an evangelical Christian, there is generally no clear line between "work" and "religion," no hard distinction between Monday through Friday and Sunday. "Jesus has placed on the hearts of Christians that they should get out there and let others know: 'I am God and I am going to be present in all aspects of people's lives, not just at church but seven days a week,'" says Trammell.

Thus, for many born-again Christians, every action -- from prayer to wheel alignment -- is an opportunity to glorify God, perhaps even spread the Gospel. "I got saved at an Amway meeting, so the marketplace is where I invite Christ into my life," says Chuck Ripka, 46, co-founder of Riverview Community Bank in Otsego, Minn. ("We invited Jesus to be the CEO of our bank," he says, attributing the bank's "supernatural" growth -- from $5.5 million in start-up capital to $103 million in 27 months -- to divine intervention.) While the bank's name may sound generic (and the company Web site is "God"-free), the Ten Commandments banner in the foyer, the "God Bless You" sign at the tellers station, and the painting in the CEO's office of two businessmen shaking hands with Jesus, might tip customers off. "God has allowed us to be who we are: We're Christians and we're bankers, and we're allowed to mix the two. To me, it's seamless. We're a bank first, but in the midst of it all, when customers express their own needs, I am able to pray along with them," says Ripka, who customarily asks God's blessing for reporters at the end of interviews.

For those who patronize certain businesses because they label themselves as Christian, that's affinity marketing at work: It's like going to the plumber you know from Bible study -- only now the plumber's advertising as such. "This is hardly new," says Twitchell. Back in the day, he says, "you went to church, you looked around, you saw a lawyer or a doctor who was part of the community, and you wanted to deal with them because they're familiar and you're going to see them on Sunday." The difference is that now, in the megachurches that dominate the evangelical landscape -- and often attract transient populations -- you often don't know your neighbor, he says. The result: Christian businesses need to make themselves known as such. One could say the same not just of megachurches but of the exurbs in general, many of which may have lost their everyone-knows-everyone town center to a local Wal-Mart. Some companies, in fact, such as the Christian Real Estate Network -- which pledges "to represent our clients as Christ would have us do, and to approach each transaction with a servant heart" -- have sprung up precisely to match up relocating Christians with Christian loan officers or real estate agents. The network has 360 agents in 48 states who are familiar with area churches and Christian schools.

To the jaded homebuyer, "Christian real estate agent" -- much like "Christian auto mechanic" -- may sound like an oxymoron. That's also, of course, part of the point. The word "Christian" does seem to promise an exceedingly ethical, love-thy-customer, "How would Jesus sell?" approach to doing business, though Christian entrepreneurs themselves admit that it's no universal or automatic guarantee (two words: "Jim Bakker"). (They are also quick to add that they don't mean they wouldn't trust the local atheist electrician.)

According to gym owner Trammel, there's just one downside to this assumption of Christian kindness: Customers occasionally figure that "Christian" means "nice to a fault." Trammell has had to explain that, no, just because she's a Christian doesn't mean she's going to let you break your contract. "You shouldn't expect to be able to steamroll over the Christian business, but you should expect to be treated more than fairly," she says. "The ones that are tricking people, they'll be found out," she adds, chuckling. "After all, he's the one in charge of the lightning bolts."

Christian business owners also say their customers like to know where their money's going: not just to a Christian company but also, in many cases, to Christian causes. While companies such as Curves and Coors separate business and charity, Christian companies often explicitly support churches, missions or other religious charities. "Not that you're always going to be treated badly in the secular world, but people feel a little better going to a Christian business," says Christian eBuy.com's Chandler. "They think, 'If I use a Christian Realtor, they're going to turn around and tithe our ministries, so ultimately this will benefit our cause.'" It's the same kind of thinking -- on the other end of the spectrum -- that sends people to Working Assets long distance for their blue-state-to-blue-state calling plans.

By the same token, the name "Christian" also suggests that a customer's money will not support causes that a Christian would not. Blessed Hope Communications, for one, markets itself precisely as an alternative to the mainstream long-distance carriers that -- according to its Web site -- support and encourage "sinful things." Blessed Hope alleges, footnotes and all, that AT&T, MCI and Sprint (the carrier for Working Assets) serve as carriers for "dial-a-porn" and contribute to organizations supporting abortion, "liberal causes and candidates," and "special rights for homosexuals." (AT&T declined to comment on the matter; MCI and Sprint did not respond to requests for comment.) Such charges -- as if to say, "You can't even pick up the phone without consorting with sinners!" -- play into, and play up, the sense that Christians are foundering in an increasingly godless world. (They are not, however, all that different from the kinds of charges that would prompt, say, a Domino's boycott.)

Still, the crucial factor that separates explicitly Christian companies from others -- even from the niche or affinity marketing of an African-American caterer or a Hispanic legal practice -- is that some Christian business owners see their jobs as a legitimate, even necessary, means of proselytizing. "When someone asks, 'Who's your long-distance carrier?' it's a way for me to have a foot in the door to share the message of Christ," says Chandler, who also works as a sales agent for Blessed Hope Communications. Ripka of Riverview Community Bank says he has had 105 people "invite Christ into their lives" on bank premises. (He also claims over 70 faith healings.)
"There's been a big change in what 'witnessing' means," says Alan Wolfe of Boston College. "It used to mean overt actions to bring the message of Jesus to the nonsaved. Now it means more 'lifestyle evangelism.' You glow, and if someone asks you why you're so happy, you say, 'I found Jesus.' That's what's become more common. It's evidence that cold-calling, so to speak, doesn't work."

But aren't patrons of Christian businesses "saved" already? Not all of them. Some are Christians of other denominations who are not "born again"; others might be drawn by the business's reputation or something else that it offers (a women-only workout experience, say). "God leads them here," says Ripka. "A few have even said, 'This is really strange to say, but I felt drawn to your bank.'" A Christian-identified workplace -- helmed by someone with that "glow" -- actually offers the perfect opportunity for believers to encounter those who may be less devout but who still made it past the word "Christian" on the sign or the Ten Commandments at the door.
The majority of Trammell's customers are indeed saved. "They're Christian ladies, like pastors' wives, who can't walk into Bally's in a thong -- and who don't particularly want to walk in and see anyone else in a thong, either," she says. "But then, we've had 22 people saved here as well." Mostly, she subscribes to the notion of witnessing by example. "We should be patient with those that don't know him and go out of our way to be kind," she says. "Maybe someone will look back and say, 'Wow, I remember those Christian people -- they were kind of nice!'"

But when Trammell does feel "moved by the spirit," she will ask a customer if it would be OK for her to "share Jesus' plan of salvation," she says. "I could have opened up any gym and just decided to witness to people if I wanted to. But I don't want to be obnoxious about it. So I said, 'No, it's just gotta be out there.' This way I can say, 'You asked for it! You walked in.'"

******End of article******

As a general matter, I find the increasing balkanization (called segmentation here, making it sound much more benign) of America really disturbing. This article describes one example of a phenomenon that has much larger implications for the health and future of our democracy.

Here's a small example: when I was a child, every Saturday I listened to the weekly Top 40 countdown with Casey Casem (sp?). Now there is no Top 40 radio to speak of -- music, like everything, is niche marketed. So people are getting to listen to more of the music that they are interested in, but there is a much smaller common pool of music that most everyone knows. This may seem minor in isolation, but it's happening in every area you can think of. And the result is that we are losing any sense of having a shared culture and shared experiences. That this is unhealthy for community and democracy seems indisputable. The more we isolate ourselves from our fellow citizens and associate only with people we know think like us (and dress, talk, worship, eat, and read like us), the less able we are to even be civil to those who are different.

This is part of the reason that I wanted to write for this blog. I feel myself getting more and more ensconced in my "urban elite" world (and I've spent the past week in San Francisco and Berkeley, so hello, I even do it on vacation), and I am scared that one day I will go to Mississippi to see my parents and not even speak the same language anymore, to the extent that I even do now. And I imagine that it is the same from the other side -- that people I grew up around see me as this alien with no values, when nothing could be further from the truth. And I cling to the things that still make us the same (which seem mostly to be related to food and weather, on occasion popular culture, but not so much) because this isn't necessary, you know? I get up and go to work in the morning, and I do my laundry, and I watch tv, and I cook dinner, and I love my cats, and I miss my husband terribly when I'm away from him (like I am now). I smile at babies and dogs on the street. I tell customer service when I see a car in the parking lot of a store with its lights on. There's nothing remotely threatening about me, but yet to a lot of people there is because I don't think there's anything wrong with anal sex and don't go to church and practice civil rights law and would let my son wear barrettes and read Heather Has Two Mommies to him before bed.

Despite my desire for community and acceptance of differences, I wouldn't patronize a business with a fish on it. I hate being proselytized about anything -- even if I agree with it. And I would assume that anyone who would put a fish on their business does not share my values, and that they would discriminate against me (as a couple of Salon readers said had happened to them in letters responding to this article). I am afraid, for myself and my future children and for all of us, that one day not too far in the future we will learn to truly hate each other instead of just listening to talk radio hosts who encourage us to. And when I think of where that could lead, I long for times past when we were still different, but said hello on the street and waved.

21 Comments:

Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Good article, Sandi.

If the Christian title is a business marketing strategy at all Joe, I'd be afraid of more than my business being driven out of existence (based on my idea of Christianity).

As I've stated before, I have a fundamental problem with Christianity becoming popular - and even what I see to be misguided attempts to make it popular (where its en vogue to be a Christian). Christianity is always a minority movement - counter-cultural. Those times in the past two millennia when Christianity has appeared popular, en vogue, and/or powerful have been dark days for the very concept of the narrow road...

I agree with Sandi. I also find any type of balkanization (past or present, Joe) disturbing, and I for one appreciate her honesty in admitting that she sees what disturbs her in her own actions. Humility like that will go a long way in improving the situation.

My fear of balkanization is not a thin disguise for anti-religion sentiments. My deal is that I have a passionate desire to build less walls and more bridges - to quote the New Testament, to be a reconciler with the world.

My fear stems from my background. I grew up in a town where my particular denomination (to use the word according to its meaning) was very strong. I went to church and school with people like me. We bought our cars from people like us, along with jewelry, flowers, and everything else. We went to doctors like us, used funeral directors like us, and attorneys like us. I tried to initiate a "friend day" at church once, and most of us didn't know someone who didn't go to church - more than that, our "kind" of church.

That's what disturbs me, and this is the growing trend on a macro-Christian level in our country - and this is what the Salon article is noticing. Where "we Christians stick together," and pardon my French, but damn the world.

I've quoted Randy Harris on here before, but I've got to do it again. At the Tulsa Workshop this past year, he was telling a story about when he was in an airport working on a Bible lesson. He said that he doesn't like to read his Bible in public because "it attracts the kind of people I don't want to talk to."

That may need some explaining to some people, but he refers to the type of people that react, "Oh, good, you're a Christian! It is so good to come across a Christian!" Like everyone else is beneath you...

To me, balkanization like this equals me puking.

1:51 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

I don't want to sound righteously pompous by adding this on. Instead, please understand that you've touched on an issue that strikes deep in my heart...

But I am a Christian, and with that, I share many values with people who put Christian signs on their doors. I have discovered that I also share values with people that have rainbow flags on their doors, too. I think we would do well to go in both shops. According to my perception of Jesus, that's what He did. He noticed God in both sets of people.

But if He ever lashed out at ANYONE, it was at the religious people who cashed in on the name of God.

1:57 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

Very interesting reading.

I am a Sunday School teacher. I worry about preaching only to the converted. I also worry about strong religious feelings accompanied by weak theology.

I fail to see how the injunction to "love thy neighbor as theyself" is supported by promoting segregation of any sort. I do see how an effort to make contact with others different from me would help.

I also enjoyed Al Sturgeon's comments.

Incidentally, how do we ever know if we appear threatening? We assume, because we would not fear someone who looked like us, that we are not threatning, but this assumption often fails.

2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al said "But if He ever lashed out at ANYONE, it was at the religious people who cashed in on the name of God.

True.

And I think there are a lot of people out there trying to make a buck. And that is wrong.

On the other hand, try to give people some credit. We are called to be Christians in ALL WE DO. Do you argue with that? Some of these people probably just really want the world to know that they love Jesus. Are they doing it the right way? I don't know. Are they doing it to manipulate? Not always.

I truly believe that in our society that given the choice between "Donuts" and "God Loves You Donuts" the plain ol' donuts store will out-sell by a lot. In the Bible belt this may not be true. Out here in SoCal, I'm sure it would be. I think many of your views are shaped by the fact that you've lived your whole life in the South (nothing wrong with that at all...we love the South). I can honestly say that approaches to Christianity on the West Coast and to the extent I've experience on the East Coast are drastically different. "Christian Donuts" in downtown San Diego would go out of business so fast.

We live in a society where we can shop where we choose. If you don't want to shop somewhere, just don't. Don't whine about it.

Tell me this: If you shop in the "rainbow store" how do you show Jesus? Just through politeness and respect. (I don't shop there because usually they're specialty stores with design, etc, that just doesn't interest me.) Or do you say "God Bless You" when you leave. Do you think they know you're a Christian through your loving actions? Not likely. So how do you tell them without them getting offended? I'm not trying to be trite, but asking legitimate questions. Same with the Buddhist. DO you invite them to worship? How do you show Jesus to them in a way that they can actually see Him and not just some accepting, easy-going "liberal"?

(A bunch of posts since I started this, so sorry if I overlap anyone.)

2:41 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Great point, Mike, about our inability to perceive whether we appear threatening or not to another person. Good Golden Rule practice, trying to make that "accurate" determination...

Whitney: Thanks for engaging me. I really like to talk about this stuff.

First of all, I tried not to judge/condemn people who promote their Christian beliefs through their business. I have a good set of friends at church that don't use "Christian" in their business's name, but do sell some great Christian things through their business. Heck, I've got a Christian book for sell! So if I came across as saying this was impossible or wrong, I didn't mean to do so. I think the whole concept should be watched closely, however, w/o assuming that any promotion of Christianity is innocent. It seems the Pharisees were a bit taken aback by Jesus' criticism of them...

But the main thing I wanted to respond to: I don't shop in the rainbow store with the purpose of "telling them" anything. I shop in the rainbow store to buy whatever I went in there to buy, but while there, I will encounter people. I believe these are people God made: valuable, wonderful, people. I will love those people. I would be interested in finding our common ground and appreciating our differences and develop a REAL relationship. My intent is not to change them or get them to church, but to love them. The rest just plays out from there...

Since I'm a preacher, I feel inherently handicapped in this department. At some point, when my occupation is discovered, all my intentions are immediately called into question. I'm now a potential salesman. It is hard work for me to overcome this handicap, to convince someone that I love them simply because they are a person worth loving, impressive and worthwhile in every sense of the word, but that is what I am called to do.

To fast forward to your questions that would ensue about "evangelism" (a very warped word I believe)... My outlook on life has come to be based on Jesus's outlook on life. It is no longer because my momma told me so, but I am truly convinced in my heart that Jesus is the way to go. When I develop a relationship with someone, as we get to know each other on a "real" level, we will both come to understand each other's outlook on life. It's a requirement. It happens naturally. I choose not to force my philosophy on others (since oddly enough, Jesus didn't force Himself either). Instead, we come to understand each other. Period.

This, to me, becomes evangelism.

I'm long past the evangelistic campaign / door-knocking days where we march through a town and baptize 150 people. I don't say that condescendingly: I may be very wrong. I'm just past (chronologically) that way of thinking. Evangelism is not something I go to do anymore. It should be something I am.

What do you think?

3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al,
In all seriousness, are you a mind-reader? I had typed a whole post of questions about evangelizing and then deleted it because it wasn't yet coherent to me. I'm amazed.

I do see your point and am relieved a bit to see that you still see merit in the word "evangelize" and haven't just done away with it completely. Reconceptualized, but not dismissed. (I was getting worried about you, there, I really was.) I think your conceptualization is very much what Jesus did and calls us to do.

BUT, he also specifically says "Go into all the world, PREACHING the gospel." Now, I know you do this every Sunday, but you do so with believers. Do you think the "Great Commission" was confined to believers? Of course not, or we wouldn't be called unto all the world, right?

I would be all for a no-pressure, here's a brochure, God loves you, door-knocking campaign. I've seen great success with those in Oklahoma (actually, a group from OK that travels across the nation). Comments from some converts center around the loving approach taken by the teachers. (What a wonderful testimony to the love of Jesus.)

Lately, I've felt that you've gone very far toward one extreme. Namely, your personal perception of what evangelism should be versus the "Go into the world" perception/command. I think I understand that you've been hammering the point in an effort to 1) fully define it for yourself and 2) make it understood that "evangelism" in commonly used terms is not the only way.

Traditional evangelism (what we do) is necessary and, in fact, commanded. But to evangelize through our behaviors, actions, love, etc, (who we are) is also a pattern that we should all try to follow: Jesus pattern. One should naturally stem from the other.

One other aside: We shouldn't be misguided as to think that Jesus never told anyone, "Hey, You're a sinner." He did just that with the woman at the well. She did not seek Him out. He spoke first to her. He initiated the conversation and then proceeded to tell her that she was living in a sinful situation and to turn away from it. Jesus certainly showed her an uncommon love, but he did not say, "Keep on sinning and you can follow me."

3:44 PM  
Blogger Sandi said...

Interesting discussion ... I'm glad I can always count on you guys. I understand your perception of anti-Christian bias, Joe, but it's not at all accurate. I didn't have a chance to write as much as I would have liked because I had to go to an oral argument this afternoon, but I was going to say that I actually don't have a problem with expressing an essential aspect of your being in your business if you don't mean to exclude people by doing it. I chose the article because I thought that you all might find it interesting and have an opinion about whether Christian-oriented businesses that nominally have nothing to do with religion (carpet-cleaning, etc.) are a good idea from a theological perspective that I can't speak to.

What I wrote afterwards unfortunately lacked the essential context of the letters to the editor that Salon published in response to the article, where more than one person talked about being discriminated against by such businesses for being non-Christian. But, now that we're on the subject, I don't think that the restaurant owners in Little Italy only want to sell food to Italians. If they did, I would have a problem with that.

I think the Christian businesses, my reaction to them (which may or may not be justified depending on the particular business owner's philosophy), and your reaction to the rainbow store are all examples of a problem I see becoming more and more common. You see it the growing number of people who are home schooling their kids or enrolling them in niche private schools; you see it in the fact that neighborhoods are increasingly politically as well as racially segregated; and of course you see it in the urban-rural divide. I would hate to see us get to the point where we don't want to live with each other anymore. And I think there is a danger of that happening. Religion hijacked by politics is unfortunately one of the vehicles driving that change.

I find the mocking tone of Joe's response unfortunate. We can talk about the merits of princess costumes and rainbow flags, but only if it's respectful. My father served in the Air Force for 20 years. I read David and Goliath before bed when I was a child (although the Queen Esther story was my very favorite). I never called anyone an oppressor. And I think that I am the one who is considered out of touch, but I guess I'm using the South as my lens.

Okay, gotta go recreate my response to last week's discussion now. It may take me an hour, but it'll be up later tonight.

4:20 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Whitney: First, to your aside: Jesus did no such thing. In fact, you offer a great example of my point. Jesus did not tell her to quit sinning. Instead, he offered her an amazing example of love by offering someone with three strikes against her in their setting (Samaritan, woman, multiple marriages) the dignity of a conversation. Further, he chose her to be the first person to which he revealed himself as the Messiah, and as a result, she became the first preacher of the gospel. He “evangelized” her, if you will, in the very way I’m talking about. To make the point more dramatic, he shopped at the rainbow store that day and formed a relationship with the owner. That changed her life.

(You were probably thinking of the adulterous woman about to be stoned. I’d agree that there’s a place to tell someone they’re a sinner, but in Jesus’s life it is relegated to the religious and self-righteous. I’d be nervous to extend the list further than Jesus did. He did not tell the woman caught in the act of adultery, “Hey! You’re a sinner!” She knew that and was about to be executed for it. After he excused her sin and placed her on par with the self-righteous, he told her not to do it anymore.)

Now to your larger point, that we are called into the world to preach the gospel…

(This is the liberal politics comment board, right? Sheesh, we’re good at hijacking it, aren’t we?)
:-)

Well, I’ll begin by explaining that, given my odd route into my profession and my need to have a big picture, I’ve done an inordinate amount of thinking about the Great Commission. I say that just to say that my conclusions (which may appear extreme, and may be extreme) were not arrived at because the wind blew that way today…

(Also, Mark’s account that you refer to is a suspicious document; Matthew’s is much more believable, and a bit different account of the same instruction. I’ll go with Mark’s phrase anyway…)

I’m big on definitions and the phrase “preaching the Gospel” has been an important definition to me. Our tradition molded that phrase until it meant explaining to people five steps to salvation (I won’t go into a course on the history of the Restoration Movement); instead, Jesus empowered a small group of people to spread the word that the Messiah had come, and in so doing, offers hope to a world condemned to death.

I don’t mean to sound trite either, but it seems that most people in Mississippi and California are well aware of this message. I believe that most have received a convoluted message, but the news has been spread to our region of the world quite extensively.

So we play a different ballgame where you and I live…

Matthew wrote that Jesus told them (and by implication, us) to go and make disciples, which more or less means to enroll people in the school of Jesus. In other words, to take action in such a way that people choose Jesus as their teacher and model. He said to baptize the people that choose discipleship, and then (very importantly) to teach them everything he commanded (which you’ll remember his over-emphasis on love of neighbor). This in its entirety is evangelism – not the “gaining converts” idea we’ve unfortunately relegated it to…

So am I a fan of knocking doors? Not really. It seems intrusive and comes across to me as manipulative and impersonal. It's success is determined by either baptism or a sinner's prayer, pick your poison. Instead, I’m a big fan of creating relationships. If I’m going to knock on a door, it’s to form a lasting relationship with someone. As I said before, the rest (whether there's a choice of discipleship, followed by baptism and a following of Jesus's way) will be determined by the development of that relationship.

Bottom line: I think traditional evangelism, though I completely assume well intentioned, has it a bit backwards. In America, people have heard of Jesus and the basic concept of the story (I’ll cite Duane’s comment that the “seeker-sensitive” movement is mostly about nominal Christians, called the unchurched, and add my belief that traditional evangelism follows suit.). I believe those who have rejected God/Jesus deserve the opportunity to see the reality of Jesus first and foremost.

4:51 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Wow, that was a long comment by me. Let me attempt a shorter version for those who skipped it...

Two case-studies:

#1: Joe American who has always basically believed in God and Jesus (and the American way), but doesn't go to church and lives for himself.

#2: Suzy Socialist who rejects Christianity, dabbles in Eastern philosophy and is pretty sure there isn't a real God.

Two broad categories of people. Very different.

Let's go knock on both doors and be loving, but make sure they both know they're sinners. Joe may come to church with us if we're nice about it and offer donuts in the welcome center, but Suzy won't even appreciate our brochures.

Joe may go on to get baptized and become a chaperone for the youth ministry, but that's not evangelism in the true sense of the word. He was evangelized as a kid - we've just convinced him to act on his belief. (This is the only kind of "evangelism" America is generally familiar with.)

Suzy is a whole different story. She's someone that doesn't believe the story. That's who I'm talking about in this discussion... This is not a door-knocking venture.

What I've been saying is that my calling is to love both Joe and Suzy. Period. That leads to a whole different set of actions from me in each case...

5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sheesh, got my stories combined. How embarrassing. We studied both stories this week and my little mind got confused. :)

Nevertheless, Jesus did say to the woman about to be stoned, "GO, and sin no more."

So many times in your posts, you mention love and bringing people in, but you act as if we are not allowed to talk about sin. Jesus did. God did. (May I say here, that we should not be out pointing out sin to random people, but to those who we've gotten interested, but aren't ready to repent.) Well, are we allowed to point out scripture? (May I also say here that NOT telling someone--with love and compassion and scripture--that their behavior may be separating them from Christ may just put the burden of their souls on us? They can choose to do with the information what they will.)

1 John 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.


Romans 6:
1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means!...


As I read both of these entire passages, it is clear to me that we are no longer slaves of sin. We are forgiven. But if we "go on sinning" we are still slaves to sin, and not saved. Yes, yes, I know we ALL sin. All the time. But do we do it intentionally, with an effort to defy? No, we do it in the neverending battle with Satan. To defiantly sin is certainly not acceptable. So can we tell someone they can go on in sin that they are fully aware of and, at the same time, receive God's mercy?

And we CAN fall from grace. Hebrews tells you it is possible. But that is another thread altogether.

I've already said that I think your idea of evangelism is acceptable and actually very insightful. Different, but I think in a very good way. I also believe that the two perspectives can be complementary, and really should be. Can you tell me it's wrong to ask someone I barely know if they'd like to visit Church? Didn't you, back a while, hand out OSCofC business cards for us to give to people we came in contact with? Do you now think that was a bad idea?

As to Joe & Suzy. First, I never said to knock on a door and make sure someone knows they're a sinner. Please don't put words in my mouth. You don't even have to give a brochure. How about an introduction and a phone number (your personal one)? How about a leaflet left in the door: "If you're interested, we'd love to meet you. Call me at home." That is about as low pressure as I can think of.

Also, refer to the parable of the mustard seed. Don't we have a responsibility to plant the seed? Amen that different approaches will work for different people. I think to be all-inclusive or all-exclusive of different approaches that are neither wrong is, well, wrong.

Now, so far as your "suspicions" about Mark's account go, see my other posts to Duane. This really upsets me. In a sad way, not a mad way. This is a matter of faith, Al. Pure & simple. Your knowledge/ understanding v. God's knowledge/ understanding. Can you really say that you understand the book of Mark, or a passage therein, better than God intended you to? This is an honest question. I am not trying to be confrontatational. This really, really concerns me. We don't understand why God worded everything the way he did and/or why he allowed the Bible to be translated that way.
Romans 11:33-34
33Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
34"Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"


I have no other stance on this, and I wont change my stance on this. I believe that God is perfect. He presents us with perfection. He knew a LOOOOONNNNG time ago that his Word would be put in the hands of men. And the kicker: We don't have the mental capacity to understand all of God's actions, desires, choices, etc. To think we do is arrogant (and I really don't think you do, because I know you're not an arrogant person).

(Keep in mind, I've changed my mind on a quite a few things since we started all these discussions. I'm not always hardheaded and stubborn, but my faith in God's pureness will not be corrupted by what any man tells me, not matter how much I respect him.)

BTW, we've done a fantastic job of hijacking Sandi's articles every week. Sorry Sandi, this is how we think.

6:09 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

What to say?

I'll try to keep my responses short:

I apologize if I've come across that the topics of sin and Scripture are taboo. I speak of both. Often. If I had the authority, I would give everyone else permission to do the same.

Next, I would never tell people to sin as they wish and expect God's mercy. Instead, I call people who come to believe in Jesus to give their entire hearts and lives to God. I think that's the minimum standard.

And next, it is perfectly fine with me to hand out business cards, brochures, knock on doors and hand out phone numbers. I've done all this, too. I'll do it in some way or other in the future.

All I've wanted to say throughout this discussion is, for that relatively small segment of American society that does not share our belief in Jesus, rallying the Christian troops to fight against them is a rather distorted view of evangelism. Refusing to shop at their stores doesn't seem helpful. Inviting them to church doesn't seem to go over so well either. Instead, I choose loving them sincerely. Not based on whether we "get them" or not, but because they are valuable, worthwhile people. And because God feels that way about them. And because Jesus treated them this way.

That's it.

As to Matthew/Mark, you asked, "Can you really say that you understand the book of Mark, or a passage therein, better than God intended you to?"

No. And this was not what I was trying to say.

My Bible tells me that the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have this part of Mark in his story. That's all I was saying. Matthew's account, as far as I know, is not disputed. It gives the Great Commission, too - and since its accuracy is popularly confirmed, than I tend to give it greater weight. I assume Jesus didn't give various versions of the Great Commission before he ascended back to Heaven, so I do the best with what I have.

7:44 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Oh, and I wasn't putting words in your mouth at all! I was offering an example to make a point, not attributing the example to you...

Sorry you read it that way...

8:15 PM  
Blogger Sandi said...

I may have to exit the comment board because the tone is getting to be exactly what I didn't want and asked not to happen. It seems that the internet is not the best way to communicate with respect to controversial issues. I understand why -- lack of facial expression and tone of voice, which are created in the mind of the reader and may not be what the writer had in mind at all.

For the record, I do not work for the ACLU right now and should not be conflated with them. I do not agree with all of that group's stances and never have, even when I worked for them. The longer I work for progressive causes and the more I learn, the more I realize that it's not about fitting into one group or another, but about doing what I believe is right. Labels like progressive or liberal are umbrellas under which a lot of people with differing views take shelter. I am a pariah to many left-wing people as well for positions I take. Perhaps this will become clearer as the weeks pass and I have the opportunity to share more of my thoughts. In the meantime, I intend to continue building bridges as much as I can. Everything that I say is meant in that spirit.

7:30 AM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Joe: I saw the "mocking tone" in the pure sense of that term. Mocking as in repeating what someone said in a way to make fun of it. You may not have meant to "make fun," and it may not have come across that way to others, but I can see that perception.

Now that I re-read your original comment, I think you were just trying to say that your values are opposite to Sandi's and that others find you threatening because of that, too.

Here's the kicker: Instead of going on to say that you know how Sandi feels (being characterized as theatening w/o merit) and saying that you, too, wish people with different values could learn to form relationships and get along instead of set up camps (the point of the article), you went on to express anger (is that the right word?) that your side is singled out.

That's why, I believe, the mocking tone was translated. Seemed more a defensive backlash than conversation.

Just from my vantage point...

And R&B: Just an observation here, too, but you come across very different on the religion page versus the political page. When you speak to religion, it sounds like respectful dialogue. When politics, generally the opposite (i.e. "ick" and "quit jabbing your legal straight pin into the butts of your neighbors" and referring to an argument as "BS"). It's an open comment board, and you can say what you want how you want to say it - I just wanted to give you my observation in case it matters to you. If not, just ignore...

9:31 AM  
Blogger Duane said...

Al,

I agree on both counts with you last comment. Thanks for moderating!

Duane

9:59 AM  
Blogger Duane said...

Sorry, that is with your last comment, not "you last comment". Sometimes I try to type too fast and it doesn't come out right.

10:00 AM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Okay, I guess I can't let a discussion die, despite its prognosis.
:-)

I've been re-reading all of this, Joe, and it seems that your original comments were explained a bit further down the comment list when you explained that you felt the post singled out religion and blamed it for the balkanization of America.

I don't think it does at all!

I looked back at the original column. Sandi prefaced the Salon article by simply saying it was interesting and that she would add her thoughts at the end.

Her thoughts at the end:

First paragraph: Christian balkanization is only one example of a much larger phenomena.

Second paragraph: Balkanization is occurring in every aspect of our culture (for example, music).

Third paragraph: People with different values than her go so far as to find her "threatening."

Fourth paragraph: She recognizes in herself these same tendencies, and it scares her that someday we may just be a bunch of groups that hate each other. She concludes by longing for a better day where we can be friendly with each other instead of hating each other.

That's the way it reads to me, not at all accusing religion as the root of the problem, but just another witness to it.

10:02 AM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Ouch.

We obviously read the article quite differently.

As to mocking, I was simply trying to explain the perception received.

And let me be on the record in favor of interchanging ideas on every day of the week.

11:52 AM  
Blogger Sandi said...

This is all a good example of why internet communication can be taken different ways by different people. Al knows me personally, so he totally got what I meant (explained it better than I did, actually).

I really do think that segmentation is something that is going on in a number of different arenas, religion being only one example. Clearly, given the fact that I am seen as hostile to religion, I should have used a different example to make the point.

The truth is that: (1) I was on vacation and didn't have time to write the post I wanted to write, (2) when I did get a few hours' internet access, I quickly located an article that I thought would be of interest to the readership of this blog, and (3) reading that article led me to think about the larger problem of balkanization that I went on to talk about. That's the whole story. I wasn't trying to bait anyone. I was expressing real feelings and thoughts as I was having them. If people see my thoughts as incendiary, that's okay. I used the word mocking in the sense that Al explained. I am not trying to stifle discussion, but I can do without (as I said my first day on the job) being ridiculed for views I have not even expressed.

What I mean by that is this: I do not represent every left person in America. I only represent myself. Thus, I would prefer it if those who are frustrated with the left would say, "it appears that the left thinks x" or "why is it that lefties always do y," which I will answer as best I can, instead of directing all the anger at me personally. I, of course, will return that courtesy (my post didn't single anyone out).

I just want to have an open, respectful conversation and try to find some common ground. But it's really hard to do that when I feel that I'm being personally attacked as a proxy for a loosely associated and diverse group of people. That's why I think it's useful to separate out what I have specifically said, which it's fine to direct responses to me personally about, and things I haven't said but am presumed to believe or endorse. I think that folks will be pleasantly surprised at some of the things I believe if they give me a chance.

3:41 PM  
Blogger Sandi said...

Here's a piece about segmentation published in the New York Times today by David Brooks. (sorry, I don't know how to do links).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/opinion/11brooks.done.html?incamp=article_popular

6:59 AM  
Blogger Sandi said...

I can't speak for every person who works there, but I don't think that the ACLU hates Christians at all. In fact, the ACLU has defended Christians on numerous occasions when their free speech or free exercise rights have been infringed. Here is the URL to the most recent press release on religious liberty issued by the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=18887&c=29

Here, the ACLU joined with the American Family Association to help free a street preacher from jail in New Mexico. This demonstrates one thing I learned about the organization while working there: the willingness to defend anyone at all, even those who they might personally disagree with, is quite sincere.

I also learned that there are diverse opinions within the organization on a number of issues. It's often really difficult to strike an appropriate balance between freedom and equality, or one fundamental right and another. The ACLU has to deal with these issues a lot, and I think they do an admirable job, especially given that they inevitably piss off a lot of people with any position they take. They aren't trying to please people; they're trying to take the position that is most true to individual freedom and the Bill of Rights. I may not always agree with their decisions, but I know that they are sincerely trying to do what they believe is the right thing.

The perception that the ACLU hates Christians comes from a couple of different factors, I think. One is the fact that its uber-civil libertarian stances seem to sanction all manner of toxic speech, which understandably concerns people (I am working on a future post about this issue). Another is that it is on the "wrong" side of two of the most divisive issues in America today: abortion and gay rights. But the most salient factor in the perception that the ACLU is against religion, or against Christians specifically, is probably its support of separation of church and state, which a lot of people see as hostile to religion.

If I didn't know so many people who were both religious and in favor of separation of church and state, I would be more able to sympathize with that concern. As it is, I understand how people can look at, for example, the Ten Commandments cases, and conclude that anyone who wants to take down a fifty-year-old monument that's just sitting there not hurting anyone that nobody is forced to read is hostile to religion. Without turning this into a post (I'm working on one about this topic too), the most important thing that all of us can do in evaluating our position about government-sponsored religion is to put ourselves in the shoes of others and look at things from their perspectives. I think that many people fail to do this before forming an opinion, and it has the effect of excluding from consideration a number of sometimes-competing concerns that need to be evaluated in order to make the fairest decision. I think that the ACLU puts in more effort to do this than most because they don't have a religious agenda, just an agenda to ensure that everyone's religious liberty is maintained. Certainly there are disagreements about where lines should be drawn, but almost without exception the ACLU advocates for more speech rather than less. So when a private group wants to put up a nativity scene, the ACLU will advocate that other groups be able to put up displays as well rather than for no one to be able to do so. In other words, they don't want to silence Christians (as some people believe), but rather want forums to be open to multiple perspectives.

One other thing that I will acknowledge: a lot of liberal types get really frustrated with Christians who insist that they have a right to exclusive access to forums or a right to use the apparatus of the government to proselytize. Not all Christians do this, but almost everyone who does this is a Christian. So that frustration with a certain subset of Christians often gets turned into an accusation of hatred of all Christians, which is unfortunate because it isn't true at all.

9:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page