24 Responses to "Jim and Casper Like A Preacher in A Strip Club"

• Comment by: Matt Casper

  1 12/24/07 10:25 AM | Comment Link |

  Randy: I think you may be a little off target.

  My discomfort in churches, for the most part, had far more to do with the crassness of the services: dancing bands, light shows, incessant demands for money. And very little about “go out and help someone like Jesus did.”

  The point of the book is not “How to make your church more appealing to atheists” but “are today’s American churches about the teachings of Jesus, or about promises of salvation if you repeat a catch phrase and kick in 10% of your salary.”

  Unfortunately, many of the ones I went to were about the latter.

  We have something in common, you and me: I also feel uncomfortable in strip clubs. I find them dehumanizing.

• Comment by: Lance Bledsoe

  2 12/26/07 5:14 AM | Comment Link |

  I think Randy’s post gets at a question which is often at the heart of the debate over worship styles, which is, “Who exactly is the target audience for a worship service?” Many churches consider their worship service to be primarily or exclusively for “believers” and make no attempt to make it more understandable or appealing to non-believers. Other churches consider their worship service to be primarily or exclusively for “seekers” and these services understandably have a much different flavor. There are of course many churches that try to blend styles, and many that have multiple services to try to better address the needs of both believers and seekers. I’ve never felt like the debate over which of these approaches is “best” was particularly helpful; I think either can be useful depending on the purpose of the service.

  I think the issue of whether one should experience discomfort in a worship service (or strip club) is a fascinating question to explore. While I can’t speak from experience with strip clubs, I am a (Christian) member of a (non-Christian) rock band that plays regularly at local bars. I sometimes experience a degree of discomfort at our bar gigs; there’s a good bit of drinking going on, many of the songs we play are not what you would call family-friendly, and I suspect that not all of the people going home with each other afterward are legally married. However, I’ve also had more than a few between-set conversations with bar patrons about God and church, especially when they find out that I’m the worship leader at my church, that other members of my band also play in our church band, or that some of the other bar patrons also go to my church (or, occasionally, are my pastor).

  Sometimes I wish I could make my discomfort go away, but I also think that maybe it’s okay for me to be a little uncomfortable in what is for me a somewhat strange setting. I also think that if I weren’t occasionally in bars playing with my band, there are a lot of people I would never have conversations with; they’re certainly not likely to come hear me play at church. Maybe some of those people leave thinking that I’m not much of a Christian if I’m hanging out in bars playing rock and roll, but I like to think that some of them leave thinking that maybe Christians aren’t as uncool as they thought, and maybe they’ll even think a little more about the whole God/church thing.

• Comment by: Eliza

  3 12/29/07 10:50 AM | Comment Link |

  As quoted above, Dr. McKinley wrote:

  The book does compel me to have more open, non-judgmental contact with honest pagans!

  Hmmm, after the comments about the dead, blind, and children of Satan, I almost feel like asking how he would judge someone to be an “honest pagan”.

  He also said:

  No part of my church service is intended to please or pacify dead, blind, children of Satan (empahsis added).

  They do not have the capacity to worship or approach God in any way.

  So they should feel uncomfortable in church, just like I would feel uncomfortable in a strip club.

  Is it too hackneyed an approach to look back over the gospels and think, “what would (did) Jesus do”? (If the strip club metaphor is too shocking for C’s, perhaps we could substitute a bar as Lance did above.)

  Where would you be more likely to find Jesus, if he were on earth today: Dr. McKinley’s church, or in a bar in a seedy part of town?

• Comment by: Garrett

  4 12/29/07 3:11 PM | Comment Link |

  Wow, there’s so much wrong with this analogy, it’s hard to begin. First, while the strip club isn’t targeting “preachers”, the Church (ostensibly is) engaging those without God in their lives.

  Second, “preacher” is an office or role, while atheism is a worldview. So maybe a better analogy might be: asking an atheist to evaluate a church is like asking a communist to have a bake sale. Just as silly, but at least logically consistent.

  And far be it from me to tell you how to read your Bible, Doc, but “they do not have the capacity to… approach God in any way.” Really?

• Comment by: Ethan

  5 12/29/07 7:36 PM | Comment Link |

  Dr. McKinley please answer the following:

  You wrote the following,” They do not have the capacity to worship or approach God in any way.”

  Then why do you? How do you know?

  You also wrote,”So they should feel uncomfortable in church, just like I would feel uncomfortable in a strip club.”

  If the standard of what makes you uncomfortable is being in the presence of sinners then you should be just as uncomfortable in church. To God sin is sin therefore clothed, unclothed in a pew or on a pole a sinner looks the same. Please answer.

• Comment by: Jim Henderson

  6 12/31/07 9:42 AM | Comment Link |

  Randy

  Not sure if you are still reading this but if you are here’s your chance to instruct us more completely in the Word of God.

• Comment by: benjamin ady

  7 01/2/08 1:29 PM | Comment Link |

  I love the analogy. I’m thinking from the strip club’s point of view, they would want to be drawing Randy into a mindset of lust. Their idea is to appeal to his lust, his thirst, and perhaps his desire for a good time and in the process to perhaps separate him from a few of his dollars.
  So is Randy saying the church’s goal is *not* to do something similar from the other end. Is he saying “our idea is *not* to draw the blind dead children of Satan into a mindset of connection with god and other people in a real and beautiful way (and perhaps to separate them from a few of their dollars in the process)”?

  If that’s the deal, I wonder what, in your viewpoint Randy, *is* the idea of a church service?

  Or to put it another way, how did *you* travel the transition from a blind dead child of Satan who by default felt uncomfortable in church services to a preacher who feels (perhaps inordinately) comfortable in them? What about your own journey could you translate into making your own church services more likely to prompt such stories in others?

  I’m intrigued that you call it “my church service”. I’d love to hear more about what that means.

• Comment by: megan ady

  8 01/2/08 1:35 PM | Comment Link |

  Colorado attracts the wackers in the religious field, doesn’t it?

• Comment by: benjamin ady

  9 01/2/08 1:47 PM | Comment Link |

  anyway, it’s jim *and* caspar, so it’s actually more like a preacher and an … unapologetic sex addict in a strip club (let me be perfectly clear. I’m not comparing Matt Caspar to a sex addict. I’m saying that sex addicts may, in a sense, belong in strip clubs in the same way that preachers, in a sense, belong in churches)

  I don’t think you can generalize that much about colorado. It’s more the colorado springs area.

• Comment by: benjamin ady

  10 01/2/08 1:53 PM | Comment Link |

  randy–you’ll be glad to hear then, that I do tend to feel rather uncomfortable in church services. not that I’m a dead blind child of satan or anything. But I am almost an atheist. I used to be a church going christian, but as time passed, I found the christians and churches I interacted with to be more and more painfully obnoxious, offensive, unbearable, and unkind, and gradually I realized I didn’t need all the pain of hanging out with them anymore.

• Comment by: Ethan

  11 01/2/08 6:06 PM | Comment Link |

  Benjamin,

  How do you see the difference between unchurched and almost atheist? I ask because I see myself headed in the same direction.

• Comment by: Helen

  12 01/2/08 6:46 PM | Comment Link |

  Ethan, an almost atheist might be very churched - like Benjamin and me.

• Comment by: benjamin ady

  13 01/3/08 1:48 AM | Comment Link |

  Ethan,

  great question =)

  yeah–I’m curious as to what you mean by “unchurched”? As Helen said, in one sense I’m *very* churched–perhaps more than many–which is to say I’ve been acculturated, at one point, into a wide array of expressions of church. I know the lingo, and the ceremony, and the songs, and … so forth.

  To me “unchurched” means what we used to call “unreached people”–I mean from the church’s perspective, “unchurched” is the people we haven’t reached yet–they haven’t heard about Jesus, haven’t experienced “church” in the generally accepted sunday-morning-church sense.

  Almost an atheist is something different. I kinda stole the term from Helen. I won’t try to speak for her, but what I mean by it is … well–Richard Dawkins developed this fairly useful scale from one to seven where 1 is a person who doesn’t just *believe* there is a god, they *know* there is a god (a strong theist). 7 is a person who doesn’t just *believe* there is no god, they *know* there is no god (a strong atheist). 4. is straddling the fence leaning both directions. =). So when I refer to myself as “almost an athiest”, I mean to describe myself as a 4. which is to say I could as safely describe myself as “almost a christian”. But the direction has been *from* christian *towards* atheist, since I used to be a one. so that’s why I say “almost an atheist”.

  Hope that’s not too long winded.

  The funny thing is the way the christian leaders in *my* experience have gravely warned me of the *dangers* of moving in the direction I’ve moved in–away from church, and … toward atheism. I mean *very* seriously gravely warned me, in a way that communicated that they really feared for me and really wanted what was best for me (in their not so humble opinion). The church and christians are very controlling/fear-based in this sense. That’s pretty sad. Because Christians are not *meant* to be fearful, as far as I can figure. That level of fear/controllingness nullifies the possibility of true mutuality/respect, in my book.

  geez I’ve carried on, haven’t I? See what happens when you ask an interesting question? Thank you.

• Comment by: Helen

  14 01/3/08 4:35 AM | Comment Link |

  Benjamin wrote:
  

  The funny thing is the way the christian leaders in *my* experience have gravely warned me of the *dangers* of moving in the direction I’ve moved in–away from church, and … toward atheism. I mean *very* seriously gravely warned me, in a way that communicated that they really feared for me and really wanted what was best for me (in their not so humble opinion). The church and christians are very controlling/fear-based in this sense. That’s pretty sad. Because Christians are not *meant* to be fearful, as far as I can figure. That level of fear/controllingness nullifies the possibility of true mutuality/respect, in my book.

  Exactly.

  Almost an atheist is something different. I kinda stole the term from Helen

  I don’t mind sharing it with you, Benjamin :).

  I would say that in theory I’m a 4 because I don’t know whether God exists - but in my personal daily experience I’m at least a 5 because I don’t pray or have anything personally to do with God. Meaning, I don’t know and I go through my day as if there isn’t a God (except in some interactions I allow for the possibility there is), rather than, I don’t know so I pray just in case.

  However, I suspect there are lots of people who say they believe in God but don’t actually make any attempt to communicate with him or consult him about their decisions most of the time so maybe I’m not so very different from them. (I could be wrong but in my experience there are lots of people who say they believe but never mention God, leading me to think this is a rather theoretical belief which doesn’t affect their lives in any obvious direct way)

• Comment by: Jim Henderson

  15 01/5/08 6:29 PM | Comment Link |

  I asked Dr Mckinley to drop by and let us know his thoughts- stay tuned

• Comment by: benjamin ady

  16 01/6/08 6:30 PM | Comment Link |

  still tuned =p

• Comment by: Randy McKinley

  17 01/7/08 12:05 PM | Comment Link |

  Let me begin by saying that I identify with the reviewer of my original comments who said we as evangelicals have reached a new low by asking atheists to evaluate us. Now let me go in another direction! Often statements are made for exagerated affect in order to make a point. The comment about “my church” is an easy one to address…the church I am responsible for, period. Nothing more or less. I don’t own it or control it. I answer to a board. Honest pagan…one that objectively looks at facts, and does not let his past disappointments with God, religion, or so=called believers distort his opinions. I wrote an article for our local paper which said, “I don’t believe in atheists.” I don’t believe that an honest person can be an atheists, with all the undeniable evidences for a creator/God. Now, another direction. Is anybody out there, including Mr Henderson,really expecting me to teach you anything? I doubt it! None of you know my heart for people. I frequent our local “biker bar” because there I have contact with lost, hurting people who need to know that there is a God who loves them. When they find HIM, then they will be able to identify with our church service where God’s people WORSHIP. Only God’s people have the Spirit of God and want to pray, sing, interact with others who share their convictions. Yes, our church has inconsistent, disappointing people who dishonor God by lifestyles that are hypocritical. But we don’t approve, honor that, or condone it. We grieve over people who are Christian in name only. I try to be as transparent as possible as a pastor, to the consternation of many people who see it as a weakness. But the people at the local biker bar are my friends, who invite me to their beer parties, and know me by first name! I do not know who will get this response, but I hope it puts some of my previous statements in a clearer context.
  RAndy McKinley

• Comment by: Eliza

  18 01/9/08 1:13 AM | Comment Link |

  Dr. McKinley, thank you for coming by to respond to people’s comments & questions. I remain confused by the definition of an “honest pagan”, but it’s nothing either of us should lose sleep over.

  You said that you “don’t believe that an honest person can be an atheist, with all the undeniable evidence for a creator/God.”

  Even if the “evidence” were universally agreed to be “undeniable”, which I could easily argue is not the case, isn’t this a “blame the victim” approach to those whose beliefs you feel are misguided & would like to change?

  As an aside, Chris Hedges’ new book “I Don’t Believe in Atheists” is coming out in March 2008. Catchy title/phrase, even though I am pretty sure that I (and other atheists) do exist!!

• Comment by: Matt Casper

  19 01/9/08 4:04 PM | Comment Link |

  Randy: what undeniable evidence are you talking about? Remember, faith means “I don’t know.” So be wise: embrace the uncertainty of your faith. Reject fixed fundamentalism. Accept that you do not have all the answers and life will be open wide. Start thinking you know everything, and the ride–the learning and living part of it–is over.

• Comment by: Bill Herzog

  20 01/11/08 9:49 AM | Comment Link |

  I think if we could look at Dr. McKinley’s last response and the things Matt said in the book it might be he would have liked Randy’s church.If he saw the motorcycle guys and gals and heard the stories of Randy hanging out in places lots pastors would not go he would see that he is doing the stuff Jesus talks about. I never felt as I read the book Casper was uncomfortable in the service but what’s the point if after Sunday you just wait until next week to do it again. You don’t feed the poor or visit the sick. You drive past the broken down play grounds and close your eyes. I thought Randy’s first letter was a little harsh but when we see something we love kind of condemned and judged we can lash out rather than listen to the ideas and see what makes sense and what does not. Casper did not come in to church as a church expert but as one looking from the outside in. His opinions are opinions and that is it. But sometimes it helps to get an outside opinion from one who has nothing to gain over an opinion from someone too close to really see the problems.
  I guess I do have a question fro Matt about faith. Faith means I don’t know? If a scientist says he can prove evolution by looking at the trees and the animals and such but we say we believe creation points to a creator we are wrong and the scientist is right? How can it be that way? Why is the scientist right and I am wrong? Do I know for sure there is a God? Well I guess you are right it is by faith that I do believe but who was there when the first fish decided to walk? What happened when the first monkey decided he had enough, was he thrown out of the group;) I know that is too simple for many but you have to admit it takes a lot of faith for you to not believe. It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution as it takes a lot of faith to believe in creation. What is the difference. Sorry, went too long.
  Bil

• Comment by: Randy McKinley

  21 01/11/08 10:04 AM | Comment Link |

  I’m back, and guilt free. After several days of beating myself up for my language, I WOKE UP. The whole point of my language,was a shock thing. It worked because many people attacked me for my words, but missed the message! We are no more than dogs who screw bitches, UNLESS WE ARE CREATED IN GOD’S IMAGE. I have a higher view of man than Matt does, and the language I used is foreign to me, and very offensive. Matt has no right to hold Jesus up to me as a moral example, which HE isn’t unless He is God, until he falls on his face and confess Jesus as God. Apart from that, Matt becomes his own god, and makes himself the standard of morality, which I am not about to bow before.
  Guilt free Randy

• Comment by: benjamin ady

  22 01/11/08 10:14 PM | Comment Link |

  Bill,

  you ask interesting questions. To me the difference between a faith-based belief in creationism and an science based belief in evolution seems pretty simple. It seems to me that the faith based position is one that says “I believe because I was told, and unless *that same* teller (God, the Bible, what have you) tells me differently, I will continue to believe”. It seems to me that the science based position says “I believe because I weighed the evidence that I was presented (what I read, what I saw, what other people saw, the results of their studies and experiments, etc.) and I am altogether willing to alter my belief upon the arrival of new, even contradictory, evidence”

  That’s how it seems to me. I used to have a faith based belief in young earth creationism. I believed that because my understanding was that that was was the bible taught, and I had decided to choose to believe what the bible taught. Now I have a science based belief in evolution. I believe that because I’ve studied a little geology, and a little astronomy, and a little biology, and it seems to best fit the evidence that we have before us.

  Hope I’m making some sense.

• Comment by: Helen

  23 01/12/08 3:08 PM | Comment Link |

  Randy, you really don’t understand atheists at all if you think Matt is his own god. Unless you would also say that Christians are their own gods.

  I see no significant difference between atheists and Christian in general how self-focused they are, no matter how much Christians might claim to be less self-focused than atheists. I know selfless Christians and selfless atheists; I also know selfish Christians and selfish atheists.

• Comment by: Bill Herzog

  24 01/17/08 11:28 AM | Comment Link |

  Benjamin I guess my question to you is what did you study concerning these scientific proofs of evolution?
  Did you do the experiments on your own or did you read someone elses results? If you read other books and theories then why is that good for you but if I read what I think is a historical account it is wrong? I don’t think the church needs to fear the scientific community at all because on many occasions it supports what I believe. But you must admit science is not a perfect proof text. I hear daily how to lose weight what can hurt or harm our body and then the next day it seems like a new study refutes the old one. Who pays for the study I think more often than not influences the results. I go in believing in God so sure my lens is blurred but if you going trying to disprove God your lens is also colored.
  It is still hard for me to think that all of this just happened without any designer behind it. My body heals itself, will reproduce, and never ceases to amaze even scientist. If one planet was moved just the smallest amount everything as we know it crashes. I always say it takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution and the big bang theory. I think we both have faith it is just pointed in different directions. Thanks so much for including me in the conversation.

Leave a Reply