Saturday, May 2, 2009

Theology on Tap

A few weeks ago I saw a Facebook ad for a Bible study called Theology on Tap.  It advertised "Straight Talk! Hard Facts! Real Answers!" about faith, religion and what to do about it.  More than that, they hosted a speaking series Thursday nights at the Oregon Express (a neighborhood bar on Fifth St. in case you don't know).  I thought it looked interesting, so I went to check it out last week.

I should have done more research first.

Since I didn't know what to expect, I kept my eye out for "clues" or indicators about the night.  My first clue about the evening was the location.  What kind of Christian group would be bold enough to host a theological speaking series at a bar?  I was too intrigued by the idea of a bunch of brazen, forward-thinking Christians reaching out to the drunk and temporarily sober to bother to see who ToT was affiliated with.  I found out later, but I should have checked it out first.

My second clue was Joseph.  Joseph was a stocky man rifling through two green storage tubs full of lined index cards, coiled speaker wires, smaller storage tubs, yellow flyers, homemade CDs and other random things you wouldn't associate with ministry unless you were in the business.  I introduced myself and told him I would be covering that night's session for my blog this week.  I also asked if I could talk with him afterwards.  He expressed his fear of being quoted and quickly busied himself by sorting small white paper squares from small white paper rectangles.

What kind of outreach worker doesn't want to talk to people about their ministry?  If he was shy, why didn't he just tell me who I could talk with?  I wasn't sure what to make of this second clue.  Befuddled, I found a table in the back near the door.

A few minutes later, a woman came over with an information card for me to fill out.  She wore a stick-on pre-printed name tag ("Bernadette") and was holding several sheets of printed labels.  No, wait.  Not labels.  Pre-printed name tags.

Clue three: What kind of outreach group has pre-printed name tags?  And who needs a name tag in a bar?  I quickly reasoned that the name tags promoted social interaction, and that the regulars had name tags already made.  I didn't let the fact that nobody was walking around to socialize distract me from my logical (and therefore correct) conclusion.

When Bernadette walked away, I noticed that the two tables in front of me had the homemade CDs stacked on them.  The CDs were colored in assorted pastels, almost like preschool Easter egg colors.  Not realizing that Easter pastels were the new trend in outreach circles, I took a look at the titles: "De-Bunking the DaVinci Code," "Harry Potter and the Paschal Theory" and other non-entry-level theological topics.  What theological novice would think that Harry Potter and The DaVinci Code were relevant to Christianity?  It took me a while to realize that this was clue four.

Other clues slipped past my senses over the next few minutes.  Most people had pre-printed name tags.  The sound guy played "One of These Days" by FFH (which, by the way, is 11 years old).  Judging by their clothes, nobody was poor.  In fact, most everybody looked like they attended church regularly.  What kind of outreach was this?

I got my answer when Bernadette took the mic and opened the night with a prayer.  Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- crossed themselves.  Except me.  Oh!  This was a Catholic program.

Then Bernadette introduced the evening's topic: How I Came to Love the Catholic Church.  This wasn't a Catholic outreach.  This was a Catholic discipleship group.

I found out just how Catholic about 30 seconds later.  The speaker, David Bennett, a religion teacher at a Catholic school in Marion, was talking about the conversion process he went through.  Not the conversion from unbeliever to believer (though that was part of the background).  He was talking about the conversion from Protestant to Catholic.

I spent the next half hour of my life listening to Bennett speak about Protestantism and Catholicism.  Some things I didn't agree with.  Some I did.  I don't agree that the Catholic church offers a more full relationship with Jesus than other Christian churches do.  I do agree that Protestants are slightly preoccupied with making church trendy.  Though I didn't quite know how to take some of the things he said (Protestants don't have a full deck of cards to use in their faith?), I could at least tell that he sincerely wanted to have the best relationship with God as he possibly could.

Overall, I think Bennett made an amazing point that night: the worst thing you can do is believe in God and not do anything about it.  For all of my misconceptions about the evening, I think ToT was a good thing.  Not my thing, but a good thing nonetheless.  

Thirty minutes into the talk, the group took a 10 minute intermission.  I took it as an opportunity to leave early.  It's not that I thought Bennett was a bad speaker.  On the contrary, he was quite interesting.  But he wasn't speaking to me.  He was speaking to the dozens of Catholics in the audience about why he felt like he was one of them.  It was a perfectly worthwhile venture, but not one that I felt I could be part of.

I think that Theology on Tap is a good idea, but I think it would be a better idea if it was an outreach.  After all, what's the point of meeting in a bar if only the church folk show up to participate?

Sunday, April 26, 2009

You can't please everybody

I read an article from US News.com this week about evangelical pastor Rick Warren's recent knack for garnering controversial attention from both political liberals and conservatives.  Warren, founding pastor of Saddleback Church, was chastised by conservatives for apparently toning down his support for Proposition 8, the now famous state bill that overturned same-sex marriage in California.  

You may recall that Warren was President Obama's choice to give the inaugural prayer.  You may also recall the criticism that sprang up before, during and after the invocation.  Warren was asked how he handled this controversy in an April 6 interview with Larry King.  The CNN.com transcript of the interview recorded Warren's reply:
Yes, you know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told. In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be... The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?... And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman.  And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn't...I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them.  And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn't... All of the criticism came from people that didn't know me.
The USNews.com article went on to describe the different reasons that political and religious parties were either happy or unhappy with Warren's remarks.  

I must say that I think most of the criticism I've read--both conservative and liberal--is founded on a you're-suppose-to-think-like-us mentality.  Many liberal critics have pointed out his stance on traditional marriage as proof of an anti-gay agenda.  Many conservatives have objected that he focuses on social issues, such as worldwide poverty and curing AIDS/HIV, more than on morality issues, such as abortion and homosexuality.  It seems that no matter what Warren does, somebody is unhappy with him.

The idea that church leaders are being subjected to such strong public opinions is somewhat disturbing to me.  Aside from the theological implications that a spiritual relationship with God can be democratic in nature (anyone want to take a vote on whether God will let us win the lottery today?), I believe a leader who changes a stance or belief based on what others think is not truly a leader.  (I believe the democratic process based on electing representatives to help determine the common good  is different from asking a spiritual leader to change their position based on popular opinion.)  

It reminds me of the apostle Paul's letter to the Christians in Galatia.  There were some teachers who came after Paul and taught that the Christians had to follow Jewish laws in addition to Christ's teachings (love God, love people).  Paul had just finished teaching them that they didn't have to follow the laws anymore because they had a relationship with God directly through Christ.  The church was being torn in two different directions.  Paul opens his letter by defending his motives as a leader.

"Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God?  Or am I trying to please men?  If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." -Gal. 1:10.

Paul goes on to tell the Galatians how foolish it is to change their beliefs based on popular teachings (or today, opinion).  He explains how he stood up to leaders who were swayed by public scrutiny, even the apostle Peter (Gal. 2:11-21), and he finishes by decrying the motives of said leaders (Gal. 4:17).

Granted, Paul was speaking to followers about leaders, not leaders about leadership, but I think that the same principle applies.  You don't change what you believe because popular opinion changes.

That said, I don't think Warren is changing his stance because of popular opinion.  I don't think he's changed his stance on anything.  I think that Warren's remarks during his interview imply that he isn't concerned with what people think so much as he is concerned that people know who he is and where he's coming from.

I don't know enough to know whether or not he's a good leader, but from what I've learned he seems to be a man of integrity.  Perhaps, when dealing with an opinionated public, that's the best we can hope for in our leaders.

Rick Warren's website is http://www.rickwarren.com
The screenshot of Warren's interview was found at http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid77824.asp