It's Halloween. Ever since the mid 90's, every Halloween my mind wanders back to earlier years. I grew up looking forward to Halloween; it ranked right up there with Christmas. That may sound awful, but what could be more fun to a kid than dressing in a scary outfit and going to people's houses and getting candy? I loved it, and our family participated in it every year until us kids grew out of it. It was after I grew out of it that things changed. My teens and twenty's years were in the 70's and 80's. During that time there was a very popular Christian evangelist/comedian named Mike Warnke. Warnke was sort of the Christian Forest Gump. He had done everything in his short life, and hearing his humorous stories about his many escapades delighted church audiences everywhere he spoke. Warnke traveled all over giving his personal testimony about how God had delivered him from being a satanic high priest. He also warned us about Halloween; on this night witches and Satan worshippers would regularly murder children in satanic rituals. To participate in this high satanic holiday on any level was to participate in the demonic. Warnke became the expert on all things Satan; we all believed him and he influenced a whole generation of Christians. Because of his testimony many churches chose to either have no event on October 31, or they went out of their way to make sure the event had nothing to do with Halloween. How could we have fun knowing that all those children were being sacrificed?

Since that time Warnke's testimony has come under great scrutiny. The Cornerstone Magazine article (vol. 21, issue 98,1992) exposed Warnke's Satan testimony as at the very least full of embellishments, but more probably complete fabrications. Although Warnke has admitted to some embellishment, he still hangs on to much of his previous line. I happen to believe that Cornerstone did a very good job of exposing Warnke's testimony and lifestyle as something far less than credible. I hold nothing against Warnke. I of all people know that nobody's perfect. God certainly forgives, so I do to.

The problem of Halloween, however, came up again when Sue and I began to have kids. At that time, to a great degree still under the influence of Warnke's testimony, we questioned whether our children should participate in Halloween. Did we want to raise them with a lack of sensitivity to evil things? Were we exposing them to the demonic by allowing them to trick-or-treat? Would allowing them to dress up like Spiderman, Frodo, or Mickey Mouse, and collect candy from the neighbors damage them spiritually? At this point in my life I must admit that such questions sound rather ridiculous. But for those of the "Warnke Generation" they were very serious indeed. Our choice was to allow them to participate in just the same way as we had while growing up. As of yet, as far as I can tell, no serious damage has been inflicted. In fact, I've found that Halloween is one of few times of the year that people in some places get out of their houses, walk around the neighborhood and meet one another while their children have a little fun. Maybe there's a way to redeem Halloween by making it a time to meet people in your community and renew acquaintances in the neighborhood. Ask people how they're doing and if you can help them out. Every Christian holiday either by date or by symbolism has vestiges of a pagan holiday that has been redeemed. Why not Halloween?

Posted by Dwight at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This post is a bit of a rant; I apologize at the beginning.

I was sort of under the impression that the health and wealth gospel was waning in the U.S. Where have I been? It seems like here in Springfield the majority of religious broadcasting consists of one prosperity preacher after the other. I like to watch religious broadcasting every once and a while just to see what's on. My oldest son likes to watch with me; sometimes it's quite the hoot. I fear at times, however, that in watching things like this with my son that I am an accomplice in exposing him to what I think may be one of the darkest sides of Christianity. With all the crud on television you’d think that Christian television would be a safe place. Unfortunately, when I see the kind of skepticism that the message and the manner in which it is preached raises in my own son toward the faith of his upbringing, I am tempted to block the channels. For many of the preachers the message is entirely about getting money. For others it's about getting your healing. Riches and finding the fountain of youth, what an original message! For both, you must give money and the only funnel for that money is into the ministry of the preacher you are watching at that particular moment.

From a theological point of view it appears that these preachers have no concept of a fallen world. They have no theology of the ongoing problem of fallen humanity, and especially of God's judgment upon fallen creation. They certainly believe a fall happened, but they hold that in Christ all of its effects have been removed for those who have faith. Sickness and the oppressive acts of fallen people upon fellow humanity are no match for my superior faith. The message works in upwardly mobile societies where there are opportunities to better your situation. In war torn regions of the world where oppression, poverty and sickness abound, it’s not so popular. In reality, these preachers have made their wealth on the backs of their contributors, but they are no healthier than the next guy. On things they can change, like manipulating their listeners, they do quite well; on issues they have little control over, like the health the issues we all face, they fare no better than anyone else. I say this as a classical Pentecostal. I do believe God heals. Yet, even classical Pentecostals know that we still live in a fallen world; people will get sick and die, and God has not destined everyone to wealth via their superior faith.

It irks me at times that the words prosperity and success have been taken hostage. You have to avoid using the words in a teaching or preaching context lest you be misunderstood as buying into the health and wealth message. The fact is that I want my children to be prosperous; I want all of my students to be prosperous. Am I to hope for their failure? There is nothing wrong with wanting or being successful, or hoping and praying that others achieve it. I think God wants us to be successful! The only problem is that these preachers define success solely as money and health. If this is not true it's not because I haven't been attentive enough to the message, it's because this is the only definition they give in public. I hurt for those in desperate financial and health situations who are drawn into their trap. People who are on the verge of loosing a loved one will do anything to see them restored. When a person is about to loose their possessions due to financial hardship, it's easy to convince them that their situation is due to some faith deficiency. Truly, this is Christianity's dark side; it’s level of abuse rises to a height rarely seen.

Could it be possible that God measures success, health, and prosperity by different standards? If my children grow up to be God-serving productive individuals who care for people and the world they live in, I'll consider myself successful. If I die penniless and yet have made a difference in the small area of the world that God has called me to be faithful in, I'll consider myself a success.

Posted by Dwight at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I joined a book club this year at Evangel University. Our first book is by Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Jenkins is Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn. State University. The essence of the book is that Christianity is moving southward to Latin America, Africa, and Asia. I have only read through the second chapter. In the second chapter the author traces the rise and spread of Christianity from the beginning to the present. This is nothing new. What is new is that the author traces this movement not, as most, in its westward movement, but rather to the east. He makes a very important point about the rise and spread of the church in the first 1300 years; the spread of Christianity was mostly eastward and southward, not westward. Few historians ever consider this fact; most know only of the spread of the church to the West, and how Western imperialism forced its religion on the rest of the world. This may not seem like an important issue, but I am convinced that if we knew more of the eastern history of the church far fewer people would be so quick characterize Christianity as a white, western ideology that has been foisted upon the pristine religions and cultures of the East and Africa. According to Jenkins, this idea is dead wrong. The error, he says, is all the more striking since the historical records that speak against it are so plentiful. According to Jenkins, before AD 1400 "at no point did the West have a monopoly on the Christian faith" (p. 20). Despite the prevailing views of most modern historians, Christianity has for the majority of the "church age" been non-western.

The author points out something few historians care about today. In fact, just about every one I know is of the view that Christianity was brought to the East and Africa and imposed upon them by white westerners only sometime after AD 1000. Jenkins points out that the West did not originally take Christianity to the East and Africa; it came there in its initial movement from Jerusalem beginning in the first century. It predates Islam, and as a religion is more native to those lands than Islam. Jenkins also points out "when twentieth-century African Americans sought religious roots distinct from the mainstream [white] culture that spurned them, a substantial minority opted for the Muslim faith that they regarded as authentically African. Christianity was seen as the tool of the slave-master" (p. 19). Little is ever said, however, of the long history of Arab Muslim slave enterprises in Africa. Clearly, the West has a history of imperialism in the East and Africa, but it is also the case that in those lands Christianity predates Islam. Those Christian communities that lived there after the rise of Islam have a long history as an enslaved persecuted minority to their Muslim rulers.

In a day when it is so popular to heap guilt on modern Western Christians for the medieval Crusades and Western Christian imperialism, Jenkins presents a side to the issue that few acknowledge. He is not defending Western wrongs, but he is very well documented by sources that are quite creditable. I am not a historian and maybe none of this is significant, it just seems that so often whole groups of people are labeled good or bad according to some historical event that can be attributed to them. I don't think this is fair; there's just too much bad that has been done in history. If that's all we look at, we won't like anyone.

This much by chapter 2, I'll let you know how the rest of the book goes.

Posted by Dwight at 3:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)