Feature: Beckham, Madness and Folly
I read the most interesting article today that really provoked me to thought. Harry Pearson in his article ‘Beckham goes for a walk in the park’ 23 December 2005 Mail and Guardian 63, recounts a conversation with a friend concerning David Beckham. Here is a snippet:
‘”You know that thing they say about David Beckham,” my mate Steve asked on Saturday night, “about how he runs seven miles during the course of a game?”
“Yes,” I said, “Clearly demonstrating how incredibly fit he is.”
“That’s what I though,” Steve said. “Then the other day, I was watching a game when it suddenly dawned on me -… an ordinary person could walk seven miles in 90 minutes.”
“Are you suggesting that the England captain stands around doing nothing for long periods?” I asked…
“Either that,” Steve said, “or he just runs very, very slowly.”
We lapsed into silence…’
Tis funny, but I was telling a friend today that I have met too many people who are tired of charismatic churches and people. My standards are simple: if a charismatic person loves the sound of their own voice then they are a charismaniac. If not, then they are simply a charismatic. There is even a song by Casting Crowns where the singer says some say that they have ‘it better out on the road’. This blurb should help you understand why.
Sometime last year I attended a cell group where a leading member of the leadership was going to share a message. His message was on the evangelism strategy of the church (the third strategy in almost as many years I must add) succinctly summarized as “Pray, Care, Share and Take-there”. After the message we huddled together in groups of 2 (or 3 for some I think it was). Then we talked about the people we were praying for, caring etc. I landed with the speaker himself. On my part it was deliberate cos I really wanted to hear what he was going to say. By the time our conversation was over, I had finally made up my mind that I didn’t want to be anywhere near him.
We talked about a lot – quite a bit of stuff about evangelism and many of his responses really put me off. But there was one short exchange that was the rotten cherry on top of the really bad cake.
“I’ve got a friend who has told me that she will never set foot in the [your] church again. She said to me, ‘How many times have I been there and how many new friends have I made?’”, I said.
“That’s rubbish,” the pastor replied. “We recently conducted a survey in the church and relationships were given a statistic of 120%. Our church is a very relational church, so she is obviously greatly mistaken. Tell her this [the statistic, that is].”
After that I kept quiet – I actually had nothing else of importance to talk to him about, or rather I began to think of ways to ignore whatever else he had to say. He carried on talking, further displaying his ignorance, failing to appreciate the significance, or rather, lack thereof, of the thing he had said.
You see, the problem was this. A statistic is precisely that. He probably used the wrong word, if I am kind enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he meant, score. In which case, the score would have to have been 120 out of 100. I have often marked papers there are more than 100% of marks given. Or perhaps, it was meant to be a score and a statistic in some form of combination in a novel mathematic/statistic/sociology/theological theorem.
But whatever it was, there was something that that number was supposed to indicate which I and my friend had (and would fail) to appreciate. My understanding of 120% carries the impression of super-perfect since 100% would be perfect. And if it was a statistic, then a sample would have been involved… and the number of 120% is just… wrong. Now, I was supposed to communicate this to another science postgraduate student and tell her that her feelings (and experience) were wrong and not the bad science? Either he was mad or considered me a fool! It is like telling me that Beckham runs 7 miles in a football match making it seem like it is something ground breaking. That is just under 8km/h. So either he stands around a lot or runs really slowly. Even add a ball to that. In fact, make it two.
The same goes for the 120%. It just said to me that there are a few people having a blast, and a really great one, and others having a really bad time. The fact that is was 120% and not, say, 90%, tells me that the people having a blast are REALLY having a blast (over 100%) and also formed most of the sample (or the greater weight of the sample) and that in all reality, it was likely to be a church with many fat sheep. Otherwise known as charismaniacs. Only mad people could actually believe a number like that.
It reminds me of an argument I had with an ex-friend about truth. I said to her, “It is the content of the message that needs to be weighed for truth.” She said, and insisted, “It is the speaker of the message that determines the truth.” Written down like this, I think most people would see the absurdity of what she was saying. In support of her contention she said, “We can count on the words of Jesus, because Jesus spoke them.” True that. But does that mean that all speakers say what Jesus said? No… The very fact that the Bible, for instance, warns of false teachers who can be judged by their fruit (said succinctly), is a point worthy enough to deter a person from simply believing a message because of who said it. In fact, the Bereans, whom Luke commended as being more ‘noble’ did not merely listen to Paul’s preaching but actually checked to see whether what is said was really consistent with the scriptures. They keyword in what I am saying is ‘consistent’ as opposed to ‘contained’. If the message were consistent with the scriptures its propensity for truth is greater than mere retention by the scriptures.
Don’t get me wrong, Beckham is a brilliant footballer – 7 miles in 90 minutes is just the wrong way of describing his fitness. And perhaps 120% is the wrong way to describe how loving the church is (or purports to be.) But as I will later describe in an incident pertaining to pornography coupled with the effluxion of time, I really think that the speaker meant to say 120% and loves the sound of his voice.
My honest prayer is that charismaniacs become increasingly irrelevant to both secular and religious life. I don’t think the church of God can afford to have ‘christians’ who, for instance, (i) insist that women should not work despite the words of the scriptures (e.g. Prov 31) (ii) practice a faith that exclusive in fact as opposed to word and (iii) preach that their church scores 120% (as a statistic) in terms of relationships despite the absurdity of such a figure. Concerning iii, God-himself would only get to 100%!
Despite my hard word, I know that everybody has their place, even the most ignoble. However, it is trite that a foot must not make itself out to be a mouth, and the mouth must speak the truth and leave the walking to the foot. That way, the members of the body, all fulfilling their proper function can truly live in harmony as the head of the church meant it to be. (I have simplified this.)
I have one more short account about this church. There was a time when I knew a handful of young men in that church who indulged in pornography. All of them but one held significant posts of leadership. Two of them featured regularly at Sunday services, sharing messages from the pulpit or leading praise and worship. Let’s call them group A. The other two functioned in relative obscurity (the one in a minor position of leadership included.) These we will call group B. Group A who featured were often publicly commended. Group B were not. Group A were promoted despite the fact that they continued indulging in pornography. One member of group B was accused of bringing perversion into the church and told that if he hadn’t resigned he would be stripped of leadership. As for the second of group B, I have yet to hear his story. Group A never ‘confessed’ while they were indulging in pornography. (They may have since but for the period of time concerned they hadn’t. Only one member of Group A actually confessed to have indulged in pornography during the period he featured at Sunday services and before.) The obscure group B decided to come out into the open. Group A was certainly treated way better than group B despite having been doing the same things, in secret, that is. Clearly two divergent standards of treatment. The result? Two fat sheep. And two black sheep. Group B plunged deeper in obscurity, without the leadership responsibility of course.
This feature ends ‘Taking ownership of your faith’ and begins my series on ‘Bad Sheep, Good Sheep’ (snippets thereof). To read more you’ll have to wait till the new year!
Happy New Year.
‘”You know that thing they say about David Beckham,” my mate Steve asked on Saturday night, “about how he runs seven miles during the course of a game?”
“Yes,” I said, “Clearly demonstrating how incredibly fit he is.”
“That’s what I though,” Steve said. “Then the other day, I was watching a game when it suddenly dawned on me -… an ordinary person could walk seven miles in 90 minutes.”
“Are you suggesting that the England captain stands around doing nothing for long periods?” I asked…
“Either that,” Steve said, “or he just runs very, very slowly.”
We lapsed into silence…’
Tis funny, but I was telling a friend today that I have met too many people who are tired of charismatic churches and people. My standards are simple: if a charismatic person loves the sound of their own voice then they are a charismaniac. If not, then they are simply a charismatic. There is even a song by Casting Crowns where the singer says some say that they have ‘it better out on the road’. This blurb should help you understand why.
Sometime last year I attended a cell group where a leading member of the leadership was going to share a message. His message was on the evangelism strategy of the church (the third strategy in almost as many years I must add) succinctly summarized as “Pray, Care, Share and Take-there”. After the message we huddled together in groups of 2 (or 3 for some I think it was). Then we talked about the people we were praying for, caring etc. I landed with the speaker himself. On my part it was deliberate cos I really wanted to hear what he was going to say. By the time our conversation was over, I had finally made up my mind that I didn’t want to be anywhere near him.
We talked about a lot – quite a bit of stuff about evangelism and many of his responses really put me off. But there was one short exchange that was the rotten cherry on top of the really bad cake.
“I’ve got a friend who has told me that she will never set foot in the [your] church again. She said to me, ‘How many times have I been there and how many new friends have I made?’”, I said.
“That’s rubbish,” the pastor replied. “We recently conducted a survey in the church and relationships were given a statistic of 120%. Our church is a very relational church, so she is obviously greatly mistaken. Tell her this [the statistic, that is].”
After that I kept quiet – I actually had nothing else of importance to talk to him about, or rather I began to think of ways to ignore whatever else he had to say. He carried on talking, further displaying his ignorance, failing to appreciate the significance, or rather, lack thereof, of the thing he had said.
You see, the problem was this. A statistic is precisely that. He probably used the wrong word, if I am kind enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he meant, score. In which case, the score would have to have been 120 out of 100. I have often marked papers there are more than 100% of marks given. Or perhaps, it was meant to be a score and a statistic in some form of combination in a novel mathematic/statistic/sociology/theological theorem.
But whatever it was, there was something that that number was supposed to indicate which I and my friend had (and would fail) to appreciate. My understanding of 120% carries the impression of super-perfect since 100% would be perfect. And if it was a statistic, then a sample would have been involved… and the number of 120% is just… wrong. Now, I was supposed to communicate this to another science postgraduate student and tell her that her feelings (and experience) were wrong and not the bad science? Either he was mad or considered me a fool! It is like telling me that Beckham runs 7 miles in a football match making it seem like it is something ground breaking. That is just under 8km/h. So either he stands around a lot or runs really slowly. Even add a ball to that. In fact, make it two.
The same goes for the 120%. It just said to me that there are a few people having a blast, and a really great one, and others having a really bad time. The fact that is was 120% and not, say, 90%, tells me that the people having a blast are REALLY having a blast (over 100%) and also formed most of the sample (or the greater weight of the sample) and that in all reality, it was likely to be a church with many fat sheep. Otherwise known as charismaniacs. Only mad people could actually believe a number like that.
It reminds me of an argument I had with an ex-friend about truth. I said to her, “It is the content of the message that needs to be weighed for truth.” She said, and insisted, “It is the speaker of the message that determines the truth.” Written down like this, I think most people would see the absurdity of what she was saying. In support of her contention she said, “We can count on the words of Jesus, because Jesus spoke them.” True that. But does that mean that all speakers say what Jesus said? No… The very fact that the Bible, for instance, warns of false teachers who can be judged by their fruit (said succinctly), is a point worthy enough to deter a person from simply believing a message because of who said it. In fact, the Bereans, whom Luke commended as being more ‘noble’ did not merely listen to Paul’s preaching but actually checked to see whether what is said was really consistent with the scriptures. They keyword in what I am saying is ‘consistent’ as opposed to ‘contained’. If the message were consistent with the scriptures its propensity for truth is greater than mere retention by the scriptures.
Don’t get me wrong, Beckham is a brilliant footballer – 7 miles in 90 minutes is just the wrong way of describing his fitness. And perhaps 120% is the wrong way to describe how loving the church is (or purports to be.) But as I will later describe in an incident pertaining to pornography coupled with the effluxion of time, I really think that the speaker meant to say 120% and loves the sound of his voice.
My honest prayer is that charismaniacs become increasingly irrelevant to both secular and religious life. I don’t think the church of God can afford to have ‘christians’ who, for instance, (i) insist that women should not work despite the words of the scriptures (e.g. Prov 31) (ii) practice a faith that exclusive in fact as opposed to word and (iii) preach that their church scores 120% (as a statistic) in terms of relationships despite the absurdity of such a figure. Concerning iii, God-himself would only get to 100%!
Despite my hard word, I know that everybody has their place, even the most ignoble. However, it is trite that a foot must not make itself out to be a mouth, and the mouth must speak the truth and leave the walking to the foot. That way, the members of the body, all fulfilling their proper function can truly live in harmony as the head of the church meant it to be. (I have simplified this.)
I have one more short account about this church. There was a time when I knew a handful of young men in that church who indulged in pornography. All of them but one held significant posts of leadership. Two of them featured regularly at Sunday services, sharing messages from the pulpit or leading praise and worship. Let’s call them group A. The other two functioned in relative obscurity (the one in a minor position of leadership included.) These we will call group B. Group A who featured were often publicly commended. Group B were not. Group A were promoted despite the fact that they continued indulging in pornography. One member of group B was accused of bringing perversion into the church and told that if he hadn’t resigned he would be stripped of leadership. As for the second of group B, I have yet to hear his story. Group A never ‘confessed’ while they were indulging in pornography. (They may have since but for the period of time concerned they hadn’t. Only one member of Group A actually confessed to have indulged in pornography during the period he featured at Sunday services and before.) The obscure group B decided to come out into the open. Group A was certainly treated way better than group B despite having been doing the same things, in secret, that is. Clearly two divergent standards of treatment. The result? Two fat sheep. And two black sheep. Group B plunged deeper in obscurity, without the leadership responsibility of course.
This feature ends ‘Taking ownership of your faith’ and begins my series on ‘Bad Sheep, Good Sheep’ (snippets thereof). To read more you’ll have to wait till the new year!
Happy New Year.
posted by Al Wright | 12:33 am
|
0 comments
