The Entitlement Myth, Pt 2

Posted on October 10, 2006 by me

Okay then, let’s continue with The D.A. Chronicles…

I know what I want
I know what I need
I want a miracle
I know what I need
I know what I want, I know what I need, give me
(A new car!)

I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I do deserve the best (Keep on confessing)
The very, very, very, very Best
I’m one of the king’s kids
I deserve the best, I want
(A new car!)
– Terry Taylor, “New Car!”

From Doppelganger, the 2nd in Daniel Amos’ The Alarma! Chronicles series of albums, New Car! addresses one of the more irritating aspects of American Pop Christianity, this concept that we are entitled, by virtue of our salvation, to a superlative life on this Earth. We’re the King’s Kids. Our Father owns the cattle on a thousand hills. God’s not broke. And so it goes…

How about this one:

As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”

Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Luke 9:57,58

So, is this negative confession? Jesus also said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” See? There you have it, abundance! Of course, to anyone who’s studied John, you can easily see how Jesus was constantly talking about the spiritual in contrast to the Jews’ focus on the physical.

This “gimme” Christianity is essentially bad Pentecostal theology (which is a somewhat redundant phrase) combined with American materialism, consumerism and individualism. This attitude is not unique to America, by any means; the British Imperialism of the 19th Century comes to mind. Regardless of origins, it’s a problem.

This sense of Christian entitlement is prevalent in our current church system; we have a whole class of “professional” Christians, who believe that by the sheer nature of their title, they deserve to be supported by the church. This, by the way, is not Biblical; that is, if you read the New Testament without filters. Many times I have been quoted the “double honor” verse in support of paid, professional Christians. Considering that I have often worked 20 hours a week or more as an unpaid “lay” Christian, my response is, “so what’s 2 times zero?”

“A worker is worthy of his wage.” Well, cool! Considering that most churches couldn’t exist without dozens of volunteers, many of them making way less than the pastoral staff, let’s do something about that!

I am not being facetious. I am also not reacting out of a “sour grapes” mentality. While I was on the board of one church (and also putting in many, many hours a week in various roles), I actually drafted a policy which prevented me from getting paid. I know a former well-known pastor, who was for a time the head of a very large denomination, who after stepping down from that position told me that he could no longer Biblically support being a paid pastor, and had to look for “alternative” employment. I am not alone in my thinking.

This sense of entitlement has also worked its way into the missions organizations, to the point where anyone who decides to go on a missions “vacation” expects others to pay their way. If you are like me, you may get several of these requests for support a year. Now, I think many of these excursions are totally valid; however, the mentality that says, “I’m going to tour a mission field so you should give me money” is, I think, defective. Consider Paul’s attitude, who chose not to be a burden to the church.

(Now, I have diverted slightly from a pure discussion of the Christian entitlement mentality, but I’ll deal with that next time. I figure, let’s start at the top and work down.)

What I am not saying

Before I end this post, let me offer this: I am not saying that it is wrong to pay a pastor, a missionary, or some other “ministry” position. It is the philosophy behind it that I am challenging.

I have a lot more to say, so tune in for next time where I discuss how these systems actually abuse those they intend to support.

Posted in The Daniel Amos Chronicles | 3 Comments

Demetri Martin has A Rare Condition

Posted on October 9, 2006 by me

Okay, so this isn’t the promised “Daniel Amos Chronicles” post either. But, this is more pressing (and takes less thought).

Demetri Martin is fast becoming our favorite comedian; the hundred or so clips of him that you can find on You Tube are hilarious. Now, he’s doing an internet serial (that is, a series of “webisodes”) at clearification.com. It takes a minute or 2 to load, but it’s worth the wait. You can listen to the virtual Demetri ramble awhile, or just click on “Episodes” and choose the 1st on the list, A Rare Condition. Again, it will take a while to load, but it’s worth it. And, it’s only about 5 minutes long.

Posted in Random Thoughts | 1 Comment

Rabbi Gellman on happiness

Posted on October 6, 2006 by me

I was going to post something else today, another installment of The Daniel Amos Chronicles, but happened to see this piece from Rabbi Marc Gellman, Worry. Don’t Be Happy, and just had to post this instead.

This is the 2nd time I’ve linked to a Gellman article; I am not necessarily a Gellman “fan” and don’t read him “religiously.” However, I do often appreciate his perspective; there seems to be something about Jewish philosophy – obviously based on God as revealed in the O.T. – that Christians lack, at least American Christians. We seem to have misplaced our roots along the way, more or less adopting our various western philosophies and then applying a Christian overlay. But, I’m no expert on Jewish philosophy, so perhaps similar problems exist – in any event, I do appreciate this perspective on occasion.

So, I’ll sign off with this snippet from the Rabbi:

Happiness for our culture is pleasure, and pleasure is selfish. Happiness for Judaism is goodness, and goodness is transcending.

Posted in Random Thoughts | Leave a comment

Sentio ergo sum

Posted on September 26, 2006 by me

Most of us are aware of the famed motto of rationalism, cogito ergo sum, better known as “I think, therefore I am.” In some ways, I wish that this were actually true; it would certainly change the role of the news media.

What we really have is something closer to sentio ergo sum, or “I feel, therefore I am.” I’ll even go a step further, and probably butcher Latin grammar in the process, but how about this: “sentio ergo cogito.” Whether that’s good Latin or not, perhaps the point is still made. The situation in Iraq, a.k.a. the war against terror, has made it really clear that our approach, not to existence (most of us are actually egotistical enough to believe that “I am that I am” refers to us), but to our concept of truth. Reality seems better defined by what we feel, than by what logic and facts dictate.

Consider ex-President and philanderer Bill Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace last Sunday night. By most accounts – even other, seemingly liberal news outlets – all Wallace did was ask a simple question, and Clinton “lost it.” According to a Newsweek (not Fox) commentary, Clinton was reacting to ABC’s (not Fox) “The Path to 9/11” which apparently portrayed Bill and his boys as wimps. It would seem that Clinton was playing the part of Marty McFly (“Back to the Future”): “Nobody calls me chicken!”

The real news, however, is the reporting and analysis of the interview. Clinton has always been a cold, calculating, actor when it comes to the press, and I don’t doubt that this was just another performance. For the most part, the media seems to be falling (they always did) for Clinton’s act, and somewhat surprisingly, taking Chris Wallace’s (who is a Fox News reporter) side.

Except for Keith Olbermann. Now, even though I disagree with Olbermann’s politics, I generally like him. His show, Countdown, is fresh, original, and Olbermann has a sarcastic wit that could compete with Dennis Miller (now, that would be a news team…). But, sometimes he really blows it, especially when his sentio gets in the way of his cogito.

KO’s opening sentences in his column for today are:

The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.

It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

What is this? Sandbagged? Perhaps he uses a different dictionary than I do. He goes on say how Clinton finally spoke the truth about 9/11. Perhaps Keith should spend a little time actually reading the 9/11 Commission’s report. What I think Olbermann has done is let his feelings – that he dislikes Bush immensely and is against the Iraq thing – take the place of his intellect.

He’s not the only news commentator to let their feelings control their thinking – Dan Rather comes to mind, as does Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity (it happens to conservatives, too). It’s hard to do, when we feel so strongly about an issue, or even a person. It’s hard to acknowledge that a difference of opinion based on the same set of facts is possible, and so we fall into ad hominem thinking.

But, as intellectual as we claim to be, the truth remains that we often draw our conclusions, not based on facts, but on our feelings. We don’t like war, so war is wrong. We don’t like Bush or Clinton, so they are wrong.

Now, I could be accused of the same type of thinking – and, I freely admit that I share the same human tendency. However, as much as I dislike Clinton personally, I think some of the things he did as president weren’t that bad. On the other hand, his administration did set the country up for some failures that we have had to deal with since then. And, I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of what Bush has done.

But, I’ve changed my views on some things, including war. I’ve been a lifelong pacifist, but have had to accept that this position can’t really be supported Biblically, without being selective about what verses you read. Sometimes (actually, fairly often) my feelings are wrong (although, sometimes my reasoning is off, too…).

While my frist response is usually sentio ergo sum, I am trying to use the reasoning skills God gave me to think my feelings through. I am not falling into the deception that I can reason everything out – but, “to him who is faithful with little, much will be given.”

Sum, ergo cogito.

Posted in Politics/Current Events | 2 Comments