The Second Is Like Unto It
Jeff Sharlet’s Harper’s article ”Soldiers of Christ: Inside America’s Most Powerful Megachurch” has gotten quite a bit of attention recently on many of the sites I visit. Sharlet visits Pastor Ted Haggard’s New Life Church in Colorado Springs and writes a fairly colorful piece about the 11,000-member church that has sprung up around Haggard’s particular brand of free-market, spiritual-warfare theology.
Now, I have very little experience with churches like this, so it’s hard for me to know if and where Sharlet may be sensationalizing his experience at New Life. I do know that it’s not terribly difficult to make pretty standard “Jesus-speak” and Christian ritual come off as being fairly creepy. But as I read the article, it’s not really the worship style or the ostentatious building that bothered me. It was the metaphors. And sadly, I know all too well that these metaphors do exist in many churches.
One metaphor that runs throughout Sharlet’s article is the language and imagery of the Church at War — from huge angel statues with broadswords to a children’s area called “Fort Victory” to an overwhelming emphasis on the theme of spiritual warfare. This is an image that I wrestled with in some of my earliest posts. I imagine it’s a topic I’ll revisit, but for now, I wanted to write about a different metaphor that was equally pervasive — that of the “free-market church.”
Fred Clark at Slacktivist has already written a nice post in response to Haggard’s claim that “They’re pro-free markets, they’re pro-private property… That’s what evangelical stands for.” While I’m equally bothered by the conflation of political economy and church doctrine, and while I hope you’ve seen threads of that throughout my writing so far, that’s still not what bothered me most.
What bothered me most was this passage:
In devising New Life’s small-group system, Pastor Ted says that he asked himself and his staff a simple question: Do you like your neighbors? And, for that matter, do you even know your neighbors? The answers he got — the Golden Rule to the contrary — were “Not really” and “No.” Okay, said Pastor Ted, so why would you want to be in a small group with them? His point was that arbitrary small groups would make less sense than self-selected groups organized around common interests. Hence New Life members can choose among small groups dedicated to motorcycles, or rock climbing, or homeschooling, or protesting outside abortion clinics.
If you don’t like your neighbors or even know them, why would you want to be in a small group with them? Are you kidding me??
To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from Anne Lamott, you can safely assume you’ve created a God in your own image when God happens to prefer the same people you do.
Look, I understand this feeling. I’ve led small groups before, and I’ll be the first to admit that it can be challenging to foster community in a group that doesn’t necessarily like each other. In the context of our culture, self-selected groups organized around common interests do make more sense. But Jesus’ entire ministry flew in the face of what made sense in the context of culture.
Love your neighbor as you would love yourself. That’s challenging enough, but Jesus couldn’t leave it there. Love your enemy. Love the tax collectors and prostitutes. Love the Samaritan. Love the unlovely. When you throw a party, don’t invite friends, family or rich neighbors; invite the poor, the crippled, the alien among you. Over and over, Jesus called his followers to a life that was counter cultural.
To return to Haggard’s question, why would we want to be in community with people we don’t like or don’t know? Because that kind of community requires humility and empathy and listening and selflessness and courage and faith. That kind of community forces us to see in each other the same dignity and worth that God sees. It stretches us and unsettles us and helps us grow.
But free-market theology wants nothing to do with this. It’s too costly. Too hard. It’ll never sell.
Free-market theology is a rebranding of God to capture the largest market share. It starts from the question “What kind of God do people want?” and then responds with a targeted, fine-tuned package of Christianity. It’s meeting people where they’re most comfortable and saying, “Yeah, we’ve got a God for that.”
This isn’t just a top-down phenomenon, either. In today’s car culture, with a whole menu of denominations and worship styles for us to choose from, it’s somewhat natural that we become consumers of church. And I’m certainly not immune. My wife and I took a year to find the church we attend, and to get there every Sunday, we drive about a half hour across the Bay. That’s a far cry from the arbitrary community of the early church or of the historical church model: the parish.
I think all this choice we’ve created is a bug, not a feature. Churches actually compete with each other for attendees and financial resources. And this competition shatters the idea of one body, one Spirit, one hope, one faith, one baptism — the unity that is the bedrock for the diversity within the church. Look, if you succeed in this marketplace, it doesn’t mean your church is more godly. It simply means your church is more popular.
God help us.
15 Ripples from “The Second Is Like Unto It”
shaug says:
June 1, 2005 at 10:06 am
I think I’m only going to be able to read this article in spurts before I get too upset and have to take a break. Here’s how far I made it for now…
<shudder>
zalm says:
June 1, 2005 at 11:06 am
Yeah, the article is quite long and, as I said, fairly sensational. Whether it’s accurate, I cannot say, but there’s enough there that rings true to me that it’s still upsetting.
I was struck by that line, too. Not everybody bailed on Wheaton, but about the time we left, several organizations were preparing to skip town, many for Colorado Springs. Not that it’s our fault.... Or is it?
In other news, the blockquote tag works inside of comments. Cool.
Jim says:
June 1, 2005 at 11:06 am
There is a latent assumption widespread in the church today that which says that once you’ve started small groups, you’re on your way to community. In reality small groups and community (koinonia, the kind of arbitrary NT church community you referred to in your excellent post) are very different things. One we’ve got plenty of, the other, well…
Its totally okay for a church to have small groups based on interests, geography, or whatever as long as they don’t start thinking they’ve got community “covered” by doing so.
You don’t have to be in a small group with your neighbors that you don’t like. The more important question though, is why don’t you like (love) your neighbor? THe more imporant issue when the most common answer to the ‘like your neighbor?’ question is ‘NO!’, is “what must we do to repent of this obvious breaking of the most important commandment?” not, “how do we then avoid those neighbors as much as possible.”
You’re right, Zalm. God help us!
I think God has been trying to do just that, the problem is we don’t want the kinda help God offers.
Non-Prophet says:
June 1, 2005 at 11:06 am
Check out this:
here
and this:
here
and this:
here
all good stuff.
zalm says:
June 1, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Good insights, Jim.
Depending on the size of the church, I do think it can often be easier for a certain kind of community to blossom in small groups than in the church as a whole. And perhaps the answer really shouldn’t be small groups but smaller churches. It probably comes as little surprise that I’m not a big fan of the megachurch model.
But you’re right, just having small groups doesn’t at all mean that such community will follow. It’s something we have to learn how to do. Or, perhaps more accurately, it’s something that we can accomplish only by unlearning a lot of what our culture teaches us about community and intimacy.
Unregulated Female says:
June 1, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Sounds like the self-centered mega churches are still alive and kicking (all the way to the bank) This type of church reminds me that if you can demonize something or someone, you can create a following who will help fund your nefarious schemes. WHY is the enemy always seemed as “out there” rather than in my own selfish ways??
I used to espouse this very thing Haggard promotes and have spent much time repenting and turning away from such religious addictions.
zalm says:
June 1, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, UF. (I absolutely love the moniker, but that’s really the only good way to abbreviate it, isn’t it?)
I wholeheartedly agree with your frustrations. I think this is particularly present in the image of the Church at War. While I only touched on it in this post, I echo your concerns in the earlier post that I linked to above.
I’m not terribly familiar with Haggard’s offshoot of Pentecostalism, but it seems to me that this particular metaphor is used less to increase the church’s coffers (although that’s certainly an instrumental part of extending their vision and probably seen as one indicator of their success) as it is to forge unity, clarify identity, and extend control. Unity, identity and authority are all good things, properly conceived. I just think the metaphor of Christians as soldiers in a battle with Evil is awfully problematic.
I look forward to reading more about your journey on your site.
Unregulated Female says:
June 2, 2005 at 10:06 am
Thanks, I love the “UF” thing as well. If there was no money to be had, would Haggard and the leaders of this Kingdom Now/ Dominion Theory be massed produced? I was deeply entrenched in this circle for years as a “leader-in-training,” and the more I saw behind-the-scenes, the more I knew that fleecing the sheep was in full gear. I believe it is unfortunate that these people don’t see changing their world through the integrity of their personal journey w/ God as more vital than praying in tongues at an evil force out “there.” (sigh) Thanks for being a part of the journey…
Brandon says:
June 2, 2005 at 11:06 am
Harumpf.
That is all.
Jeff Sharlet says:
June 2, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Dude builds a church in the round with six movie screens, 8 fog machines, a light show, and multiple bands—and you’re calling ME sensationalist?
New Life Church is sensationalist, not my description of it, and as for accuracy, Harper’s has the most grueling fact checkers I’ve encountered at any magazine. On top of that, I’ll always gladly confess to any errors I’ve made. I’ve learned, for instance, that I was wrong to say that James Dobson wasn’t at the White House when Bush signed the partial birth abortion bill, an error I made by relying on newspaper accounts, always a bad idea. Dobson was there. Also, Linda Burton did not tell me she worked at a Red Lobster; she had worked at a Popeye’s, but an editing error made it Red Lobster, when, in fact, it was another New Lifer who worked there. One might also argue with my definition of jihad, as one of my colleagues here at NYU does.
But facts are facts, and everything quoted in the article is on tape. I certainly didn’t attempt to make the church itself seem creepy—personally, I like fog machines and glow strings, although I thought the band was competent but kind of bland. One might rightly guess, though, that I’m not happy about the military metaphors with which Pastor Ted encourages his flock to understand God and the world.
zalm says:
June 2, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Jeff,
Thanks for stopping by and for sharing more about your writing process. For what it’s worth, I found your piece to be quite thought-provoking, and it led me to The Revealer, which I hadn’t read before. Thanks for both.
I’m sure you have taken some heat for your portrayal of New Life, and I would imagine that is one of the difficult parts of your job. But I didn’t at all intend for my post to be an attack piece on your article, and I’m sorry that after reading it you feel the need to defend yourself.
After encouraging my readers to read your story, I felt it was only fair to them, to you as the author and to the church as the subject to say that the only knowledge I have regarding New Life and Pastor Ted is what I read in your article. And since I was getting ready to use your article to criticize Haggard’s theology and church model, I wanted first to be gracious enough to allow for the possibility that you may have sensationalized your descriptions.
My initial disclaimer aside, I tried to take your article at face value in the rest of my post and in my follow-up post.
I’ve enjoyed reading the discussion that your article has precipitated on The Revealer. In a recent post, you wrote:
One of the primary reasons that I started this site was because I no longer wanted to be a quiet cringer. I’m still thinking through a lot, but I’m trying to do so publicly, to be another voice, however small, in the growing group of Christians that are voicing their disapproval, fear and anger over several worrisome trends in the American church.
Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts. You are welcome here any time, Jeff. And I look forward to reading your future articles and posts.
Blessings,
zalm
unk says:
June 3, 2005 at 7:06 am
I’ll start off by saying that I can’t talk/debate the bible/Christianity like you can. However, I would like to contribute this comment and I think it goes along with this thread.
The church where I was married was an american baptist church of medium size and medium-high popularity. They had some live music in their services, but it wasn’t overpowering. I had a traditional methodist service upbringing, and this church was quite similar.
Over the years they became more popular. They started adding more services, even some on Saturday nights. They began to add more live music. I started to become critical when they added a slide show of the sermon. All in all these aren’t bad things, but just things I was not comfortable with. Then tragedy hit. A tornado destroyed the altar. The church took this opportunity to rebuild. And rebuild they did - a huge new high-tech worship hall to hold more people.
Services have begun to go overboard. The live music, in my mind, consists more of over-glorified singers than worshipers of Christ. I feel like I am at a show. If I enjoy it, do I pay more tithes? The real kicker is they have removed the word “baptist” from their name to appeal to a wider audience. Needless to say we don’t go there that often anymore. Mainly Christmas eve services because we spend that night with the in-laws who still attend there.
I’m with you on the smaller churches. Unfortunately I’ve seen a few die off.
Thanks for sharing your opinions. I enjoy reading your posts.
zalm says:
June 3, 2005 at 10:06 am
Thanks for your encouraging words. I think our ability to write about or debate the Bible is much less important than our willingness to tell our own stories and our openness to learn from the stories of others.
Apart from the tornado, I think that your story of what happened in your church is probably similar to what happens in a lot of churches. I’d be interested to hear what other people think is the reason for why churches feel the need to grow so large.
One idea that I’ve been thinking about recently is something that Zossima wrote in the post I linked to in my second post about Haggard. In essence, he wonders if we’ve so internalized the idea that the church is supposed to “have a building, sing songs, and preach” that we think the road to a successful church is to have a bigger building, glitzier music teams, and more polished multimedia sermons.
But what if that’s not how the church is supposed to define itself?
Jim says:
June 3, 2005 at 1:06 pm
In essence, he wonders if we’ve so internalized the idea that the church is supposed to “have a building, sing songs, and preach” that we think the road to a successful church is to have a bigger building, glitzier music teams, and more polished multimedia sermons.
But what if that’s not how the church is supposed to define itself?
It isn’t. Never has been.
At the risk of being guilty of bad ‘blotiguette’, I’d like to point to a couple of posts of mine, here, and here both of which address this issue from the angle of ‘success’. Don’t know if they’re any good, but I think they do relate to the burgeoning discussion on church size/definition/success.
Here’s to more discussion and to a fuller real-ization of the body of Christ.
zalm says:
June 5, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Sorry that I’ve neglected responding to the two posts you offered, Jim…
This may be bad etiquette as well, but I might double post this here and on your site.
Like your other commenter, Eric, I particularly like your abandonment of the term “success” for the term “health.” Actually, I agree wholeheartedly with all of his comments.
I’m not sure that I have any really quantifiable indicator to add to your discussion. But as for qualifiable indicators, I wonder if my most recent comment in my other post explains what I might have to offer.
To restate: I wonder if a set of indicators of the health of a church is the extent to which its members are able to know each other and the full community, love each other (particularly those who are different), resolve conflict in love, hold each other accountable, and radiate that loving connectedness outward to heal the community and creation around it.
Obviously, those aren’t terribly practical indicators that you can plot on a chart. And maybe, like Eric says, it would be foolish to try to quantify them, like trying to measure how big God is. But I guess at this point in my journey to understand the church, that’s what I have to offer.
You ask great questions, and I’ve valued your input in my journey. Thanks.
-----