Ergun Caner is a shallow trollup.

One of the worst sermons I’ve ever heard on dealing with sin. Thanks, Ergun. At least you’re still “edgy”.

Now, I will fully admit that the first remark, while hyperbolous, is a bit indefensible. Ergun Caner may be many things but shallow is probably not one of them.  The second remark I completely stand by and I will defend that remark presently.

The truth is, Ergun’s sermon last night really was one of the worst treatments of dealing with sin that I’ve ever heard.  I would love to try to walk you through the entire sermon, but I can’t.  It’s impractical and it hasn’t been posted online as of writing.  (But you can always look here)

Instead I will summarize my biggest objections.

He used the scripture as a jumping off point, but little else.

It’s actually really difficult to find any strong connection between the scripture and what was said.  I don’t say that to be dramatic, I say that because I seriously have almost no clue how his advice and the scripture being used related.   The scripture (James 1:13-20) deals with a few ideas which he briefly touched on:

1. God does not and cannot tempt us.
2. We are tempted because of our own flesh.
3. Sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. (Which he interpreted as a warning to believers that God will literally take your life if you sin too much…a position I completely disagree with)
4. Every good thing is from God
5. Be quick to hear, slow to speak
6. Anger does not produce the righteousness of God.

Ok, that’s all of the points in the scripture.  Unfortunately, this was only examined for maybe 5 minutes and seemed to have almost no relationship to the rest of his points.

You can even argue that this scripture gives little to no direct advice on the topic of habitual sin.

He mocked those who need the most grace. He discouraged healthy vulnerability.

One of his first targets for ridicule are those he deems “too” honest about their sins.  This was done in the form of a story about a church camp where a young man confesses to his cabin mates “I’m going to stop masturbating.”   Ergun treated this as indefensible and even went as far as making a joke about how undesirable it is for everyone to hold hands after that statement.

What is the problem with this? Well besides completely unnecessary and untoward humor, his example was an example of what we should be encouraging: transparency with issues of sin.  It also completely ignores the gargantuan struggle nearly every guy in the history of humankind has dealt with.

How eager is a freshman addicted to porn going to be to confess his sin to his dorm mates and seek their assistance after such flippant remarks?

A sermon is not stand-up is not a sermon.

While I am not against a sermon including humor, I am against a sermon being used as a vehicle for humor while forgetting the more important goals (bringing glory to God and grace to others).

Ergun rarely, it seems, knows where to draw the line.  Hence his painfully graphic description of sex education.  It was unfunny, uncomfortable, and inappropriate…especially for a mixed gender situation.

He went as far as to compare his experience viewing charts of female anatomy to “finding the Holy Grail”.

That’s going to be a lot of help for those kids struggling with impure thoughts.

His advice was man centered and humanistic in approach.

Everything else aside, this is what kills me.  There is a wealth of Holy Spirit inspired teaching in the Bible on dealing with sin and understanding sin and freeing ourselves from it, unfortunately Ergun used none of it.  His alliterated five step approach included these:

• Flee (get away from the sin)
• Follow (not really sure…he didn’t explain this one)
• Fight (fight off the temptation?)
• Fade (get away from everything)
• Fail (start fresh when you fail)

Now, in purely human terms you might make the argument that some of these steps are practical, and they are. Certainly a case can be made for fleeing, fighting, fading, et cetera, but what is wrong with this approach? What is it leaving out? The Holy Spirit.

People who deal with habitual sin are all too familiar with the white knuckle, buckle down, try as hard as you can approach.  Reaffirming it as something we “try really hard at” in our own strength is useless.

• He made no mention of Jesus as our sympathizer, tempted as we are tempted but without sin.
• He made no mention of the transforming work that Jesus does in our lives. How he fills us with the desire for righteousness instead of sin.
• He made no mention of the spiritual context of 1 Corinthians 10:13.  That our way of escape is something that the Holy Spirit leads us to if we are willing to be led.
• He made no mention of our call to be slaves to righteousness instead of slaves to sin.
• He made no mention of Paul’s call that we consider ourselves as “dead to sin”.
• He made no mention of living in accountability with one another and the Bible’s call to confess our sins to each other.
• He made no mention of the role of prayer.

He did mention in passing that Jesus helps us with temptation but absolutely no practical advice on how to get from here (white knuckle, try as hard as you can) to there (dead to sins, alive to Christ).

How depressing! As someone who absolutely knows the pain, sorrow, and defeat of habitual sin it is unthinkable to me that he would take this approach.

But it gets worse, he summarized his advice with a few suggestions. He said that when we sin we have to be willing to admit to people “Yeah, I messed up. I can’t do that again.”  Ok, that’s great…now how does that apply to your “I am going to stop masturbating” story?

He referred to couples who “mess up” and said that someone in that relationship needed to say “Ok, we’re never going to do this again.”  Wow, that’s novel!  As if there weren’t hundreds of couples in that room who are promising each other that each and every time they fail.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

And that is why I said the things I said.  Ergun Caner did a disservice to people who desperately needed help in their desire to live righteously.   He completely let them down.

Sigh.

In the last few minutes, it seemed that even Ergun realized his sermon had left his control.  He began to desperately try to reign it in and connect it in someway to scripture.  It was way too late.

In truth it made the whole thing seem insincere.

But I don’t think Ergun’s problem is insincerity. Ergun’s problem (in my less than humble opinion) has always been that he gets lost in his persona.  He focuses so much on being a bad ass and being novel that he forget his primary calling.

Shouldn’t the president of the theological seminary’s heart and breath be to bring glory to God and show love to others?  Shouldn’t entertainment and novelty be the very last goal?

I welcome your thoughts.  Especially those of you who heard this sermon.

At the heart of this goal is selfishness. If we are honest, winning others to Christ by keeping the F-word off of public air ways and keeping pornography on the top shelf in Barnes in Nobles is ridiculous. You do not win others to Christ by inmposing Christless morality on culture. (In truth, none of us “win” anyone to Christ. This concept contradicts the saving power that God solely posseses.)

The true goal of this movement is often to protect ourselves. We don’t want to see sex on TV, so we lobby the FCC to ban it. We don’t want gays to marry because it makes us uncomfortable…so we band against it.

But this misses the entire point of the New Testament. Nowhere in Paul’s letters do you see him exhorting churches to change their culture or hold sinners to a higher standard.

Sinners sin. It’s what they do. It’s what we all do apart from God. Boycotting those who do, protesting their actions, feigning horror when they blaspheme (Kathy Griffin anyone?) is ridiculous. 

As Christians, we should expect the unbeliever to behave as such. We should not expect them to tiptoe around our belief system and pay homage to our truths.  This is not a Christian nation and we cannot make it such.

Now, just to be clear: I’m not saying we should not be outraged when someone blasphemes the one true, living God. We should…but that better be the real source. It better not be our own desire to censor unpleasantness.  For a biblical analogy, think of the tearing of clothes as a response to blasphemy. It was an insincere theatrical gesture as often as it was an expression of legitimate grief.  

Our response to public blaspheme and sin…public or private…should be compassion. Compassion for the lost souls that do not know what they say or do.  Sound familiar? It’s how Jesus responded directly to blasphemy as he hung on the cross.

The apostles did not band together and protest Jesus’ crucifixion, nor did Jesus encourage them to.  They tried to lovingly bring others into the light that they had been shown.

That’s what we should do. Any other reaction is a waste of energy and more harmful to the Kingdom than good.

Thoughtfully,
Clifton

Well, let’s start with the word “spiritualize”. When you spiritualize, you give spiritual meaning to something with presumably no prior spiritual element. (I’m speaking from a Christian standpoint here.)  For the most part, spiritualizing is a bad thing because it usually means some well meaning person is trying to find spiritual value where none exists or should exist.

• Example: “Drinking is a spiritual gift from God. I will not deny myself the spiritual fruits of this activity.”

Your first instinct may be that no right thinking person would say such a thing, but you would be wrong. I’ve heard someone say this nearly verbatim. But, you are also correct. No right thinking person would say this!

You can also overspiritualize something that is spiritual. (If I may make up the word “overspiritualize”.)

• Example: “I believe that the gift of tongues is crucial in the life of a Christian. Those who do not speak in tongues have limited intimacy with their creator.”

I do not have to convince you that some believe this. Clearly, this is an example of taking something spiritual and trying to make it more important than it really is.

Now that we have defined our terms, how does this apply to relationships?

I believe that popular Christian culture is teaching false, dangerous ideas that are giving people unrealistic ideals and a misguided sense of responsibility. 

I have seen this effect my own life, and I’ve seen it effect the lives of my friends.

Myth: The most important task God has for young Christian singles is to find that one* person God has for them.

Fact: God probably has a lot of other things He wants you to do while you are still single and can still focus all of your energies on His work.

A relationship can be the most distracting part of a person’s life. Take a look around you at the love struck couples and you will agree that it hardly breeds an environment where decisive, responsible living is easily accomplished.  Being in love is great, I have been in love…I hope to be in love again. But I know that that feeling is not and should not be the goal of my life. It is not the source of my salvation or the healing balm to help me through the hard times.  Yet all around me, I hear sermons, read books, and see couples treating their relationships as spiritual sanctuaries. Treating every date as a picture of Christ’s love for the church.

*I will probably write a book on this word someday.

Myth: It is important for a guy to be the spiritual leader in a relationship.

Fact: This is true in only one sense and not in the sense most Christians use it.

I have heard hundreds of times from girls that I know and don’t know that they are looking for someone who is a spiritual leader.  Whole dating conferences are constructed on this premise. The result is disastrous. Guys attempt to be the spiritual head of their girlfriends and perform a role specifically set aside for…husbands.   In truth, it is not only not a good idea, but highly inappropriate for a guy to assume this role in a dating relationship.  In a dating relationship, no ownership in a spiritual or literal sense exists between a guy and a girl.  The girl is still her father’s daughter and reponsible only to him and God.

In actuality, the only way a guy should lead is by example. He should do the right thing, and hope that his initiative helps her do the right thing. He is not a spiritual shepherd or instigator and should not act as one. Nor should girls pressure guys to be such.  Girls should be looking for a guy who possesses the potential to be a spiritual leader, not one who is willing to immediately assume the role.

Myth: In a relationship between two Christians,  it is important that they pray, study the Bible, and go to church together.

Fact: This is a lie from Satan.

Excited about their role as spiritual leaders, many guys try to make time for spiritual activities in their relationships. Or ironically, many girls push this idea on their boyfriends so that he will be a spiritual leader.  Not only do they have no obligation to do these things, doing so is probably a bad idea. 

In truth, prayer and bible study are very personal pursuits and introducing them prematurely into a premarital relationship is not a good idea. Unlike marriage, two people in a relationship do not belong to each other. They do not function as a spiritual unit and should not try to.  If we are honest, intimate prayer and devotional time with a person of the opposite sex whom you are highly attracted to is a recipe for sin more than spiritual growth.

I recently had a friend tell me how important it was that he and his girlfriend attend the same church. I had to stop him in his tracks. “No it isn’t. It is entirely unimportant.” Going to church together is a recipe for more distraction and awkward break ups. If two people who are in a dating relationship go to different churches, they should keep doing so. If they go to the same church and sit with different groups of people–they should continue to do so!

Overspiritualizing relationships leads to bad expectations and relationships that never seem to function the way they should.

Now go fall in love.

However, somethings do upset me. When I see Christianity being morphed daily into something it isn’t, I get upset. When I see it being disfigured by people who don’t realize they are disfiguring it, I get upset.

And when the forefront of the Christian movement seems wholly on board with such desiccation, I get upset. And most dangerously, when I see the fanfare of people who should know better, the excitement they get when they say “”Now Jesus will be popular again!”", I get really upset.

Welcome to 2007. Christianity is a product and we are the salesmen.

And just like every product, we have to repackage it. No one will buy last year’s cellphone. Likewise, no one will convert to last year’s Jesus.

Think back a little. Think about the headlines and trends relevant (or irrelevant?)  to Christianity, and you’ll see the problem the way I do. Yes, I have examples.

WWJD, the question that never was answered.

I can’t think of a more harmful and hypocritical movement in Christian culture than the WWJD movement. What Would Jesus Do? To this day, no one knows the answer to this question. At least, they wouldn’t by looking to the people who wore (and wear) such paraphenlia.

I remember that many well intentioned people at the time thought it was a serious move towards Christ-like behavior in our culture. “”How can they sin with such a poignant, rhetorical question on their wrist or around their neck?”"

A key component to WWJD was missing from the 90’s movement, however. The original concept by Charles M. Sheldon’s book In His Steps was far from rhetorical…it was crucial. The characters in In His Steps asked the question as a way of life. Before any action was taken, the question “”What would Jesus do?”" was not only posed, but answered and followed regardless of consequences.

Very different.

Christian T-shirts, just another part of taking up your cross.

“”Effel get your camera, the world is advertising Christ…and they are soooo clever!”"

One of the most nauseating trends in my lifetime is that of the obscene amount of “”Christian”" paraphenalia available to today’s youngsters. Each shirt has a “”hip”" way of sharing the gospel. Because, as we all know, the heart of Jesus’ teachings lies somewhere close to…copyright infringement.

• Calvin Klein becomes “”Christ Is King”" through the magic of photoshop.
• C.I.A. becomes “”Christ Is Alive!”"
• A DaVinci Code logo turns into “”Divine God”", which is stupid besides being deliciously circular.
• Fear Factor becomes “”Faith Factor”"
• Ad infinitum.
• Ad nauseum.

What exactly is accomplished by these shirts? Well, embarassment for one. Let’s face it, while kids are still walking around with these stupid “”testimonies”", we as a Christian body whose churches and ministers overwhelmingly support such rubbish look ridiculous. Christ looks ridiculous.

Someone make it stop, please!

Purpose Driven Branding, collect all our playsets and accessories.

Another movement of the last few years that warmed the hearts of evangelical cultural observers was the shockingly successful Rick Warren book Purpose Driven Life.

Now I have no personal problem with Rick Warren. I think he has handled his fame with fairly consistent humility. I think the book is decent. Or, was decent. Decent before it became wildly popular. Soon, everything from day planners to calnendars to tshirts to coffe mugs, and yes, even socks had the purpose driven logo on it. The purpose driven franchise took over. Another good Christian concept had its soul raped by consumerism.

Another Christian movement got media attention, but probably more books and sun visors were sold than people convicted of their need of a savior. Thank you, America. Thank you, corporate Christianity.

(Writing about this crap is making me re-live it. I’m getting mad. But the show must go on!)

Left Behind, an excersise in misssing the point.

Left Behind is another ridiculously popular Christian cultural movement that swept the nation in the 90’s and continues to this day.

I don’t have a problem with books that illustrate some of the more obscure and prophetical parts of scripture. I mean, I think it is dangerous to be more specific than the Bible is. And I think that most evangelicals accept the pre-Tribulation, pre-Millenial return of Christ because it is what they’ve always been taught–and let’s face it, it’s the one that works out best for us in the end and I suspect our support of it is at times less theological than psychological.

I digress.

The point is, when Left Behind became popular, corporate Christians and those who share their unbridled enthusiasm saw an opportunity. “”Finally, God will be popular and millions will come to Christ.”"

Besides the fact that I think it is fundamentally flawed to approach evangelism from an end times perspective, it is also fundamentally flawed to try to make God popular. But with this in mind, Left Behind went from a popular book series to a whole product line. This reached its comical potential with Left Behind: The Movie. Tim LaHaye wanted it to be big. He wanted a box-office smash with special effects Spielberg would be proud of. What he got was what every Christian movie gets, a cheesy B-movie starring Kirk Cameron.

Sadly, the movement continues. They made a sequel (which was even worse than the first). And recently, they released a–you guessed it–video game. They call it “”Left Behind: Tribulation Force”".

*sigh*

The video game dramatizes the awkward circumstances of belivers post-Rapture. All intentions aside, when prayer becomes a game feature, spirituality has a point system, and evangelism is an objective to winning a game it’s safe to say we really don’t understand what we’re doing.

The makers of the video game are hoping that this will encourage discussion and interest in Christianity among teens.

I refuse to explain why this is silly.

Mel Gibson, because being a hero has a beginning and an end.

I’m not here to criticize The Passion. I’m not even here to criticize Mel Gibson. I like Mel Gibson. I’m here to criticise some poor decisions made on the part of Christians when they choose people to represent us.

When Mel Gibson put his hollywood muscle behind The Passion, Mel Gibson as a person dissapeared and Mel Gibson as a angel of light descended from heaven. Mel Gibson became the man we as Christians offered up as our example of a true super Christian. He was “”the one”" sent to turn the world on its head with a box office hit.

Unfortunately, the interview proccess for the job only required stardom. No other factors were taken into consideration. This requirement being well fulffilled Mel Gibson was clumsily thrust into the lime light by the body of Christ as someone we apparently wanted to represent Christians and Christ.

What am I saying? I’m saying we got carried away. People raved about Mel Gibson. People talked about how wonderful he was. And to me at the time, I couldn’t help but wonder how many of these new fans had ever even seen one of his movies. I think what was more important at the time was that a hollywood star, and a big one at that, was for Jesus.

That was all that mattered, because our Christian cultural mind told us that this might be the key to winning the world for Christ.

Unfortunately, our angel of light also was pulled over driving drunk and saying things that involved the F-word and the Jewish race. See why we should be more careful?

I can’t help but think that all of our Mel Gibson praise worked. So when he fall, so did Christ in the world’s eyes. Go read some headlines from the scandal this summer. They remember Mel Gibson the super Christian. Even if we’ve forgotten.

Bah. I could go on. I’m tired of this.

Let me summarize, Christians have let Western Culture and the “”American Dream”" poison the gospel. We’ve reorganized into corporate structures that mimick Wall Street. We’ve become hyper concerned about numbers and growth structures. We’ve hired marketing teams to “”reach the world for Christ”". We’ve paradoxically taken the world’s idols and tried to stamp “”Jesus”" on them and sell them in Lifeway bookstores. We’ve robbed and pilfered Christianity.

And I’m sick of it.

We are Christians today not because Jesus was ever popular…he never was and never will be. We are Christians precisely because He wasn’t popular. And He promised us that we would be persecuted and hated for His sake also.

Likewise, Paul didn’t win the world for Christ by hosting concerts at the Roman colloseum. He did it by being willing to take the fall. And everytime he was left for dead, he praised God that he was able to be pesecuted for His sake.

Christianity is about love. Not culture wars. Not branding. Not product development life cycles.

But, as I write this, most churches in America are selling Christ like some would sell a new car. A brand, new Christianity 2007 LTD. Lots of accessories, but no heart. I bet I could make a good Chrysler logo rip off for that. That’ll preach.

*sigh*

I’ve said enough.