Letters from Kamp Krusty

Now, to Tick People Off on a Completely Different Subject...

Mike Taylor (not pictured at left) is a Friend of Kamp Krusty.  He's one of those "I'm a worship leader, but I'm also a paleontologist" types.  You know the cliche'.

He's also from England.  England is a small country north of Europe that we so TOTALLY pwned in two wars. 

Mike is very thoughtful on faith/science issues, and I love an answer he gives here on this blog dedicated to...something...science-y...that I...can't...understand.  It's for scientists.

Scroll down to the last question, where Taylor starts his well-thought-out answer with, "First of all, I make no secret of the fact that I am a Christian..."

For the record, much as I respect and admire Taylor and his answer here:  I'm not sold on NOMA.  And don't bother dismissing my opinion purely because it's from a non-scientist.  NOMA is not science, it's philosophy.  It's not test-able;  it's not falsifiable.  It's more a religious view than a scientific one  (Oddly, this might mean that scientists who preach NOMA are not particularly qualified to speak about the limits of science or religion.  They should leave those sorts of discussions to philosophers.)

It occurs, too, that the Christian must believe that God, Himself, has, at least at times, overlapped the magisteria.  I'm no scientist, of course, but for what it's worth, I suspect He's doing it even now.  I do know Mike would agree with this:  One needn't a philosophical commitment to materialism in order to pursue truth about the observable universe.

Anyway, Taylor's answer is well-put, and should give you insight into the mind of someone who, himself, is overlapping some magisteria in a way I think is graceful and winning.

HERE'S Something I Never Thought About Before...

So, last week, we met this big-time diplomat feller. 

He's considered a leading expert in the U.S. on Islamic leadership, and he's involved in middle east peace efforts with Tony Hall.  He travels around Iraq with bodyguards, a motorcade, and helicopters overhead.  He's won big-time medals for big-time whatever stuff.  He's got degrees from everywhere, blah blah blah.  Neat.  His name is Dr. Monsieur...something. 

A group of us from Florida sat in a hotel suite, and he told us about an interaction he'd had a few years ago with a man who told him he should follow Jesus.  Dr. Monsieur Something thought about it, and decided to do just that.

It changed his life.  Drastically.  He studies Jesus, and tries to emulate Jesus, and wants to be revolutionary in peacemaking, like Jesus. 

He's learning to love his neighbor, and love his enemies, and even forgive them.  Because Jesus said to do so.

He says he believes that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  He identifies himself readily as a Jesus-follower.

...and a Muslim.  And that's when my head blew up.

He's from Lebanon, grew up Muslim, and hasn't repudiated his Islam.  I respectfully asked him about this ("Can you synthesize Jesus's behavior and teachings with Muhammed's?") and wasn't satisfied with his answer. 

Yet, as I say, and I'm a skeptical sort:  He seemed genuine, truly committed to following Jesus, and convinced that Jesus was calling him to a life of radical servanthood, and he'd had a drastic change of heart regarding his enemies.  He talked about how he'd had to struggle, then forgive those with debts against him.  And he told them why.  He follows Jesus.

Honestly?  I think he holds beliefs that are in stark contradiction.  I needn't enumerate them.  Truth is, all of us do that, on a lot of things, but the whole thing sure made my head spin...

Why does this Muslim seem to understand the radical nature of following Jesus, when so many Christians don't? 

Is there a reason I feel like I have to pronounce final judgment on this guy's ultimate status before God, as if it were up to me? 

Is Jesus more pleased with a theologically-messed person who actually does the things he says, or someone who's got the right answers, but doesn't follow?

Carolyn, my brilliant wife, mentioned something about that time Jesus told the story of the two brothers.  One said he'd do the farm-work, and then didn't, and the other said he wouldn't, but then did do it -- or something like that.  And Jesus was more pleased with the guy with the wrong answer and the right action.  I don't know if this is what Jesus was talking about. 

There's a classic question:  What about those who never hear about Jesus...?  But now I've got another one.  What about those who don't like Christianity, have a conflicting cultural/religious identity, but actually put Jesus in charge of their lives? 

And, again, why do I feel like I have to figure everything out?  What accounts for that?

My head hurt.  Couldn't...process...new...thoughts...so while he was talking, I ate some of those mini-candy bars they left on the coffee table.  I like the Krackel ones with the rice in the chocolate.  I remembered someone suggested one time that I should make rice and put a bar of chocolate in the rice-cooker, too, and I thought that would taste pretty good, like Krackel, I thought.  Maybe.

A Pretty Dadgum Good Bible Question

Puff Dougie asks a pretty dang good question about my view of the Bible.  Essentially this:  If you (Brant) don't think people should "worship" it, how can I then refer authoritatively to it regarding Jesus, whom you do worship?

I responded in the comments, then thought I'd just post it here, in case anyone else is interested, and, you know, needs just that one more thing to convince them I'm a liberal.  (Hilarious, given my background as a conservative talk-show host, high-profile defense of absolutism in public debates with professors and authors and philosophers, etc.  I get a kick out of that.)

------------

Doug -- Cool thing is, it's not either/or. It's not "Idolize the Bible" or "Disregard it."

I think another view is to regard it very highly, see it as God-breathed, but apply our understanding and ability to see context.

As you know, the Bible says there is no afterlife. It's quite plain, in the book of Ecclesiastes. Fortunately, we can contextualize and make use of literary tools.  Problem is, you do that to someone's pet verses, they think you've not only unravelled that verse -- you've rejected Christianity.  It all crumbles!  It's logical:  If the Bible is God's ultimate gift to man, and my interpretation is right-on, then, well, the conclusion's obvious.  It's all over.

And yes, people can and do idolize just about everything, mostly themselves. (I'm guilty of this.) Really, idolizing scripture is pretty popular. Jesus dealt with people all the time who did it. It's easier to relate to a book -- or, more honestly, one's understanding of a book -- than a living God.

By the way, man can know God's qualities without the Bible. (This I know; the Bible tells me so, in Romans 1.)

I kinda think the Bible is NOT "the path to God". (That people will be offended by this statement is indicative of the prescience of my silly cartoon.) It lights my path, certainly, but it is not the path. Jesus is the path, folks.

Further, if Christianity means primarily relating to a book, you can have it. Seriously. I know you, Doug, don't believe it is, but just thought I'd say it. I have no interest in that kind of religion.  Between you and me, nothing bores me more than playing scripture run-n-gun, missing the point, entirely.

Jesus flat-out BLASTED people for using their interpretations of scripture to thrust their vaunted tradition at him. How in heck we manage to miss that is beyond me. He blasted them.

Oh, Jesus regarded scriptures highly -- but not high enough for them. They had their book, their interpretation, and he kept veering from it.

I do not believe that this attitude -- did I mention He blasted it? -- is monopolized by the Jews. I see it nearly on a daily basis. And He blasted it because it was idolatry.  Hence the cartoon.

Sorry to veer a bit from your point. Just writin' on my blog...

Oh, and Monica:  Your John 1:1 comment was appropriate.  But please know, "The Word" is Jesus, without question, in that chapter.

The Word is not the Bible, and the Bible is not Jesus. The Bible is not prophesied about in the O.T. as part of God's redemption plan for the world.

Genesis through Revelation -- all about Jesus.

Jesus didn't promise us the Bible to lead us into all truth, but the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not be command-and-controlled, and He will not be flow-charted, and He will not be voted upon, and will not be reduced to formulae, and, if we think He can't lead people into all truth without a Bible, stand by to have our little ideas again blown to bits.

I Can't Believe This Book is Getting Published

...by a big-time publisher.  This is going to be interesting.

It's Frank Viola's new and improved Pagan Christianity.  And Tyndale is printing it, thanks to heavy-hitter and pollster-guy George Barna, who gets co-author credit. 

This book is going to honk people off.  Already is, even though it's not officially "out" yet (but you can get one now at their site.)  They sent me an advance copy to review on Kamp Krusty, because of the enormous influence I exert in the lives of both of my readers.

Here's what's a-ranklin' church folk:  They authors are basically saying -- get this, from a major Christian publisher --that the church, in its contemporary, institutional form, has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist. 

I'm pretty sure I'm aptly summarizing, because it says -- quote -- "the church, in its contemporary, institutional form, has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist" in the preface. 

And then things start getting controversial:

-- The "church building" concept is foreign to Jesus's idea of what the church is for.  It has "stalemated the functioning of God's people since the 4th century," and "There does not exist a shred of biblical support for the church building."  And -- oh yeah -- buildings cost American churches $50-60 billion annually.  There's that. 

-- Pulpits, altars, clergy vestments (shoot: clergy, for that matter), nuns, stages, sermons, performance-oriented worship, "sacred relics", buildings named after saints, and such are borrowed from pagan traditions, not from the church of the New Testament.

-- Making preaching the center of church gatherings has no biblical precedent.  Christianity "still has not recovered" from John Calvin's insistence on leading worship services, himself, from a stage.  Luther and Calvin believed each believer had access to God, not through the Eucharist, but through "the preached Word" -- something the writers say is not a biblical idea. 

-- The order of worship now defeats involvement of all the believers, and instead focuses on a few talented people, in the face of the practices of the New Testament church.

-- Protestant churches get the ol' familiar "order of worship" from the Catholic Mass.  And here they approvingly quote Will Durant, who says the mass was "based partly on the Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice, and participation." 

-- Then there's the chapter on sermons:  "The Sermon:  Protestantism's Most Sacred Cow"

-- And the one on the "office" of Pastor, which the authors say doesn't actually exist in scripture:  "The Pastor:  Obstacle to Every Member Functioning"

-- "Tithing and Clergy:  Sore Spots on the Wallet" is a fun follow-up chapter.  They don't see a biblical basis for tithing to an instutional church, or "tithing" at all, for the Christian. 

-- We don't need Bible colleges.  Never did.  We've inhaled far too much of Athens' approach to knowledge, and the point of knowledge, and misapplied logical tools to the Christian life.

-- And don't get them started on the biblical basis of youth ministers.  Actually:  DO get them started on the biblical basis of youth ministers.  It won't take long:  There isn't any.

-- Also, feel free to get them started on "Sunday School", dressing up for church, worship "pastors", pews, the idea of "sacred spaces", and -- get this -- the "church fathers", who they treat less as all-knowing guides, and more as believers who imported their paganism to re-interpret the meaning of the church.   (This will cost the authors hip points.)

-- Most modern church-people misunderstand how to read the Bible.  They impart qualities to it that aren't biblical.  They don't pay attention to context, and miss the point, and widely apply particular verses that were written for specific situations in a specific context.

Like I say, I'm amazed Tyndale is publishing this.

It's footnoted out the wazoo, but it's readable for high-schoolers.  It's written to be accessible, which means, instead of saying it's "painstakingly documented", I can say it's "footnoted out the wazoo."  Of course, this doesn't make it true, but some people care about quoting other people.

They're going to make a lot of people think.  (What I've seen so far is a reaction against such a "negative" book, but not much refutation on the things that matter.)  The authors' point is not -- insofar as I gather -- that a practice is evil to the extent that its roots are pagan.  That's not it.  The point is that what we consider proper "church" has more to do with surrounding cultures than what Jesus had in mind. 

And honestly, now:  "Too negative", as a central criticism, means, "I prefer the status quo, and...that's about all I got."  As the authors point out, Jesus was a revolutionary, and a "negative" one at that, to those whose first interest was enforcing their version of religion.  They got pretty mad at him.

The authors warn people up-front:  If you think all the trappings of "church" are Holy Writ, the book may be too much for you.  And they're right. 

Did I mention I'm surprised Tyndale is publishing this?  I'm glad they are. 

(By the way:  Before reacting to my bullet-point summaries, read the book.  They make arguments I don't have space to repeat here.)

------------------------

MY OFFICIAL REVIEW:  Well, I liked it, doggone it.  A lot.  I like it because people need to think about this stuff.  And this book will bug a lot of the right people.  In love.

Mostly, I like it because I think they're right about pretty much everything -- that matters, anyway.  I'm an honest reviewer, no? 

The church Jesus envisioned was never about sacred buildings, sacred relics, sacred preaching, special clergy, spectator events, great orations, musical stars, non-stop knowledge accrual, and theological sophistication.  The church is a people, called out for God's purposes, mystically bound together by Christ, and led by Christ. 

In other words, they agree with me.  So, obviously, I highly recommend.

Five stars.

Some Crazy Guy Said Something Crazy About Church

Some crazy guy told me something crazy the other day.  He said there's no precedent in the New Testament for the church gathering for the purpose of corporate, "vertical" worship of God.  This crazy guy kept talking crazy and said that yes, the people of The Way gathered to edify each other and stuff, and that was critical to their community, but that the "meeting for worship" concept isn't in the New Testament.

Him crazy! 

I had a quick response for him, something about, you know, could he pass the salad? or something, and I think that threw him. 

But anyway, I know he's wrong and stuff, but, as I frequently remind, I'm no Bible scholar, so I didn't know exactly where my ammo would be.  So, I guess what I'm saying is, if he's wrong -- and obviously he is -- could you tell me how?  Just want to make sure our answers match mine is all.

Crazy guy likes singing together and stuff, he says, but he was crazily wondering if we haven't way over-funded and over-emphasized this as an expression of what the church is, and we may have mis-communicated what "worship" means to a lot of people. 

I told crazy guy that people like him should stop asking questions and he's probably jealous because I play a mean acoustic and I cranked my David Crowder CD and he got real quiet so I think I made my point.

A Clarification/Apology Regarding Sports

Hey there:  Just wanted to clarify on my last post, about college football.  I didn't want to come off too negative or anything.  I actually LOVE playing, watching, even working in sports (part-time, doing P.A. for minor and major league baseball.)   

So I apologize if I came off too negative.  Really, I'm just modestly suggesting a few things, and if I didn't communicate them very well, please accept my apologies   Here's all I really meant to say:

1)  The importance of sports is so overblown in this country, it's sickening.

2)  Much as I enjoy sports, I wish the collegiate-athletic complex as we know it was completely nuked.  They are a monstrous distraction from the scandal of higher education:  Universities are largely uninterested in pursuing "truth", and instead, argue against the existence of it.  At best, they currently function as trade schools for technical fields.  The quality of undergraduate education is rapidly declining, so we're given the "collegiate experience" -- beer and circuses -- to enlist loyalty.  The idea of a university has been lost.

3)  Any man who lets his team's performance affect his attitude with friends, his mood with his family, even for a minute, needs to knock it off and grow up.

4)  If you're so bereft of drama in your life that you need to live-and-die with the performance of a sports team, come here and I'll give you some drama.

5)  A study of men's behavior linked performance of their favorite NFL or college team to their personal self-worth.  If that applies to you, think about how bizarre that is, and try to be a big boy.

6)  Sports, for the consumer, better be fun.  It's entertainment.  If you consume sports, and you can't see it for what it is, can't bear to have someone poke fun at it, you need to get over it.

7)  If you have actual animosity -- even an ounce, a shred -- for someone who went to Michigan, because you went to Ohio State, you're acting like a baby.

8)  If you can't play sports without your ego getting involved, or you throw little fits, don't be too upset if I laugh at you.  It's hard to suppress sometimes.

9)  If you've let society so affect you that you are even slightly disappointed with your child because of he's not a great athlete, somebody ought to hit you with an accordion, because that's pathetic, and it's your problem, not your boy's.  Get over yourself.

So that's all I meant.  I hope that clears up any misunderstandings!  If I came across too negative in that previous post, again, my apologies.

XOXOXOXO

The Kamp Krusty Institute for Advanced Theology Presents, as Part of a Continuing Scholarly Discourse in Biblical Studies, a Survey/Thesis Regarding the Following Issue of Scholastic Import: "Does the Bible Contain the Answers to All of Life's Questions?"

-

-

Nah, but that's okay.

In Lieu of Actual Content: Some Awesomeness

This is kinda awesome:  A 134 megapixel camera!  Check out the freakarrific zoom on this picture of Harlem! 

The mind reels at the possible applications!

By that, I mean, we're in serious trouble.

Just Askin' is All

-

-

When does the Bible, itself, become an idol? 

Smart-aleck answers ("June 12th, I think...") are, as always, welcomed, but not actively solicited.

_-

Excuse Me While I Single-Handedly Neutralize Al-Qaeda

Alan, in his book, points out that Al-Qaeda is almost impossible to stop.  This is, in large part, due to the way its message works, and the way the work gets carried out.  And he's absolutely right.

So, in the service of national defense, I propose the following, in order to effectively neutralize the movement.  Let's get Al-Qaeda to...

1)  Complexify the message

Right now, it's so simple, it can pass from one to the next, and be easily grasped by the uneducated, the young -- everyone.  This is dangerous, because it's highly contagious, and people on the street feel capable of enlisting others in the cause. 

2)  Construct a less "flat", more hierarchical structure

Currently, small, underground groups can move nimbly and autonomously, complicating efforts to thwart them.  A more regimented, stratified approach, where some members are left thinking, "I can't know enough to do anything" would bring the movement to a halt.

3)  Foster "expert" culture, and barriers to entry to the expert class

Promote the idea that the message is not only highly complex, but only some can truly understand it.  Construct extensive barriers to entry to the presumed expert class.  Promote idea that cells lacking a certified member of expert class, it is not equipped to be activated.

4) Focus on knowledge, rather than doing

Complexification and expert-class development will make cells spend immense amounts of time studying the work, even debating theories of the work, rather than doing it.  Better yet...

5) Equate STUDYING the work with the work itself

The cells are called to ACT, of course.  But if we can convince operatives that the work, itself, is in trying to understand the complexity of the work?  They'll be effectively neutered.  We need to get them to spend large amounts of time in study, gathering to study, believing they don't know enough, hiring new experts to teach them again and again, and attending teaching events.

They'll actually believe they're doing their work when they attend events held by experts.  This will render the cell, and the whole movement, harmless!  Convince them that the most radicalized, militant among them are merely called to bring other non-activated members to the cell events.

6) Sabotage cell multiplication

VERY important!  Cells that operate under simple principles, with motivated operatives, devoted to multiplication?  Very, very dangerous, fast-growing, and pop-culture endangering.  We must stop this in its tracks, and this is done in multiple ways: 

A)  Foster egos and small-time celebrity.  By convincing operatives to set up individual fiefdoms, fewer autonomous cells will be activated.  Rather, the emphasis will be on building larger individual cells with numerous unactivated members.

B)  Make the basic structure highly difficult to replicate.  Al-Qaeda cells currently are, by necessity, simply-structured and easily replicated.  Propagate idea that for cells to begin, planning, experts and capital must be simultaneously accumulated.  Expert motivational speakers will be necessary, plus paid staff with highly specific training and talents.  Operatives will see massively "successful" large cells, and attempt to duplicate them, with very limited success because of the huge inputs required.  This will greatly inhibit growth.

C)  Convince philosophically-aligned, but non-active, members to choose from among most entertaining, high quality, cells that offer services for them. Not only will this engender a harmless, internal focus, it will require IMMENSE amounts of resources and energy.

7) Make operatives really, really busy. 

Replace simple, animating mission with lengthy lists, charts, and programs for cell maintanance.  Convince them that this institutional maintenance is, actually, the mission, itself.

This will leave them will no actual time for conducting actual mission.

8)  Get Al-Qaeda to seek governmental approval. 

Offer tax incentives if necessary.  The larger cells, requiring large edifices, will also require tremendous amounts of capital.  This will also allow a measure of control, to threaten the cell's tax status, thereby threatening funds for internal programs, when necessary.

Better:  They'll consider actual operational cells that exist without this governmental approval to be, themselves, invalid!

9)  Co-opt Al-Qaeda with the larger culture. 

Once members are convinced that cell maintenance and study are actually their "mission", the rest of their lives can be harmlessly integrated with the culture at large.  They'll be indistinguishable from non-members, and, because of their new understanding of "mission", effectively equivalent to non-members.

10)  Convince members to wear Al-Qaeda t-shirts with funny sayings and stuff.

Mission accomplished. 

It'll work to thwart an evil message.  It even works with the good ones.