Instructions for Televangelists: Open Mouth, then Insert Foot

Instructions for Televangelists

Open Mouth, then Insert Foot

By David Ryser

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.  (Seen on a church sign)

I appreciate televangelists.  Really.  I do.  In the circus called the Church, televangelists are the clowns.  And I like clowns.  I find them amusing.  The antics of clowns are entertaining and great fun.

But we must never take clowns seriously.

Likewise, I find the buffoonery of televangelists to be wildly entertaining.  I am constantly amazed by the silliness that pours out of their mouths.  They are the comic relief of North American Christianity.  And I greatly enjoy their antics…as long as I remind myself that they are clowns.

But when I take them seriously, I become alarmed.

For example, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief a few years ago over comments made by a televangelist who is noted for shooting off his mouth and blowing off his spiritual foot in the process.  He was commenting on the devastation in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina.  He stated that this natural disaster was the result of that city’s wickedness, citing the examples of Sodom and Gomorrah…and their destruction by God.

As I said, these clowns can be wildly entertaining.

Because I read.  I read news stories.  And I read the Bible.  And both help me put the ravings of these spiritual buffoons into perspective.  And that’s an important part of enabling me to enjoy the religious circus.

Shortly after the hurricane-induced tragedy in New Orleans, I ran across a news story that quoted comments made by a Muslim imam.  This imam stated that God had punished New Orleans with the hurricane because of its wickedness.

Does this sound familiar?

This imam’s words were virtually identical to those spoken by the televangelist.  Although these two religious spokesmen worship a different God (I hope), they had come to the same conclusion.

I especially enjoy the part of the clown act where the clowns whack each other with plastic mallets.  Don’t you?

And while the Bible does speak of God’s judgment upon people, cities, and nations; it also has a lot to say about what our attitude as God’s people should be in these matters.  In Luke 9:54, James and John ask Jesus if He wants them to call fire down from heaven upon some Samaritans who rejected His ministry.  We think of John as the apostle of love, but we forget that Jesus had named him and his brother the “Sons of Thunder.”

Somehow, I am disinclined to think this moniker was the result of their quiet and gentle demeanor.

Their offer to turn the enemies of Jesus into crispy critters earned the Thunder-stick Twins a sharp rebuke from Jesus.  Among other things, He stated that they did not know what kind of spirit was motivating their request (Luke 9:55, 56).

I suspect it was not the Spirit of Jesus.  And I also suspect that it is not the Spirit of God motivating us when we gleefully announce (or pronounce) God’s judgment on “those wicked people.”

Were the people of New Orleans more wicked than other people and thus more deserving of God’s judgment?  I doubt it.  Jesus’ comments on the news stories of His day seem to indicate He doubted it also.  Referring to a mass execution (Luke 13:2) and a tower collapse (Luke 13:4), Jesus clearly states these tragedies did not occur because those suffering them were worse sinners than anyone else (Luke 13:3, 5).

When asked whether a man who had been born blind was being punished because of his sin or the sin of his parents (a hot theological topic of that day), Jesus responded that his malady was caused by neither…and then healed him (John 9:1-7).

And let us not forget that one reason Israel rejected the warning of the prophets concerning the coming judgment of God upon their nation was because the prophets predicted God would judge Israel by a nation that was even more wicked than they were.

Unthinkable!

So did hurricane Katrina devastate New Orleans because the people there were more wicked than those in, say, Las Vegas?  Or San Francisco?  Or your favorite bastion of ungodliness?

Maybe….

Or it could be that people decided to build a city below sea level.  In hurricane territory.  And then they opted to neglect their levees and allow them to deteriorate.  And then the state and local authorities responded to the disaster with incompetence and ineptitude on a truly staggering scale.

Why do religious people insist upon interpreting the stupidity of man as the judgment of God?

And why do Christians take as gospel the comments of a televangelist that are identical to those made by a Muslim imam?  It truly boggles the mind.

But that’s the circus, after all.  It is larger-than-life entertainment that captures our attention on a grand scale.  Including the clowns.  Their antics are an over-the-top caricature of life that tickles our funny bone with their pure outrageousness.

I don’t know about you; but when the clown gets his pants set on fire and attempts to put it out by rubbing his butt on the ground, I find that absolutely hysterical.

It’s sort of like watching Christian television.

Responses to this article are welcomed.  You may contact the author at drdave1545@yahoo.com

A Tale of Two Churches: Living Life in the Temple of Mithras

By David Ryser

Religion is the shell that is left after the real thing has disappeared.  (Doug Bannister)

If I were to write a novel about my recent church experiences, it might begin with the words:  “It was the best of churches.  And it was the worst of churches.”  I’ve been in both kinds of traditional church services over the past few weeks.  And I’m struck more by their similarities than by their differences.

I should probably begin by explaining what I mean when I use the term “traditional church service.”

I define a traditional church service as any church meeting where the congregants sit in rows staring at the back of the head of the person in front of them.  They focus their attention on a raised platform/stage where the main event takes place, officiated by professional clergy.  Typically this consists of a ritualized program or a Christian concert/sing-along followed by a Christian motivational speech.

And when I use the term “traditional” to describe a modern church service, I am not referring to the biblical tradition.

Because the traditional church service bears no resemblance whatsoever to the meetings of the early Christian church.  It does not originate in the teachings of the Bible, the teachings of the apostles, or the practice of the earliest believers.

As best as I can tell, our church service in the modern traditional North American church--including how we lay out our buildings and arrange the so-called “sanctuary”--has its origins in the Cult of Mithras and the Roman Imperial Court.

I cannot help but conclude that our traditional church service is non-biblical, unbiblical, and…worse…anti-biblical.

And we need to ask ourselves just how it is that we expect to have a biblical experience with God in a corporate setting when our methodology for doing church meetings is (at best) secular and (at worst) pagan.

So for some time I have avoided traditional church meetings in favor of smaller gatherings in more intimate settings where each believer is encouraged to participate actively in the corporate worship experience.  Until now.

The last few weeks I have felt led by God to attend traditional church services.  The two churches I have visited appear to be polar opposites.  At first glance, they appear to have nothing in common.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered they are twins.

The first church is a small old-fashioned classical revivalist church located in a rural community.  Walking into this service is like being caught up in a time-warp.  The song service consists of singing the old revival songs written in the 1930’s (the newer songs, at least) from a hymn book.  The singing is lackluster and passionless.  No doubt God breathed on these songs once…but it was a very long time ago.  The preaching is shallow and contains the standard revivalist platitudes and allusions to the usual scriptures typical of the movement.  Both the preacher and the congregants want very much to be stirred by the whole thing, but their hearts just aren’t in it.

In defense of this church, the majority of the members are in their 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s.  Their church is dead.  Within a few years, the people will be dead, too.  They are in trouble as a church, and they know it.

But they don’t know what to do about it.

The second church is a high-powered non-denominational church located in the city.  The congregation numbers in the hundreds.  The median age of the members is probably in the early-to-mid 30’s.  The worship service is upbeat, loud, and animated.  The platform/stage is a professional set made for television.  The lighting and acoustics are of the highest quality.  They may even have a smoke-generating machine.

How cool!

Who needs the Shekinah glory of God when you have a smoke machine?

And herein lays the irony.  This church, like the first, was rebirthed/renewed by a genuine and powerful move of God.  Similarly, both became caught up in what God was doing to the point that they continued to do what they had done while God was present long after He had moved on to something else.

Aren’t you grateful we have religion to pick up when God leaves?

And yet, God is touching people’s lives in both churches.  Especially in the city church, those who have experienced God’s touch give glowing testimonies of what God has done in their lives.  I have noticed, however, that their testimonies are about what God has done rather than about who He is.  And I also noticed that those testifying tend to measure God’s blessing in dollars and cents.

I’m always a bit saddened when people settle for just the touch of God’s hands when they could also behold His face.

And suddenly I realized that these churches are the same church, but at different points in their lifespan.  Both were powerfully touched by God.  Both were passionate for God.  Both have experienced His life-changing miraculous power.  And both have people who want very much to connect with God in a more personal and intimate way.  But they don’t know how.

And if, at the end of it all, both churches end up in the same place…does it really matter how they got there?

Both have put God’s new wine/move into an old religious wineskin/system.  They thought God’s blessing was the same as His approval.  They forgot that God blessed the Israelite monarchy when it was ruled by righteous kings, but He never approved of it.  The monarchial system eventually destroyed the nation (just as God had predicted).

And the traditional religious system will always eventually kill a move of God.

So I’m looking at two churches whose congregants and leadership are good people caught up in a bad system.  They very much want to experience God, serve God, and advance His kingdom.  Instead, they end up serving a religious system that ultimately…and always…chokes out the spiritual life of a church.

Ironically, there’s more hope for the little church than for the big one.  This small congregation knows something must change or they will close the church soon.  The big “successful” church doesn’t see what’s coming.

Can anyone say Laodicea?

I don’t know why God wants me to watch this drama unfold.  But I will.  Because I’ve learned He always has a purpose behind what He asks of me.  So I’ll watch.

Even though I would really rather not.

Responses to this article are welcomed.  You may contact the author at drdave1545@yahoo.com