eChurch Blog

You know what, I’ll stick with the original face of Christianity, namely, Jesus!

Guardian:-

Forget Billy Graham and Jimmy Swaggart – the most popular and influential pastor in the US is Joel Osteen. On the surface he is modest and quietly spoken, but his belief in the “prosperity gospel” is changing the way people pray.

The praise and worship brought me here,” says Natalie, sitting beside me in the fifth row of Houston’s Lakewood Church – a vast, converted stadium that seats 16,000. “I was raised Catholic, but I don’t feel the spirit there like I do here.”

Three enormous video screens advertise church groups such as Griefshare: From Mourning to Joy and the Freedom Series. But just as I’m wondering what the Quest for Authentic Manhood involves, the house worship band kicks out the jams. It’s 11am exactly and the day’s second service has begun. The stage is dominated by an enormous revolving golden globe, in front of which is a rock orchestra flanked on either side by a multiracial gospel choir. Meanwhile, no fewer than nine lead singers are dancing about the stage, praising the Lord. And as if the stage isn’t busy enough, down on the floor a small army of serious-looking men dressed in black suits stands alert, ever watchful, communicating with each other through radio mics. Theoretically they’re church ushers, but they look more like secret service men guarding a president. Gently but firmly they guide latecomers to their seats, leaving nothing to chance, as if one wrong step could upset the delicate balance that keeps 16,000 evangelical Christians from erupting into violence and anarchy.

Men on wheeled chairs scoot past these special agents, thrusting cameras into the faces of the congregation, while overhead a camera on a crane swoops past, instantly transmitting the action on stage to the giant video screens above. Looking up, I watch as the walls and ceiling periodically change colour, from blue to purple to orange as if we were at an intergalactic disco. Make no mistake: Lakewood is no ordinary church, it’s a megachurch. No, let’s go further: it’s an ultrachurch, the largest in America, with more than 40,000 attending five services weekly and a further 7 million watching in their living rooms. And let’s not forget the tens of millions more joining us in 100 countries around the world.

The main draw is Joel Osteen, “America’s pastor”. He’s at the edge of the stage with his glamorous wife and co-pastor, Victoria. I’ve watched his televised sermons, seen him on the cover of his bestselling books, and observed interviews on TV with megastars such as Larry King, Sean Hannity and Barbara Walters. Powerful politicians from both parties crave to be seen with him, just as in the past they paid homage to Billy Graham (who has endorsed Osteen). The Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry, made sure to attend the grand opening of Lakewood in July 2005; Osteen in turn led the prayer during Perry’s inauguration two years later. But Osteen doesn’t pick political favourites; when Houston elected its first openly gay mayor this year (a Democrat), he said the prayer during her inauguration. The Clintons like to be seen worshipping at Lakewood when they’re in town, and John McCain was happy to sing the praises of Osteen while campaigning in 2008. And while Obama is yet to pay a visit, last December he found the time to receive Osteen at the White House. These disparate and often opposed politicians recognise one thing: if anybody is the face of evangelical Christianity in America today, it is Joel Osteen.

Continue Reading

Calvin L Smith (Principal of King’s Evangelical Divinity School) is “live blogging” his trip to the US, and I found his latest post to be an interesting follow up to yesterdays post entitled: Why Christians should be politically conservative:-

The Christian Academy and Christians in Politics

At the Evangelical theological conference I’ve been attending I am struck by how a substantial number of people I’ve listened to at debates or chatted with lean towards the political left (I think the preferred term is “progressive”). Now it is a truism that the academy always tends towards radicalism and the left. But it is also the case that in politics many politicians on the left move somewhat towards the right when they gain power (according to my politics professor during my MA studies, a classic historical example is the British Labour Party). Of course, there are exceptions to this and most rules. Thus, some people within the academy are on the right, while some on the left do seem to shift further leftwards when in power (though some of these, I think, are actually populists employing leftist rhetoric, but that is an issue for another day).

So the exceptions aside, what are the reasons for a left-leaning academy and politicians who shift rightwards towards the centre? I’m not sure, though I suspect in the case of the academy it is a place driven by idealism, as well as an arena in which to exchange ideas and in doing so challenge the status quo and the Establishment. Meanwhile, I suggest the cold, hard realities of the political world arguably lead politicians to ditch idealism in favour of pragmatism, firstly to get things done, and secondly, because there is a realisation that academic idealism and utopianism is somewhat of a pipedream in the real world. Enter Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian realism.

Whatever the reasons for both these political tendencies, I do not believe these two stereotypes of the academy and political world should be permitted to influence Christians in either arena. The Christian academy should certainly not be shaped by the world’s currents, trends, political outlook, worldview and philosophy. Such postmodern ideals will pass one day, as indeed the scepticism of modernity’s biblical criticism – and indeed various philosophical influences upon Christianity during its 2000 year history – has now passed into oblivion. And that’s the point, isn’t it? When the Christian academy permits the world to influence its mindset and worldview it enslaves itself to the dominant fashion of the pervadign Zeitgeist. This is, in a very real sense, worldliness, that is, allowing the world’s values to rub off and influence the Church and its actions. Instead, the Christian academy should be thoroughly biblicist in its approach to issues (and not just issues but in shaping its own agenda and worldview), seeking to establish and walk its own path rather than emulate that of the secular academy. It should be radical by all means (after all, Jesus was incredibly radical), but being radical means being something completely different to what is already out there. Yet all too often, Christianity offers a carbon copy (and a poor one at that) of what the world has to offer. In short, the Christian Evangelical Left should not look much like the Democrats or Labour Party, while the Evangelical Right should not be a religious carbon copy of the Republican or Conservative parties. Indeed, there should be no Evangelical Left or Evangelical Right in the first place, as these are simply examples of how the world has rubbed off on us so that we even categorise ourselves on that basis. But of course human nature and things like political cleavage make it hard for us to shake off these ways of thinking.

Meanwhile, from the political perspective (and here is why, perhaps, Christians don’t make good politicians) Christian politicians should not be driven by pragmatism and realism, because this is the route of compromise and watering down one’s Christian, biblical values. Rather, the Christian politician should be driven by idealism and firmly challenging the status quo. But of course in this route lies a short political career.

It seems to me, then, Christian radicalism means a Christian academy which espouses realism and pragmatism, while Christian political outlook and activity should be zealously idealist and keen to challenge the status quo. But of course the opposite very often seems to be the case. Everything just seems so messed up, doesn’t it?

Harry’s place have an interesting post looking at the phenomenon of US support for Israel.

Within the post Gene makes this comment:-

Now American non-Jews support Israel for a lot of different reasons, some of which (like Christian end-times theology) make me squirm.

I thought the term “Christian end-times theology” was of particular interest. I am assuming that Gene is alluding to the armageddonist, final battle apocalyptics, Revelation of St. John literalism, much espoused on God TV and US networks.

The term “Christian end-times theology” is to me bit of a misnomer in this regard. I view this as an end times eschatological paradigm rather than a theology.

The reason I make this point, is that I hold a Zionist-theology without this particular eschatological view. I accept of course that eschatology is oftentimes theologically driven, however, they are not necessarily the same thing for me personally, and a distinction should be made between eschatology and theology. I do acknowledge that eschatology is often referred to as a “branch of theology”.

It is for me entirely consistent to hold a Zionist theology and yet reject Dispensationalism and more specifically Premillennialism.

Just to keep you abreast of “happenings” in the Anglican Church.

The Bishop of Liverpool – James Jones – is in serious hot water after a speech he gave to the to Liverpool Diocesan Synod, in which he said some stuff about gays that has riled the conservatives. This has caused much activity in the conservative Anglican online world, as the good Bishop was once seen as one of their own.

Not any more.

Here are some links:-

Virtue Online – As Eye See It : Why Liverpool Bishop James Jones is Wrong

Stand Firm – Another “Evangelical” Shows His Hand

Anglican Spread – Bishop James Jones: Liverpool’s Muddy Waters flow towards Africa

Hacking Christianity – From ‘Just War’ to ‘Just Sexuality’

Ugley Vicar – Bishop James Jones and the challenge to unity

Ekklesia – Evangelical bishop “in sympathy” with same-sex partnerships

The Changing Attitude – James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool calls for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”

Oh Dear.

Weekly Standard:-

PCUSA Tempted to Divest from Israel – The church’s leadership takes a pro-Palestinian stance.

Six years ago, the nearly 3 million member Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) became the first and only U.S. religious body to adopt a divestment policy against Israel. After a large uproar from Christians and Jews, including a personal appeal from Presbyterian former CIA Director James Woolsey at the church’s General Assembly in 2006, the divestment stance was repealed.

Controversy over the church’s stance towards Israel may now reignite. A special PCUSA study committee is proposing that the denomination’s 2010 General Assembly take a strident anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian stance. The committee’s report points to the Israeli presence on the West Bank as the great evil in the Middle East. It urges the United States to “employ the strategic use of influence and the withholding of financial and military aid to enforce Israel’s compliance” with demands for withdrawal. The committee recommends no similar pressure against any other actors in the region.

The PCUSA committee calls the U.S. government “to repent of its sinful behavior throughout the Middle East, including its ongoing war in Iraq, its undermining of democratic processes in Iran and the Palestinian National Authority, its continuing support of non-democratic regimes, and its acquiescence to the ongoing Israeli Occupation.” Such rhetoric, if adopted by the General Assembly in July, would introduce another explosive cause of division into the fractured and declining denomination. And it would certainly not help the PCUSA’s inconsistent efforts at dialogue with the U.S. Jewish community.

This proposed new Middle East policy seems likely to revive the animosities from the 2004 General Assembly, which mandated “phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.” After bitter public debates, the 2006 PCUSA assembly rescinded the divestment mandate. This reversal marked a turning of the tide against pro-Palestinian activists pushing churches to target Israel for economic punishment.

The 2008 Presbyterian assembly pledged that “we will not over-identify with the realities of the Israelis or Palestinians” and advised against “taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality, where one side clearly is at fault and the other side is clearly the victim.” But that same assembly also established the special committee, which proceeded to ignore the assembly’s advice.

The special committee report has not yet been released; however, excerpts and paraphrases in an official PCUSA News Service account suggest the one-sided nature of the document. According to PCUSA News, the committee’s lead recommendation is “an immediate end to the [Israeli] Occupation [of the West Bank].” Other demands are likewise directed at Israel: “An immediate freeze on the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements on occupied territory, the relocation of Israel’s ‘separation barrier’ to the internationally recognized 1967 border, a shared status for Jerusalem, equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.”

The special committee, according to PCUSA News, advocates “an immediate cessation of violence by both sides” and “immediate resumption of negotiations toward a two-state solution.” It briefly deplores “threats by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel.” But its only specific request of the Palestinian leadership is that the Fatah and Hamas movements should “work together toward immediate reconciliation,” so as to form a united front against Israel.

The PCUSA committee affirms “the right of Israel to exist,” but adds an apology in a footnote: “The phrase ‘the right of Israel to exist’ is a source of pain for some members of our study committee who are in solidarity with the Palestinians, who feel that the creation of the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.” It supports “the right of return” for all Palestinian refugees—a policy that would quickly submerge Israel under an Arab majority.

The most extreme aspect of the report is its endorsement of a pro-Palestinian manifesto called “Kairos Palestine.” Put forth last November by a group of Palestinian church officials, the manifesto rejects the identity of Israel as a Jewish state.

“The injustice against the Palestinian people which is the Israeli occupation, is an evil that must be resisted,” according to this document proposed for PCUSA approval. “Kairos Palestine” argues for non-violent measures such as an international “system of economic sanctions and boycott to be applied against Israel.” At the same time, it seems to justify violence: “Yes, there is Palestinian resistance to the occupation. However, if there were no occupation, there would be no resistance, no fear and no insecurity.” The manifesto refers to Palestinian “terrorism” in sneer quotes, as if to doubt the existence of the phenomenon.

Even before its release, this PCUSA report is stirring up a storm. The Simon Wiesenthal Center sent out an e-blast predicting that both Jews and many Presbyterians would be outraged. “PCUSA has some of the staunchest supporters of Israel in its ranks,” declared Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Wiesenthal Center. “They are as frustrated as we are that their church leadership team spends so much energy on the Arab/Israeli conflict where there are relatively few Presbyterians who live in either Israel or the disputed territories, and spends too little energy on major human rights issues impacting Christians and Presbyterians who live in Muslim countries, China, and North Korea.”

Alan F.H. Wisdom is vice president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy and director of Presbyterian Action.

Here is a report from the Christian Post:-

Jewish Group: PC(USA)’s Israel Proposals Will Damage Relations

Hat-tip Polycarp:-

Study Links Religious Groups and Racial Bias

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus warned religious listeners against what today would be called “ingroup prejudice”: the tendency to think less of outsiders, especially those of another race.

The Samaritan, a member of a group despised by Israelites of that time, proves himself more charitable to an injured traveler than two members of the Jewish clergy.

Devout listeners startled by the Samaritan’s charity would have had to confront a difficult message: Piety and prejudice keep close company.

It appears not much has changed.

A meta-analysis of 55 independent studies carried out in the United States with more than 20,000 mostly Christian participants has found that members of religious congregations tend to harbor prejudiced views of other races.

In general, the more devout the community, the greater the racism, according to the authors of the analysis, led by Wendy Wood, Provost Professor of Psychology and Business at USC College and the USC Marshall School of Business. The study appears in the February issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review.

“Religious groups distinguish between believers and non-believers and moral people and immoral ones,” Wood said. “So perhaps it’s no surprise that the strongly religious people in our research, who were mostly white Christians, discriminated against others who were different from them — blacks and minorities.”

Most of the studies reviewed by Wood’s team focused on Christians because Christianity is the most common religion in the United States.

Her analysis found significantly less racism among people without strong religious beliefs.

Continue Reading

Rather depressing if true.

I thought this to be an excellent post from David over at the Anglican Samizdat Blog, in which he articulates a very important and salient point, relating to the correlation between our general perception of the “human condition”, and our political and theological worldview.

Anglican Samizdat

Some friends recently returned from a stay at a kibbutz in Israel. The individuals they were staying with believe they have the solution to the problems in the Middle-East: if only the people were allowed to go about their daily lives free of political agendas and politicians, there would be peace and harmony.

This assessment is based on the liberal fallacy that man is essentially good and, if left alone, his innate goodness would flourish resulting in God’s kingdom being established on earth. Political liberals believe this, as to religious liberals. What they are both overlooking is the Jeremiah 17:9 factor: original sin.

Mankind is not innately good, he is innately evil. That is not to say every person is as evil as he could be, but that no person is as good as he should be. Even Christians who have been judicially exonerated through Christ’s atoning sacrifice will continue to sin as long as they are this side of heaven, since their old nature is still present.

The secular government has a divinely appointed role in restraining evil – a fact that goes unrecognised by political and religious liberals.

To put it another way:

Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.

An interesting post over at Hacking Christianity for Christian webmasters, looking at search engine optimisation and the church. This follows on nicely from a post yesterday about the religious blogosphere, in which I wrote:-

The truth is, whether for good or for ill, the Internet is a medium that the Church must master and utilise, as a matter of priority.

Any half decent webmaster knows that search engine optimisation is absolutely critical to the development and ongoing success of a website. It is tragic how often I see aesthetically pleasing Christian websites that are dead in the water, because they have been solely designed for the human eye, at the expense of the search engine’s eye.

All websites must be designed for two types of readers, human and bot.

Hacking Christianity

A year ago on this blog, we wrote The Tyranny of the SEO Church where we examined how search engine optimization is becoming more and more critical for church outreach, but also cedes power to persons other than the church to answer questions. Read it here.  Here’s the basic premise:

What it means to me is that any theological viewpoint that receives strong SEO (search engine optimization) can become the new “truth.” If you can get that viewpoint to the top of google searches, or better to cover the majority of the first page of results, then that becomes more and more “truth.” And this alliance between Wikipeda and Google can perpetuate this narrow viewpoint and bury (send to a lower ranking) theological viewpoints that do not agree with the SEO viewpoint.

Continue Reading

This is a fantastic cross-post by bananabrain over at the Spitoon:-

the kangaroo court of militant atheism is a toxic, anti-reason fallacy

Interesting interview in the Catholic Hearld with my old Bish Naz:-

‘One has to speak the truth regardless’

Rory Fitzgerald meets the controversial former Bishop of Rochester and unofficial leader of conservative Anglicans

In the August heat of Karachi in 1949 a little boy was born in to a Shia Muslim family. Pakistan was only two years old, a fledgling and chaotic nation, trying to find its way in the world without British rule. Michael Nazir-Ali’s mother cannot then have imagined that her baby boy would one day sit in that most British of chambers, the House of Lords. Nor that he would become a prominent Anglican bishop and an eminent Christian thinker.

Nine years before Michael Nazir-Ali was born, London was under attack by the Luftwaffe and Britain was fighting for its life. In 1940, Churchill spoke these immortal words:”I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin.

Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation… Hitler knows he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all of Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

The vicar’s house on Giltspur Street in central London was one of many London buildings destroyed by a Nazi bomb during that earlier effort to eradicate Christian civilisation. Perhaps appositely, this is where I met Bishop Nazir-Ali last month.

Standing on Giltspur Street you are waist-deep in history. A vicar of this very church sang the Psalm Miserere in February 1555 as he was led around the corner to Smithfield, where he was burned alive for heresy. During the Crusades this ancient church was re-named in honour of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. How little things change in 1,000 years: in 2010 our conversation was to be dominated by the ongoing tensions with Islam, and schisms in the Christian Church.

Dr Nazir-Ali was Bishop of Rochester until March last year, when he retired. He still lives in Kent with his wife and two children and now ministers to persecuted Christian minorities abroad.

“Christians in this country are becoming aware of the persecutions of Christians abroad. I think partly because they are experiencing something of it themselves,” he says.

Continue Reading

We salute you sir