October 27, 2004
-
Real Live Preacher
I found this site through my brother’s xanga. This guy is a Baptist minister, but read some of this stuff he writes. Whoa, baby — this guy’s the real thing. He’s my HERO.
When told the “Noah and the Ark” story in Sunday School, I quickly figured out that two of every kind of animal would not fit on one boat. No one else seemed to be doing the math. I could no more believe the ark story than I could believe the sky was green. I wanted to believe. Believing seemed nice, but I couldn’t. I COULD NOT.
…
My dad said his kinder, gentler equivalent of “fuck it” and became a smuggler on the spot. He and the others made numerous trips across the border that day in different cars with blankets, food, and jackets crammed under the seats and hidden in the trunks.
My dad felt that one’s calling to serve God was higher than one’s calling to obey the law. For Christ’s sake, he and his friends couldn’t let children freeze.
“For Christ’s sake” packs a punch when you mean it literally.
…
I believed then and still believe that many Christians use manipulative techniques in order to gain converts. Converts are counted and boasted about. I shit you not. They wouldn’t call it boasting, but that’s what it is. Retch!
…
I believed then and still believe that many Christians have created a sub-culture with it’s own language, customs, and myths. Ministers even have their own dialect and hairdos. Weird. This sub-culture is really more about worshipping America than God, more about achieving than receiving, more about competition than grace. The problem with a religious sub-culture is no one else “gets it”, and you are isolated from the world you are called to SERVE.
…
I learned that it doesn’t matter in the least that I be convinced of God’s existence. Whether or not God exists is none of my business, really. What do I know of existence? I don’t even know how the VCR works.
What does matter is whether or not I am faithful. I think faithful is a hell of a good word. It still has some of its original shine. It still calls us to action.
And from an interview with Christianity Today:
What kind of response have you received from surfers outside Christian circles? How has that helped you spiritually?
I get a lot of e-mail from pagans and agnostics who feel that I am a safe person to talk to. For example, an atheist father wrote me. His wife became a Christian and was taking their daughter to church, where she was being taught that he was going to hell. He was grieving the loss of Sunday fun and noticing her growing distance from him. I guess I was the only Christian he felt he could talk to.
…
I had an e-mail from a woman who used to be a man. She has become interested in God since the operation, but wondered if there was a church where she would be accepted. On and on and on and on.
Update: I have spent the last 2 hours reading through months of Preacher’s blogs and the comments. This and this made me rethink my position on children, and this my position on homosexuality. Heady — no, hearty — stuff. I want balls like that.
Another Update: Make that 3 hours. This makes me rethink my definition of giftings and service. And this my definition of good evocative writing.
One Last Update: And this — this reached straight through my brain, into my heart, up my throat, and gave voice to something I didn’t know I had. Ok, pray and sleep time. So much for my to-do list tonight.
Comments (35)
Yeah, I came across this today via CT. I’ve got it bookmarked. Seems interesting…
whoa thats pretty cool read
this guy does have a bracing way with words, but, um, maybe he doesn’t give much of a crap about being logical?
am i the only one scratching my head trying to figure out what the hay he’s saying here?
I learned that it doesn’t matter in the least that I be convinced of God’s existence. Whether or not God exists is none of my business, really. What do I know of existence? I don’t even know how the VCR works.
What does matter is whether or not I am faithful. I think faithful is a hell of a good word. It still has some of its original shine. It still calls us to action.
Once I stumbled upon this very old truth, I prayed the most honest prayer of my life.
God, I don’t have great faith, but I can be faithful. My belief in you may be seasonal, but my faithfulness will not. I will follow in the way of Christ. I will act as though my life and the lives of others matter. I will love.Â
I have no greater gift to offer than my life. Take it.
That’s it. I pushed all my chips across the table. The preacher bet it all. Why? Because the idea that there is a God who cares for us busts my heart wide open.
he says he doesn’t care whether God exists or not, and then he celebrates “the idea that there is a God who cares for us busts my heart wide open”?
maybe i’m missing something? i’m real confused by this guy. but yeah, he’s a good writer
I don’t think he says he doesn’t care whether God exists, but that he doesn’t care that he’s not convinced of it. Big difference, in my book.
OK, I *think* I see what you’re saying — but not sure. is it this?
if more Christians admitted that they weren’t sure that God existed, they would be cooler and more real
but while admitting that, Christians should just act on the assumption or on the bet that God does exist, and cares for us.
like Pascal’s wager?
Hmm, the way you write that makes it seem a bit mercenary — how I always thought of Pascal’s wager.
I think it’s more like “God, in whatever form he exists, cares a lot more that I worship him through loving people and seeing beauty in creation rather than through intellectual assent to some oversimplified mental model of my unfathomable existence.”
even though I like Real Live Preacher’s liberal vibe and love-centered attitude, I don’t know what he’s actually saying when I think about it. For example, he says
You have not earned the right to speak to this generation. The right to speak is earned with love.
And thus it sounds like he’s saying that that we ought to condemn no sin until we are glowing with “astonishing love.” Sounds good. but then you think about rape — can we condemn that? What about child porn? Domestic abuse? Do we have no right to speak about these wrongs until we “earn the right to speak with love”. Hmm. I don’t know anymore about his message. but let me know if I’m missing sommething!
ok ed, on your last comment. i think i see what you mean. .. i would agree with that.
Whoa, I think you’re taking things too literally, CB! I would interpret that bolded text as follows: as a doctor, your mandate is to help people. When it’s super-obvious, like pulling someone out of a burning building or icy river, you do it. But when it’s something very subtle and questionable, like whether chemotherapy will add or subtract time and quality of life, you need expert training. And in the life of a Christian, that expert training is love.
this preacher writes a good talk. but his message seems a bit cloudy. seems like he’s trying to wow people with pizzazz – and you’re left invigorated but with what information? if you were to re-tell his message, what would you say?
also – if you agree with him on his stance on homosexuality – then what is that stance? can’t tell from your statement nor from his blog.
if he wanted to communicate that the guy who wrote the passage in the new testament (about homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven) was really a closet homosexual himself (paul/saul) and that’s why we should not be anti-gay, then i’d get what he was saying.
if he wrote that the bible is a collection of words from different stages of time, to appease both the church and the then mostly-pagan population and that we shouldn’t go nuts over details, then i’d get it.
but he didn’t/doesn’t and i don’t get what he’s “saying.” but from reading the other comments left above mine – it seems like i’m not the only who’s confused by his words. already having difficulty with the words in the bible and now i’m left pondering what this guy is all about. oh well.
have you ever read william james’ “will to believe”? i like that essay a lot. it’s a big improvement over pascal’s wager
link
i think it may be getting at the same general idea that RLP is too
changed: ok — so you’re making a distinction between “obvious” sins like rape, and “subtle” or “uncertain” sins like homosexuality? ok maybe i should try thinking and writing this late at night
Butter: I think what he’s saying is that it’s a really tough issue, and unqualified neophytes shouldn’t be making snap judgments any more than first-year medical students armed with Gray’s Anatomy should be prescribing treatments for brain cancer. In fact, it’s so tough that many of the most devoted Christians in the world can’t agree on it.
In any case, I’m putting words into his mouth — that’s just my interpretation.
CB, I’ll get to reading that link soon, thanks.
CB, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying about the difference between rape and homosexuality.
it’s a bad link — not to the actual essay i just realized, just a summary. i can’t seem to find a real copy of it on the web.
ok changed, then i agree with you on the homosexuaity thing. tho i am sure conservative christians will say that the sinfulness of homosexuality is as unambiguously indicated by the bible as the desirability of loving one another. & the other twist is abortion — look at how 100 percent sure they are that it is murder right after conception when there is no bible verse that unambiguously states this. i don’t think the reasonable self-doubt i think u rightly try to cultivate with the gray’s anatomy analogy will over too well with this crowd!
a lot of what i said about absolutism applies to the liberal side as well of course
it’s just really hard to maintain the middle course.
Yeah, reasonable self-doubt is so important. I think the ancients called it “humility.”
I’ll save the abortion post for another day…
I may have to bookmark this guy too… thanks for the link(s). (<grin> look! more anti-legalism
… it’s so you.)
changed, when you post that abortion post oh man, it’s going to be another RSI day
I liked his recent post on marriage too:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/2004/10/09.html#a396
I don’t see the appeal, Changed. His writing is creative and passionate, but to me it looks more like adolescent angst than constructive argument. He makes one (good) point, but replaces erudition with enthusiasm, such that his points are imbalanced. Perfect for our sound-bite culture where truth is measured by ardor more than accuracy. Yes what he says is largely true. But it is not the whole truth in many cases.
For example, for all the criticism the church gets for not “loving its neighbors”, it seems ridiculous to me. Most major food programs, help for prisoners, recovery programs, racial reconciliation efforts and social justice programs are organized and funded by churches. There is no other organization that even scratches the surface of what churches do.
So to base his flimsy argument against homosexuality on the fact that we need to love our neighbors first is the kind of tactic that works in college, but grown ups should know better. We have to be faithful in BOTH, of course. Duh.
But his adolescent iconoclasm appeals to the rebellious tendencies at any age, so it sure sounds exciting! And maybe, we try to convince ourselves, true.
That said, I’ve enjoyed reading it. He is funny and provocative and makes many many good points, even if he lacks the fullness of wisdom to be able to balance out the whole truth on many issues. But idealistic whining is always more delicious than wisdom.
Romans 10:2 “I can testify about them that they are very zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.”
Dude, you guys posting at 1-2am? How do you do it?
Sidebar: In defense of Pascal’s wager, I had previously thought it seemed mercenary as well. But it turns out it is not the sum total of his argumentation, but it is a possible means to an end. For whose who are still skeptical after his other lines of argument, he provides an additional one, and only a starting point at that. The fact that Pascal was also a gambling man probably had something to do with it.
Had another comment, as I re-read the post.
changed: What exactly draws you to his writing? Or in another way, what puts him at “hero” status in your mind?
there’s a logical problem with pascal’s wager actually!
the wager suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation
read this and let me know what u think braymp!
braymp: i’m going to take a wild guess, but i am guessing changed really liked the attitude expressed in the following paragrahs. changed, am i right?
These people know that the bible is not a self-help book full of easy answers, but a book of stories and wisdom that is meant to lead us into relationship and worship. There are hard and fast truths in it, yes, but they are surrounded by soft truths, and slippery truths, and sometimes truths, and truths that once were true but are no longer true, and truths that are only true if you are in the right state of mind, and truths that are only true if you are not hurting someone, and truths that are true in the moment but not if you are talking about the moment, and truths that can only be lived and should never be spoken, and truths that we cannot hear, and truths that are more than we can bear.
The truths of the bible are utterly beyond anyone who seeks to own truth and who seeks truth above the Spirit of God.
The bible is not a book for those who need a weapon. It is not a book for those who know where they are going and what questions they will ask. It is not a book for those who are in a hurry and looking for the shortest route.
The bible is a book for pilgrims and wanderers. It is a book for children and for those who wish to become children again. It is a book for seekers and searchers and dreamers.
Thinking more about this, this guy sort of reminds me of some of the OT prophets- a little bit hyperbolic, and little bit hysterical, a little bit nuts, but pointing back to some very important truths. You can’t read the prophets in the same way you read Paul, who is much more logical and rational. They both tell truth, but in very different ways.
What I don’t appreciate, however, is his arrogant, superior attitude, that comes off as childish (as opposed to child-like). He is like people who understand very little of politics yet have very strong, angry ideas about how to solve the world’s problems. It is easy to have such clarity if you don’t actually have much responsibility. That is why it is easy for prophets to advocate black and white responses when pastors, who actually have to walk alongside people for many years and take responsibility for the consequences of their words, cannot. Reality defies clarity.
In part that is what the preacher is saying. However, he seems to fall into a false clarity in opposition to the clarity of the baptists among whom he was raised.
since this guy is not exactly the most clear expository writer, it will probably take a few days for me to figure this guy out. ok i just read this sermon. link. ok so he’s not a fundamentalist. check.
he sounds pretty upset inside. and as angry as he gets about other people holding fast to their views, being so sure of themselves, he seems to hold fast to quite a few himself, and is quite sure of himself. i suspect that a lot of his opinions are more reactionary to people around him, than pro-actively from the heart of Christ.
what is particularly insidious is that he calls into question a lot of the Word. …for instance, when he discounts NT passages on homosexuality, how then can we say that john 3:16 is true?
cesareborgia: The wager suffers from the fallacy of bifiurcation
When a group of us read through the pensees and came to this, we would have (and did) say the same thing at first blush.
However, by that point, his other pensees dealt with (or at least attempted to deal with) the other alternatives. The wager is his effort at reaching those for whom his arguments re: the other choices are not sufficient (for whatever reason).
Like I mentioned, the wager is part of a set. In a strange way, it’s interesting that he’s most remembered for this one, out of all of them.
braymp: i’m going to take a wild guess…
I’m willing to agree, but let’s see what the Man himself has to say..
that’s what i’m waiting for! ed?
i’m really just trying to pull ed down into xanga procrastination hell with me
Mark:
He is my hero because he has found something worth getting angry about. In that sense, he’s truly a man after God’s own heart.
Daveswaim:
I don’t see anywhere that he attacks the church for not doing enough in social justice programs (though I would say that’s a valid gripe against today’s Evangelical church — a shortcoming that Highrock is working hard against.) I think his point is that Christians are missing the log (love your neighbor) for the speck (homosexuality). And strong love is the only valid credential for strong words and actions.
I agree that this guy seems more like an OT prophet. But even “logical and rational Paul” comes up with a few raving beauts in his writing:
Phil 3:8 (EHV): Everthing I have is shit compared to knowing Jesus.
Gal 5:12 (EHV): I wish those dicks who preach circumcision would go all the way and cut their own balls off!
I think all anger comes off as superior and arrogant to some extent. But the context and motivation justify it. I’m sure a lot of religious folk seeing Jesus overturning the money tables were thinking, “Who the hell does he think he is?”
About responsibility: I agree about the general distinction between prophets and pastors. Most of us have a bit of inclination in both directions, I think. RLPreacher has 3 daughters and a congregation of 50 or so, and he seems to take his responsibility pretty seriously. But that crazed prophet side of him just won’t quit.
“Reality defies clarity.” I think that’s exactly his point about Christians who try to box people and the Bible into neat know-it-all answers. He’s being clear and strident about how real clarity is hard to achieve.
CB:
You got it — I really like that quoted passage about the Bible. It’s just being intellectually honest about what you can know and what you can’t.
hmmm, the EHV is quite expressive.
but, seriously, i think that this man perhaps has a real spirit of anger .. not one of peace. and as i read the EHV, i suspect that spirit affected the translation.