c. scott andreas

This brief rant is a short break away from a series of posts I’m currently working on (available below). I’ll pick that ball of yarn back up shortly.

On Friday, a good friend of mine (Hannah) told me about a miniature movement occuring in her home church. This reminded me of an interesting social ritual of which the Church too often finds herself party: The Christian Boycott.

Perhaps I should begin by explaining this particular instance. This month, NBC launched a new drama called The Book of Daniel. The characters include a drug-addicted Episcopalian priest who regularly meets and consults with Jesus (not the one you might expect), his lesbian secretary, his wife who enjoys an afternoon martini or three, his homosexual son, drug-dealing daughter, and another son who is sleeping with the Bishop’s daughter. An organization called RenewAmerica has taken it upon themselves to inform the world and begin a crippling boycott of the network and its advertisers - particularly, Burlington Coat Factory.

*sigh.*

The majority of the above summary is derived from RenewAmerica’s call-to-boycott article. I must say that I object to identifying people simply by characteristics perceived to be negative; I only use this characterization to explain the nature of the objection in their terms.

RenewAmerica, in all of their glorious freedom-fighting benevolence, calls us to arms against this program, portraying it as an attempt to “legitimize the homosexual lifestyle and ridicule the Christian faith.” I’d recommend reading the article; if you’re reading something that I have written, you may find it humorous. Balanced, informed perspectives are good, too.

That said, let’s take a look at RenewAmerica’s “fair and balanced™” perspective. I have to look at The Book of Daniel’s content. After taping an episode and watching some of it, I can agree that it’s not a very good show. The plot was boring, it moved slowly, and nothing really happened.

But if I’m to engage our friends who refuse to swipe their Visas at Burlington, I suppose I should look at it on normative grounds (a realm rather foreign to me). Is the show “wrong?” In a sense, perhaps. I believe that alcoholism, addiction, homosexuality, and sleeping around fail to glorify God. But what does that mean here, today?

It seems that the Church has a curious relationship to the culture in which she lives. Is the church a part of culture? Apart from culture? Its enemy? It’s righteous friend? I’ll not do these questions the justice they deserve today (In fact, I’m not entirely convinced that I can), though it just might spawn a series sometime.

Let’s hop off the soapbox and take a quick look at ourselves. Is the church made of people? Are Christians subject (and party to!) the same vices of which we accuse “culture?” Are some alcoholics? Have any of them ever been convicted of a felony? Are some of us greedy or unwilling to give? Have they worked to marginalize a group of people? Have they invaded a foreign country and killed over 30,000 of its citizens?

The show might be right.

My point is that we are by far not without fault. And by no means have we succeeded in living up to the standard of perfection that we so often claim. We’re not in an ivory tower — nor should we be. Instead, we’re just as much a part of the mess as everyone else, and so often we make it even messier. What good does RenewAmerica hope to accomplish in waging what amounts to a PR-war (and absolutely nothing more) to prove that “we” are better than “them?” This is simply an invitation to bring out the beautiful “h-word” that we know and love.

Why deny our true condition? “You’re full of crap, and so am I!” proclaims columnist Stephen W. Simpson. I think that this sort of honesty would be far more productive. If we “market” the church as perfect and she fails to live up to this unmeetable standard, what are we to say but “oops?” We’re left fallen and embarrassed in the mud as we drag God’s name down there with us. Perhaps by explaining that we aspire to but have not yet attained the impossible standard of perfection, we will be able to honestly progress toward it, lamenting our stumbles but celebrating progress nonetheless until the day of Christ.

Who are we to look down upon a culture for “sins” in which we daily engage? To declare “us” above “them” is hypocrisy, and it’s a bloody word tossed about on both sides. My concern is that RenewAmerica doesn’t seem to be working toward resolving the real issues and struggles, but rather wishes to construct a whitewashed image of perfection.

Why waste time and energy on improving our “image” but not who we are? I seem to recall something being written about this awhile back.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
Matthew 23:25, ESV

Why are we upset by the fact that NBC has created a series loosely based upon one of our stories — in this case, The Book of Daniel? We violate copyright laws by playing clips from TV shows, movies, songs, and commericials in our churches without permission. Quite frequently, we steal and hack up culture’s logos for our own purposes. Think “Got Jesus?” bumper stickers. Reeses ripoffs. “Jesus Inside” hats reminiscent of an old Intel campaign. As a designer, I would be incredibly irritated if someone tried to piggyback upon the success of a skilled marketing campaign (should I ever create one). We’re not victims, here.

Burlington Coat Factory is not supporting people making fun of Christians. They are running ads during a program that tells a story about people struggling with significant issues that Christians (we are not exempt) struggle with (and in many cases — especially this one — deny). These issues might not be true to life, but they are prevalent within our community. I will concede that there are many significant differences in the “truths” promulgated by the show. But how is their adaptation of our story different from our cheap ripoffs of their ads?

I submit that we have no grounds to criticize NBC for taking our story and making it theirs as long as we continue to produce this garb (or pay sufficient royalties). Even then, what is this but the process of culture? They are telling a tale of real people who deal with real struggles. RenewAmerica tells a story of evil sinners and perfect saints. I’ve not had the pleasure of encountering these perfect saints. If the story is as they tell it, perhaps I’d not care to.

I think that we have some work to do.

respectfully yours,

c. scott andreas

this is part three in a multi-part series

Over the last week, I have begun to explore the “purpose” of salvation. As I progress, I’m beginning to think that the word “purpose” may be inaccurate. I identified the purpose in “foundations [ii]” (with the help of a musically-gifted friend) which is perhaps not all that surprising. However, its widespread acceptedness does not mitigate its truth (unlike many a cliché). The purpose will remain the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

Instead, what I’m interested in exploring is its result. What does it bring about in us? How are we changed? What are its implications?

On Wednesday, I stated that we must set our sights far higher than salvation as an end in and of itself, but rather upon the glory of God. But what does this mean? Let’s look first at salvation itself. If you are an evangelical protestant, odds are pretty good that you associate “getting saved” with sitting a Gospel-bearing friend who is speaking perhaps with the aid of a tract or systematic arrangement of Bible verses and praying a scripted “sinners’ prayer.” Following repentance is a sigh and a proclamation: “Wow, I feel…better.”

And by no means is there anything wrong with that. I’m a product of it. I apologize if the language appears cynical. My only criticism lies in the manner in which we have “systematized” the Gospel of Christ. I am not convinced that it needs to be (or should be). I’ll discuss this in a later post (or perhaps a series, if you’re lucky).

That said, I find it curious that we are not immediately transformed into a wisp of water droplets rising speedily heavenward.

I take this to mean one of two things:
   - Salvation is meaningless.
   - We remain for a purpose.

Personal experience and stories of absolutely amazing adventures with God has taught me that the latter is the case.

But what is that purpose of salvation and repentance? Now that we have access to — and even more, drink of — the Living Water (John 4), what are we to do? Jeremiah 29:8 likens “the man who trusts in the Lord” to “a tree that sends out its roots by the stream” (ESV). Are we to consume as much Water as we can, growing tall and fat by its abundant provision, constantly laying out deeper, more extensive roots?

Certainly.

But Christ speaks of something more:

“Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.”
- Matthew 3:8 (ESV)

In this particular passage (see Chapter 3), Jesus was speaking to many Pharisees and Sadducees who were approaching John the Baptist to be baptized. In much harsher words than these, he told them that they had good reason to fear God. To them, he commanded: “bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (emphasis mine).

Pharisaical comparisons are quite fashionable. I do not intend to draw a parallel between the false piety of the Pharisees and Christ-followers who do not practice what follows. My interest lies in an analytical comparison of the “fruitlessness” of the Pharisees and the “fruitlessness” of Christ-followers.

I almost prefer the manner in which New King James renders the passage. While the ESV’s phrase “in keeping with” establishes a relationship between fruit and repentance, its nature is somewhat vague. The NKJV states: “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance” (emphasis mine).

“Christianity” as we have constructed it houses many hot-button theological issues. Among them: predestination vs. free will, rapture vs. Heaven descending, eternal security vs. “Lose Your Salvation in Two Easy Steps,” and a host of others. Another popular dichotomy: faith vs. works.

I submit that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8).
But I further contend that a saving faith will result in a change of action.

look for more soon.

grace and peace,

-c. scott andreas

note: this is part two in a multi-part series

I should be clear about a few things. Before we begin to explore the life of a saved human being, it is important that we first examine the purpose of salvation.

It is an incredibly mysterious thing, that the Creator of the Universe, finding his creation lacking and corrupt, would seek to reform and renew it rather than wipe it off the face of the earth. Yet this is precisely the case. Moreover, this atonement required a sacrifice of blood under the law of the Covenant. Only a sacrifice “without blemish” (ESV; Lev. 1:3) was acceptable — only that which God cherished most could atone for the sin of all mankind. So He gave His Son, “one in being with the Father” (Nicene Creed), to bear the iniquity of all. This beloved person of the trinity was cursed and “hung on a tree,” put “under God’s curse” (ESV; Deut. 21:22).

I’ll not attempt to “solve the mystery” as I’m not convinced it can be done. Such incomprehensible, undeserved, and unearnable love is beyond explanation. But I think it reveals something about God’s purpose.

A mere dwarf standing upon the shoulders of giants, I have arrived at the same conclusion in which many before me have found rest. In all things, God’s purpose is to glorify Himself. Jonathan Edwards delivers a profound explication upon this subject, rooted deeply in scripture and true to life. He introduces this concept with Isaiah 48:11 in which God speaks to Israel concerning his reasons for purifying the people:

For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another. (ESV)

The ultimate purpose of redemtion, therefore, is that God might be glorified. Though this appears somewhat selfish prima facie, it is perhaps the most beneficent of all He could do. Dan Waugh dedicated a significant portion of a message to unpacking this concept, available at http://www.connexiononline.org. Unfortunately, I cannot recall the title of the message - please leave a comment if you do.

The purpose of this series, however, is to unpack the idea that “being saved” as the ultimate aim of man is a very limiting view, indeed. I submit that we must set our sights much higher — upon the glory of God. Though it is by nothing of ourselves that we work toward bringing him what he deserves, we have been endowed with the tools to do so (again, by nothing of ourselves).

And it would be a shame not to use them.

more soon.

-scott

note - this is part one of a three-part series

As a student at IU, I am studying Communication and Culture. I recently added Religious Studies as a second major. I love them both. Both are composed of modes of thought that fascinate me. There is something special about being able to study people, understand how we are influenced, why we do what we do, and to uncover the hidden philosophies, assumptions, and mythologies that govern our lives. But there’s a problem. People (be they parents, distant family, new friends, etc.) like to ask one particular question.

“What are you going to do with that?”

I find this question perplexing and ultimately troubling. Though I find Communication and Culture and Religious Studies to be intensely interesting, the former has little to do with my career goal while the latter is absolutely impractical. Should someone ask The Question, I have a response ready.

“I am going to hang it on the wall.”

Most reply with a dissatisfied “hmm” or try to push me to be a little more specific. When pushed, I’ll randomly respond with one of about five career paths I’ve considered.

Pushy people think I want to be a lot of things.

Though my retort is lighthearted and perhaps flippant, I can’t help but feel a little irresponsible inside. I can’t shake the feeling that I’m halfway through with my undergraduate study and that I’ll only have the opportunities that I have today for a little while longer. I’m made to feel as if I am wasting something. Why work so hard to achieve something great, then put it in a frame and let it sit?
What I am getting at is that there is an innate notion in our culture is that once we achieve something — a degree, a job, a home, a new toy — we should do something with it.

I can’t help but think that the same is true for salvation.

I find it very difficult to believe that God Almighty would send His Son — a part of Himself — to be beaten, abused, neglected, and condemned in order that we might have something with which to adorn our office.

Yes, we are saved by this sacrifice and His resurrection — I affirm that with great joy. But what are you going to do with it? Sit there on your couch and be saved? Enjoy a grande caramel macchiato and be saved? Honestly, what does that profit anyone? What does that profit God?

With this, I respectfully submit that there is much more to salvation than “being saved.”

look for part two of “So now what?” soon.

Comments are fixed now - sorry about that. Thanks to Paul Helms for pointing out the gaffe.

I can’t help but smile at the idea of me inviting someone to disagree with me without providing a means to do so. That said, there you are.

best,

-scott