The unfolding American drama manifests in the slow erosion of the nuclear family; there are few voices willing to tackle the issues head on. We only speak our own truths to others who share them, and even then only after a quick look around, a wink, and a lowering of our voices. We got circular in our thinking. We got circular in our fears.
Once upon a time men feared beasts, other men, armies, guns, bad guys, and the like. Women harbored the same fears. Mostly both genders could address their fears the same way. Men got tough. Little space remained for men who didn’t get tough, or at least join a collective that together was a tough bunch. It was defense and sustenance. Women were safer when the collective grunt went about watching for harmful things, and bringing other things bountiful.
Fast-forward… really fast, because there would be books on books to chronicle the transition in any detail. Ignore causation, as there is huge disparity of opinion. Did men get lazy? Did men seek woman’s role? Did women demand that men negotiate with tears on their face instead of tears in their uniforms? Who cares?
Well the Christian church is supposed to care. The church has the Bible and the Bible has something to say about everything. There are things unessential in uniformity like worship formats and whether to use a crushed velvet blanket over a woman’s legs when she is slain in the spirit. There are things essential like Jesus as Savior and the path to salvation. Roles of priests and elders are described and qualifications outlined. But wait; already we arrive at contested ground.
What about women? The church certainly does not have uniformity of belief and practice on women’s role in ministry. The machinations of reason and rationalization on both sides could use a quantum physicist to unravel them. To follow these debates takes one on a path that resembles a pretzel in three dimensions. I leave it alone.
What about husbands and wives? Here is where it gets really interesting. We all like conditional things; if then situations. We use the scales of justice to measure things that were not intended to have a counterweight. Little Jimmy broke the window in the front door with a baseball, but Bobby burned the kitchen while making popcorn. I guess the broken window is ok. Jimmy should thank Bobby. We like it this way. That’s why we cannot accept the roles of husbands and wives in the Bible as prescribed independently. The issue is between the individual and God. There should be no situation where Fred’s affair overshadows Betty’s neglect. It cuts both ways. It’s all bad.
Two occasions arise with opportunity for preachers to address gender roles. Most churches have a series of topical messages, and often they address man and women’s role in marriage, dedicating separate days to each gender. The other times are Mother’s Day and Father’s Day.
Summarizing these is easy. Man is stupid and bad, he is not present in his children’s lives, he is a workaholic, and he is emotionally inept. In fact more sensitivity on his part would solve many problems. Woman is under appreciated; she is to be respected and protected, and indulged the relentless desire to emote. Men complaining about a lack of intimacy need only see that they are not sensitive to the delicate nuances of the day, and if he could relate more like a girlfriend to her, she would be the wife he wants. It’s in there. Did you catch it, the if-then? We love it. Someone is guiltier. We are allowed to judge. Judging is fun.
I wouldn’t dare open the Pandora’s box of the concept of submission. Watch a pastor speak on it and you will soon see that a pretzel in three dimensions is simple. He delves into the fourth dimension where Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Schrodinger’s Cat and Laplace’s Demon reside. I asked a pastor once why he danced like that. He told me it was because his wife was sitting close by.
I said earlier causation is not my thing. I can see an analogy though. Pornography exploits women and feeds man’s desire to view unclothed flesh, yes? Physical intimacy is a strong drive in men, maybe the strongest need men have. Alternatively intimate communication, sensitivity, and romance are purported to be powerful needs of women. A fast couple of clicks online and a man can be looking at a virtual world that speaks directly to that powerful drive. Men are often caught in its simplicity of access and change their focus to virtual. Their marriage is harmed, and they are rightly scorned.
But what of Harlequin? Aside from the fact that romance novels can have titillating intimate scenes written for female consumption, even the “innocent” books provide a compelling vicarious remedy for the daily frustration of not “getting it” at home, it being the frequency and form of communication sought. Is this OK? Well I would say not, but I might get a snicker and little else if I attempted to put the porn of romance novels on the radar screen of family problems that church could address…and that we can (he he he) judge!
Regardless your perspective on Biblical marriage roles, the only absolute claim I can make is that the prescription, if you accept it, is not conditional. That does not go down well. But I believe if the prescription was adopted from that viewpoint by more people, cause and effect, or if then would manifest, not in failures, but in successes in marriage.
The INS reports a 19% divorce rate between American men and women from certain parts of the world where Biblical marriage roles result from culture and not religion. Most are not even Christian nations.
The difference between 19% and our domestic bliss of 51% can be closed a bit. Sure there are “factors” where desperate subservient women come here and tolerate dominant husbands and all sorts of bad things just to become Americans. You cannot close the gap enough though with these “factors” to discount the impact of appropriate marital roles regardless why they are adopted. I submit the Bible has it right.
As an aside, these men look at less porn and these women read less Harlequin. Why?
Saturday, July 14, 2007
EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME
The more I read the less I understand about Unitarian type doctrine. I refer not to the specific doctrine of the Unitarian church, but to adherent’s attestations mined from reading their philosophical explanations. I am writing this, not to advocate for a particular faith but rather to advocate subscribing to only one specific faith, or no faith at all.
I admire any reasonable effort to reduce or eliminate conflict in the world. Should we not visualize world peace? In that light, it is one thing to embrace the people of all faiths, and quite another to claim to embrace all faiths. If I thought most people making these contentions specifically meant the former I would be writing for nothing. It is the later idea with which I take issue.
In youth, those idealistic days of university, of unspoken but ingrained feelings of immortality, of fresh new knowledge learned from words uttered aloud yet absorbed as if whispered in a secret room known only to the discerning few, of templates for living conceived before actually having a life, in that youth we created new and unique ways (we thought) to reconcile everyone to everything. If people would just grasp what we proposed, and could muster our methodology of thought, strife would evaporate inside a generation. The clever parable of the blind men standing around the elephant incorrectly guessing what they were touching sounded, no, it actually felt so real, and conclusive, and gosh it even involved a king. I’ve heard it told as if it occurred in India, and isn’t that part of the world just more tuned in spiritually? After all the Dali Lama is a neighbor and that guy is seriously in touch with himself, and the planet, and the great cosmic campus shut-in isn’t he? Ours would be the true Age of Aquarius.
Some things that are different are not mutually exclusive. We cannot make everyone’s skin the same color, force all to settle on one language, or foster agreement on people’s favorite foods. But some think they can, with love, break down the boundaries of religious differences. While the route taken to arrive at the place of reconciliation is heady, academic, spiritual, technical, philosophical, and emotional, the resulting strategy for religious congruence is basic. We need only ignore the differences and embrace the similarities. It works well in areas like racial harmony. We can (oh if only) ignore the differences in skin color, accents, perhaps tastes, and embrace the humanity in all humans. There exists no difference that precludes the sameness. It doesn’t only feel right to do so, it IS right to do so, and the world is (could be) a better place for it.
What about religion?
First of all, it may well be in the nomenclature that the misconception arises. I never liked the word “religion” as we use it today. It is a general concept that describes a set of beliefs that can be further delineated with specificity of deity and practices. Some general concepts accommodate picking and choosing. For example, décor describes a general idea, within which there are subdivided labels that spell out the specific type of décor. Just because one person prefers vintage retro décor and another fancies French country cottage, it does not preclude a third from choosing aspects of each and creating a unique combination. Vintage retro French country cottage may sound ridiculous, but there’s nothing stopping someone from adopting it. And at the end of each process the house can be called fully “décor-ated”. Religion does not work that way.
Using the main monotheistic faiths as examples, each has as a tenant that the god of that faith is the only god. Christianity claims Jesus is the ONLY way to reach God the Father. Islam maintains that Allah is the one true god. Jews believe the messiah is yet to come. The god of each religion can be considered the “same” god due to their monotheistic beliefs. But, it is the nature of god, and how we relate to him that is the critical difference. It is the sameness that leads people astray when they don’t go deep enough to discover the differences. If we accept a god exists it would be beneficial to know him would it not? It is no small feat to create creation. A being with that task on his resume can do great good or great harm to us the created. Ignoring him is, however, an option and many avail themselves to it.
But those who confess god’s existence and their belief therein, and then begin to draw upon all kinds of resources to relate to him do themselves a disservice. Again, in theory this group accepts the fact that we are the created. How arrogant therefore, that by reading interpretations and pronouncement from other members of the created, people can begin a statement with “I believe” and then proceed to describe a theology that has been generated in the minds of those created by the god they seek to understand? Can the created dictate how to approach the creator? Can we prescribe our own beliefs and foist them upon god?
To avoid this inherent conundrum and remain within today’s socialized tendency to offend no one, Unitarian types offer that all beliefs are of equal import and each may choose their own path to god, including one of the main religions or one pieced together from them, adding to it new and well intentioned feel good pronouncements and interesting mysticisms. More problematic though is the general intimation that anyone can believe anything and it’s all good.
The Bible says that the only way to God is via His son Jesus, and bold Christians will state unequivocally that aside from that path one will not arrive in heaven. Muslims are so convinced of the absolute authority of Allah and the proclamations of his prophet that they react to divergent views in ways ranging from treating non-Muslims as second-class citizens to viciously murdering unbelievers (Christians have done so in the past as well). Just these two assertions render the statement, “all beliefs are of equal value and there are multiple paths to god” to be meaningless gibberish. If all faiths lead to God, Christianity leads to God, and Christianity says Jesus is the only way to God therefore all faiths don’t lead to God.Logic hurts.
Blatant self-contradiction is the norm in our polarized society. We save the whales and kill the babies, we grouse about gasoline prices but prevent new supplies, we oppose the war and support the troops (huh?), we rally against mass murder in Sudan and choose to ignore it when it happened in Iraq, we want women liberated excluding Iraqi and Afghan women, statutory rape with boy victims is a joke but with girl victims it is a felony, we rationalize the slaughter of innocents by beheading or bombing by saying we simply must reach out to the perpetrators; it goes on.
Is it any wonder we can so easily accept that all beliefs are of equal merit even while some of those beliefs covered by that statement specifically require adherence to a narrow doctrine at the exclusion of others? When we internally generate feelings of peace and love for everyone and everything, and profess to the spiritually hungry that we have intuitively arrived at the truth, many grasp on and cling. It feels so right. It requires no accountability except to love! What could be wrong with that? No one gets hurt right?But the canard is as old as mankind himself. We follow the circuitous path of our beliefs not by attempting to be led by god, but rather by preferentially leading ourselves. It leads us right back to the fallen place where we were all born, the absolute self centered faith in no one or nothing but ourselves. I would say that inward focus is, contrary to tolerant gentile wisdom, the pinnacle of closed mindedness.
I admire any reasonable effort to reduce or eliminate conflict in the world. Should we not visualize world peace? In that light, it is one thing to embrace the people of all faiths, and quite another to claim to embrace all faiths. If I thought most people making these contentions specifically meant the former I would be writing for nothing. It is the later idea with which I take issue.
In youth, those idealistic days of university, of unspoken but ingrained feelings of immortality, of fresh new knowledge learned from words uttered aloud yet absorbed as if whispered in a secret room known only to the discerning few, of templates for living conceived before actually having a life, in that youth we created new and unique ways (we thought) to reconcile everyone to everything. If people would just grasp what we proposed, and could muster our methodology of thought, strife would evaporate inside a generation. The clever parable of the blind men standing around the elephant incorrectly guessing what they were touching sounded, no, it actually felt so real, and conclusive, and gosh it even involved a king. I’ve heard it told as if it occurred in India, and isn’t that part of the world just more tuned in spiritually? After all the Dali Lama is a neighbor and that guy is seriously in touch with himself, and the planet, and the great cosmic campus shut-in isn’t he? Ours would be the true Age of Aquarius.
Some things that are different are not mutually exclusive. We cannot make everyone’s skin the same color, force all to settle on one language, or foster agreement on people’s favorite foods. But some think they can, with love, break down the boundaries of religious differences. While the route taken to arrive at the place of reconciliation is heady, academic, spiritual, technical, philosophical, and emotional, the resulting strategy for religious congruence is basic. We need only ignore the differences and embrace the similarities. It works well in areas like racial harmony. We can (oh if only) ignore the differences in skin color, accents, perhaps tastes, and embrace the humanity in all humans. There exists no difference that precludes the sameness. It doesn’t only feel right to do so, it IS right to do so, and the world is (could be) a better place for it.
What about religion?
First of all, it may well be in the nomenclature that the misconception arises. I never liked the word “religion” as we use it today. It is a general concept that describes a set of beliefs that can be further delineated with specificity of deity and practices. Some general concepts accommodate picking and choosing. For example, décor describes a general idea, within which there are subdivided labels that spell out the specific type of décor. Just because one person prefers vintage retro décor and another fancies French country cottage, it does not preclude a third from choosing aspects of each and creating a unique combination. Vintage retro French country cottage may sound ridiculous, but there’s nothing stopping someone from adopting it. And at the end of each process the house can be called fully “décor-ated”. Religion does not work that way.
Using the main monotheistic faiths as examples, each has as a tenant that the god of that faith is the only god. Christianity claims Jesus is the ONLY way to reach God the Father. Islam maintains that Allah is the one true god. Jews believe the messiah is yet to come. The god of each religion can be considered the “same” god due to their monotheistic beliefs. But, it is the nature of god, and how we relate to him that is the critical difference. It is the sameness that leads people astray when they don’t go deep enough to discover the differences. If we accept a god exists it would be beneficial to know him would it not? It is no small feat to create creation. A being with that task on his resume can do great good or great harm to us the created. Ignoring him is, however, an option and many avail themselves to it.
But those who confess god’s existence and their belief therein, and then begin to draw upon all kinds of resources to relate to him do themselves a disservice. Again, in theory this group accepts the fact that we are the created. How arrogant therefore, that by reading interpretations and pronouncement from other members of the created, people can begin a statement with “I believe” and then proceed to describe a theology that has been generated in the minds of those created by the god they seek to understand? Can the created dictate how to approach the creator? Can we prescribe our own beliefs and foist them upon god?
To avoid this inherent conundrum and remain within today’s socialized tendency to offend no one, Unitarian types offer that all beliefs are of equal import and each may choose their own path to god, including one of the main religions or one pieced together from them, adding to it new and well intentioned feel good pronouncements and interesting mysticisms. More problematic though is the general intimation that anyone can believe anything and it’s all good.
The Bible says that the only way to God is via His son Jesus, and bold Christians will state unequivocally that aside from that path one will not arrive in heaven. Muslims are so convinced of the absolute authority of Allah and the proclamations of his prophet that they react to divergent views in ways ranging from treating non-Muslims as second-class citizens to viciously murdering unbelievers (Christians have done so in the past as well). Just these two assertions render the statement, “all beliefs are of equal value and there are multiple paths to god” to be meaningless gibberish. If all faiths lead to God, Christianity leads to God, and Christianity says Jesus is the only way to God therefore all faiths don’t lead to God.Logic hurts.
Blatant self-contradiction is the norm in our polarized society. We save the whales and kill the babies, we grouse about gasoline prices but prevent new supplies, we oppose the war and support the troops (huh?), we rally against mass murder in Sudan and choose to ignore it when it happened in Iraq, we want women liberated excluding Iraqi and Afghan women, statutory rape with boy victims is a joke but with girl victims it is a felony, we rationalize the slaughter of innocents by beheading or bombing by saying we simply must reach out to the perpetrators; it goes on.
Is it any wonder we can so easily accept that all beliefs are of equal merit even while some of those beliefs covered by that statement specifically require adherence to a narrow doctrine at the exclusion of others? When we internally generate feelings of peace and love for everyone and everything, and profess to the spiritually hungry that we have intuitively arrived at the truth, many grasp on and cling. It feels so right. It requires no accountability except to love! What could be wrong with that? No one gets hurt right?But the canard is as old as mankind himself. We follow the circuitous path of our beliefs not by attempting to be led by god, but rather by preferentially leading ourselves. It leads us right back to the fallen place where we were all born, the absolute self centered faith in no one or nothing but ourselves. I would say that inward focus is, contrary to tolerant gentile wisdom, the pinnacle of closed mindedness.
Review of Why Men Hate Going To Church
I’ve just been reading the book “Why Men Hate Going To Church” by David Murrow. I bought the book based on a review I read somewhere that outlined what I thought were well considered points detailing what exactly about church is less than palatable to men. The author raises issues from music lyrics to volunteer opportunities and he covers a wide range of psychological characteristics that, in the general, can contribute to men finding better things to do with their Sunday midday. And while he clearly makes the assertion that the things of church are more feminine than masculine, he seems to avoid the notion that the church has become “feminized”. There is a difference.
Murrow is correct about most things he mentions. Men are uncomfortable when placed for any length of time in a predominantly feminine environment. He offers as an example the man sitting in the department store while his wife tries on clothing. Surrounded by women’s cloths and undergarments a lone man feels like a lone pimple on a teen’s nose (my comparison). Murrow’s main contention is that man’s masculine nature and the feminine nature of the church are an unnatural fit. And to that end, the church intentionally or unintentionally has put forth a major effort to change what is “bad” about men.
The author chronicles the history of church attendance gender disparity with some valid observations about (among other things) how the evolution of the workweek during the industrial revolution created tangible scheduling conflicts for some men. But outside influences alone cannot account for the church being perceived as patriarchal while functionally it is very feminine. He overlooks the feminist movement and how it not only accelerated this phenomenon but also solidified these tendencies in the church. Murrow all but excuses the pastors role and avoids entirely the feminization of the pastorate along with the rest of the country including the women in church. He shares a quote from a pastor in the 1950’s who when faced with an important ministry decision was approached by a woman in his church that said, “men sit on boards but women run the church”. On first glance it seems impossible to get any more one sided than that, but it has. Inside the cover of the book is a quote from Sheila Wray Gregoire, an author. She says, “I’ve often noticed that sermons on Mother’s day tend to gush over moms, while on Father’s Day they tell dads to shape up”. It’s too bad she said this after reading the book or Murrow may have decided to dig deeper.
Besides a lack of men in church on Sunday, why should anyone care about this issue? There are many reasons, but most of them lead back to the subject of divorce. An earlier post of mine called “Christians and Prenuptial Agreements: Defeat from the jaws of Victory” talks about the tragic rate of divorce in the church and some of the reasons behind it. Without going into gender differences, it speaks of the church as a place that either intentionally or inadvertently provides “support” to those who unilaterally tear apart a family for their own self centered reasons.
Murrow is correct about most things he mentions. Men are uncomfortable when placed for any length of time in a predominantly feminine environment. He offers as an example the man sitting in the department store while his wife tries on clothing. Surrounded by women’s cloths and undergarments a lone man feels like a lone pimple on a teen’s nose (my comparison). Murrow’s main contention is that man’s masculine nature and the feminine nature of the church are an unnatural fit. And to that end, the church intentionally or unintentionally has put forth a major effort to change what is “bad” about men.
The author chronicles the history of church attendance gender disparity with some valid observations about (among other things) how the evolution of the workweek during the industrial revolution created tangible scheduling conflicts for some men. But outside influences alone cannot account for the church being perceived as patriarchal while functionally it is very feminine. He overlooks the feminist movement and how it not only accelerated this phenomenon but also solidified these tendencies in the church. Murrow all but excuses the pastors role and avoids entirely the feminization of the pastorate along with the rest of the country including the women in church. He shares a quote from a pastor in the 1950’s who when faced with an important ministry decision was approached by a woman in his church that said, “men sit on boards but women run the church”. On first glance it seems impossible to get any more one sided than that, but it has. Inside the cover of the book is a quote from Sheila Wray Gregoire, an author. She says, “I’ve often noticed that sermons on Mother’s day tend to gush over moms, while on Father’s Day they tell dads to shape up”. It’s too bad she said this after reading the book or Murrow may have decided to dig deeper.
Besides a lack of men in church on Sunday, why should anyone care about this issue? There are many reasons, but most of them lead back to the subject of divorce. An earlier post of mine called “Christians and Prenuptial Agreements: Defeat from the jaws of Victory” talks about the tragic rate of divorce in the church and some of the reasons behind it. Without going into gender differences, it speaks of the church as a place that either intentionally or inadvertently provides “support” to those who unilaterally tear apart a family for their own self centered reasons.
The Taliban, Hollywood, and The Ten Commandments
Middle America recognizes agenda driven art. Though hillbilly incest has put our eyes on the sides of our heads, and the gap in our teeth makes us unintelligible, we somehow manage to see the subtle advocating of causes in movies and television programming. We drag our knuckles across the shag carpeting in our living rooms, ignore the broken console television on the floor and reach for the 19 inch Magnavox sitting on top, adjust the rabbit ears, maybe add some hangers or foil, and hope we can find a program where we don’t need to see a guys fat naked back side as he slogs out of the shower and back into bed with his mistress.
For the past three decades the box office has become more and more “progressive”. Edgy fare makes the writers feel like they are still in the campus coffee shop smoking a clove cigarette and accusing Baptists of being worse than the Taliban. Meanwhile John Q. Public stopped taking his family to see racy films and chose to visit the cinema on the occasion of the twice per year Disney film.
After a statistically significant amount of time it became obvious that more family friendly entertainment outperformed the sex and gore stuff by leaps and bounds. The figures don’t lie. Folks started to talk about it. I thought Hollywood was just in denial. Then came The Passion of The Christ. It was going to fail. It was going to fracture the country. It would traumatize citizens young and old and there would be a secular backlash unprecedented in strength and duration. Hundreds of millions of dollars later, and no sign of a backlash, most consider that argument settled. Yet Hollywood persists.
Weekly, studios report what films reap at the box office. That gives the false impression that these are businesses with a profit motive. Brokeback Mountain makes a few million dollars and is revered in those clove cigarette-clouded venues. Praise for the art is showered and academy award nominations abound. But it really didn’t make a lot of money. These cannot be real businesses. The people making movies are the ones complaining about Exxon’s profits while seeing to it their own companies don’t have that same problem.
Then April 2006 rolled around and I thought someone somewhere caught a snap. ABC actually produced a remake of “The Ten Commandments”. Prime time family friendly programming, with an epic Bible story to boot; I gathered the kids and popcorn and sat back to enjoy. I’m no movie critic by profession (I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express though), but within 15 minutes I realized something was amiss. It was like the junior TV folks got a little play time, a third string effort. Maybe someday it will look good on their resumes but it was awful on TV. The story was disjointed, the acting horrible, and an opportunity was lost. Imagine what could have been accomplished with this story.
With Hollywood executives struggling to find new and unusual stories to tell, they over look the dusty leather bound book in their parent’s living room. The Bible is packed with one epic after another. The stories have plenty of sex, adultery, crime, evil, and enough violence to satisfy the gore lust in anyone. But there is a fear in Hollywood that people may go and see those movies. They may even have a positive impact on culture, and that would be bad. Why else, with today’s special effects, would you leave David and Goliath, Noah’s Ark, Jericho, and countless other exciting stories untold on the big screen?
Television and Hollywood largely dictate our cultural moral compass. Many choose to not avail themselves to the entertainment available in the main stream. But the unspoken frustration is that when television or a movie studio takes up a religious project, it is done with second or third-rate actors, a very low budget, a lame dialog, and if Biblically based, enough editing to make the Biblical origin unrecognizable. We like good stuff too guys. Family friendly does not need to equal low quality.
I propose that 25 extremely well made movies, some religious and others simply positive message family films, made with the highest quality production and actors Hollywood can muster, could literally shift our culture. Over a two-year period, a constant trickle of these kinds of movies and messages would set people thinking. Some would even experience a change of heart, regardless if they became religious converts or not. Hollywood would cringe at the thought of this potential metamorphosis in mores.
At the same time they tell us their movies are simply art, a form of escape, just entertainment. Hollywood rejects the notion that their products affect people. But every single indicator of a wholesome society continues to fall, and movies get more and more base. Movies and culture reflect one another but it is not a chicken and egg dilemma.
They cannot have it both ways. Either movies impact culture or they don’t. But they are accustomed to having things two ways. They are afraid to encourage those Baptists. Their ranks may grow. That may lead to a form of American Taliban, and Yale only has a limited number of openings.
For the past three decades the box office has become more and more “progressive”. Edgy fare makes the writers feel like they are still in the campus coffee shop smoking a clove cigarette and accusing Baptists of being worse than the Taliban. Meanwhile John Q. Public stopped taking his family to see racy films and chose to visit the cinema on the occasion of the twice per year Disney film.
After a statistically significant amount of time it became obvious that more family friendly entertainment outperformed the sex and gore stuff by leaps and bounds. The figures don’t lie. Folks started to talk about it. I thought Hollywood was just in denial. Then came The Passion of The Christ. It was going to fail. It was going to fracture the country. It would traumatize citizens young and old and there would be a secular backlash unprecedented in strength and duration. Hundreds of millions of dollars later, and no sign of a backlash, most consider that argument settled. Yet Hollywood persists.
Weekly, studios report what films reap at the box office. That gives the false impression that these are businesses with a profit motive. Brokeback Mountain makes a few million dollars and is revered in those clove cigarette-clouded venues. Praise for the art is showered and academy award nominations abound. But it really didn’t make a lot of money. These cannot be real businesses. The people making movies are the ones complaining about Exxon’s profits while seeing to it their own companies don’t have that same problem.
Then April 2006 rolled around and I thought someone somewhere caught a snap. ABC actually produced a remake of “The Ten Commandments”. Prime time family friendly programming, with an epic Bible story to boot; I gathered the kids and popcorn and sat back to enjoy. I’m no movie critic by profession (I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express though), but within 15 minutes I realized something was amiss. It was like the junior TV folks got a little play time, a third string effort. Maybe someday it will look good on their resumes but it was awful on TV. The story was disjointed, the acting horrible, and an opportunity was lost. Imagine what could have been accomplished with this story.
With Hollywood executives struggling to find new and unusual stories to tell, they over look the dusty leather bound book in their parent’s living room. The Bible is packed with one epic after another. The stories have plenty of sex, adultery, crime, evil, and enough violence to satisfy the gore lust in anyone. But there is a fear in Hollywood that people may go and see those movies. They may even have a positive impact on culture, and that would be bad. Why else, with today’s special effects, would you leave David and Goliath, Noah’s Ark, Jericho, and countless other exciting stories untold on the big screen?
Television and Hollywood largely dictate our cultural moral compass. Many choose to not avail themselves to the entertainment available in the main stream. But the unspoken frustration is that when television or a movie studio takes up a religious project, it is done with second or third-rate actors, a very low budget, a lame dialog, and if Biblically based, enough editing to make the Biblical origin unrecognizable. We like good stuff too guys. Family friendly does not need to equal low quality.
I propose that 25 extremely well made movies, some religious and others simply positive message family films, made with the highest quality production and actors Hollywood can muster, could literally shift our culture. Over a two-year period, a constant trickle of these kinds of movies and messages would set people thinking. Some would even experience a change of heart, regardless if they became religious converts or not. Hollywood would cringe at the thought of this potential metamorphosis in mores.
At the same time they tell us their movies are simply art, a form of escape, just entertainment. Hollywood rejects the notion that their products affect people. But every single indicator of a wholesome society continues to fall, and movies get more and more base. Movies and culture reflect one another but it is not a chicken and egg dilemma.
They cannot have it both ways. Either movies impact culture or they don’t. But they are accustomed to having things two ways. They are afraid to encourage those Baptists. Their ranks may grow. That may lead to a form of American Taliban, and Yale only has a limited number of openings.
THE MEASURE OF A MAN
If you love something, set it free. When it doesn’t come back you can demand 400 million dollars.
What good is it to have everything if you must trade your soul for it? That paraphrase of well-known scripture captures a notion embraced by members of all faiths as well as those with no professed faith. People from all backgrounds, of both extreme left and extreme right ideology, of liberal and conservative theology, as well as avowed secular humanists and all points between can generally agree on the basic tenant of that expression. There seems to be a common thread of yearning for the days when life actually had living as one of it’s major component parts. Recently this topic came front and center for me in the news of the 400 million dollar retirement payout to the CEO of Exxon Mobile Corporation.
How in the world did I relate that headline grabbing compensation package to a growing crisis of shrinking free time? Well, I considered what that man’s life must have been like as he worked his way up the ranks of corporate America. Having experienced the dynamic of which I speak, I can say with certainty that there exists a point in his past where the line that separates the man from the company became so blurred that it was no longer discernable. At that point his soul was led to a vault in the basement of the headquarters. It was locked inside, and never allowed a breath of freedom again. When his compensation could be measured by dollars per minute in the extreme, you can bet the company owned every minute of every day. Often one soul is not enough and the spouse of the executive even agrees to put their soul in the vault as well.
The rest of the tens of thousands of employees exist in either the knowledge of, denial of, or ignorance of the fact that the reward for dedication and stellar performance will be the opportunity to one day hand their soul over as well. Those who wish to keep their soul face a frustration daily that is compelling. No matter how hard they work and how smart they are they know they must surrender themselves to achieve what they are qualified to achieve. Qualification is not enough. This struggle manifests in office politics, but there is far more at stake than such trivialities.
Consider that employees spend the lion’s share of their time either at their office or working from home. There used to be time for a family to grow together, to learn about prides and prejudices and life lessons together, and to place their own “Smith Family Stamp” on the ways of the world. Now these socializations no longer have adequate time to occur. Employers (there are many exceptions to this, but generally once past a certain size these attributes are unavoidable in western companies) attempt to socialize workers. Workshops like safety and diversity training take the place of common sense natural home-taught worldly wisdom. Once this dumbed down common sense is embraced, many employees will trade a little piece of their soul for a copy of “Who Moved My Cheese”.
Employers see benefit to this system. This system works in both a patriarchal context as well as a feminist context. Top down patriarchy is comfortable with this level of influence over employees, and feminism fits well with the mandatory social training that occurs inside companies. Even shareholders are duped. They buy the stock for returns. Yet they sit and watch millions spent on things that have nothing whatsoever to do with profits. This whole scenario is so well hidden in plain sight that when the topic is broached in a random group either eyes glass over as the idea gets no traction, or vehement denial is verbalized. The best scam is the one never discovered.
I don’t know about these super duper CEO’s anyway. When one man develops a cult of personality so great that he can move share prices by going on a diet, there is a true disconnect between running a company and running an image. I never bought the fact that Jack Welch was a genius for example, very smart, yes, but personally responsible for what happened at GE, nah. There are countless examples just like him. Read their post- retirement books, but read them slowly, and see if you find one seriously new insightful tidbit of operational wisdom. Not really.
The Exxon Mobil guy earned a lot of money. The price of oil has gone up by a multiple of seven, and gasoline a multiple of three from 1998 to today. Events like 911 and hurricanes aside, being prevented from adding refining and drilling capacity by environmentalists led to supply side restrictions causing price increases. Now, because we are stuck with these accidental limitations, we all have to pay. A truly visionary performance would have been one that both helped to avert the current crisis and sustain solid profitability.
Futures markets define pricing of energy from moment to moment. Less efficient markets lack the transactional frequency to establish a speculative market around them. Some things are only bought and sold every few years, and we are not always aware of the price. But we did establish a new market value recently.
The cost of one man’s soul is 400 million dollars.
What good is it to have everything if you must trade your soul for it? That paraphrase of well-known scripture captures a notion embraced by members of all faiths as well as those with no professed faith. People from all backgrounds, of both extreme left and extreme right ideology, of liberal and conservative theology, as well as avowed secular humanists and all points between can generally agree on the basic tenant of that expression. There seems to be a common thread of yearning for the days when life actually had living as one of it’s major component parts. Recently this topic came front and center for me in the news of the 400 million dollar retirement payout to the CEO of Exxon Mobile Corporation.
How in the world did I relate that headline grabbing compensation package to a growing crisis of shrinking free time? Well, I considered what that man’s life must have been like as he worked his way up the ranks of corporate America. Having experienced the dynamic of which I speak, I can say with certainty that there exists a point in his past where the line that separates the man from the company became so blurred that it was no longer discernable. At that point his soul was led to a vault in the basement of the headquarters. It was locked inside, and never allowed a breath of freedom again. When his compensation could be measured by dollars per minute in the extreme, you can bet the company owned every minute of every day. Often one soul is not enough and the spouse of the executive even agrees to put their soul in the vault as well.
The rest of the tens of thousands of employees exist in either the knowledge of, denial of, or ignorance of the fact that the reward for dedication and stellar performance will be the opportunity to one day hand their soul over as well. Those who wish to keep their soul face a frustration daily that is compelling. No matter how hard they work and how smart they are they know they must surrender themselves to achieve what they are qualified to achieve. Qualification is not enough. This struggle manifests in office politics, but there is far more at stake than such trivialities.
Consider that employees spend the lion’s share of their time either at their office or working from home. There used to be time for a family to grow together, to learn about prides and prejudices and life lessons together, and to place their own “Smith Family Stamp” on the ways of the world. Now these socializations no longer have adequate time to occur. Employers (there are many exceptions to this, but generally once past a certain size these attributes are unavoidable in western companies) attempt to socialize workers. Workshops like safety and diversity training take the place of common sense natural home-taught worldly wisdom. Once this dumbed down common sense is embraced, many employees will trade a little piece of their soul for a copy of “Who Moved My Cheese”.
Employers see benefit to this system. This system works in both a patriarchal context as well as a feminist context. Top down patriarchy is comfortable with this level of influence over employees, and feminism fits well with the mandatory social training that occurs inside companies. Even shareholders are duped. They buy the stock for returns. Yet they sit and watch millions spent on things that have nothing whatsoever to do with profits. This whole scenario is so well hidden in plain sight that when the topic is broached in a random group either eyes glass over as the idea gets no traction, or vehement denial is verbalized. The best scam is the one never discovered.
I don’t know about these super duper CEO’s anyway. When one man develops a cult of personality so great that he can move share prices by going on a diet, there is a true disconnect between running a company and running an image. I never bought the fact that Jack Welch was a genius for example, very smart, yes, but personally responsible for what happened at GE, nah. There are countless examples just like him. Read their post- retirement books, but read them slowly, and see if you find one seriously new insightful tidbit of operational wisdom. Not really.
The Exxon Mobil guy earned a lot of money. The price of oil has gone up by a multiple of seven, and gasoline a multiple of three from 1998 to today. Events like 911 and hurricanes aside, being prevented from adding refining and drilling capacity by environmentalists led to supply side restrictions causing price increases. Now, because we are stuck with these accidental limitations, we all have to pay. A truly visionary performance would have been one that both helped to avert the current crisis and sustain solid profitability.
Futures markets define pricing of energy from moment to moment. Less efficient markets lack the transactional frequency to establish a speculative market around them. Some things are only bought and sold every few years, and we are not always aware of the price. But we did establish a new market value recently.
The cost of one man’s soul is 400 million dollars.
Christians and Prenuptial Agreements, Defeat From the Jaws of Victory?
A crisp clear blue sky, temperature in the 70’s, low humidity and a slight breeze all frame the day where two young people will exchange the vows that sever the bonds of one nuclear family and form the basis for a new one. A botanists dream kaleidoscope of flowers and greenery, rented tuxedos and custom made dresses in colors that render them useless the next day, an embarrassing group of incompatible friends and relatives, and a nervous father of the bride with a bank account sometimes tens of thousands of dollars lighter complete the backdrop. No one gives a thought to the disposable opulence, for after all, this is marriage, an event that happens once. It is a “till death do us part” spiritual and contractual arrangement.
There is only one small problem. Many of these will break this contract. And for those whose wedding day setting included a preacher at their home church, the likelihood of the contract being broken is even higher. The family that prays together stays together…until they break up. Why does this problem exist in the church where presumably a vow before God holds more value?
Bible believing Christians must recognize that divorce is sin. God even says He hates divorce. Jesus made allowances under duress. He clearly did not endorse modern no fault laws. But mention of divorce being sin is frowned upon and followed by qualifiers about forgiveness and circumstantial provocations. We just can’t bring ourselves to be judgmental about divorce. Contrast the churches treatment of homosexuality, which God declares an abomination, to that of divorce, which He hates. It is little wonder consistent Christian is considered an oxymoron by many. If you accept that divorce is sin, it is the only sin I can think of that the church will actually help you commit. Regardless of reason or fault, most churches embrace everyone experiencing the pain of divorce and deliver comfort and assistance. Some go so far as to organize meals, carpools, childcare, etc. How many churches have a program to assist adulterers and their struggles while they are committing adultery? Imagine asking, “Could someone drive me to the hotel where I will meet my mistress?” Absurd.
If you are not a church member, and you are involved in divorce, your support network is limited to friends and family, and is usually smaller and lacking structure. There isn’t a free group therapy session like the churches “Divorce Care Workshop” waiting for you to join. This partially accounts for the statistical difference in divorce rate in and out of the church. There are myriad other factors beyond blog scope. So what can we Christians who believe the marriage contract should not be unilaterally cancelable do?
Most divorces are filed as no fault due to irreconcilable differences. This represents the unilateral breaking of the most significant contract we will ever enter, often against the wishes of the other party for usually self-centered reasons. Statements like, “I just don’t feel loved”, “I need some space” “We’ve grown apart and no longer are in love” are the touchy feely norm. The law has turned the other way and greased the skids for the continuance of this tragedy. Imagine telling the lender that you and your car have grown apart and therefore you intend to stop making payments.
The myth of children’s resiliency has been shattered in the past decade as collateral damage manifests in the adult children from the initial 1970’s wave of no fault divorcees. But the church is not the law, and therefore must work on the margins to lower the divorce rate.
Returning the stigma to divorce is a good starting point. Being honest in the church about what is happening and why can begin the cultural transformation that must occur. The church expends countless resources on the symptoms of family break up, like alcoholism and depression, while looking the other way and accommodating what is the root cause of many of societies biggest problems. A reduction in church divorces would lead to a reduction in the need for church programs for other hurts. And while the church cannot change the law, the church can make it policy that marriages performed in the church by the pastor are taken more seriously.
Arkansas and a few other states have written Covenant Marriage into family law.
This covenant type of marriage is a prepackaged prenuptial agreement that spells out a very difficult path to achieve divorce, a long waiting period, and places immediate and long term consequences on both parties. Not all states have covenant marriage laws. In that case, prenuptial agreements can accomplish the same thing. Rather then being a vehicle for a wealthy spouse to protect assets from the other, the church can develop an acceptable template that, when incorporated in the premarital counseling, can have the effect of discouraging the filing of unwarranted divorces. No one wants victims to be trapped in abuse etc. But in the case of one spouse discarding another who wishes to preserve the family, the church must recognize victims there too in the persons of the unwilling spouse and the children. A sound Biblically developed prenuptial agreement will preserve families in the church. The decision to file a divorce should be more than well considered. It should be prayed about, counseled, and prayed about some more. When it is finally taken, the decision should demonstrate that the person wishing to divorce sees immediate negative consequences worth enduring to end up divorced.
Where once prenuptial agreements seemed like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the church could make lemonade from the lemons available and start to turn the tables on the deterioration of the American family.
There is only one small problem. Many of these will break this contract. And for those whose wedding day setting included a preacher at their home church, the likelihood of the contract being broken is even higher. The family that prays together stays together…until they break up. Why does this problem exist in the church where presumably a vow before God holds more value?
Bible believing Christians must recognize that divorce is sin. God even says He hates divorce. Jesus made allowances under duress. He clearly did not endorse modern no fault laws. But mention of divorce being sin is frowned upon and followed by qualifiers about forgiveness and circumstantial provocations. We just can’t bring ourselves to be judgmental about divorce. Contrast the churches treatment of homosexuality, which God declares an abomination, to that of divorce, which He hates. It is little wonder consistent Christian is considered an oxymoron by many. If you accept that divorce is sin, it is the only sin I can think of that the church will actually help you commit. Regardless of reason or fault, most churches embrace everyone experiencing the pain of divorce and deliver comfort and assistance. Some go so far as to organize meals, carpools, childcare, etc. How many churches have a program to assist adulterers and their struggles while they are committing adultery? Imagine asking, “Could someone drive me to the hotel where I will meet my mistress?” Absurd.
If you are not a church member, and you are involved in divorce, your support network is limited to friends and family, and is usually smaller and lacking structure. There isn’t a free group therapy session like the churches “Divorce Care Workshop” waiting for you to join. This partially accounts for the statistical difference in divorce rate in and out of the church. There are myriad other factors beyond blog scope. So what can we Christians who believe the marriage contract should not be unilaterally cancelable do?
Most divorces are filed as no fault due to irreconcilable differences. This represents the unilateral breaking of the most significant contract we will ever enter, often against the wishes of the other party for usually self-centered reasons. Statements like, “I just don’t feel loved”, “I need some space” “We’ve grown apart and no longer are in love” are the touchy feely norm. The law has turned the other way and greased the skids for the continuance of this tragedy. Imagine telling the lender that you and your car have grown apart and therefore you intend to stop making payments.
The myth of children’s resiliency has been shattered in the past decade as collateral damage manifests in the adult children from the initial 1970’s wave of no fault divorcees. But the church is not the law, and therefore must work on the margins to lower the divorce rate.
Returning the stigma to divorce is a good starting point. Being honest in the church about what is happening and why can begin the cultural transformation that must occur. The church expends countless resources on the symptoms of family break up, like alcoholism and depression, while looking the other way and accommodating what is the root cause of many of societies biggest problems. A reduction in church divorces would lead to a reduction in the need for church programs for other hurts. And while the church cannot change the law, the church can make it policy that marriages performed in the church by the pastor are taken more seriously.
Arkansas and a few other states have written Covenant Marriage into family law.
This covenant type of marriage is a prepackaged prenuptial agreement that spells out a very difficult path to achieve divorce, a long waiting period, and places immediate and long term consequences on both parties. Not all states have covenant marriage laws. In that case, prenuptial agreements can accomplish the same thing. Rather then being a vehicle for a wealthy spouse to protect assets from the other, the church can develop an acceptable template that, when incorporated in the premarital counseling, can have the effect of discouraging the filing of unwarranted divorces. No one wants victims to be trapped in abuse etc. But in the case of one spouse discarding another who wishes to preserve the family, the church must recognize victims there too in the persons of the unwilling spouse and the children. A sound Biblically developed prenuptial agreement will preserve families in the church. The decision to file a divorce should be more than well considered. It should be prayed about, counseled, and prayed about some more. When it is finally taken, the decision should demonstrate that the person wishing to divorce sees immediate negative consequences worth enduring to end up divorced.
Where once prenuptial agreements seemed like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the church could make lemonade from the lemons available and start to turn the tables on the deterioration of the American family.
Brake Shoes, Scooters, and Sunday’s Exciting Contemporary Service
I’ve been listening to some commercials lately, mainly on the radio, and I’ve noticed something. It’s about the way we communicate and what that means about who we are and what we believe. This has nagged me for years, starting with experiences in corporate America, listening to politicians and glad-handers of all stripes, and now really recognizing it in more and more advertisements. What may seem trivial to some, I believe carries some significance.
Do you remember “the day”? When we say “back in the day” what we mean is generational. Nevertheless, advertisements used to tout the benefits of a product by presenting a list of features. It was straightforward. If advertisers have a finger on our collective pulse, and they spend a lot of money to accomplish just that, people were also straightforward then. Now, ads must either be hilarious or just not say what they mean OR mean what they say. It applies to people as well.
Besides funny ads, others range from disingenuous to subliminal in what they suggest about people. A current example is (I use ACME generically) a radio ad with a mock phone call from a customer. The female caller, when given the price for services, asks incredulously, “Why do you do it ACME?” The company jingle states the answer. They sing, “At ACME we really do care”. Am I to believe the guiding principle behind this operation is about caring? Does this suggest there is no profit motive? Is it a benevolent endeavor? If I visited one of their locations and told them I had no money, but needed the service, how much of the love would I actually feel? I would be able to precisely quantify “caring”, and it would ring up around $100.00 plus tax.
Another one is for a product that meets a real human need. The business sells scooters that assists people who have limited mobility due to age, illness, or accident. The owner of the company states something like, “my wife and I started ACME because we believe everyone has a right to enjoy life to the fullest”. While that goal is admirable, their bank probably wanted a 5-year proforma income statement with some assumptions and back up data.
The blunt truth is better. Profit is great. But we have been socialized into a form of touchy feely sensitivity that makes even the declaration of a profit motive a form of political incorrectness.
While profit carries a negative stigma, workaholism is an alter at which we worship. Conversationally executives boast of vacation days not taken, and of turning the lights out each evening, as they are the last one out the door. This has manifested in advertising.
A particular ad had men playing golf, and their heads were computer monitors.
The tag line suggested these people, as individuals, never stopped thinking about work, thus the symbolism of the computer monitor heads while recreating. How offensive if really pondered, is the notion of a person, to the detriment of family, never allowing work to be out of sight and out of mind? It is strange what we will accept.
What do these ads say about the results of the demographic research that led the companies to launch them? Is our societal reflection one that looks so receptive to the mischaracterization of companies as philanthropic and simultaneous glorification of veritable human machines as employees?
Yes, and it effects everything for religion to politics.
When we say that a company exists because it “cares” or that it is OK for an individual to become indistinguishable from their career, we expect people to not take it literally. And people don’t. But we get so accustomed to this symbolic speak that our hearing becomes jaded.
Religion offers an example. Religion is a growth endeavor, presumably not driven by profit. When a Christian denomination makes the claim that they “really do care” in an advertisement, how is that claim digested when it is sandwiched between a brake shop and a scooter store both making the same claim? Ads claiming a business “cares” do not convince listeners of the altruism of a business, because there is none. Do the listeners hear the church ads any differently? I don’t think so. Not only do the ads not convince listeners of the churches amity, their presence mixed with forgettable and ignorable consumer ads cheapens the church and the intended truth behind the words.
How though would the “we never stop working” concept play for the church? I fear just as badly. Just as listeners know the guys with computer heads and the claims made are symbolism for dedication, they assume similar claims by the church would be symbolism as well. In fact, if a legitimate claim to 24/7 dedication can be made, it is by true believers regardless which religion.
The tools of 21st century communication are available to the church and we should avail ourselves to them. Broadcasting church services all over the world is a great way to reach people living in places where they cannot legally visit a church. But here at home there are thousands who do not attend services. Churches advertise in an attempt to draw them in and sincerely reach them with their faith message. The ads for these broadcasts as well as general ads for various denominations are symbolically drowned out by our society having depreciated the real meaning of words.
Finally, like profit is to business, faith is to churches. It may be received even more poorly to suggest that right and wrong, evil and good actually exist and are recognizable. If service companies are an outreach of caring, what does that say about Christians claims of sin and redemption? The church even suggesting they know something to be absolutely true is far more unpalatable than a company openly chasing profit.
Christian churches that wish to reach the unchurched, and “meet them where they are” I guess it will take a talking gecko or a flatulent horse. Back in the day we just rang the church bells.
Do you remember “the day”? When we say “back in the day” what we mean is generational. Nevertheless, advertisements used to tout the benefits of a product by presenting a list of features. It was straightforward. If advertisers have a finger on our collective pulse, and they spend a lot of money to accomplish just that, people were also straightforward then. Now, ads must either be hilarious or just not say what they mean OR mean what they say. It applies to people as well.
Besides funny ads, others range from disingenuous to subliminal in what they suggest about people. A current example is (I use ACME generically) a radio ad with a mock phone call from a customer. The female caller, when given the price for services, asks incredulously, “Why do you do it ACME?” The company jingle states the answer. They sing, “At ACME we really do care”. Am I to believe the guiding principle behind this operation is about caring? Does this suggest there is no profit motive? Is it a benevolent endeavor? If I visited one of their locations and told them I had no money, but needed the service, how much of the love would I actually feel? I would be able to precisely quantify “caring”, and it would ring up around $100.00 plus tax.
Another one is for a product that meets a real human need. The business sells scooters that assists people who have limited mobility due to age, illness, or accident. The owner of the company states something like, “my wife and I started ACME because we believe everyone has a right to enjoy life to the fullest”. While that goal is admirable, their bank probably wanted a 5-year proforma income statement with some assumptions and back up data.
The blunt truth is better. Profit is great. But we have been socialized into a form of touchy feely sensitivity that makes even the declaration of a profit motive a form of political incorrectness.
While profit carries a negative stigma, workaholism is an alter at which we worship. Conversationally executives boast of vacation days not taken, and of turning the lights out each evening, as they are the last one out the door. This has manifested in advertising.
A particular ad had men playing golf, and their heads were computer monitors.
The tag line suggested these people, as individuals, never stopped thinking about work, thus the symbolism of the computer monitor heads while recreating. How offensive if really pondered, is the notion of a person, to the detriment of family, never allowing work to be out of sight and out of mind? It is strange what we will accept.
What do these ads say about the results of the demographic research that led the companies to launch them? Is our societal reflection one that looks so receptive to the mischaracterization of companies as philanthropic and simultaneous glorification of veritable human machines as employees?
Yes, and it effects everything for religion to politics.
When we say that a company exists because it “cares” or that it is OK for an individual to become indistinguishable from their career, we expect people to not take it literally. And people don’t. But we get so accustomed to this symbolic speak that our hearing becomes jaded.
Religion offers an example. Religion is a growth endeavor, presumably not driven by profit. When a Christian denomination makes the claim that they “really do care” in an advertisement, how is that claim digested when it is sandwiched between a brake shop and a scooter store both making the same claim? Ads claiming a business “cares” do not convince listeners of the altruism of a business, because there is none. Do the listeners hear the church ads any differently? I don’t think so. Not only do the ads not convince listeners of the churches amity, their presence mixed with forgettable and ignorable consumer ads cheapens the church and the intended truth behind the words.
How though would the “we never stop working” concept play for the church? I fear just as badly. Just as listeners know the guys with computer heads and the claims made are symbolism for dedication, they assume similar claims by the church would be symbolism as well. In fact, if a legitimate claim to 24/7 dedication can be made, it is by true believers regardless which religion.
The tools of 21st century communication are available to the church and we should avail ourselves to them. Broadcasting church services all over the world is a great way to reach people living in places where they cannot legally visit a church. But here at home there are thousands who do not attend services. Churches advertise in an attempt to draw them in and sincerely reach them with their faith message. The ads for these broadcasts as well as general ads for various denominations are symbolically drowned out by our society having depreciated the real meaning of words.
Finally, like profit is to business, faith is to churches. It may be received even more poorly to suggest that right and wrong, evil and good actually exist and are recognizable. If service companies are an outreach of caring, what does that say about Christians claims of sin and redemption? The church even suggesting they know something to be absolutely true is far more unpalatable than a company openly chasing profit.
Christian churches that wish to reach the unchurched, and “meet them where they are” I guess it will take a talking gecko or a flatulent horse. Back in the day we just rang the church bells.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
