Meg's Attack Upon Christendom

She makes many good points, and I'm not going to try to address all of them. But I think that she is particularly cogent in pointing out the failure of attempting to link the Christian message too closely with particular -- and particularly transitory -- elements of popular culture.

It has always amused me to notice the way in which "youth ministers" in my own church (I'm Catholic) always try to appeal to "youth" using bad pseudo-folk music from the 70s -- as if a) "young people" are stuck in the early 70s (or as if the music of the 70s somehow universally resonates with all young people everywhere, of every age), and b) young people can be attracted by the music of their *parents'* youth (which is what music fromm the 70s is at this point -- if not, in some cases, the music of their *grandparents'* youth). Meanwhile, I am always pleasantly surprised to see the increasing numbers of college-aged people attending celebrations of the traditional Latin Mass.

Inculturating the Christian message is one thing; institutional Christianity as we have it today still bears many signs of its initial inculturation into the Greco-Roman world, and St. Paul famously said he was willing to be "all things to all men". But going out of one's way to link the Christian message to the latest cultural fads -- which are always transitory -- can unintentionally convey the impression that the Christian message itself is equally transitory.

***

It was the religion of slaves, of those disenfranchised by the Roman Empire.

To an great extent, yes; but it would be a mistake to overlook the fact that it was also adopted by a number of well-placed and influential people, which is one the things that helped the Christian church weather the storms of the early centuries.

Meg's criticism is correct and trenchant in parts, but smacks of Judas in others, who berated the woman for anointing Jesus with the expensive ointment, which he thinks should have been spent on the poor. Meg, putting the Bread King in place of the Lord won't help what's ailing Christianity either. I cannot think of an organization on this Earth which does more for the poor than the Catholic Church, so please, please spare us the litany about not helping the poor - I have seen and known far, far too many people in the Church who have dedicated their all to helping the poor and performing corporal acts of mercy, and not a one of them believes that there is some sort of zero sum game between performing corporal and spiritual acts of mercy. BOTH are necessary. Many people I know who pray the rosary at the abortion clinic also adopt children, and provide assistance for the mothers they convince not to get abortions. There is a lot of injustice in what you say. Yes, the institution of marriage is in a parlous state - many people have left the Church for protestantism or whatever else because the Church refused to accomodate their divorces - but that does not justify supporting homosexual "marriage" either. The Church must warn the Faithful against both, because both are harmful to the soul. Please note that the Church taught the same on homosexuality back in the days when you said it was the belief of the underdogs, the slaves, etc. Christianity is belief, which has not changed since our Lord proclaimed it, not just corporal works.

You are right Meg - the Church must be a sign of contradiction to society, now as always. The Faith has been enervated by modernity, which you seem to get, but then you propose a cure, which seems to be more modernity. Unfortunately I think this makes you like those you criticize. It is too much for you to bear, as well. You want to help, but it does not seem like you want to believe. May the Lord help to see and to return to Him.

For what it's worth, I can think of several United Methodist churches in Tennessee where Meg would probably feel very comfortable.

Like Franklin, I feel like I need to digest a little before making specific comments. I was in a place much like Meg when I was 24, and I still agree with many of her underlying points. (The thing about folding chairs and tents starts to seem less workable as one hits middle age, and even more so beyond that, I imagine!)

I might suggest to Meg that when she is ready, she may find liberal Quakers an interesting place to explore. Many of us are refugees from evangelical, fundamentalist, or rigid Catholic upbringings, yet we long for the Divine and derive much joy in seeking and experiencing it together in Community. We certainly aren't perfect, but most of us try to remain aware of our shortcomings and address them together. Just something to consider. I know how hard it can be to long for "fellowship and faith", but feel that there is no place for you to authentically be a part of that. I hope you find a place to experience that Meg, wherever it may be. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

This reminds me of a great King of the Hill episode about religious fads.

Bobby joined a church with a tatooed, skateboarding pastor. After mishandling the situation, Hank (his father) pulls out a box of all of his relics from bygone fads (including a Members Only jacket). He tells his son something like "I just don't want Jesus to end up in a box with that jacket 10 years from now.

Apart from her suggestion that Christianity should compromise on abortion and gay marriage, I could not agree with her more. Christianity is not a product to be sold, but we too often treat it that way. It is encouraging that Meg at age 24 sees this so clearly!

The Gospel message is a sweet scent to those who will believe and a stench to those who will not. It doesn't do any real good to try and cover that "stench" up by making the truth of Christ's death and resurrection for our sins more palatable.

Not to distract from the conversation, but: when you load Rod's page, it says there are 12 comments on this topic. Click on that link, and it says there are six comments, and that's all that's shown. Click on "Continue reading this post" and it says there are 11 comments and shows the last four, which do not show up when you choose to read all comments.

"To somewhat go sideways, why, oh why, do so many modern churches play "modern" praise songs, when the good old gospel songs are powerful and beautiful. Come on, gospel music helped spawn bluegrass, rock and roll, soul and motown. And you've dumped it for 7-11 hymns (a great phrase by the way)."

LOL...yes, and those old Gospel songs were at one time new, and controversial in their own way. The Happy Goodmans were castigated in some parts for having a full band with them during their performances (when most other gospel artists still relied on a piano accompaniment alone). The move away from shape note singing (the Sacred Harp tradition) was viewed with suspicion by traditionalists. Heavens, even some of Bach's great hymns were looked up with suspicion because they were in his native tongue (German) rather than Latin.

Yes, I agree that some of what has been called 7-11 music seems vapid and empty to us older folks. But let us not put ourselves into the box of insisting that God no longer inspires musicians to write new hymns of praise. Otherwise we should put away our church hymnals, sell off that nice pipe organ, and grab the Book of Psalms, since it was the only hymnal that we recognize as being fully and truly inspired by God.

Now...where did I put that recording of "Looking for a City"?

"Yes, the institution of marriage is in a parlous state - many people have left the Church for protestantism or whatever else because the Church refused to accomodate their divorces..."

Oh, accommodation could he had for a friend of mine. A $600 donation and the annulment went through like a hot knife through butter. Signed, sealed and delivered.

In his case it was just a matter of finding the price and paying it.

I feel terrible for poor Meg and others like her. If I had grown up outside of the Orthodox Church, I'd imagine I would feel the same way. If it's really as bad as she describes out there, no wonder people are turning away from Christianity.

These places that insist on using popular culture to package and sell God have reversed the traditional model of religion. They try to bring God down to the people instead of lifting the people up to God, remaking God in our likeness and in the likeness of our fallen and distorted world instead of forsaking the world to make ourselves into His likeness.

I hope that Meg and other people like her someday find their way home to authentic, traditional orthodox (either big or small o) Christianity. There are many many places where the prayers, the services, the hymns, even the buildings are hundreds of years old. If people like Meg have been made sick on a steady diet of religious junk food, they only have to look a little harder to find something substantial, unyielding, eternal, true, and real.

Updown, I'm not sure the targeted marketing is all that targeted--out of curiosity, I clicked on the "Buddhism" section of Beliefnet (in the bar above) and it is running the same ads. Now, it could be it is placing the ads after reading my cookies--but if so, some of the commenters on here ought to be seeing different ads--is that happening?
Anyway, I don't think Rod has any more control of the ads here than he does of the ones that run in the Dallas Morning News or USA Today when his column appears there.

Alan wrote:

No one ever questions why homosexual groups don't spend their money on relationship counseling to fight domestic violence in gay households, instead of litigation. No one questions why they spend money on parades and lavish DINK lifestyles instead of giving to the poor around the world. No one questions why abortion rights groups don't spend millions on counseling for those scarred by abortion and promiscuity.

I can't speak to abortion rights groups, but most of my own charitable giving to organizations within the gay community goes to a variety of local AIDS organizations (although I do give some to political groups too). My own small volunteer efforts have generally gone to local groups like that too, not political organization.

True, that's partly enlightened self-interest; HIV/AIDS is still a huge problem in our community. But as it has spread into other parts of the community-at-large (mostly poor and/or minority groups), the numbers of straight people benefiting from this sort of charitable giving has steadily increased.

And to give credit where credit is due, the Food Bank for low-income people with HIV/AIDS where I used to volunteer when I lived in Phoenix partnered with the local Catholic charities, who viewed it as more important to help out where there was a need rather than make moral judgments like some social conservative Republicans do.

I'll also point out that when it comes to helping out children, some social conservatives have doing everything in their power to prevent homosexual couples from contributing. It's rather disingenuous for you to then turn around and complain about how little we contribute.

As usual, the media is far more interested in generating controversy by highlighting the most egregious behavior of certain groups, and that includes both homosexuals and religious people.

To the article at hand, I won't comment on any of the specifics, but I will say I understand the desire to find God and what it's like to feel shut out for who you are.

Here's two of the more salient points Meg about which Meg wrote:
"...it does more to keep me away from the doors of a church to see people protesting in front of abortion clinics, trying to shame the women who go there, desperate and turning to their last resort, calling them names and shouting at them when I think, "Gee, what if you spent half this energy finding foster placement for the kids who did get born and their parents didn't want them?"
"Could you imagine how many blankets and meals you could buy for people who are cold and hungry with just the money spent on ads for prop 8 alone? How many people could have eaten, been fed, been told that they matter, been given some comfort that there is good in the world? But that wasn't done."

Evangelical Christianity has gone away from that Billy Graham flavor with stadiums full of people acknowledging their helplessness and issues with sin - towards - Sarah Palin rallies with boos, hisses, and pitchforks.
(I want to say that I do believe Christ still resides in parts of the Evangelical body)

I was eventually condemned by some Evangelicals with whom I grew up. That's why I proudly have the moniker "New Age Cowboy".
I found comfort in some Eastern Philosophy and it actually clarified Christian ideas like the "Fall" for me. In fact, I found some meditative practices used in the East also were used by Orthodox Christians.
I guess I took Paul's exhortations to "test the spirits" and to "not be timid" seriously.

Kinda on the flip side: I've heard people rip organized religion and I like to remind them that the very organizations they loath have preserved the memory of Jesus, St. Francis, etc.
It just seems that organized religion starts rotting after a while, whether it was the Catholic Church in dire need of reform, or the Religious Right so closely aligned with the Bush administration (Dobson was ready to support Social Security privatization if he got a constitutional ban on gay marriage.).

For me it's kinda like lawyers that litigate for the sake of litigation. Some religious folk, maybe even well intentioned initially, get so caught up in morality that they lose sight of the ultimate ground of morality - LOVE.
When churches reduce themselves to moral megaphones - condemning abortion and stem cell research; condemning homosexuality and gay marriage... etc. without offering anything positive... well, they just look mean and ugly, kinda like Rush Limbaugh.
Even worse, churches should take a look in the mirror. The churches own divorce rates are abysmal. Forget gay marriage... work on your own marriage. Like Meg, I do not know of one Evangelical organization that helps expectant mothers, fosters adoption, gets kids out of foster care, etc.
I've come to love 20th century writer Ernest Holmes, who wrote SCIENCE OF MIND. He says: State what you believe in; not what you're against. I believe in LOVE! I think folks on the witch-hunt have put the morality cart before the horse. If Christianity is only about what your against, then it's dead and useless.

Most of us go through a "love is all you need" phase of life. It seems so wonderfully simple. And love is, of course, a very important part of the Christian message. But it seems to me that a lot of words get bandied about, nice sounding and important words like love, equality, diversity and so on, without anyone asking how these words relate to the primary question of what amounts to a good or a will-lived life and how that life relates to other lives in community and culture. Meg is rightly disturbed that her Christian upbringing focused more on trying to draw kids in with trying to be cool and with it than by helping them explore the Christian message in order to discover what constitutes a good and well-lived life. To be fair, youth leaders are in a tough situation. They don't want to lose kids because they seem too stodgy, and you DO have to give people milk before you can give them meat, but they can end up seeming like a bunch of stodgy people unwilling to impart anything valuable unsuccessfully trying to be cool. So--Meg should cut such people some slack. The slightest amount of investigation will show that churches and individual Christians do an amazing amount of good in the world and will continue to do this no matter how they are criticized because that is the Christian message, but it is not imparted in a vacuum. Love is not all we need. We need a culture that encourages particular goods that benefit all people, especially the weakest among us--children--born and unborn. The institutions of that culture make a difference to children. They are the leaven to the loaf. Cultures have to have mores and boundaries and the Bible and the Christian message help us understand what those boundaries need to be so that some of the problems of life can be avoided. For example, children born to single parents are much more likely to be poor. Isn't it a form of love, then, to work toward a culture where children will be born to two parents as often as possible, where sexual mores encourage this? These questions are all intertwined. If you try to simply extract one concept from the whole nothing makes any sense.

Meg, I used to be very cynical about the evangelicalism I grew up with, because (as you point out) there is so, so much wrong with it. Then, in the middle of suicidal depression, I prayed to Jesus for help, and he healed me. It was pretty much that simple--I didn't start liking Christianity or evangelicalism, I just started being grateful to God because I became a whole person again. Nowadays, I still have many doubts, questions, criticisms, and (sadly) I'm no longer as nice as I was in those early days right after I "got better." I was humble then. Nowadays,I sometimes struggle with the kind of judgmentalism and hypocrisy that used to drive me crazy in other people. This seems to be part of the arc of the spiritual life. I want to thank you your post, because it's helped remind me of how it was to see Christianity from the other side of the glass--it's so easy to forget about Jesus and become "religious" in the worst sense. May you find peace and joy in your own search.

Hey Betty Carter,
I'm sorry that you went through hell. I wish it had been easier for you to come to Christ.
You wrote: "I'm no longer as nice as I was in those early days right after I "got better." I was humble then. Nowadays,I sometimes struggle with the kind of judgmentalism and hypocrisy that used to drive me crazy in other people. This seems to be part of the arc of the spiritual life."
You seem a lot more reflective than most. I applaud that. But I do not think hypocrisy and judgmentalism are parts of spirituality, at all.

I find the title of this post to be well phrased, Meg's criticism is indeed against Christendom and not Christianity. Christendom is dying, if it is not already dead and I believe this is a good thing in the long term. There have been too many compromises, and it seems that the church must always concede in these compromises, not the other party, to be able to justify continuing Christendom. In the short term, a lot of Christians are confused and angry about the changes they see happening around them, and the church has done a lousy job of educating them about what is going on. These confused and angry Christians are the source of a lot of Meg's complaints. At the same time, as I mentioned in the "Collapse" thread below, one should not confuse transition for collapse.

Is it too much to ask that this person show a little effort to move toward the church? It seems to me that she has already made some determinations about some eternal truths. She has decided that single-sex marriage is of no less value than a traditional one. She has decided that abortion is not a sin. Could it be that this person is just simply not Christian?

I think the reason people see something like protesting against abortion as being incompatible with Christianity is because they've met few of those who actually do protest it.

A few months ago I stumbled across this obituary. Does anyone want to tell me that the gentleman mentioned in it wasn't a real Christian?

http://www.sentinel.org/node/9533

From the above link:

"Hite always spoke respectfully if pleadingly to the women he encountered outside the building, urging them to call a 1-800 number for information about adoption. He was rarely, if ever, harsh and leaned toward compassion.

"There are about 10,000 abortions in Oregon each year and usually about one in three are performed at Lovejoy.

"Hite’s motivation, he told the Sentinel in 1999, is “love of God and children.”
Some of the women who did not abort because of his presence at the clinic would bring their babies to see him. You could count them on one hand, but most people assume there were many others who made their decisions without telling him."

I can't read this post without picturing little Meg sulkily stamping her feet, pissed that the world won't conform itself to her desires. Wow, there's hypocrisy! Like that's never happened in human history before. You've really found something new here, Meg! Oh, the services are too flashy and trendy, but the theology isn't trendy enough. Who the hell could make this sort of person happy? Not even God Himself could do that. There isn't an original thought or complaint in this rant that so many falling all over themselves to praise. It's the trite, prepackaged mewling of the modern American, and it's tiresome and self-serving.

Grow up, Meg. Either accept Christianity or reject it and move on. Don't waste people's time pouting because every corner isn't nipped and tucked to please your personal preference.

What is so great about this post??! She could have just saved everyone time and said "I am a child of the age." She has swallowed compassion whole and turned to the cult of self awareness. She no longer suffers with the dignity and needs of man but has decided to suffer with entitlement and the burden with truth. As if man had no dignity other than material well being and dictating the nature of the world according to his individual wishes. This is not the response to the God who is Love. This god is too small for all he really does is empathize and indulge. This is the response to the demigod of self.

She says "I want to know about God, if there is a God, what is God like? " But that is not true. She only wants to know about the God who doesn't challenge her predetermined political beliefs. To say those people protesting outside abortion clinics merely want to shame vulnerable people is a complete kinard. it would be more accurate to say that those who need to believe such arguments to justify their pro-choice position know that abortion is taking a life and are trying any way to justify it.

the idea that the church can only do one thing or the other is silly. You can defend marriage and counsel people at the same time. Both are needs. Its not an either or proposition.

Gnosticism is not Christianity. You want to find the spark within and commune with the spirit god, thats great. You want to raise your fist in defiance against the god who dares say the men and women both have a unique dignity and role in the gift of sexuality, more power to you. You want to say children really don't exist unless i say they exist and it is convenient to me and if they do well then its someone else's fault, good luck. But none of that is Christianity. None of that involves the God who so loved the world that He became flesh. Its just Gnositicism. There's nothing new or insightful about it and its been rejected a 1000 times.

Seems the answer is exploring liturgical, high-church, progressive churches like the ELCA Lutherans or Episcopalians or even some Methodist churches. They provide the substance she wants from the service (no praise music) but also a more progressive theology and a commitment to social justice and community service.

I'd recommend "Take This Bread" by Sara Miles. It's the story of an "athiest" who came to Christianity by helping to start a food pantry in an Episcopal church. Through it, she begins to understand the significance of the Eucharist, Christianity and a faith community.

What is so great about this post??! She could have just saved everyone time and said "I am a child of the age."

I'm certain that's what Jesus would have said to her, right?

I would have her read Francis Schaeffer's Trilogy book, and at the end tell her that she needed to decide whether God has really given us "true truth" in the Bible (as Schaeffer called it).

It all boils down to the issues of truth and revelation. Unless God, the source of truth, has communicated to man in some kind of tangible form about what He is like and how He demands that his creation relates to Him and each other in the Bible, then all this "Christianity" stuff amounts to is personal opinion and guesswork.

I agree with Your Name at 2:26 PM that the fundamental question is not about how Christians act or don't act, but rather boils down to fundamental considerations of belief. As I see it, the first question is whether or not it is even possible to know religious truth to the degree which Christianity claims. The second fundamental question is, is Christianity true or not? A corollary question is which of all the competing claims of different Christian sects is true or not. But at bottom, if a person simply doesn't believe it, then church-hopping is pointless.

Alan: No one ever questions why homosexual groups don't spend their money on relationship counseling to fight domestic violence in gay households, instead of litigation. No one questions why they spend money on parades and lavish DINK lifestyles instead of giving to the poor around the world.

I guess it isn't possible to get through at least one of these conversations without slamming gay people with gross generalizations. If gays live a "DINK" lifestyle, maybe it's because so often they're denied adoption or foster care, or if divorced, were until recently denied custody of or even visitation with their children.

As far as charitable work, I personally know gay people who volunteer / raise money for charities.

And as far as lawsuits go, sometimes the way to change unjust laws involves political work and/or lawsuits. Christians have done the same (i.e. lawsuits against restrictions of religious speech around abortion clinics, for instance, or against restrictions on private schools or homeschooling.) Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.

Friend,

"I'm certain that's what Jesus would have said ?"

You are right Jesus never criticized anyone else's conception of God. He just went about agreeing with people and shaking hands. ;-) There is nothing wrong with critiquing someone's opinion. For those who are honestly seeking good, this a grace. A gift. An opportunity to learn and do better. Jesus' whole life is to testify to the truth of the God that is love. But then again, what is truth? Right friend. ;-)

The one thing that does not seem to concern Meg is the question whether or not Christianity is true.

Bingo, Your Name 2:26.

Also an apropos application of Flannery O'Connor, who was speaking specifically about the Eucharist. She describes the quote in one of her letters published in "The Habit of Being":

Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. [Mary McCarthy] said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the 'most portable' person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, "Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it." That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable.

Meg might also consider reading a little Flannery.

BTW, the Methodists used to have a very high Eucharistic theology; John Wesley and his brother Charles wrote many Eucharistic hymns that liturgical Christians could, and should, still sing today. So sad about the doctrinal (and demographic) shriveling of the Protestant mainline. Which may also help explain Meg's spiritual ennui.

Meg could have been me about 15 years ago, when I took an extended "Christianity vacation" for many of the same reasons that she cites: the vapidity/soullessness of what passes for contemporary worship; the conflating of American pop Christianity with the Religious Right, its bigotry and social agenda; the "marketing" mindset of contemporary Christians, selling Christianity like clothing or dish soap; the lack of walking the walk with the people Jesus cared most about. I found Christianity, and Christians, profoundly disappointing; and this after a childhood and young adulthood very securely anchored within the faith community.

What drew me back was a nagging, disquieting longing for Jesus, and for the Eucharist -- even at my angriest and most alienated from Christianity, I missed Jesus and missed the Sacrament.

I'd suggest that readers, instead of drawing wagons around in a circle and defending contemporary Christianity from Meg's critique, listen to what she has to say. On several points its the same critique made by church folks like theologian Marva Dawn (Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down; Unfettered Hope).

What I might suggest to Meg -- very gently, since as I recall, when I was "off the bus" I was pretty sensitive to anyone trying to pull me back on -- is that the more she focuses on Christ and on the poor/marginalized/needy around her, and the less she focuses on Christians not getting it right, the less anger and alienation she will feel.

"also think Meg sounds more smugly self-righteous and self-satisfied than the most "conservative" church lady -- Methodist or "even" Southern Baptist -- that I have ever met."

Or you, given the evidence you've provided. Talk about shrill. Meg voices a criticism and what is greeted with, commenters like you. No wonder she finds Christianity so suspect if she's greeted with churches filled with people like you and some of the other dismissive commenters.

Shame on you.

At least a third of the posters here are proving Meg's point by calling her a petulant child or telling her to "grow up". Insulting and belittling her in vaguely sexist (and most certainly ageist) ways is just bound to make her come crawling back to the institutional church!

I used to think that the increasingly clannish and insular nature of many respectable Christians was simply a result of a misunderstanding of how to reach out to people - sure, it's hard to imagine how (to take an example I saw personally at Obama's celebratory concert before his inauguration where Bishop Gene Robinson gave a prayer) a half-dozen white men between 40 and 60 holding signs using the most derogatory and offensive gay-bashing language to refer to a bishop is supposed to make people say "gee, that ridicule and contempt and bile is something I really need in my life". But a lot of people believe in tough love and all of that.

I'm starting to think, however, that it's not a misunderstanding.

I think there's a lot of people out there who WANT to push people away. Who want to push the doubter and the questioner away. Who have a lot more in common with Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor - or the Pharisees - than with Christ. I think there are a lot of people who, given the choice of watching their churches die out or trying to engage - to change as well as be changed by - people like Meg, unhesitatingly choose to die out rather than let *them* in. Whether it's in the passive-aggressive "freezing out" of Gen-X'ers and Gen-Y'ers who stay in the churches or the open dislike of those scruffy kids (and minorities, and poor, and immigrants), untold numbers have been pushed away. In my experience, a lot of the younger people who do make their way to the churches take God seriously - frequently, more seriously than their Baby Boomer elders who tsk-tsk at them with (depending on your church) copies of the Left Behind books, Scott Hahn, or John Shelby Spong clutched to their chests to ward off anyone without a high enough percentage of gray hair. But they - we - often feel as though we're not completely welcome.

And boy howdy, this thread shows why.

If we're talking Flannery O'Connor, then I recommend that Meg read the story "Revelation," since she reminds me of no one so much as Mrs. Turpin.

Stefanie wrote:

And as far as lawsuits go, sometimes the way to change unjust laws involves political work and/or lawsuits. Christians have done the same (i.e. lawsuits against restrictions of religious speech around abortion clinics, for instance, or against restrictions on private schools or homeschooling.) Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.

Which was kinda my point. I don't have a beef with litigation (I'm a lawyer, as luck would have it). It's just telling that Christians are criticized for public demonstrations, litigation, political advocacy, etc., when those are (legitimate) tools that everybody with a concern for the direction of our society uses.

A recent commenter hit the nail on the head: Christ will never let you down. Christians, and the Christian church, will. So focus on Christ, and take the church and individual Christians with a generous grain of salt.

I'm 53, a lifelong committed churchgoer, and an Evangelical. And as I said before, much of what Meg says resonates with me. I can't live without the church, but at the same time it drives me absolutely crazy.

Your Name,

"At least a third of the posters here are proving Meg's point by calling her a petulant child or telling her to "grow up". Insulting and belittling her in vaguely sexist (and most certainly ageist) ways is just bound to make her come crawling back to the institutional church!"

Stop picking on us graybeards! We've earned the right to be curmudgeons! ;o) I say this only half-kiddingly. I've read your post ad given it good thought. I don't think that people are trying to push young people such as Meg out of the Church. The graybeards (and salt&pepper beards) have lived through great turbulence since the 1960's. Meg says nothing in spirit that I didn't hear in the Catholic Church since kindergarden in 1965.

Much havoc has been wrought by two generations of people seeking to redefine the Church at its most fundamental level. Meg bemoans as much with the vapid liturgical experiences of her church.

Derek Copold hit this one pretty hard, but very accurately when he observed:

"Oh, the services are too flashy and trendy, but the theology isn't trendy enough. Who the hell could make this sort of person happy? Not even God Himself could do that."

Pity the graybeards. We have two difficult tasks to balance. We need to conserve the truths of our churches, to hand on intact that which was handed on to us. At the same time we need to respect the younger generations with their passions, talents and idealism. We need to create the space to allow for their own unique contributions without sacrificing the identity of the Church because of the ill-informed experiences and expectations of callow youth. We need to know when to shut up and let the young folk have their say and when to reprove them when they go too far. Meg, for her part, needs to understand and respect that.

I don't subscribe to the oft-stated "They are our future." Our youth are an integral part of our Churches TODAY and need to be heard from, just not so stridently ;o)

1. I think that Meg's description of Christianity as an "indie band" is kind of telling. She might whine about her Methodist upbringing and pastors using pop. culture to get through to the kids, but it seems to me that she's viewing religion as a pop. cultural experience. She wants to be one of the exclusive followers of the cool "new" indie religion, not a boring mega Church to which Mom and Dad belong. I betcha her favorite band is HS was Rage Against the Machine or something in a similar genre.

2. Christianity appealed not only to the poor and the downtrodden in the Roman Empire, but also to some pretty powerful and rich people, especially women. Many scholars think that wealthy Jewish women were bankrolling Jesus' ministry, and one of Paul's most important converts was Lydia, who was described as a wealthy merchant (most likely the widow of a wealthy merchant). In 300 CE, Christianity was probably the most prominent religion in the Roman Empire. Constantine changed the policy regarding religious persecution of Christians because it was smart politics at the time.

3. I don't get the hate of Church youth groups and their use of pop culture to get through to the kids. I think that pop culture is a tool which can be used to relate Christianity to their own lives, then I'm all for doing it. I've always thought that Evangelicals were very good at youth ministry, much better than the Catholic Churches that I went to when I was growing up. My Evangelical friends' youth groups did much more community service, attracted a much older crowd, and just seemed to have more fun. The median age of the youth group at my Catholic Church when I was in HS was about 11, and the youth group coordinator's idea of a good meeting was learning how to pray the rosary... so you can guess why the HS kids stayed away.

Although Meg's post is a poignant plea for bringing Christ back into Christianity, it seems to me that in some particulars it echoes the typical secular fads to which Christianity is, or ought to be, opposed. It is clearly heartfelt, but she should know that the earliest Christians did not abort their children or marry their catamites simply because the worldly Roman culture tolerated it.

She is, though, persuasive in her central point, that the soul of contemporary Christianity is as hollow and lifeless as the culture it is immersed in.

The Hound is clearly following close upon her heels. Perhaps she should stop running and turn around.

I've been thinking about this, and I think that one of the paradoxes of Meg's position is that she seems simultaneously to want Christianity to be a more vital religion while also wanting it to be more "safe."

Vital, in worship--getting away from all the marketing and would-be "hipness" and WWJD for sale everywhere you look; safe, in taking the approved politically correct positions on the challenging moral issues of our day.

The problem is that Christianity has never been a particularly "safe" religion, in a manner of speaking. In the early days it was actually unsafe to practice it; but today it is still "unsafe," in that it calls upon the believer to be open to a radical understanding of, and a radical encounter with, the living God, especially by coming to know Him in the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

Schmaltzy worship (and yes, we post VII Catholics have had our share of well-intentioned but truly unfortunate liturgical experimentation) cannot help but be a barrier ultimately (even if it seems not to be immediately) to that radical encounter with Christ, crucified, risen, triumphant over evil and death, and calling us to take up our crosses and follow Him. A denial of sin, though, is also an insurmountable barrier to that radical encounter with Christ, and it is a denial of sin that lies at the heart of acceptance of abortion and gay marriage. It is not that these are the only sins Christians are called to oppose, not by a long shot; but these two sins are sins that our culture seems determined to call virtues, which makes opposing them a matter of justice as well as charity.

Why does the person seeking that radical encounter with Christ feel compelled to stand against abortion, gay marriage, and other such sins? At the heart of the opposition is the belief that there are eternal consequences for our actions, that some actions lead inexorably to the eternal death of the souls who participate in and contribute to them, and that there is no greater calamity to befall our fellow men than for them to spend an eternity shut off, by their own distinct choices, from the real and direct and loving Presence of God Himself.

The world rejects Hell as it rejects God. There are, to the citizens of the world, no eternal consequences for sin because there is no eternity. We happen to exist as animated carbon for a set period of years, and then we cease to exist. One might as well, then, engage in whatever behaviors seem pleasing to one; even such things as being "nice" to people, or not treating one's own family with disdain and hatred, are merely social constructs which can be abandoned any time they interfere with one's quest for the brief and limited self-fulfillment which is all our existence allows.

To the world, then, opposing sin out of love for the ones committing the sin in the hopes that they will not suffer eternal death makes no sense. But to the Christian, it is not unlike the constant effort to turn away from sin in one's own life, to become capable of following Christ more closely, and to persevere in faith in the hopes of one day being welcomed into eternal life. Since we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we can't remain indifferent to sin--because to do so is to remain indifferent to the sinner, to be complacent in the face of his peril, and to reject the notion that Christians are to be the enemies of evil and the works of darkness.

Christianity can't be, and isn't, a combination of comfortable and entertaining worship and equally comfortable modern platitudes. Without the radical encounter with Christ (most radically of all in the Eucharist) and the call to take up one's cross, to repent and reform one's life, and to stand opposed to evil, Christianity dwindles into a kind of trendy self-help session--and since the secular world is much better at offering that, why would anyone go to church for it?

elizabeth anne,

if you get a chance read, christopher west's "theology of the body for beginners"...its great. He goes through JP II's theology and explains how sex isn't one issue among many but as the core of the entire christian message.

It is very difficult to look at the past and see the world as people of the day did. I wonder how much we confuse references of slavery and indentured servitude.

In Meg's defense, I think there is something several of you are missing. Many people, because of the way that they were brought up in their faith or just in the larger culture, think of homosexuality as obviously just WRONG. If that is how you feel, you aren't going to understand that there are many of us, and the numbers increase as ages decrease, who really and fundamentally don't see homosexuality as wrong. If you truly do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, but you DO believe that marraige is virtuous and promiscuity is a bad thing, then you will see opposition to gay marraige as immoral. Truly. Please try to wrap your heads around this. So, it is awfully hard to embrace a church that is simultaneously doing good and doing (as part of its core message) something that is immoral (in the minds of an increasing number of people).

And Meg, if you can't deal with the Methodists et al, spend time with some Unitarians. We don't require that you believe a set creed. What we require is that you behave a certain way... that you treat your fellow man with respect, that you act in communion with others, that you do charitable works, and so forth. All are welcome in our community, including the homosexuals (like me).

I sympathize with much of Meg's post. I was raised in a Protestant sect that's known as being fundamentalist. My father spent hours studying the New Testament, even teaching himself some Koine Greek. We were in church three times a week, attended church camp in the summer, and spent a lot of time in church activities.

The odd thing is, that church seemed so much more rational and human than the ones I know now. For one, politics was not discussed. It was verboten. That was Caesar's realm, the city of man. Big social policy issues were never mentioned in our church. Second, it wasn't overt. If you had visited our home and didn't look closely at the books on the shelf, then you wouldn't likely have any idea what religion we practiced if any. The same with proselytizing. That was something to be done quietly and with subtlety.

The hymns the adults sang were serious. The sermons were often deadly serious. But there was no condemnation. The message was "This is the truth, this is the best way to live, but it is up to you to choose to follow". They believed in truth, and their truth required fortitude.

In my early 20's I moved to the city. I spent several years as a staunch atheist, but eventually it no longer described the world I saw. I finally came to the conclusion that I did believe in Christ, but that started a new set of problems.

I first started attending the same sect as in my youth. But these churches were not like that one at all. They were becoming evangelical and had picked up some traits of the megachurches. They had the various groups for men and women and young couples and old couples and teenagers and divorcees and on and on. The sermons were often a culture critique or a political call to arms. The hymns were often sappy. Most of the younger members acted like it was a social club. Most of the older members seemed sad.

I occasionally went to various churches with friends, and found the same thing. None of them seemed serious. They had the same problems Meg described. Pop culture masquerading as religion and members who acted as if Christianity was just another social identity, and the church was where they met up with their friends and kept their kids away from juvenile delinquents.

Next I read up on Catholicism and decided to attend RCIA at a local church. I had some doctrinal problems with Catholicism, but wanted to understand it better. The teachers of the RCIA had a pretty broad knowledge of basic scripture, but didn't seem to understand any of the philosophical underpinnings of it. It was as if they had learned the words but never actually thought about them.

The mass was even worse. It seemed like it was purposely designed to be a caricature of the loopy hippie-inspired services that I thought had died in the 1970's. In one mass they even sang Kumbayah. I've studied Orthodoxy a bit, even reading a couple of books Rod recommended. But it is still somewhat alien to me.

The churches I've attended and the Christians I know now seem bent on pushing the "benefits" of their church. It's all about how the church is going help you out and make you happy. This is alien to me too. The church of my youth promised no benefits, at least in this life. The Way of the Cross was a burden to bear. It wasn't a country club. It wasn't a political party.

So now what? What do I teach my son? The pop culture churches seem like they'd be as harmful to him spiritually as anything else in our culture. Even more so, perhaps, because it's treated as fashion. David Bentley Hart described existence as the "long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe, that this is a broken and wounded world". What if you do believe that, and believe there are grave ramifications from that catastrophe that extend to each of us, that our nature is fallen? How can you find redemption from that fall in a movement that seems purposely lacking in solemnity?

The long 5:47 post is me.

Anon, go ahead and delete all adjectives out of my post. It works without them.

ooops. Sorry for the typo

The last line in that post above should read "I don't get to hand my wife a LIST..."

Illinidiva hits the nail on the head.

On the one hand, Meg faults Christianity for being like an indie rock band that's no longer cool because it signed to a major label and sold out to the man.

On the other hand, Meg faults Christianity for trying too hard to please the kids.

But then, on yet another hand, Meg faults Christianity for not trying hard *enough* to please the kids -- or at least the *cool* kids.

Christianity won't ask "how high" every single solitary time that the culture starts to jump up and down about abortion, gay "marriage," or whatever other "right" or "entitlement" it is that the culture will manufacture next.

But, on the other hand, Christianity has sold out to the man, it's sold out to the Romans.

Meg fails to recognize that the Romans of today are precisely the ones in the culture who most want abortion and gay "marriage" and all the other "rights" and "entitlements" and goodie-bag treats that Christianity says "no" to.

She fails to recognize that what she seems to want -- what she seems to all but beg for on her knees -- is for Christianity to sell out to the man, to sell out to the Romans, even more than it already has, even more than it already is.

The fact that Christianity is not "cool" or "hip" or "edgy" enough for young Meg ought to be the tip-off to her that her own rather callow and puerile attitude is precisely what it is that has caused the dumbing-down and the selling-out of Christianity of which she complains.

If one isn't grown-up enough to have outgrown the indie-rock mentality, then one is hardly grown up enough to have the wisdom to heap scorn -- as Meg does -- on a whole religion with millions upon millions ... maybe *billions* ... of adherents.

In fact, one is not in a very strong position very wisely to judge much of anything at all.

Again, I say this not to be "judgmental," but to honor Meg's candor by replying in kind.

Jesus loves you Meg.

Consider this a Come-to-Jesus Moment.

"Well, John, I see here that you were monogamous your entire life, and faithful to one person. You participated fully in the church, loved God and Jesus. You clothed the naked, fed the poor, and visited the sick. You spread your love of Christ to those around you.

Unfortunately, you had sex with a man, so off you go. Sorry!"

The mind of a modern liberal at work again, trying ever so busily to have it both ways. Look, EA, we're talking about the same guy who said pluck out your eye lest it send you to hell for lustful thoughts, he'd definitely send you character to hell for Sodomy. He certainly didn't have a problem with the fate of Sodom when he was busy threatening other cities for not dropping at his feet in adoration.

See, there's no in-between. You either buy the the whole package or reject in toto. Hot or cold. Otherwise, you're just one of those lukewarm believers that the Jesus of Revelations said he'd spit out in extremely contemptuous tones.

To the world, then, opposing sin out of love for the ones committing the sin in the hopes that they will not suffer eternal death makes no sense. But to the Christian, it is not unlike the constant effort to turn away from sin in one's own life, to become capable of following Christ more closely, and to persevere in faith in the hopes of one day being welcomed into eternal life. Since we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we can't remain indifferent to sin--because to do so is to remain indifferent to the sinner, to be complacent in the face of his peril, and to reject the notion that Christians are to be the enemies of evil and the works of darkness.

This all sounds really beautiful. It is really beautiful, at least at first take.

So why then does it end up to be, when you boil it down, a straight woman telling homosexuals how sinful they are? It's not the homosexual part or the sinful part that bother me, it's the they part. 99% of the people calling homosexuality a sin are straight, and not tempted. So much "correction" of other people just doesn't sit very well. When was the last time you read a long explanation of the evil of sins Erin or I have committed ourselves, as opposed to sins committed by Other People?

Anyway, the whole discussion of homosexuality and "Christianity" is off-focus, because there are a number of very respectable groups of Christians and Christian churches (yes yes Catholics, I know you're the only "real" church, but not everyone agrees with you on that) who have no problem with homosexuality at all.

So if this is an issue for Meg, and Christ isn't a problem, why not go join one of them? They're not at all hard to find. (She may have to leave Tennessee I guess. I don't know much about Tennessee.)

I liked what Meg said about the marketing approach to evangelism. What a temptation to go overboard on the use of media hype. I think a danger is that the marketing can become an end in itself. Also liked the comments about the sort of dumbing down or simplification of worship music. I have noticed that trend and regret the abandonning of other styles of sacred music that don't require earplugs. (Guess I am betraying my age a bit.)

The questions Meg raises are worthy of consideration but I think many church communities would consider them too threatening. she should be encouraged to continue asking the hard questions. I think God is pleased to hear them and He also hears the cry of her heart. I believe he is particularily fond of Meg.

Really? And here I've been thinking the Incarnation and Resurrection were the central facts of the whole business.

Wow, Jon, you're right! Imagine my surprise when I found out, today, that it's all really about sex!

You can bash people over the head with all the Calvinist or Catholic or born-again apologetics in the world, but how you treat them, how you conduct yourself, will show far more about how Christ lives than any logical argument. You can win the argument but still lose the war.

Let me put it even more bluntly - if I weren't a Christian, and I were reading this thread as a non-Christian, I wouldn't want anything to do with your Christ from what I've seen here. Not a thing.

This is why we're losing our kids.

Your Name speaks my mind.

It couldn't be as simple as love God, seek to discern God's will and carry it out, and love your neighbor as yourself, could it?

Meg, you strike me as a seeker and ask the questions of a seeker. I offer no books that tell you everything you need to know, nor simple set of do's and don'ts. I can only offer my belief that what you're given is the spark of life, a journey to take, very incomplete and imperfect knowledge, and a lifetime to talk about this, challenge yourself, challenge other people, look for God in all the seems good and holy to you, but also be open to finding God where you might least expect.

Grace, intuition, spiritual hunger and openness will be allies. Setbacks, doubt, mistakes, false starts, regrets and scars of pain felt and pain given will carry you along as well. I don't know that anyone *could* tell you what life is about, what God is about, what the meaning of your life and existence is. It's your life to find out.

The hatred I see from so call 'Christians' has completely turned me away. I can't drive past a church without wonder what hate and evil is being undertaken there. I wonder if the Devil is laughing at all of them for pulling the wool over their eyes. Thinking they are saved when in reality they are being taken down a road against love and God.

I know several Evangelic Ministers that only use their ministries as a tax shelter. The fire and brimstone from their mouth, just makes me see the devil in their hearts.

I am not the only one who feels this way. Christianity, within two generations, will go the way of Zeus and Hera if love does not replace hate.

Beaumont George, Meg didn't "slap" at anyone. She didn't say anything mean or nasty--merely pointed out her concerns, from her her own point of view--something Rod had pretty much invited commenters to do. Anyone can disagree politely, and quite a few have. You characterize her remarks as "petulant" and attack her personally by depicting her in an unflattering light. So tell us--is there ANY way at all in which someone could criticize the church without provoking your ire? Because if there is not, in fact, an alternative tone that would be more acceptable to you, then your complaints about her attitude are specious.

Jillian: Religion based in theory and social conformity and orthopraxis has never been able to measure up to the inward life attained by deep and comprehensive personal experience. Well said! Brava to the rest of your post, as well.

Gerard: Yes, John can end up in hell for having sex with a man as surely as I can for having sex with anyone but Regina. You know, in all honesty, I'd far rather my husband was unfaithful to me than that he remained faithful because he feared being thrown into Hell. "Nothing says lovin' like terror of the oven?" I don't think so. That isn't love, and I would hate it. If that's what God calls love, then God is pathetic. Love and terror cannot live together, as the author of 1 John 4:18 points out.

But it's easy to have the notion that all Christians care about is interfering in other people's sex lives--until you realize how far and how fast the Christian ideas pertaining to sexual morality have unraveled in our culture. When a house is burning down, we don't usually ignore it to discuss the shortcomings in the landscaping of the house down the street, do we?

But that's kind of my point, Erin. For you, homosexuality is the house down the street. (I'm assuming you're straight, please correct me if I'm wrong.) Why are you and people like you so hung up on the house down the street? No fires at home?

All due respect, Friend, but most of the sins I commit are known to be sins.

Really? Known by you? You must be a very advanced soul, then. Most of us have a lot of trouble discerning our own sins through the haze of laziness, the fog of rationalization, the smog of just plain stubbornness. Most of us need to put a lot more attention into the inquiry than we do. Are you so sure you're advanced enough that you don't?

If that were the case, though [that is, you were an unwitting or stubborn sinner], I hope to Heaven that some Christians out there would love me enough to tell me the truth, and to keep telling me in the face of society's insistence that no, really, I could keep on committing the same sins without ever harming my soul.

OK, you asked for advice, here is some. Being very concerned with other people's sins, real and imagined (and you may not be in a position to tell the difference - after all, if it's hard to figure out our own sins, imagine the problem if we tackle someone else's!) may not be the most productive use of your spiritual energy. I won't accuse you of "sin" here, because the Master apparently doesn't much approve of such accusations, and I certainly don't read hearts anyway.

Homosexuals may be 2% to 8% of the population (depending on who you believe). I think all people deeply concerned with the morals of "society" (which, unhappily, mostly means the morals of other people) might try a wider focus at least. Why are the doings of this tiny minority of such interest?

I suppose one thing I find so interesting about her protests against Christianity is how she doesn't want to surrender to Christian teaching on sexual morality.

I didn't read it that way, Rod, maybe because I'm assuming that Meg is heterosexual. If she is, then when she protests the treatment of gays, she's not furthering her own "sexual liberty" is she? She's saying something else, something about intolerance and bigotry.

If Jesus appeared to you and told you that you couldn't live as you do, that you have to reserve sex for traditional marriage only, would you obey Him? If not, what does that say?

But I do live that way. For many many years.

I just don't think it's overwhelmingly likely that Jesus will appear to me and say "those neighbors of yours are homosexuals, and they should reserve sex to conventional heterosexual marriage." He may feel that way about it, or not. I'm just not sure it's my business. (In fact, I'm sure it's not.) Is it yours?

sigaliris,

There are *plenty* of ways that one could criticize the church: civil ways, respectful ways, humble ways, charitable ways, intelligent ways, educated ways, mature ways, most of all *wise* ways.

None of those ways is the way in which Meg approached the subject, and, frankly, I think that, however harsh you thing my response to Meg is, I've come nowhere near responding to Meg on the terms that she set for herself, and nor has anyone else here who has taken issue with Meg.

Now, let me ask *you* --

Is there *any* criticism of the the church with which you would *disagree?*

Is there *any* defense of the church with which you would *agree?*

Are you upset *at all* by the 100 million people killed by militant secularists in the past hundred years?

Don't agree that living in a glass house such as that ought to make our secularist friends just a *little* bit more careful than they are of the stones they throw at Christians?

Don't you agree that secularists have a rather sizable mote in their collective eye, one that *perhaps* they ought to extract before addressing the splinters in Christian and other sorts of eyes?

Thanks, Gerard.

It's an honor to be cited by you ... though, like Wayne and Garth, I'm unworthy.

That said, if I meet with your approval and get spanked by sigaliris back to back, then *maybe* I am doing *something* right.

; )

Sigaliris: Nothing says lovin' like terror of the oven?

ROTFL! You take the Nobel Prize for Epigrams again. Priceless.

Rod: If Jesus appeared to you and told you that you couldn't live as you do, that you have to reserve sex for traditional marriage only, would you obey Him?

That was one of your best posts and it's why people read this blog.

It's late to go into depth on this but to answer your question, I would obey. My favorite saint is Doubting Thomas, the original empiricist. But if Jesus appeared to me, I would probably be so terror-stricken that I would even give up sex altogether, or at least whatever brand of Cognac induced the apparition.

Objectively assessed, sexual intercourse is a grotesque ritual for propagating the species, not different in method from the primates (simians, that is, not hierarchs), or even the lower mammals. If we are indeed made in the image of God, why cannot we propagate by the marriage of true minds, sans impediments? It would save more time for reading.

But if I regained my composure during the apparition, I would ask Him where He'd been from the age of about twelve till thirty. And why His "Testament" is such a slapdash pastiche of largely illiterate Greek prose and dubious Jewish prophesies. And why if He came to fulfill the Law, His own tribe thinks He destroyed it after all.

Finally I would ask Him, if in his death agony He asked why His God had forsaken Him, are we not right to ask why He has forsaken us?

sigaliris,

So secular liberals *don't* hold *themselves* up as "the gold standard" of "loving behavior?"

I think -- to put it mildly -- that that will come as news to many Christians here, who have every day to put up with just as much moral chauvinism and condescension (and actually *more*) from secular liberals than the other way round.

In any case, wasn't holding herself up as "the gold standard" of "loving behavior" exactly, precisely what Meg did in the post that prompted this thread?

Wasn't that exactly, precisely Meg's basis for trying -- as she certainly *did* -- to slap the taste from Christianity's mouth?

Isn't holding oneself up as "the gold standard" of "loving behavior" -- and likewise of "progress," "enlightenment," "diversity," "tolerance," "intelligence," "education," et al -- exactly, precisely what *secular liberals* do, instead of what Christians (of all people) do.

Secular liberals won't admit the world is fallen and they won't admit that they -- like everyone else -- are living in original sin.

They believe that they themselves have no reason to ask for forgiveness from God or from anyone else, and likewise no obligation to be forgiving *toward* anyone else, including God, at least not when He dares to depart from holy writ, as decreed by *The Daily Show* or by *The Huffington Post* or simply by Meg and her whims.

They are quite literally *shameless.*

Theirs is -- to understate the case -- not an attitude conducive to humility.

Which is why they have shown themselves to be ... shall we say ... rather less willing than Christians have been to own up to the evil that's been done and is being done by secular liberals in their dogma's name.

They won't admit their dogma *is* a dogma.

And they won't admit that evil exists -- except of course for Christianity and Sarah Palin -- and even if it *did* exist in any other form, that form would most certainly *not* be their *own*: butter never, ever having melted in the mouth of even one single, solitary secular liberal, as we are reminded in discussion on this blog, and most everywhere else, each and every day.

; )

I don't have any opinions on the sort of music. Honestly, that's personal preference and it's a bit silly to complain that her church doesn't match hers...find a different church then.

I will concede that youth ministries are just getting sillier and sillier. While often managing to avoid actual things that could pull young people in, like better scheduling.

And of course I've made the exact same point about how churches interceding in the political arena is damaging to both the church and politics.

But what really caught my eye is something I've been saying, but have found very few people who agree with me for some reason:

It is my belief that no church needs anything more than some fold out chairs and a tent to keep the rain off their heads. Anything else is window dressing and vanity.

Forget 'megachurches'. I am a member of a church that has a million dollar building. It has maybe 700 members, so does needs a reasonable large one. But I almost never go there. Why?

Well, today I took someone to the free clinic in town. Operated by volunteers, many of them members of various churches...and crammed into a space, under the clothing charity and next to the food bank, that is approximately two classrooms at my church.

Which this charity cannot operate out of my huge, empty-during-the-day church, I do not know. I do not know a lot of things about why we apparently spend our money on, frankly, stupid sh*t instead on actual charity. Why doesn't my church look like the clothing/food bank/free clinic building, and that building look the same but bigger?

I'm reminded that, in the middle ages, we let people sleep in churches. The doors did not actually lock, or at least never were.

Yes, now we have to worry about vandals and whatnot...but, OTOH, it seems like during the construction of the church we could actually build areas designed for this. But it would take time and money, and what is this, some sort of charity?

Oh, and incidentally, for all you people talking about how Meg doesn't appear to care if Christianity is true...you do realize she's supposed to realize it's true from our example, right? She didn't fail, we did. Despite what some people appear to think, the existence of God is not actually obvious...we have to make it obvious.

And, of course, her complaints are valid or invalid regardless.

Friend wrote: "OK, you asked for advice, here is some. Being very concerned with other people's sins, real and imagined (and you may not be in a position to tell the difference - after all, if it's hard to figure out our own sins, imagine the problem if we tackle someone else's!) may not be the most productive use of your spiritual energy. I won't accuse you of "sin" here, because the Master apparently doesn't much approve of such accusations, and I certainly don't read hearts anyway.

"Homosexuals may be 2% to 8% of the population (depending on who you believe). I think all people deeply concerned with the morals of "society" (which, unhappily, mostly means the morals of other people) might try a wider focus at least. Why are the doings of this tiny minority of such interest?"

Well, of course, there are two aspects to this situation.

The one is public: the issue of gay marriage. That's been discussed to death, but just for a moment imagine that you could see things my way, that you could understand why I believe that approving gay marriage was likely to erode further the commitments men and women make to each other to raise children together, that in fact you believed as I do that gay marriage was one step further along the road of the destruction of society. Wouldn't you work to oppose it, quite apart from any question of sin?

The second is private: there are many, many homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ of mine out there who believe according to traditional Christian morality that they ought to remain chaste, and who struggle every single day to live this chastity with great heroism and love. Should I turn my back on them, shrug, and say that it doesn't matter--that they should commit whatever sins they feel like, and Jesus probably won't care? I hope they'd never say that to me. I hope they would never give up on me and abandon me to the sinful desires I have.

This whole discussion has reminded me of Pilate's question to Jesus: What is truth? Pilate was hoping, perhaps, for a nice philosophical discussion--but Truth in the flesh was standing in front of him. If it is true that there is any difference at all between good and evil, between right and wrong, between virtue and sin, then in deference to that Truth we ought to figure out, and live, according to the good, the right, and the virtuous. But if Jesus really doesn't believe in sin, if He doesn't really care what we do, if we abuse our bodies with food or sex or drugs or alcohol, if we murder babies in the womb or two-year-olds in their beds, if there is, to Him, really no difference whatever between good and evil, between Heaven and Hell--well, then, why would anyone be a Christian in the first place?

Meg, thank you for writing such a true and sad post.
Rod, thank you for highlighting it.

Geoff G - your story moved me to respond. Rod's too.

I wonder if each of you could see yourself in the other.
I do because I too have had to struggle, went thru a period where my rationalizations about my sexuality took me to a terrible, empty place of despair, where I had to surrender to the reality that how I was living my life was unmanageable and a road to spiritual death.

I too feel I've been graced by a surprising, unmerited love, found healing and the ability to recover and recommit to spirit, family, and a sense of gratitude for that love and healing that keeps me going on the harder days.

So, all I can say is, God bless you and heal you. Non carborundum illegitimi.

There are shortcomings with evangelicalism, but give them this credit: without reservation they stand for Jesus as the only savior. Whenever I am even tempted to move to a 'mainline' church for greater open-mindedness on some subjects, I come across something like this mushy compromising statement that God takes everyone, doesn't matter what religion you're from.

http://www.lpts.edu/About_Us/Chapel_Sermons_Text/Sawyer11-21-08.pdf

This person was not at a fringe gathering but speaking at Louisville Seminary of the PCUSA to their future ministers. I hope Meg can find a good evangelical or other orthodox church she can be comfortable with. I'd advise staying away from the mainlines.

Geoff,

We've been together for four years now. And I owe him a debt of gratitude I can never repay, for his self-sacrifice that still makes me want to cry when I think of it.

Now, against all that he has done for me, there are still those here who would damn him to hell for the crime of loving me. Can you understand why I find your moral laws not merely empty but evil, spiteful things?

Of course. And if Erin thinks this love is some kind of threat to her, which she says she does, I can only shake my head and wonder where that's coming from. And worry about her a little. Whatever it is, it can't be good. (And that she would implicitly put it in the same basket with "murdering two-year-olds in their beds"...hmm. Something very very wrong here....)

The idea that you should be "chaste" in this situation? Please, let us forsake the ancient heresy of Angelism. We are dealing with flesh and blood human beings here, not disembodied spirits. And before everyone hops on me and says that I'm advocating having sex promiscuously with everything that moves (and murdering toddlers), please go back and read Geoff's testimony again. And tell me that this is exactly the same thing as going to clubs and having sex with six strangers every night. Even to mention the two in the same sentence is obscene.

I'm so sorry the church, the churches, failed you Geoff. We'll all of us be called to account for that kind of thing, never fear, though of course that doesn't help you. But God loves you, and when we "Christians" failed you, he found someone else to bring you the message of self-sacrificing, tireless love, which is from him, always. He's like that, I've found. When his first choice for an instrument messes up, he promptly finds another way.

If you're deeply in love, apparently being omnipotent is a big advantage.

I rather suspect it's more that the pleasure of being So Much Better Morally than other people is so intense that it's very hard to resist.

You rather suspect wrong, Friend. I am no better morally than many who struggle with same-sex attraction. But the temptations I struggle to overcome I do not call moral goods; nor do I organize movements and orchestrate media campaigns and pull all other cultural levers at my disposal to force my community and my country to celebrate my weaknesses as virtues.

Geoff, thanks for your honest post. I'm trying to formulate a response to it. In the meantime, Friend, I wish you would knock off your self-congratulatory, self-righteous attacks on others who share this forum, but not your convictions. Putting the word "Christians" in scare quotes, when their only "sin" is to believe what the Bible teaches about the morality of homosexual sex, and what most Christians have believed since the very beginning. I get that you don't share Christian orthodoxy, but it is sheer ahistorical arrogance to decide that you, with this very recent and novel view, are in a position to declare that Christians who do hold the historical (and still the majority) view are not even Christians. Moreover, I don't appreciate you saying that you "worry" about Erin. You are certainly welcome to share your dissenting views about whatever you like here, but if you can't state your views without being so consistently snide towards those who disagree with you, please find somewhere else to post. To be specific, I have no problem with you saying you find it hard to square Christianity with the traditional view of homosexuality, and making that argument. But when you question the sanity and high-handedly deny the faith of Christians who believe in normative Christianity, you really are taking it too far.

John 17:16 (New American Standard Bible)
"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."

John 17:14
"I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."

The second Christianity got involved with politics, money, greed and the attitudes of the collective "world" we live in, Christianity as a whole was dead. Christianity as a whole has entrenched itself in this world's sordid political affairs and wars. They organise voters. They pray over troops in battle. They promote the accumulation of wealth through "prosperity" ministry.
They water down the law of God's word for the sake of popularity and selfish gain. They make no steps to remove paedophile and adulterer leaders amongst them. Is this not involvement with the world and its attitudes?

When Jesus was here, he was not concerned about the Roman overlords or who was going to be the next Caesar? Was he willing to water down the law of his Father? Jesus was concerned about one thing only.

Luke 4:43 "But he said, 'I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.'"

That kingdom is the same kingdom in Daniel 2:44:

"In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."

These governments we see today will be destroyed and replaced by God's Kingdom.
The question we must consider is what will happen to Christianity as a whole for involving themselves in worldly affairs?

Matt 7:22-23
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' "

So what do we do? Do we stay or do we go?

In fact, we are told at 2 Tim 3:5 "They'll make a show of religion, but behind the scenes they're animals. Stay clear of these people."

Jesus still directs his loyal Christians today. But we must make the distinction between right and wrong. All that glitters is not gold. We must seek out true Christianity if we desire to be a follower of Jesus, and stop becoming friends of the world.

James 4:4
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

2 Corinthians 6:17-18
"Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,' says the Lord.
"AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN;
And I will welcome you.
And I will be a father to you,
And you shall be (P)sons and daughters to Me,'
Says the Lord Almighty"

I'd like to say that the community helped. And some did try at first, but it's a set of problems they really could not relate to. And it's very hard to not draw the conclusion that God either was deliberately spurning my sincere attempts to turn back or simply did not care about me or perhaps did not exist at all.

When we treat the sick like this - and I don't doubt this understates the real situation - we are not Christians, followers of Jesus Christ. No matter what we say we believe, no matter how many centuries we've been saying it, no matter how huge and fancy our vestments and house of worship. I'm sticking to my quotation marks.

If I thought this were an isolated instance I'd be more skeptical. But I was around, and practicing law in San Francisco, when the AIDS epidemic hit, and I personally remember how the churches treated my clients who had been diagnosed with the disease.

Being a follower of Jesus has got to mean more than just saying that you are one.

"Personally, I find the continuous line of 'deviant' 'pedophile' 'worse than incest', etc. both insulting, primitive in the extreme and completely at odds with what medicine, science and - remember him?"

Hey Panthera,

I actually did a word search (yes I am bored) on "deviant", "pedophile" and "worse than incest" and do you know what after 140 comments you are the ONLY person who has mentioned any of these words. But hey when you have a good solid case about an issue you should always resort to shouting down straw men.

Gay people have the same dignity as everyone else and should be treated with respect. But people disagree with you and you trying to convict them of ever prejudice possible doesn't make their arguments less valid.

anon, well in that case panthera you should have complimented everyone for discussing the issue and not resorting to using those words.

anon, has it occurred to you that it is precisely this conflation of ego and cherry-picking which so characterizes much of the conservative Christians' actions and policies in America that has led to our criticisms?

Megan McArdle had a post on this yesterday, which focused on how the structure of the brain itself might actually be responsible for such horrendous and otherwise inexplicable forgetfulness.I'd just like to take a moment to thank everyone who responded to my post from last night for the kind words.

I'm still not sure it was the right thing to do. I'm now feeling a bit guilty about using personal experience and emotional argument to manipulate the discussion, when I would hope that my rational arguments alone would be enough. Still, what's done is done and I apologize if I caused any discomfort.

I'd also like to enlarge on some of my comments just to be absolutely fair to everyone involved. Friend wrote:

When we treat the sick like this - and I don't doubt this understates the real situation - we are not Christians, followers of Jesus Christ.

To be clear, I only spoke with a few people. Needless to say, issues of homosexuality are difficult to discuss in an overwhelmingly straight congregation. Adding some of the other problems that I mentioned above only makes it harder. Add to this the fact that I'm usually fairly shy and quiet in person (why is is so much easier to discuss this online?) and I would say that much of the blame must rest with myself.

I did reach out to a priest in the context of confession, and I also spoke to another member of the congregation, a teacher whose opinion I respected. Both were very sympathetic and offered what advice and support they could. But when I say that it was a set of problems they had difficulty relating to, that's largely what I meant. And as with my earlier attempt at converting back, much of the action was going on inside my own head. So I can't blame them if I wasn't myself doing enough to reach out.

Gerard Nadal, thank you very much for your words of support, your prayers and for the Mass. I do sincerely appreciate all three.

If I can expand a little on the problems that I face with regard to what you posted: as you are aware, there is a real gulf between the Catholic Church and the gay community, to the extent that I feel obliged to keep my spiritual explorations on the "down low" from my gay friends, just as I felt that I had to keep quiet about my homosexuality in the Church.

My life has been unsettled enough that I could probably face losing the friends I do have in the community with equanimity, especially considering what would be gained. But my biggest fear is that I would lose my relationship. To be honest, I'm not sure how he'd react if he knew I was participating here; I think it might be easier for him to accept, at least at first, if he thought I was flirting on one of the myriad of sites out there for that.

Jim H., thank-you for the response. The more I read of Rod's work, the more I can't help but think (and I hope you won't think me too presumptuous by saying so Rod!) that were it not for this fairly significant detail, we might have had very similar lives (O Fortuna!) In part, it was his posting that prompted me to be a little more open as well, and I certainly respect and understand his own personal struggles that he was posting about.

In fairness to panthera, I skimmed back through this rather long list of posts. It's true that "pedophile" hadn't come up--for which I DO thank everybody sincerely. However, in the context of discussing the necessity to continue proclaiming homosexuality as sinful, Erin did say this: if Jesus really doesn't believe in sin, if He doesn't really care what we do, if we abuse our bodies with food or sex or drugs or alcohol, if we murder babies in the womb or two-year-olds in their beds . . . . I think it's fair to say that compares being gay with a) addiction, and b) child murder. Of course, if that wasn't Erin's intent, I'd be happy to accept her correction.

anon, I would agree that the vast majority of people posting here are very respectful. On the other hand, there are others, some quite influential in the Catholic laity, including some that you yourself have cited in other posts, who deliberately muddy the waters between pedophilia, ephebophilia and homosexuality.

That would be like me asserting that because some young women have been sexually abused by priests, heterosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.

I understand that the Catholic Church can only admit men to Holy Orders who are willing to conform to Catholic teaching on sexual issues. And I understand that the Catechism is quite clear on the topic of how homosexuals are to behave.

But why is it necessary for Mr. Hudson to equate homosexuality with child abuse? It does nothing but perpetuate the stereotype that homosexuals are sexually voracious and unable to control their appetites, something that would seem to be contradicted by the Church's own teaching on the subject in the Catechism.

Sig, did you even read what you quoted from me?

Abuse of our bodies: food, sex, drugs, alcohol. Where is the word "gay" in that list? Straight people can abuse sex too, you know; and both gluttons and anorexic people have serious food-related issues.

I compare *abortion* to the murder of older children. Now, those of you who think that an unformed blob of insentient tissue magically becomes a baby when it has emerged from the birth canal (but only if its *head* emerges--otherwise, get the scissors and the brain-vacuum!) don't like to see abortion compared to the murder of toddlers, but this can't be the first time you've encountered the analogy.

Thing is, as I keep trying to say, I've never heard a Christian church of any denomination claim that adultery isn't a sin (though I admit that perhaps I'm just naive; maybe the Episcopalians have created an "adultery blessing ritual" that I'm unaware of). There are, perhaps, a few Christian churches trying to baptize fornication, but the kind of churches that "Meg" is talking about don't seem to have done that so far. But there are lots of trendy denominations insisting that homosexual activity isn't a sin, is actually virtuous and noble, etc.--so if "Meg's" big problem with Christianity is that Christians oppose gay sex and gay marriage, then why not simply join one of these?

In other words, I find it difficult to understand why someone's biggest stumbling block to Christianity would be Christian morality, particularly Christian sexual morality. Aside from my own Church, which teaches against homosexual acts as well as fornication, adultery, remarriage after divorce, etc. as part of our understanding of Christian marriage, there are many Christian churches which are fine with homosexual activity and which Meg could join in perfectly good conscience.

For myself, though, I have to tell the truth, that all sex outside of marriage is sinful, and that my Church's understanding of Christian marriage means that marriage can only involve a man and a woman, not two men or two women or various other combinations of numbers and genders. Those who are relativists can shrug and say that that is "my truth" and that "their truth" is different, of course; but if you think that Truth is a person and you wish to live your life in such a way that you radically encounter Him on a daily basis, you have to be concerned with finding out what His truth is, and then living according to it--which is what it means to be a Christian, after all.

Geoff,

that is one of the problems with Christianity in the western world, we place such an emphasis on individualism that every person's opinion (Hudson) is considered consequential.

Reading your posts, I have the utmost respect for the fact that, like Israel, you continue to wrestle with God even though it many mean loosing something that right now you consider central to your identity. I can't answer for every Christian, even the orthodox ones. Most of us are at best dim reflections. (i spent a good deal of time last night regretting the lack of charity in some of my posts.) Every person whether hetero or homo, "Orthodox" or "less orthodox" needs to continue to wrestling with everything whether it is sexuality or appreciating the dignity of people who are different. In my opinion, both panthera (no offense) and hudson do a disservice by trying to short circuit that process. My only advice would be not to let that process stop because of someone's example. Examples are important but it is only in the Holy Spirit that "we move and live and have our being." Never be satisfied until you find that. Sacrament and encyclicals are always a great place to start. I wish you the best of luck and will pray the chaplet for you.

Thank you for sharing Geoff. I wish you the best in your spiritual quest.

geoff,

that last line should say, praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament and encyclicals are a great place to start. You obviously have to be catholic and confess all serious sins before you can actually receive the sacraments.

anon, please rest assured that I have always maintained great respect for the Eucharist; on the occasions where I have attended Mass, I have always refrained from participating in Holy Communion when I am not in a state of grace (according to Catholic teaching), which has been continuous now since the events I described in the post above.

I am well aware that if and when the time comes to start on that road again, one of the very first steps will be the sacrament of Reconciliation, including whatever penance I merit. I also understand that in order to participate in the Eucharist, I must fully accept Catholic teachings on doctrines like transubstantiation.