For those of you who don’t recognize the reference in the title of this post, a little background. Ken and Carla would be the first names of two of the most famous internet watchbloggers who practice (in the case of Ken) or practiced on a previous blog (Carla) the discernment methodology known as “Guilt by Association.”
GBA, as it shall be know, usually involved Tim Keller endorsing a book by someone practicing contemplative prayer, or some reformed Baptist favorite playing Golf with Rick Warren. As practiced by these folks, GBA was ridiculous, but then I’m pretty sure that contemplative prayer is just as good as whatever kind of prayer reformed Baptists endorse, and I happen to think Rick Warren, while annoyingly inarticulate on the Gospel at times, is a Christian.
So I’m not going to attempt to dodge the bullets that will be fired my direction by those who are on the watch for hypocrisy of every kind. I’m stepping up to the line and admitting it: this post will be a form of guilt by association blogging. So get out your party hats and have some apple cider on me.
I subscribe to Relevant Magazine. As magazines go, it’s well done, and it serves several purposes for me as an old guy who doesn’t know much about evangelical youth culture. Someday I should write a review of the magazine, because I do have a few things, good and not so good, to say about it.
In the pages of Relevant there are ads for various conferences happening in the near and far.
Here’s the Creative Church Conference, happening in February at Fellowship Church in Dallas/Ft. Worth. Hosted by church growth messiah Ed Young, this conference features a variety of people from the emerging, church growth and TBN worlds. So at the bottom of the ad is Ed Young, and at the top of the ad is T.D. Jakes.
Ok, Ken and Carla fans, here we go.
T.D. Jakes, among other things, is the mentor for crazy and dangerous people like Paula White, and Jakes himself has managed to avoid giving an actual orthodox answer to the question “Do you believe in the Trinity?” for his entire career. (He’s oneness Pentecostal.) Jakes is a speaker it’s hard not to listen to, but at the end of the day he’s another Prosperity Gospel salesman. You’ll listen to him for days and never hear the Gospel, and he openly lives on the wrong side of the boundary of Trinitarian orthodoxy.
Ed Young- what are you thinking? Probably something like this:
Jakes is a great guy with a vision for helping the African-American community, he’s innovative and we can learn from him. And we can ignore his lack of enthusiasm for Trinitarianism and his enthusiasm for the the Prosperity cancer.
Ed……Ed, Ed, Ed, Ed.
But there’s more. Here’s an ad for a Hillsong conference next summer, and here’s Louie Giglio with the Osteens.
For crying out loud, Louie. Is someone holding your wife and kids hostage?
Louis Giglio is the founder and voice of the Passion Movement. He is- supposedly- deeply influenced by guys like John Piper and Francis Chan. He’s been a dependable voice for the current missions movement that is influencing so many Christian young people.
Louie, sharing a conference stage with Joel Osteen is completely bizarre. You, Louie, will be giving silent endorsement and perceived credibility to a man who is influencing millions of people away from the Biblical Gospel. You know what an enemy to Biblical evangelicalism the Prosperity message is, and your appearance with Osteen will allow thousands to say “Well, Osteen must be OK. Louie is endorsing him.” No matter how good your motives, you do not want to be at any Pulpit where Osteen speaks unless you plan to do a Galatians 2 confrontation.
However you are thinking about this, you’re thinking wrongly. Get out of that conference, and don’t go back to anything sponsored by whoever explained that this was a good idea. If you want to see Australia, take a Passion conference over there.
Good grief, Louie. If you got Piper and Chan in the same room with the Osteens, there’d be some kind of explosion, like matter and anti-matter. I’d actually like to see it. Piper/Chan vs. Joel/Victoria. Wow.
Bad, Louie. Very, very bad. Your name just slipped off my list of dependable people I can recommend to my students. (Ed’s name was never on that list.)
In fact, here’s one for Relevant Magazine’s editors: You guys run all kinds of articles about younger evangelicals who are making financial sacrifices and working for economic justice, then we read your magazine and there are the smiling faces of people like Joyce Meyer and T.D. Jakes in the ads.
Why is Relevant taking ads from Prosperity Gospel preachers or conferences hyping their message and methods? These people are taking millions and millions of dollars to enrich themselves. They are destroying entire evangelical movements in Africa. Do you really need their ad revenue? Do you really want to tell your audience that these people represent the teachings of Jesus?
Cameron Strang: Your dad’s magazine has taken heat for years for denouncing Word-Faith crooks in the editorial pages, and then advertising for them in the pages of the magazine. Are you headed down the same road? Economic justice in the articles, prosperity Gospel cancer in ads? I love and respect you brother, but this is a glaring problem in a great magazine.
OK, my imitation of the discernment bloggers is over. You’re welcome to start throwing the tomatoes. Thanks for your time.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Makes me miss Cornerstone magazine, that used to be put out by Jesus People USA (out of Chicago) all the more. It was intelligent, challenging, informative, entertaining, and edifying. (And I don’t believe for a minute that they would’ve carried a Joel Osteen ad.)
They didn’t always get the issues out exactly on time, but that was cool. Knowing all the stuff they were involved in (ministry-wise) made the publication irregularities understandable — and the quality of the magazine made the wait well worth it.
**sigh**
Now I need to go listen to Resurection Band’s “Lament” album, to perk me up.
LikeLike
willoh
“You have just greatly reduced your chances of pastoring a mega-church, but you will be able to sleep at night.”
I’m more and more convinced that a church with a regular attendance of over 1000 or so is something very few pastors can handle well. Once you get to that size the business if running the church can very easily get in the way of what should be the purpose of the church. Think about a monthly power bill of $10,000 or even $100,000? What kind of pressure is that?
And on top of that a senior pastor who can guide such a church without letting his ego grow too much is a rare paster.
LikeLike
“I subscribed to Relevant a little over a year ago because it looked interesting and was cheap. I’ve found it to be a maddening mix of intelligent, thought provoking writing and hip, flavor of the day non-discerning inanity.”
This is true of almost any magazine except the very very very large ones. You have to fill pages on a regular basis. There is a clock ticking. Fill it or miss publishing the issue. It creates all kinds of pressure to put SOMETHING on the page. TV and Radio have similar issues.
This is one reason I think that it’s almost impossible to publish or go on the air with a theology based theme. Very few people have the ability to feed the monster. And the monster never goes away.
iMonk can publish 3 topics in a day or go away for a week. A regularly published magazine can’t do that.
LikeLike
My take on what you are describing is that Cameron Strang- the owner/editor- knows a lot of these people because his dad owns Charisma Mag and Strang publishing. So if you listen to the Relevant podcast you’ll pick up that Cameron knows a lot of people personally whom he is aware are controversial, etc. but they have been close to his family, so he errs on the accepting side.
That’s fine, but as an editorial policy it is doesn’t mix well with the other content of the mag. Having John Piper and Lou Engle in the mag together is superficially OK, but go to any depth at all and it becomes a problem. And the prosperity disease is the biggest example.
I love and appreciate Relevant. I want it to do well, but this is an issue that needs to be raised in a positive, but honest way by those of us who appreciate Relevant.
LikeLike
iMonk,
I subscribed to Relevant a little over a year ago because it looked interesting and was cheap. I’ve found it to be a maddening mix of intelligent, thought provoking writing and hip, flavor of the day non-discerning inanity. The first issue I received they did a write-up about a prayer event in large stadiums called “The Call” that was a brainchild of Lou Engle. The International House of Prayer and Mike Bickle figured prominently in the article. It largely focused on the enthusiasm and prayer focus of the attendees, but there was not one mention of any controversy surrounding either of the major organizers (Lou Engle is one of the brainwashers in Jesus Camp that you mentioned earlier and Mike Bickle is another of the infamous Kansas City Prophets). I’ve also spotted multiple ads for conferences featuring these two. Living in the Kansas City area and being familiar with current and former IHOP members, the unquestioning affirmation given to these two has left me wary of the magazine ever since. I still read it because I know there are a lot of freelance articles that are worthwhile, but I take anything coming from the editors with a huge grain of salt.
LikeLike
>Brennan Manning/Thomas Merton Evangelicals Who Believe Catholics are Christians 2009 Conference
Who’s the prosperity Gospel cancer in that group?
>I sense you have some problem with denominational rags’ lack of independence…
Wha….huh??
>Why do you equate acceptance of advertising with endorsement of the thing advertised?
I don’t. And that doesn’t have a thing to do with a single point I made. It’s like having a prolife editorial policy and running ads from Planned Parenthood.
Only here at IM fans can you get commended for encouraging criticism of Piper and criticized for encouraging integrity of message and money at Relevant. Buy your season tickets right here.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’m not the iMonk but let me see if I can answer your question for myself.
I’m a minister in a reformed church. Though it’d cause a lot of controversy, I wouldn’t have a problem if a Wesleyan festival or Charismatic seminary or Baptist revival or Manning/Merton EWBCAC ’09 Conference advertised in our denomination’s magazine. Why not? All of those groups pass the “mere Christianity” test. Even though I’ve got some disagreements with all of them (okay, maybe not the EWBCACs), I’m ready to embrace them as brothers and sisters.
However, when we get to things such as denial of the Trinity or the “Prosperity Gospel”, I have to draw the line. I’m not Holy Spirit, but using my best discernment, I have to wonder if we’re on the same team or not. When it comes to Jakes and Osteen, I have to sadly say that we aren’t.
And what’s my standard? The ecumenical creeds – which faithfully summarize Biblical doctrine.
LikeLike
iMonk:
Okay, about reformed theologians taking the coin and sharing the stage with Prosperity types, I can see the GBA possibilities. Having never been confronted with the conundrum of accepting a chance to share orthodoxy with thousands while suffering GBA with the Brylcreem man coming on stage next, I see some merit to your “ends justifying the means” response earlier. Methinks it would not be quite so clear if the offer were actually made to you, however.
But I think your busting up on “Relevant” for taking money for advertising from people the editors may not agree with is pretty wrong. “You mean, people organizing a costly event hoping to draw people to attend it are willing to advertise in a publication that reaches the target audience? I’m shocked, shocked!And a publication that needs to pay its bills is taking money for space on their pages from sources they may not be in agreement with? How *dare* they!”
I have my doubts that if the folks at Relevant let the “Brennan Manning/Thomas Merton Evangelicals Who Believe Catholics are Christians 2009 Conference” advertise in their magazine you would be having this much trouble, whether the editors at Relevant agreed with the stance of the organizers or not.
Let’s face it: if we are going to have magazines that depend on revenues for existence (as I sense you have some problem with denominational rags’ lack of independence), then along with articles from Piper, Grudem, etc., you are going to have to ignore the ads for sardine cans full of “Holy Land Air” and the like. Why do you equate acceptance of advertising with endorsement of the thing advertised?
Sean
LikeLike
“If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you (John 15.7)”
Just ask God to ‘bring em down.’
LikeLike
Imonk, respect to you.
LikeLike
Please do not think I called anybody a ninnie. That was a joke.
LikeLike
You have just greatly reduced your chances of pastoring a mega-church, but you will be able to sleep at night.
LikeLike
IOWs, do the ends justify the means?
If I shared a stage with Osteen, I would have to label him a teacher of apostasy and a false Gospel. (Gal 2)
Since I would tell the conference organizers that is what I would do, they wouldn’t allow me to speak.
Integrity demands that one be honest about these things. To be silent in the presence of an apostle of apostasy like Osteen would be liking amening Oprah’s message.
And No, I would not go on TBN without the same conditions. “Your network is a hive of apostate heresy.”
peace
MS
LikeLike
Question Imonk. If you were given on opportunity to address 40,000 people who would listen to you about the True Gospel, but the next speaker was champion Joel, would you do it? Honestly would you? And if you did not, would you feel guilty about missing the chance to lead many to salvation?
How could you give up a chance like that to preach, or a spot on TBN.
Not judging, just asking.
LikeLike
Bob B:
It’s embarrassing and a terrible mistake, that’s what it is. It’s recognition that there’s only one real game in town when it comes to Christain TV, and it’s about money.
Even Ravi Z does it. Don’t get me started.
MS
LikeLike
Franklin Graham also goes on TBN. Is that GBA or merely fund-raising among God’s people regardless of how other groups of God’s people view them?
The eye is not the ear; the foot is not the hand, etc., etc., etc.
Are only SBC-approved ministries valid?
LikeLike
Point of clarification…when I said “within Christianity” in my previous post, it was meant in the media/marketing/distribution sense of the word, and not that I actually believe that the leadership and most of the flagship ministries that power TBN are anything more than just professing Christians.
LikeLike
Michael,
You’ve got me doing a slow burn about Giglio. The reaction was kind of like: He’s doing what?! Absolutely dead, spot on: his sharing the stage goes beyond GBA it’s open endorsement no matter how you try to justify it.
Have the Osteens, Jakes, Whites, Hinns, and Crouches of the world become so powerful within Christianity that you must seek their nod before taking your ministry to the “next level?” Seriously, how many times have we seen other well-known, reputable, established Christian leaders or “rising stars” feel the need to rush to the TBN crowd the moment it seems their ministry’s popularity is slipping or fading away?
LikeLike
Willow>>>>I love the Ninnies!!! I’m laughing so hard I’m crying!!
LikeLike
Excellent piece. I hope RELEVANT gives it some thought. Thanks.
LikeLike
I agree, willoh, I don’t think I would find it hard to be a ninnie, er, NINNIE, at all. In fact, it would be downright attractive, if I didn’t know any better.
I counted 7 theses in your comment and I look forward to reading the other 88 when you have them formulated. You just may have inadvertently started a new movement.
I love it! 🙂
LikeLike
Speaking of “guilt by association,” what about the irony of some of these whom you cite, plus others that you didn’t, who have “issues” with the Trinity appearing on a broadcasting network with Trinity in its title/name? I wonder how the Trinity feels about that “association?”
LikeLike
Well that decides it. I am going to become an Neo Independent Nondenominational Neighborhood Isolationist Evangelical. That would be NINNIE, for short. I will stop reading ANYONE’S books blogs or articles. I will associate with no one and go no where. That way nobody can GBA me. Actually if somebody does, I won’t know about it.
All my fellow Ninnies will meet to worship in individual cubicles, so as not to associate with each other. We will deny membership to anyone who would want to associate with us, or anybody else.
FR.Ernesto, we will practice 5th degree separation, refusing to associate with anyone who CONSIDERED associating with anyone. By the way 3rd degree separation is refusing to associate with Masons and 4th degree separation is refusing to associate with Knights of Columbus.
You will not be able to accuse us of preaching prosperity as we will reach no one, and to avoid conflict we will have no ministry. We will be against both out reach and impact.
It is not hard to be a Ninnie, just hard to be friends with one. For more information on the NINNIE movement don’t dare contact me or any of us, we will not associate with any of you, you have associated with IMONK.
LikeLike
Bob,
I wish I were exaggerating. But here is a quote from an article found at http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1993v28n6.htm:
“Additionally, many (but not all) fundamentalist groups adopted C.I. Scofield’s dispensationalism as part of their system of belief. Some took on the view of third degree separation. This means that they not only separated from apostasy (first degree), and from those who had fellowship with apostates (second degree), but also from those who fellowshipped with those who had fellowship with apostates.”
Also from another website http://www.sharperiron.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=12:
“But it’s true: you use a word like fundamentalism these days and immediately you’re in trouble. I’m going to spend some time trying to give definition to the term in a moment, but I want to say at the very outset that the kind of fundamentalism I’m dealing with in this session is the movement that practices and insists on strict second- and third degree separation.”
If you would Google third degree separation fundamentalism, you can find several websites that confirm that such a thing did exist, although it is much less common now.
LikeLike
*** not that I think that run-to-the-hills End Times militancy and desperation is a good thing, even if it helps people distract themselves from being poor! All I’m saying is, I liked the kids and the families, and they didn’t seem scary to me. Their sincerity and bewilderment just seemed very human and easy to relate to. You never see that combination expressed so nakedly. I have a hard time calling them all brainwashed because they seemed so guile-less to me.
They were totally awkward and confident as wildflowers and that one weird-looking kid who was always practicing sermons was practically too bright to look at. They all seemed like good people. I don’t know. They made me care.
LikeLike
iMonk, eh. In between the wrong rhetoric, a lot of a kind of rarefied sincerity is bubbling in those kids. The adults, too, which is why I didn’t really find their intense fear of everything very disturbing. That whole picture just made sense to me – the credulous adults trying to save themselves and their families, the kids burning with theologically inappropriate faith..
I know that way of church is a cultural dream, but you can’t deny that those families were full of beautiful people. Which I totally didn’t expect. I didn’t see nearly as much crazy in their eyes as I’d guessed walking in.
I bet you have all kinds of insight onto why they’re a pastoring nightmare and why no church should ever relate to the world the way they do – and it’s all timely commentary. But from my chair, I saw a little church’s sincere effort and a handful of exceptional young people putting a lot of heart on the line to make sense of their crazy warlike theology in a forgotten American subculture. Also, their reaction to Ted Haggard was PRICELESS.
Danny, I went to Anderson. Go figure, huh? I think we’re supposed to have been more liberal than you guys. Our Philosophy department seemed to revolve around guys Tillich and Hartshorne. Just one indoctrination for another, in my opinion.
LikeLike
Hi Michael,
I want to comment on what Patrick said and the question you asked me earlier. Colleges, as I just graduated from one, seem to be places where you can talk about ideas. I don’t know if colleges have really “changed” that much over the last 50 years, but it is a place where students are not given boundaries. They are allowed to be “free thinkers” (to what extent they actually are “free” is an entirely different issue).
Even at Christian colleges (I attended Azusa Pacific) there is a movement to “push” kids beyond indoctrination. I came home from school this year to try and teach sunday school while finishing up my teaching credential, and it wasn’t a month before I started getting into some trouble over my blog. It was just minor misunderstandings, but it goes to show much more “open” college campuses are.
Perhaps my college mindset is why I am so willing to “hear out” Joel out. I’m not thinking in terms of “right” or “wrong,” but of openness to hearing everyone’s ideas, and I just think that Joel, if tapered with other teachers, has some good things to say. Perhaps though I should stop trying to defend him because I do agree that his teachings are much more dangerous than they are helpful.
LikeLike
I don’t recall anyone mentioning a council.
Just google Prosperity Gospel Africa
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3494
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/july/12.22.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/200809010540.html
LikeLike
I like your idea of a evangelical council to address these type of issues. When are you going to get it started. Past time.
Could you please point to some infoe on the damage being done in Africa.
thanks
LikeLike
>I cried watching Jesus Camp… and not from despair!
Dude…..do you have any notion that those children were being brainwashed?
peace
MS
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto, I think you are exaggerating. Third-degree separation? Never heard of it, and I used to be almost as super-funda-menta-listic-expi-ali-docious as Dr. Carl McIntyre. Folks did talk a lot about second-degree separation, however, and even made verses such as “withdraw from every brother who walketh disorderly” the basis of their non-support of such “worldly compromisers” as Billy Graham. If memory serves, that was the mantra among the fundies back in the day.
LikeLike
Hello. I’m one of the old guys that doesn’t read much of this younger stuff. But reading an article like this gives me a flavor for what’s going on out there. Not that I have any intentions to go out and make a lot of stereotypical statements based on this (or similar)articles, but it allows me to recognize names and media so that if I encounter someone that brings them up, then I have some idea what they are talking about.
Now, the guilt by association idea. I understand the point you are making. When I was growing up, there was a lot of worldly music and very few gospel groups of renown(sp?), namely the Blackwoods. And most of my church friends proclaimed their message to be a very generic message, not solid bible gospel. But the B’s sang christian songs – so my friends attended concerts and bought records. But if my Mom bought a Tennesee Ernie Ford gospel album at the dime store for 50¢ on clearance, she was supporting that old drunk. This association business is really personal – and ought to be. Nothing wrong with highlighting something as public as what you are taking note of, but doubt you will really effect anyone because you’re mostly “preaching to the chior”. Now if you got an invitation to speak on some conference and had to interact with real people putting together the program and could actually effect their thinking . . . But they probably already have you blacklisted – cause they like “preaching to the chior” too.
As to this pastime of yours, I really enjoy it as I like seeing people think out loud about all sorts of things, but the internet hides who most of us really are other than these words on paper (well, the screen) and if we actually encountered one another and had to make real spiritual decisions about each other, we might find ourselves practicing some form of censure or dissociation – or we might find ourselves to be real for true brothers in Christ. But it gives us something to do when we should probably be in bed sleeping, but just can’t shut our minds down and need some stimulas. DanN
LikeLike
iMonk, I figured you’d say that. My worry (half-informed though it is) is that Evangelicalism will die a death of a thousand ironic cuts from a zeitgeist that’s learned to eat family values for breakfast – and even their good tools will come to be used against them. My nightmare scenario involves some kind of total cultural repudiation of “earnest Bible values” and the permanent end to innocence across the American heartland, the moon going red, dogs forming packs in the streets, etc.
I happen to really like Evangelicalism. I don’t agree with it almost at all, but it’s sort of my favorite denomination. If they sold jerseys, I’d totally buy one. I want to adopt these people.
I cried watching Jesus Camp… and not from despair!
(seriously.)
But yeah, I know the whole “getting beyond your raisin’ ” thing is real common. I did it for awhile too – as much as you can if you’re Catholic. I hope you’re right though. Everything I’ve read about Evangelical ministry (and the stuff the kids in the Bible program were saying..) just made me fear for them.
LikeLike
Strider, you make an excellent point. I think the difference is the most current faith statements of the participants.
Osteen clearly hasn’t come closer to the Gospel. His last book and more recent interviews are further out. If Osteen is going to come back to the Gospel, he needs to say say. He has the biggest pulpit in the world. One sermon that says “I’ve neglected the cross,” would send a jolting message. But we haven’t heard it.
peace
MS
LikeLike
Patrick,
The “church kid goes to college and….(dum dum da da!!!!!) CHANGES story has been running for about a century now. Did you hear about the Scopes Trial? (Just kidding.)
You’ve got a compelling story there, but it’s not Relevant’s fault that evangelicals are using youth and student ministries to load the buses of Unbelief and Apostasy, Inc.
I’ve been around Christian teenagers in my ministry for almost 34 years. This is what you’ve got. You had it in every generation from Billy Graham’s meetings to today’s Relevant crowd. This IS evangelicalism. Relevant describes it, but they contribute little more than a reflection.
Evangelicalism is a religion that wants to absorb culture. The day it learns that’s not possible will be a happy day.
peace
MS
LikeLike
God saves people under apostate ministers all the time and always has. Read the Old Testament for details.
LikeLike
Well, as a priest, I actually read and post on Evangelical blogs, hmm, like this one.
When I was in seminary (ahem, over 30 years ago), I can remember being taught about Fundamentalists that believed in third degree separation. That is, you could not have fellowship with someone who had fellowship with someone who had fellowship with a non-approved Christian.
Fellowship seemed to be rather strongly defined. That is, you could not even be friends with such a person, even if it were your next door neighbor. You could relate to your next door neighbor (in that case) only if you were trying to evangelize them.
Needless to say, there are not many third degree separationists lefts, thank God.
LikeLike
Do you guys really and truly believe that none of the Prosperity crowd preach or beleive the gospel? If you do, you must beleive that those people in that church are not truly saved.
LikeLike
Why does guilt by association always work negatively? Why is no one saying, ‘Hey, Joel is appearing on stage with Ed! Maybe he is beginning to promote the Cross of Christ now!’ and all of the prosperity crowd would boo him and start talking about how he has sold out. Never happens. I bet not one of William Aires friends said to him,’Hey, are you meeting in the same room with Barak Obama! Don’t you think that could tarnish your reputation as a demented terrorist?’ I bet it never happened. So, does guilt by association say more about them or about us? Just wondering.
LikeLike
I also thought it would better the discussion to mention that the picture of Stephen Baldwin in the ad towards the end of the latest Relevant does more damage to my perception of the magazine than a million ads featuring Osteen, Jakes or Meyers.
I think its the fact that the picture reminds me of those “glamor shots” that used to be so popular combined with the fact that the layout of the ad is sub-par combined with the fact that Stephen Baldwin tries so hard to be both a mainstream celebrity and a christian celebrity, but fails miserably at both. Why include this, Relevant? Why?
LikeLike
yep.
you would never see those shenanigans at burnside. but they’ve the whole barak endorsement thing going on (technically donald miller – not really burnside), but i doubt they would ever sell out like what you describe.
LikeLike
Here’s how I saw it go down:
Kids raised in youth group, brimming with fervor for Christ and full of a cereal of Bible verses about mercy and grace, get to college and start reading about social justice, wander into some cynical liberal rhetoric for the first time, and find quickly find themselves in uncomfortably deep water: beyond the tidepool of Evangelical culture. To stay afloat, they hastily learn a few strokes (a technique or two from Process theology, Existentialist examples, a healthy dose of “realism”, brought to them in part by indie rock and House, M.D., etc.), but their enthusiasm for swimming is already waning into a fatal disillusionment about not drowning. They feel that this cold shock is a baptism into what real life is. They think this means that they are growing up.
Their parents’ worries that their kids are being indoctrinated sound dull and hysterical. They want to think for themselves, they come to think. Meanwhile, they’re being educated. And socializing each other.
Relevant magazine, embraced as a life-preserver at first (good writing, dealing with things these college kids care about, like music and Jesus), is later repudiated as just another device Christian culture is using to keep young people from accepting reality – which is that, without swimming, you drown. The idea that Christianity is trying to be “relevant” suddenly offends their sensibilities in the same way that arguing with their parents about Scripture offends their blossoming sense of ‘being educated’ about the world, which, oftentimes, their working-class parents are unaware of. It seems to add to the dissonance in the long run. In the end, the skill of the magazine at blending Christ into the context of this Zeitgeist of Big Causes just makes Him all the more difficult to care about on His own. Seeing things in terms of “God’s work” is suddenly a bridge too far.
Or so I’ve observed.
I don’t blame Relevant. I’d love to work for them! But I think there’s got to be some kind of parabolic relationship in how good they are at what they do vs. how credible their target demographic can ultimately find Christianity to be. I think they’re a reagent for all kinds of intellectual chain reactions possible in postmodern Christian culture: many of them, however, end up consuming a person’s faith and yield boring, intractable cynicism towards Jesus.
And hookah-smoking. Almost invariably. I hate that fad.
It did annoy me as an outsider to Evangelicalism to KNOW, the first time somebody gave me the first issue, that they were screwed. It was a Pleasantville-esque experience. When I heard so many of the same people who loved this magazine when it dropped talking atheistic trash about it three years later, I just had to walk away so I didn’t say something vicious. Most depressing thing ever.
LikeLike
World magazine is similar. When I’ve read it I found the articles to be good but then there’s Pat Boone hawking day trading or similar on the back cover.
LikeLike
Patrick,
You’re going to have to help me understand the cause and effect between reading a magazine and not being a professing Christian.
I’ve been reading Relevant online and off since it started, and I think I’m still a Christian. So is my son, who is a regular reader.
Is Relevant Mag someone’s idea of a discipleship program? I’m confused. It’s a bunch of stories, graphics, humor, reviews and ads.
Shed some light there brother.
MS
LikeLike
Scott, I agree. For whatever it’s worth (not much, but it’s somewhat telling), none of the kids that I knew in college who were big into Relevant even consider themselves Christian today. Anybody could have seen it coming.
Everybody wants to belong to some kind of movement – whatever it is. It’s reassuring to not have to think about where you’re going. That’s so boring to me.
LikeLike
Scott,
I’m not hassling Relevant Magazine. Like any magazine, they are a very mixed bag, and they are more intentionally mixed than most, for a good reason. I think it is a sound approach to offer articles on culture and “spirituality” that will draw in the non-Christian reader. This isn’t a Dobson production or a denominational mag. It’s a for profit enterprise by some young Christians. So I have zero issue with the very eclectic approach, and I think anyone who reads the magazine’s editorial writings and higher content pieces will know what’s up. I recommend the magazine to my students all the time. It is perfect for them, and they will read a lot of good stuff, including pieces by Piper, Chan, etc.
But the ads do stand in contrast to the emphasis on economic justice, Africa, etc. And I know that Cameron Strang is familiar with this issue from his dad’s magazine, Charisma. I want to encourage him to turn down ad revenue that promotes what destroys his brothers and sisters, esp in Africa.
MS
LikeLike
Come on, Michael. Who people associate with is not a big deal is it? 😉
You are right on. And I like how you consistently label the Prosperity message a cancer.
I sometimes read parts of Relevant Mag online, and sometimes in print, and it is very pseudo-hippie, self flagellating, feel-guilty-with-yourself-for-buying-that-iPod-think-of-your-carbon-footprint stuff. Then on the next page is a review of the secular Jewish author who wrote a book about trying to live the biblical law for one year (Year of Living Biblically), but who conveniently skipped over the first 20 chapters of Leviticus that talked about blood sacrifice. And the next page is a clearly New Age Zen-like interview with Fergie. It’s all for mostly white middle class or rich Christian kids with lots of disposable income trying to feel guilty for being as such.
You make a correct analysis of the ad placement and the contradiction. But think of this – economics follows the market. T.D. Jakes and others wouldn’t be advertising in that magazine unless they were having a significant return on investment from doing so. Ironically, many of the kids who read the magazine, or the oldsters who do youth ministry, may be attending those Prosperity seminars in their attenpt to be “more real”.
LikeLike
Danny,
I’d refer you to the various Joel Osteen posts on this site, and particularly to the interviews. Osteen denies the Gospel. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and many other guilts say that God wants to bless you. It’s Osteen’s replacement of the Gospel of the cross with the Gospel of Prosperity- a message straight from hell- that is the problem.
Why do you feel we need to accomodate someone who is teaching a message far worse than Mormons or Muslims?
MS
LikeLike
What is the line between guilty by association and just being in the same room as someone? I have always been the type of person to say that Osteen’s message, if tapered with strong theological teachings, could be good for the church: God does want to bless you, but the blessing is only for the giving away of the kingdom and there is no central locus around which we should be building power other than Jesus Christ. Yes, God does want you to “live victoriously,” but that victory will sometimes be persecution, death, heart-ache, pain and so much more. He just needs a clean-up man to come up after him to make sure that people understand him afterwards. But the fact that he needs that clean-up may show his one-sidedness in his theology, so maybe there really is no hope.
LikeLike
Somebody send Ken & Carla an MP3 of Bob Dylan’s “Talking John Birch Society Blues”…
LikeLike
I thought the same thing as I was looking through this month’s magazine. It is pretty bizarre that they use those ads. At the same time, they have to make money somewhere. But at the same time, there are a few dozen other things that they wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole because of how damaging it could be. From the stories and articles, it is clear that the editors and staff are opposed to the prosperity gospel, so why do they not consider it too damaging to include in the ads? I think I may contact them and ask why.
LikeLike
Good grief. You’re right. I’ve got to burn myself at the stake. Thanks!
LikeLike
OK. So I’m confused. Doesn’t it make you complicit for even subscribing to such a magazine? Does that connect you with those in the ads, and am I on a blacklist for reading and commenting on your blog?
I’m so befuddled now.
LikeLike
great posting. i to have the same issues with Relevant. you have your amazing articles of teenagers striving for Justice and hope, and then that crude.
i espcially liked your humor behind Giglio’s activity with Osteen
LikeLike
Wow! Just, wow! Good stuff, Michael.
You forgot to mention Ingrid.
LikeLike