[thenightwriterblog] The Night Writer: Where there's smoke, find out who's trying to blow it into your eyes

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by The Night Writer:
Where there's smoke, find out who's trying to blow it into your eyes
http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1171578704.shtml


   I've had some comments percolating inside me since Sunday regarding
   the Pastor Mac Hammond [1]story in the StarTribune and the subsequent
   [2]follow-up [3]articles, but a crises at work (I'm losing a valued
   employee) and a crisis at home (the illness and departure of our cat)
   have distracted me from giving this the attention required. Meanwhile,
   others have also been weighing in (good posts [4]here and [5]here).
   My thoughts are the religious angle is but a common and convenient
   smokescreen to the real issue.
   First, let's deal with the smoke.
   You know you're not supposed to pick a fight with someone who buys ink
   by the barrel, right? Run afoul of the media's sensitivities or
   business interests (especially locally) -- say, if you happen to own a
   piece of land that the city covets for a ball park development and you
   brazenly hold out for market price -- and you can expect to be
   denounced in boldface type in stories and by [DEL: communists :DEL]
   columnists. If you're a church that's guilty of offending the media
   (I'll get to that offense in a minute), and don't fit into the
   mainstream, reliably liberal denominational mode they'll try to make
   you look like Fred Phelps or Jim Bakker, depending on which fits the
   template or best serves the purpose.
   In this case, since Pastor Hammond (interestingly enough, the Strib
   never refers to him as Pastor, Reverend or any other religious title
   in its story) of [6]Living Word Christian Center is flamboyant and
   possesses many material goods that come with a high standard of living
   and preaches on prosperity then the angle of attack is that Mac
   Hammond = Jim Bakker, in much the same way that Iraq = Viet Nam,
   regardless of any fundamental differences there might be. Living Word
   is described as a "name it and claim it" church, though there's
   nothing in the church's [7]statement of doctrine, or in the list of
   books written by Hammond's wife, Lynne that suggests this is the main
   focus of the ministry.*
   While it's always interesting to see whether the Sunday School
   drop-outs in the media can out-do their clerical targets in taking
   scriptures out of context, it is a disingenous argument. First, there
   is nothing inherently noble about being either rich or poor, even
   though our society idolizes and gawks at the rich (while supposedly
   hating them) while merely giving lip service to the poor. In fact, all
   people are inherently sinful (yes, even the good people) and need to
   be saved and ministered to. Neither the rich or the poor are saved or
   condemned by their financial status, but by the state of their hearts,
   and all will be judged by their fruits.
   Everyone is ruled by money, but in different ways, and money is a hard
   master. Far better to make it a servant, which is part of the
   so-called "name it and claim it" doctrine. Money is a powerful thing,
   however, and I'm reminded - not of scripture - but of the poem about
   the Lady and the Tiger. The snares are there and they are both subtle
   and profound for those who preach prosperity -- just as they are for
   those who preach the holiness of poverty. Pastor Hammond may take his
   interpretation to the extreme; if so he'll be judged - as will those
   who preach to the opposite extreme.
   For what it's worth, my wife and daughter have committed themselves to
   spending a year helping a young single mom develop the life-skills she
   needs to get out of poverty. This includes sharing the same spiritual
   principles that we've used ourselves. While the mother wants and
   enjoys the material things that have come to her so far as a result of
   this outreach, she is completely uninterested in the spiritual (at
   least for now). This doesn't make her any more worse than others we've
   helped or tried to help in the past, perhaps just more honest.
   I'm not concerned with media criticism of Pastor Hammond or his
   ministry. For one, persecution is promised to believers and if he's
   sincere in doing God's work he'll be fine even if he is not perfect.
   (For all the wealth he's supposedly extracted for himself, the church
   does appear to have done and built some tremendous things.) Second, if
   he is in error, the consequences are certain and out of the hands of
   the media and others. It is interesting, though, how money becomes the
   focus of the media. Apparently the thought that 10,000 people
   voluntarily go to something they enjoy and give out large chunks of
   money to do so is suspicious, though I'd say members of Living Word
   show better judgment than Timberwolves season ticket holders.
   As I said at the beginning, the religious criticism is just a
   smokescreen and a handy club to try and beat Hammond and Living Word
   into submission. The real issue is politics and power, and in short
   the media and the government doesn't like competition in telling
   people how to think and act and especially what to do with your money.
   They are the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees, focused on making
   others conform to man-made interpretations and doctrines that keep
   them in power while missing the Spirit that inspired those.
   The media has no problem with religious leaders getting involved with
   issues -- as long as they're on the "right" side: AME churches hosting
   one-sided candidate forums for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Buddhist
   temple fund-raisers for Al Gore, or Cardinal Flynn speaking out on
   global warming, etc. Use your pulpit otherwise, however, and watch
   out. My thinking is that this latest "expose" grows out of Living Word
   hosting Michelle Bachman during the last campaign and Pastor Hammond's
   hearty endorsement of her candidacy. Since then they've allowed a
   little time to do some research and find some disgruntled former
   church members (have you ever known a church -- whether of 10 people
   or 10,000 -- that didn't have disgruntled former members?) and let
   some legal eagles see if they can find some plausible-sounding
   charges; whether true or not the charges get attention and serve as
   supressing fire to get the church or similar communities to duck their
   heads.
   Now, just a few months after the campaign, you've got a "watchdog
   group" in Washington, D.C. filing charges and demanding an
   investigation into the Living Word's tax-exempt status. In this case
   the watchdog is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
   (CREW). That sounds very noble, but whenever I see a group being
   called a "watchdog" I always look to see who is holding the leash.
   With a little poking I think we can find out who the major
   contributors or founders of CREW are, but their own statements on
   their [8]website are pretty unabashed as they indicate they were
   created to fill a niche opposite of conservative watchdog groups such
   as Judicial Watch, The Rutherford Institute and the National Legal and
   Policy Center.

     Conservative groups such as these have no real parallel in the
     progressive arena. There are a number of non-partisan groups that
     address government honesty, including Common Cause, Public Citizen,
     the Center for Public Integrity, and Democracy 21. While we applaud
     their efforts, we have noted that these groups focus principally on
     research and legislation. They do not use litigation to target
     outrageous conduct, nor do they bring the message of injustice to
     the people the way their conservative counterparts do. Because
     these public interest organizations focus mostly on policy issues
     and not on obstacles faced by ordinary citizens, these groups have
     not mobilized a shift in public opinion on the issue of government
     honesty. CREW fills that niche.

   This isn't about religious doctrine, though doctrine can be ginned up
   to discredit your opponent. Instead it is about free speech, about who
   gets to speak and who gets shouted down (or sued).
   [*Full disclosure: I am not now, and have never been, a member of Mac
   Hammond's church, Living Word, nor have I ever met Mac or, to my
   knowledge, anyone on his pastoral staff. I think I have a good
   understanding of the doctrines that are said to be taught at Living
   Word, but I've never seen or heard a sermon myself. I have known
   several people over the years who are, or have been, members and found
   them to be very grounded and focused on helping others.]

References

   1. http://www.startribune.com/462/story/993598.html
   2. http://www.startribune.com/614/story/995886.html
   3. http://www.startribune.com/465/story/998204.html
   4. http://hammerswing75.blogspot.com/2007/02/mac-hammond-and-money-matters.html
   5. http://thefarwright.blogspot.com/2007/02/da-da-da-dum-mega-church-love-it-or.html
   6. http://www.lwcc.org/HOME/index.cfm?CFID=234723&CFTOKEN=26434ac0ea402f56-C7054739-1372-5199-B1DFDBABABB583CF&jsessionid=f830e199f2cd1d566035
   7. http://www.lwcc.org/ABOUT/doctrine.cfm
   8. AboutCREW: http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/background.php