21st Century American Evangelicalism: The Ne Plus Ultra of Christianity?

Standard

Out of Ur posed an intriguing question a few weeks ago. I intended on writing about it, but time got away from me. Since then, that post, "Have We Become Crypto-Christians?," has taken on a life of its own in the Godblogosphere. I've encountered it at a dozen or more sites.

The setup of the post follows the rise of Christianity in 16th century Japan and its subsequent brutal extermination by warlords. To survive, the handful of Christians who remained hid their faith and practice within Japanese culture so well that when Japan re-opened to the West in the late 19th century, that tiny remnant still remained. However, the centuries of dalliance with the culture had so metamorphosed the faith of those Japanese Christians that missionaries barely recognized it for what it was. This Crypto-Christianity, as it was called, bore little resemblance to orthodox Christianity.

It's a good story. Makes for an obvious warning, too.

But there's a problem.

Any scientist worth his PhD will tell you that an experiment is only as good as its control. Without a control in place, results can't be measured accurately.

For centuries, the idea that life sprang from non-living matter (spontaneous generation) ruled science. Put a piece of bread in a container and miraculously fungi would arise from within it. Where did the fungi come from? They spontaneously generated from the bread.

Obviously, any science devoted to studying biological systems would be hampered by this erroneous notion. That it took until the middle of the 19th century to finally lay it to rest showed the intractability of disproving it. Only through a well-conceived experiment (by a young Louis Pasteur) and a proper control could valid conclusions be drawn. Heat a flask with an ingenious S-shaped trap in its neck (to let in air, but trap external airborne microbes) and compare it against a flask without the trap. The first remained sterile, while the other allowed airborne microbes to settle, giving rise to life.

The problem with the Crypto-Christianity post and its troubling question of altered Christianity is the same that bedeviled scientists searching to disprove spontaneous generation: no proper control existed.

When missionaries returned to Japan in the late 19th century, were they the control? Was their Christianity the pure unadulterated form practiced by the first century Church?

Hardly. 

While this does not mean they had no ability to say that Crypto-Christians of Japan practiced an aberrant form of Christianity, their ability to judge was severely limited by their own conceit that they alone were practicing the pure Faith.

We Americans suffer from this delusion that we are the pinnacle of any particular cultural expression seen as worthwhile. Elliot Erwitt's "Felix, Gladys, and Rover" - 1974It's the very backbone of the concept of "The Ugly American." And we show few signs of abandoning this delusion.

Because the Church in America is made up of Americans steeped in this mentality, Christians here act is if we're the control for all of Christianity worldwide. Nowhere is this conceit more grounded than in Evangelicalism. For Evangelicals go to great lengths to assert their superiority over the rest of the American Christendom, creating a king-of-the-hill bravado. Needless to say, this not only bothers other Christian sects worldwide, but even other Evangelicals outside of America.

So we consider ourselves the control portion of the experiment. Any results we gain from any experiment in the Faith must be measured against us.

Does that bother anyone else? I'm livid over it, frankly, because it's so inherently self-centered. Not only this, but the tendency is to denigrate the Christians who came before us, as if they were practicing a kind of Preschool of the Faith. They were the devolved Australopithecines and us the fully realized Homo Sapiens. As such, they have nothing to teach us.

Oversimplification? Stay with me.

Let's consider Protestantism, especially those sects within it that trace their founding to the Reformation. When we encounter doctrinal discussions within those sects, it's as if a vast amnesia occurred between the time the Apostle John drew his last breath and Martin Luther pounded his 95 Theses to the cathedral door. Sure, a few councils dealt with Pelagianism and Sebellianism and a few other -isms, but for the most part, the Roman Catholic Church ruled for a thousand years, and we all know NOTHING of any theological worth happened in that millennium.

Mark Lauterbach recently posted excellent insights into this theological blindness. He decided to break the artificial barrier of the Reformation by reading many of the earlier Church fathers. In particular, he notes that Athanasius teaches using metanarrative and avoids the individualism we inherently lay over the Gospel message. Mark ends his post with a warning from C.S. Lewis to avoid reading these great men of God through any of our contemporary lenses lest we warp their teaching to fit our own.

Which is what we do all too easily.

In the end, the battle here resembles the one between the Chihuahua and the Great Dane over who is the real Canis lupus familiaris. When seen from the outside, neither looks much like the original dog they descended from.

Yet we American Evangelicals have these blinders on prevent us from considering that perhaps we are not the ne plus ultra of Christian expression. If we actually encountered a real first century Church practicing within our midst, I would say that many of us would consider it deviant. Not so? Look how easily some of us attack other Evangelicals who contend they're trying to get back to that first century ideal.

Have we become Crypto-Christians? I'd say that long slide toward some level of cryptic faith started just a few years after  Pentecost. The question of what is normative is a difficult one because culture intrudes so easily, especially in practice. Just witness the extremes of practice within orthodox Christianity today and ask why they deviate so wildly.

In the end, the question is a red herring. We American Evangelicals already are and probably have been Crypto-Christians for a very long time. Yet somehow, we continue to think of ourselves as the standard by which all Christianity is measured, both past and future.

Is that a Chihuahua I hear yapping?

{Image: Elliott Erwitt's classic Felix, Gladys, and Rover, 1974

The F-World

Standard

As a musician (I'm a drummer and guitarist), I've got an ear for challenging or snappy music. As a writer, I've got an appreciation for witty or deep lyrics. It should be no surprise then that most contemporary music bores me to tears. It lacks charm, and most of it suffers from a dearth of both musicality and lyrical excellence. Doesn't matter what the genre is.

If I have any musical weakness, I'm overly fond of jangly, "sunshine" pop with monster hooks that'll have you singing along all day.  That Rickenbacker 12-string sound brings a smile to my face. Think bands like The Association, The Zombies, The Byrds, and—of course—The Monkees. Think AM radio's golden age. That style of music largely passed into lore. No one writes music like that anymore. Worse, no recent band has the cleverness to pull it off consistently.

I don't buy a whole lot of music like I once did. The last CD I purchased was Derek Webb's She Must and Shall Go Free, which has a sort of folk and roots rock feel. Good music, stunning lyrics.

The other day, I followed a link looking for some trivial fact and it led to a site that played a random selection of "baroque pop," contemporary sunshine pop music that has the feel of the real thing. The song was by Belle & Sebastian, a band I'd not heard before. Not only was the song "Another Sunny Day" absolutely right on sound-wise, but the lyrics abounded in perfect touches.

So I did something I've rarely done: I downloaded the song from iTunes. Played it over and over at full volume. For about a half hour I was immensely pleased by the find.

Only one problem…

When you get to be my age, lyrics run past you and you don't get them with the same precision you did as a teenager. I caught that first stanza, but a couple jumbled ones followed. The British accents didn't help. So being the kind of person who cannot gain full satisfaction from something without knowing every trivial detail about it, I summoned the lyrics from one of a bazillion lyrics sites.

Awesome lyrics, clever and witty. And I'm reading and…oh.

The effenheimer. The F-bomb. Right there. Third stanza. And not in any grammatical usage that I've ever encountered before.

Ugh.

How I'd missed it the first hundred times I played the song, I can't say. After seeing it there in the lyrics, it was if the singer now shouted the word right in my ears, helped along by the background chorus who repeats it with the same emphasis.

Dang. The Monkees wouldn't have talked like that. And where was the "Explicit Lyrics" tag at iTunes? Nowhere to be found. I guess in the bizarre context used in the song, someone deemed it "Non-explicit."

That's what Apple gets for cozying up to Bono. What's an F-word between friends, right?

Because I write for a living, I'm attuned to the issue of censorship. I think I can also make a case that the F-word has legitimate uses. Kevin Carter's Pulitzer-Prize-winning photoI just don't want to hear it in my sunshine pop.

In fact, I don't want to live in a fallen world. I don't want to hear the "old familiar suggestion" coming out of the mouth of a twelve-year old girl. I don't want to hear about fathers decapitating their toddlers. I want to close my ears and scream at the top of my lungs to drown out the news telling me that the sex slave trade is alive and well  in the world, mostly populated by teenagers and tweens.

But we live in a fallen world—the F-World, for want of a more clever ID. Everything around us reeks of sin, as if some quark-sized evil implanted itself in every atom in existence.

Yet consider how easily we Christians believe two lies:

  1. We can play with that evil and not have it consume us from within.
  2. We can keep that evil at bay and never have to confront it. 

I see far too many Christians making excuses for the sins they justify in their own lives. We might even come up with clever renderings of particular Scriptures to cover our shame, but in the end, it's only amplified.

Or we'll scoff at some contemporary leader we don't like who goes down in flames, while we pat our man on the back. Then we're shocked—SHOCKED—when our man's feet prove to be clay.

So many of us navigate the F-World poorly. We mindlessly jump from church to church, forever running from whatever it is that we despise in its operation, unable to come to grips with the truth that the Church must live in the F-World until Christ returns. Or we do the opposite and embrace every piece of garbage the F-World throws at us as if its manna from heaven. Both are foolish. Both come to ruination.

I hear Christians talking all the time about the F-World. Why then do we seem to be more at the mercy of the F-World than at the mercy seat of Christ? For all our theology on a fallen world, we lurch from extreme to extreme in the ways we deal with it. One day we're burning all our hard rock albums because they're evil, and the next day we're buying them all back off eBay because to the pure all things are pure. 

It's bad enough that our incoherent message on how to deal with the F-World confuses the lost, but it confuses Christians even more. I've been a Christian for thirty years and I can honestly say that I don't think I've met another Christian who understands the tension of living in the F-World to the point that he or she deals with it as Christ did. Finding that narrow path must be far more difficult than we believe.

Bunkers or Excess. In the F-World, neither one makes sense. 

{Image: Kevin Carter's Pulitzer-Prize-winning photo of a vulture stalking a starving Sudanese child. Shortly after winning the prize, Carter committed suicide.

Knowing Which Way the Wind Blows

Standard

(Warning: This post relies on many of the talking points in a previous post on the economy, "Politics, Economics, and the American Church." It may help to read that post first.)

I'm a dedicated reader of The Wall Street Journal. It's been the newspaper of record for me for about six years now, about the only newspaper that's both written for thinking adults AND not given to populating its staff with people burdened with agendas (*cough* Gray Lady *cough*).

But lately, the economic reporting at the WSJ resembles a hundred people sticking their wet fingers in the wind, each with a unique perspective on its ultimate direction. In the aftermath of the holiday buying orgy, that's ominous.

Long-time readers know that I discuss economic issues here at Cerulean Sanctum regularly. And one of my regular types of posts is my warning that the Church in America is woefully prepared for an economic meltdown. I remember 1999-2004 very well, but it seems that few others do. That recession was only a warning shot across the bow. But just as 9/11 did nothing to swell the ranks of our church rolls, we American Christians appear to have learned nada from that last recession.

After the trouncing the Republicans received just months ago, leading conservatives scratched and scratched their heads, blaming the defeat on everything except the economy. In fact, they thought their trump card was the strength of the economy. Yet I noted that in close races Democrats who eked out wins over Republicans in states that went to Bush universally ran as economic isolationists. Another Great Depression?People voted for politicians they thought could protect their jobs, keep our trade deficit in check, and who understood that all this talk of free trade is little more than hot air at the expense of the guy just trying to keep his head above water.

If I was wrong on that assessment back in mid-November, Christmas buying would tell.

Well, I've been noting the retail misery index in recent weeks, and as I expected, retailers are calling Christmas 2006 a bust. Yes, online retailers did better than in previous years (I'll get into that in a second), and so did luxury retailers. Yet for just about everyone else, Santa brought a lump of coal. Discounters saw their traditional base grow even cheaper, while mid-level department stores are already claiming the St. Valentine Day Massacre got moved up to St. Nicholas Day.

As for the luxury retailers, those folks with salaries in the top one percent have enjoyed close to a 20 percent increase in earnings since 2004. Given that happy days are here again for the financial elite, should we be surprised they're snapping up the latest special-edition Swarovski chandeliers for their yachts?

But for the rest of us 99 percent, we're slumming at around a three percent rate of salary growth in the face of 50 percent increases in energy prices in some markets, not to mention still-atmospheric gas prices. Did anyone else notice that prices for petroleum-based plastic items this Christmas were up 15 to 30 percent?

Which explains to me why online retailers finally did well this year–better to shop online than blow a ton on gas money driving around shopping. But even that doesn't explain it all.

I've been shopping online since 1994. I suspect that puts me in that top one percent of online shoppers. This Christmas, I purchased almost nothing online. Why? The prices were worse than brick and mortar stores. In all my years of online shopping, I can't recall that being the case. Shipping prices were up (obviously), but so were online retail prices in general. In years past, the big guns like Amazon and Buy.com killed the B&Ms in price. Not this year. In fact, this year the little niche players online had it all over the big guys, yet it was the big guys claiming 2006 filled their coffers.

So yes, the gas situation drove some of that. I also think that this may have been the year when the reticent Internet shopper loss his reticence. But as for us, three Christmases ago our front porch looked like an Amazon loading dock. This year, I bought nothing from Amazon at all.

In fact, in our extended family, both sides cut back on spending. Three years ago, my son alone got $250 worth of gifts. This year, I spent less than that on the sum total of our gift giving—for the eighteen people on our list. And one side of our family is already asking to cut back even more for next year.

Like I said in this post, our economy is not in good shape and no one seems to get it. Or at least they didn't before the day after Christmas. 

Economists raved about the fabulous growth we had in 2006, though the actual percentage of growth has been repeatedly revised downward from 2.8 percent to 2.0 over the course of the year. A couple years ago, the same sources deemed Japan's 1.2 percent growth "miserable," yet here we are with our 2.0 percent growth in this astonishing period of blissful wealth. Last time I checked though, wealthy people didn't proclaim, "Hey, we need to spend even less money on Christmas."

Still, the economic news continued its wonderfulness all through December. However, the day after Christmas, the WSJ, the loudest of the wonderfulness trumpeters the last two years (even as its business pages told of company after company laying off employees, and its biz reporters wondered at the dearth of IPOs since 2004), announced that major economists predict another recession—soon.

Wow. A recession. From nowhere!  

Six years ago, the majority of families we knew were single-income. Now, virtually none of them are. Yet if you ask these now-double-incomers if they're better off financially, you'll get two sets of bared teeth and a collective growl.

What continues to bug me is that we Christians aren't doing anything to prepare for the economic bottom falling out of America. From what the car rags say, Ford and GM (who were smarting for certain last December even with their employee pricing ruse) sold a grand total of three cars between the two companies this December. And China's set to introduce its first car line in America. If China starts dumping cheap cars here, you can bet that it won't only kick Ford and GM in the shins, it will force every car company in the world to ramp up building plants in China in order to compete. That means they won't be building more here. Few of us understand how much of our shaky economy depends on car manufacturers. The Church sure doesn't.

The sum total of all the millions of sermons preached in America in 2006 probably didn't include a half dozen talking about how to prepare the Church and its people for dark economic days. We've got virtually nothing in place to help folks find work. We don't fight for economic justice for the poor. So when its the middle class asking, "Buddy, can you spare a dime?" who's going to fight for us?

Where are the Christian leaders out there who can talk on this issue of economics in America? Who works with big corporations to bring godly justice for overworked, underpaid people? Who's calling companies on the carpet for paying failed CEOs of large multinationals golden parachutes of a quarter billion dollars or more? Money doesn't grow on trees, so someone lost money out of his pocket so that some corporate failure could gild his lillies while he waits for the next board of suckers to come around. How much more are you paying in medical expenses this year while the CEO of United Healthcare walks off with a billion dollars?

I keep hoping that each year's going to be the one when we smarten up. I'm beginning to see that the best we Christians seem to be able to do on this issue is react—and too late at that.

What is it going to take for us to get wise?