Archive for the ‘Blogroll’ Category

Evangelist’s excesses are in the spotlight

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008

As if Christian ministers don’t have enough bad press to contend with, between financial scandals, extramarital dalliances and the sexual abuse fiascoes of the Catholic church, Kenneth Copeland is falling into a predictable stereotype for media-savvy evangelists.

Known as one of the fathers of Prosperity Gospel – the idea that God wants us to prosper not just spiritually, but also financially – Copeland has come under recent scrutiny by The Associated Press, Congress and the Internal Revenue Service for questionable financial dealings.

Personally, it’s enough for me that he has an eight-figure personal net worth, though this is not a crime by our legal standards.

Though under investigation for some time, however, it should be pointed out that no specific charges have been levied against the preacher or his ministry.

Some of the evidence speaks for itself, though. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune reports that members of Copeland’s board of directors have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees by the Copeland Ministry.

We in the nonprofit world call this a conflict of interest; it’s widely known that those governing a nonprofit should have arms-length distance from any financial gain.

Though it’s not law to do so, Copeland would have a hard time raising funds for his cause from foundations and the like because of this enmeshment.

However, he gets around this by accepting money principally from individuals who either don’t know about this or who don’t see anything wrong with it.

Another nonprofit no-no is nepotism – the practice of those in positions of power passing on goodies to close friends or family members.

Copeland seems unconcerned with this, handing over six- and seven-figure salaries to family, along with property belonging to the ministry.

There’s also the philosophy of separation of powers, which says that the staff in charge of running the organization should not be the same folks as those managing the vision for the organization on the board.

Though Copeland technically is not on his own board, he maintains veto power over every single decision its members make, causing them to be entirely beholden to his will.

Finally, Copeland avoids plenty of taxes by placing things like his $6 million house and $17 million jet in the nonprofit’s name, which doesn’t pay taxes.

While I’ll grant that the guy’s savvy as a businessman, I wonder how it is that anyone with even a superficial understanding of his holdings can possibly keep sending him money.

So why does it work for him?

Because he offers the kind of Gospel message people want to hear: Jesus honors your consumer-driven lifestyle. Though he lived in poverty, as did his followers, the plan all along was to set you up for excessive material wealth.

Sounds good, right? It allows us to be greedy and still call ourselves good Christians. But when we sit down with the Gospel books and really look at them, how can we use God as our excuse for how we live?

None of us is perfect, and I honestly don’t begrudge anyone – ministers included – living a comfortable lifestyle.

Congress and the IRS may or may not discover impropriety, but ultimately, the power lies in our hands.

If we truly want to use our abundance to make the world a better place, and if we honestly believe that our charitable giving is effectively giving to God, maybe it’s time to ask ourselves if we really think God is concerned with whether or not the Copeland family has another jet.

It could just be that there’s someone else a little more deserving of our generosity.

The Pueblo Question: Catholic or Christian?

Saturday, July 26th, 2008

The Pueblo Question: Catholic or Christian?

By CHRISTIAN PIATT

One strange question is usually an aberration. But when you’ve been asked the same weird question several times, over a number of years, it reflects a broader mindset.

The question is: “Are you Catholic or Christian?”

The following conversation approximates what happens next. We’ll call the fictitious person I’m talking to “Jim.”

Jim: “So you’re a church guy, huh?”

Me: “Pretty much, yeah.” Jim: “Are you Catholic? Christian?”

Me: “Well, yes.”

Jim: “You’re Christian?”

Me: “Yes.”

Jim: “Oh, I thought you were maybe Catholic.”

Me: “Technically, I am.”

Jim: “OK, so what parish do you belong to?”

Me: “I don’t. I go to Milagro Christian Church”

Jim: “A-ha! So you’re Christian.”

Me: “Right.”

Jim: “Not Catholic.”

Me: “No.”

Jim: “No, meaning you agree you’re not, or no to what I said?”

Me: “The last one.”

Jim: “I know, I know, you’re one of those lapsed Catholics, but you still call yourself Catholic, right?”

Me: “Nope.”

Jim: “So you’re not lapsed?”

Me: “I don’t think so.”

Jim: “So you must go to a Catholic church somewhere.”

Me: “I told you where I go to church.”

Jim: “But that’s not a Catholic church.”

Me: “Technically, it is.”

Jim: “Oh really? So who is your bishop?”

Me: “We don’t have one.”

Jim: “No bishop? You’re definitely not Catholic.”

Me: “Actually I am.”

Jim: “Look, you need to pick sides. You’re either Catholic or you’re Christian. You can’t have it both ways.”

Me: “Why not?”

Jim: “Actually, I have no idea why, but that’s just the way it is. You just can’t.”

Me: “If you say so.”

Jim: “So we agree you’re Christian, right?”

Me: “Yes.”

Jim: “Good.”

Me: “And Catholic.”

Jim: “You’re impossible.”

Me: “Thank you very much.”

OK, so maybe this is a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s not like being Catholic or Christian is comparable to being a Democrat or Republican.

Technically, I think what people are getting at with this question is whether I’m Catholic or Protestant, but unfortunately, that doesn’t make the answer any less confusing.

I’m Protestant because I go to a Protestant church, but I’m also Catholic, because the very definition of the word “Catholic” is “Universal Church.”

Some within Catholicism might not recognize me as such, but that doesn’t make me any less Catholic in my mind.

It’s not as if modern Christian faith dropped out of the sky as-is. We’ve built upon the histories, cultures, beliefs and traditions of Catholicism, Judaism, Gnosticism, Paganism and others to arrive at our own faith identity.

It doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

So the next time someone asks you about your faith, consider for a moment all of the things you actually are, rather than defining yourself by what you’re not.

Gabriel’s Revelation: Changing faith as we know it?

Saturday, July 19th, 2008

Gabriel’s Revelation: Changing faith as we know it?

By CHRISTIAN PIATT
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

A stone tablet, 3 feet high with more than 80 lines of handwritten text, describes what some believe is a messiah who suffers, dies and rises again after three days.

The relic, called “Gabriel’s Revelation,” portrays an apocalyptic scene as supposedly recounted by the angel Gabriel himself.

Did I mention that archaeologists have dated its creation to several decades before Jesus was even born?

The tablet was recovered from the caves in Qumran, where the controversial Dead Sea Scrolls also were found, and whose authenticity have been argued passionately in the decades since they were found in clay jars in the far reaches of the desert. Though some of the writing on the Gabriel tablet is obscured, many linguists and archaeologists are closely studying the piece and its message.

Aside from being written on stone instead of scrolls, the fact that it’s written instead of inscribed in the stone is curious.

However, the message is stunning, particularly if found to be authentic and dated correctly.

“In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you,” says the text, or at least that’s the consensus among those studying it so far.

Some of the lettering is a bit worn and hard to read, and some of the verbiage is curiously hard to decipher, but to date, no one has contended the age of the artifact.

Some scholars, such as Israel Knohl, a professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, have hypothesized that the tablet refers to a man named Simon who lived before the time of Jesus. It’s believed that the author, or authors, of the tablets may have been Simon’s followers.

Did they believe this man who preceded Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy? Did they witness something that caused them to make such claims of his martyrdom and resurrection? Did he predict such a fate for himself, or was this imparted upon him after his death to bestow upon him some sort of mythical honor?

For skeptics of the uniqueness, or even veracity, of Jesus’ divine status, this is a rare documented artifact that may be used to further challenge the claims of sovereignty that some within Christianity make so strongly.

For those who adhere to the importance of the idea that Jesus was God’s “only son,” the very notion of another messiah who possibly could have conquered death is tantamount to heresy.

It’s a stunning proposition, to think that some of our Jewish ancestors just might have believed their savior had come, only 30 to 50 years before Jesus even arrived on the scene.

Of course, there will be those who argue passionately for both sides, and ultimately, we have no absolute way to establish what is truth and what is not.

After all, none of us witnessed the life, death and resurrection of Christ; we base what we believe on Scripture, on God as revealed through a community of faith and through the stories and experiences we share.

What I think is most interesting is not so much the existence of this tablet, but that there has been hardly any mention of it in the mainstream media. Is religion really treated with such kid gloves that a potentially paradigm-shifting story like this is too hot to handle for most media outlets?

Are folks too worried about the potential backlash, being blackliste by Christian activists or condemned in the public forum for calling the Christian faith into question?

In my experience, there is no information that is harmful to one’s faith, if approached with an open but critical mind. People ultimately will believe what they choose to believe, regardless of evidence.

So how can it hurt to explore the possible implications of the Gabriel’s Revelation tablet, and talk about what it makes us think about and how it makes us feel?

Does it scare us? Is it reassuring to know that people have been searching for a manifestation of hope and redemption since the dawn of humanity? Do we wish it had never been found? If it is eventually authenticated, would it change our faith?

All questions worth asking in my assessment – none with easy answers.

Follow-up on Colorado legislation and human rights

Sunday, July 13th, 2008

I got more mail after this week’s column than I’ve ever gotten before, partly because of the content, but also because I was placed, of the first time, on the front page of the paper’s Faith section with my column. Most letters were supportive, and others were simply – and predictably – one-sided rants. However, there were a couple who actually seemed interested in learning more about the law.

Here’s a good explanation:

“Introduced by Sen. Jennifer Veiga and Rep. Joel Judd, SB 08-200 will expand language prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including transgender status, in housing practices, public accommodation, eligibility for jury service, availability of family planning services, as well as many other areas.”

Basically, it expands the illegality of discriminating based on sexual orientation in the public forum, including public services, etc. So, of course, opponents go straight to bathrooms, which was never a focus of the bill, and paint a grim picture of what may happen by giving equal rights. They interpret the law as allowing people of the opposite sex to wander legally into other bathrooms and accost women and children. The points I didn’t go into in the article are that: 

  • Nowhere in the more than 20 states that have similar laws have any incidents of sexual assaults increase, bathrooms or otherwise.
  • Sexual assault is still a crime, regardless of discrimination law, and stalking women and children in bathrooms is criminal.
  • Sexual predators are not particularly influenced by legislation. They are driven by sexual addiction, which transcends logic and reason.
  • It is a parent’s responsibility to watch after their children, not the state’s anyway. If you’re concerned about your kids in public restrooms, for crying out loud, don’t send them in there alone.

It’s another example of lowest common denominator propaganda, dragging an otherwise affirming law recognizing the equal rights of human beings down to a handful of extreme hypotheticals that never have been realized anywhere else in the nation. What it says to me is that people are afraid of marginalized groups, particularly with whom they don’t agree, having the same rights and power as they. We’ve seen this before – same song, different verse.

Bathroom ads indication of slipping grip

Saturday, July 12th, 2008

Bathroom ads indication of slipping grip

By CHRISTIAN PIATT
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

I know I’ve been on a bit of a James Dobson-bashing spree lately, but I promise this is the last one for a while.

That is, unless he and his crew do something absurd again, which is entirely within the realm of possibility.

I opened The Pueblo Chieftain earlier this week to see a large ad depicting a little girl coming out of a bathroom stall by herself, with the nasty boots of a male, supposed to be a predator, lingering by the door.

The text below the photo goes on to rail against a new anti-discrimination law passed by the Colorado Legislature to include public spaces such as restrooms. Largely a symbolic gesture, the main point of the law, to me at least, was to expand the scope of anti-discrimination law in the public forum.

Further, there are dozens of states that have passed similar laws, and there isn’t a shred of documented evidence that the passage of such laws has done anything to raise the danger of sexual predators in public restrooms. This doesn’t stop Dobson and his anti-gay agenda, though.

The ad points out prominently that one supporter of the legislation is the Gill Foundation, founded by philanthropist and openly gay businessman Tim Gill. The ad implicitly ties those who advocate for gay rights to those who would, for some undisclosed reason, have no concerns or reservations about passing a law that invited sexual predators to descend upon our children.

Am I the only one grossly offended by this sort of fear-mongering?

Even if you don’t believe that a person’s sexual orientation has anything to do with their rights as a human being, it’s stunning to me that such a prominent religious leader would assume that these kinds of flimsy fear-based tactics are anything but transparent, hateful propaganda. Even the most conservative-minded among us would be justified in feeling their intelligence was being insulted.

Further, what exactly is the point here? Why on earth is Tim Gill, a gay man, tied to the lascivious photograph of a man purportedly attempting to prey on a young girl? Does anyone who hasn’t lived under a rock since birth honestly think that being gay fills you with an irresistible urge to molest children – of the opposite sex, mind you – in public places?

That just doesn’t make any sense.

The one consolation I have is that this ad has drawn nothing but consternation from people on all sides, at least from what I’ve read. The claims are baseless, short of the basis of illogical fear, and they represent a thankfully waning perspective that is working its own way out of the cultural mainstream by clinging to an angry, fearful and acerbic interpretation of faith.

All of the legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, who supported this anti-discrimination bill were listed in the ad, supposedly to shame them in the public eye for what they have done. Lest they grow concerned that this sort of public opinion manipulation does any good, I recommend writing your local representatives and thanking them for being brave enough to stand up for the rights of all people, and not just those whom they prefer or agree with.

Ultimately, it seems that the fear behind such ads is about something much greater: the fear of diminishing relevance. Hate, fear and judgment are strong medicine, but their effects often fade more quickly than the antidotes of hope, compassion, equality and love.

For this, I have at least some sense of sadness for those who honestly believe that they are doing what is right, yet they see their agendas slipping away from them as the rest of the country turns toward a more just and humane understanding of community.

Spoken Word “Cloud”

Monday, July 7th, 2008

Here’s a cool word cloud I created by compiling all of my spoken word pieces into an application that generates word clouds. Pretty cool.

‘Jesus for President’: Book puts old-school evangelicals on notice

Saturday, July 5th, 2008

‘Jesus for President’: Book puts old-school evangelicals on notice

By CHRISTIAN PIATT
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

The evangelical movement is trading in its cleanshaven look for dreadlocks, and starched collars and ties for hair shirts and sandals.

A new book, “Jesus for President,” by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, is yet another defining landmark in the ever-changing journey of Christian evangelicals. Dreadlocked, easygoing and outfitted with a hippie bus that runs on used vegetable oil, Claiborne and his crew are touring the country, espousing what they believe are the critical issues of the age.

“No one will probably ever start a war over used vegetable oil,” says Claiborne, in a recent article on CNN.com about his travels. Though avowedly pro-life and aligned with many of his evangelical peers on matters such as marriage and abortion, he also is against the Iraq war and takes positions on things like immigration that many evangelical leaders would find troublesome.

The pro-life agenda of many of these new evangelicals should be qualified to some degree, lest it be assumed consistent with the Republican right wing’s current platform. Yes, they are pro-life in every sense when it comes to abortion, but they are less concerned with pressing government to legislate their views, and more concerned about affecting public opinion from the inside-out.

They also are generally against the death penalty and our current military engagements in the Middle East, considering these all as consistently pro-life positions. Along with their pro-life emphasis comes a passion for conservation, touting renewable energy, lowering carbon emissions, simplifying our lives and generally reducing the impact we humans have on our planet. As another recent article in New Yorker magazine points out, this movement is dramatically changing the face of evangelical Christianity, which was once dominated by Pat Robertson, James Dobson and other conservative figures. This new breed of evangelicals does not align itself with a particular political party, and sees the importance of a person of faith’s role as one of action, more so than fighting for or against particular public policy.

“Jesus for President” is not a manifesto of hard-line ideology to which any “good” Christian must adhere, but rather it is a self-described “book to provoke the Christian political imagination.” There is a more inherent sense of trust that one who spends time with scripture and in prayer will find the passion and means they require to effect change to which they are called. There is a sense of urgency and a call to action, though the expression of that action may be widely varied.

Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine, and author-speaker-activist Tony Campolo have been beating this same drum for many years. It’s not a new movement, per se, but with the disaffection of millions both with the religious and political forums, this is a hopeful breath of fresh air. It gives permission for a difference of views, but lets no one off the hook for enacting change and championing justice for Christ’s so-called “least of these.”

Could it be that Christians can be Democrats or Republicans without guilt, and can – God help us – work together toward fulfillment of our mission as people of faith? Could it be that our love of the Gospel is bigger than Roe v. Wade or our opinions about the role of marriage? Could it be that peace, love and compassion could become the most prominent dimensions of the new face of Christianity?

A new coalition such as this certainly will not be easy, and who knows if it actually will ever work, but the idea that many of today’s evangelicals and I might have more in common than not gives me great hope. Personally, I can’t wait to see what happens next.

Dobson’s Rhetoric is Damaging to Democracy

Saturday, June 28th, 2008

Dobson’s rhetoric is damaging to democracy

Christian Piatt – The Pueblo Chieftain

James Dobson has done it again.

It’s no real surprise that Barack Obama, the presumed democratic nominee for president, is in Dobson’s sights. There are so many things about Obama, his past and his policies that fly in the face of what Dobson and his cohorts espouse. In a recent CNN website article, however, he took a moment to pick out some issues in particular.

The head of Colorado Springs‘ Focus on the Family claimed Obama was guilty of distorting the Bible when he suggested that the rule of law cannot practically be based solely upon the Bible. To make his point with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor, he pointed out that a nation governed by the literal rules of scripture would justify slavery, and would make eating shellfish an abomination.

Dobson resented Obama’s position suggesting that he was making a relative mockery of the Bible’s authority by picking out what he called “antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.”
 
So if I understand this correctly, James Dobson, who claims the inerrancy of the entirety of scripture, is saying that there actually are parts of the Old Testament that are no longer relevant? Pray tell, then, which ones we should deem irrelevant, and which ones we should still embrace? And who exactly is the arbiter of this weeding-out process? Who has the authority? Further, who doesn’t interpret scripture with some of their own agenda, simply by reading it?

If you recall, Jesus said he did not come to get rid of the old law, but rather to “fulfill it.” Though there are many takes on what exactly this means, along with every other phrase in scripture, many scholars agree that Jesus’ fulfillment of the old law meant that he was taking authority to another level, so to speak. Obama does not suggest ignoring parts of the Old Testament, but rather than perhaps the Sermon on the Mount is more relevant to modern-day governance. It is Dobson who claims certain texts are “irrelevant.”

As if his condemnation of Obama’s take on the Bible was not enough, he topped it off with some old-fashioned name-calling, suggesting that Obama leads by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” that he deliberately is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter,” and finally that his understanding of the Constitution is nothing more than “fruitcake interpretation.”

It’s not as if Dobson simply is trying to tear down the democratic candidate for the benefit of republicans, either. He already has claimed he will not vote for McCain, so in essence, if he can’t find a team who will take him on his terms, Dobson is resolving to take his toys and go home. 

Though I’m using a trite metaphor, it’s actually a disturbingly serious situation. The situation is more like a village under siege that opts to burn their own spoils to a cinder, rather than watch the enemy have any chance at them. The risk, then, is that a generation of evangelicals who have been otherwise politically active will determine it’s better to do nothing than it is to stay engaged and work within the system for what they believe. More than a blow to either major party, it’s an Achilles’ heel for democracy itself.

The name-calling is one thing, but effectively urging your followers not to participate in exercising their constitutional right to vote is entirely another. If you don’t like McCain or Obama, fine. Write someone in on the ballot, but for goodness sake, don’t sit at home and do nothing.

Review of MySpace book by Bob Cornwall

Friday, June 27th, 2008

Young adults, that group of Americans under the age of forty, have become an increasingly difficult target for churches to reach. The cultural, social, and generational differences of this cohort are striking when compared with the cohorts that have come before them. Christian and Amy Piatt write from within this generational matrix about issues of faith and culture, offering words of warning and of hope.

Christian is a writer and consultant, while his wife, Amy, is founding pastor of a Disciples of Christ congregation in Pueblo, Colorado. They bring to this book years of working with youth and young adults, and their own experiences inhabiting this generation. They make use of statistics and stories to bring to life the spiritual realities of those adults under forty. Unlike the book, UnChristian, Christian and Amy are sympathetic to the life choices and concerns of this generation. They’re realistic but not judgmental – indeed, even as the authors of UnChristian recognize, this generation is turned off by judgmental and hypocritical religion. They also affirm the spiritual quest of a generation that is truly “spiritual but not religious.”

The book’s title is key to the book’s message. Social networking sites, like MySpace and Facebook, are front and center in the life stories of this generation. This is a digital world, even virtual world. Communication is instantaneous, and yet community is often difficult to create. This is a generation that is reachable, but it’s unlikely to come to the church – to reach them the church must go looking for them. But, in inviting them into the community, older generations must understand that the physical plant, rituals and history are of less importance. Sacred space can be created wherever this generation gathers. All of this makes communication between generations difficult. The authors write:

Today’s twenty-year old generally has less in common with someone twice his or her age than ever before. Further, people resist traditional definitions and labels, creating a fuzzier notion of what exactly we’re talking about with regard to young adults (p. 5).

In spite of these differences and difficulties, it’s possible to reach out to those aged 18-40. But, to do so requires listening before talking.

In a series of chapters, the Piatts take us into the lives and needs of this cohort. They help us understand their longings and concerns. As other studies have told us, this is a group that eschews absolutes and is comfortable with differences. For mainline churches to reach them, space must be made for diversity. Churches that put less focus on creeds – churches such as the Disciples – will benefit, as will churches that allow them to tell their stories. As for God, Young Adults often see a disconnect between their view of God and Christianity as a whole. They believe in God, but not in the church and its definitions. Utilizing the Baylor University matrix of God -types, they suggest that the most likely views of God in this generation are either the Authoritarian God or the Distant God, but they’re interested in connecting relationally with God – they’re just not sure how this can happen, and they don’t think the church can help them.

In seeking to reach them, we must be aware that prepackaged ideas don’t often work. And just because they like Starbucks doesn’t mean they’ll come to Christian coffeehouses. To connect churches must provide community, support, welcome, and an encouragement of the imagination. Ironically, while traditional church might not connect well, ritual has its place – but only if it allows for the release of the imagination. More than anything, there is a seeming need for connection with the generations that came before. In many ways this is a generation that has not developed strong personal habits –especially in regard to sexuality and money — and they long for mentors who will help them wrestle with important issues in their lives. Indeed, churches that will address such issues with openness and grace can find important entrees into their lives.

In a chapter on addiction, the Piatts point out the real problems that young adults are having with addiction – whether it is issues of drugs, alcohol, gambling, and eating disorders. They ask the important question: Where is the church? That is, why isn’t the church taking proactive steps to reach out to and support those facing addiction.

Why must we wait for the judicial system to say that these young people need help? Do they have to be arrested in order to receive treatment? Is this the message we send? In a haplessly reactive culure, the church must be a proactive source of hope and healing for these young people, empowering them with the tools they require for self-care before they face these high-risk factors. We must also be there for their families, both before and after a crisis is recognized. We should be on the front lines, helping teachers, parents, and other caretakers collectively identify risky and self-destructive behavior before it eve becomes an issue relegated to the court system (p. 105-106).

Here is a way of connecting, but only if it’s authentic care.

Of course in a book speaking to connecting with young adults, it’s appropriate to talk about music. Music is and always will be a primary expression of spiritual energy and ideals. That churches have been fighting for years over what is appropriate is almost a truism. We recognize it to be true, but find it difficult to have a conversation. In addressing this issue, Christian Piatt writes as one who is a musician and who has spent time working in the music business. He has a strong sense of the role music plays in our lives, and reminds us that much of what passes as Christian music is deficient in quality and content. The issue addressed here is an important one, because the church faces the question of the degree to which music must be distinctly sacred in order for it to be appropriate for church. He suggests four different views, ranging from purist to separatist, while he finds himself somewhere in the middle, in positions he refers to as spiritual reflective and incidentalist.

There is a chapter that wrestles with the question of who is called to serve. Not only is there a looming crisis in ministry – an aging clergy isn’t being replaced by younger clergy – but the definition of who might serve is changing. That is, the ordination of both women and gays is in play, and for the most part the views of young adults are open and expansive. Finally, in a chapter entitled “Church of the Prodigal Child,” the Piatts discuss their research methodology, tell some stories of young adults who are open to the church, but who also tend to be disassfected. In essence they return to the premise that this is a generation that is more spiritual than it is religious. It is a generation open to alternative spiritualities, but also wants to pray, study, engage in community and social justice. Looking at American history, they discern five themes that define America’s religious instincts, instincts that are very present in this generation: 1) “Personal autonomy”; 2) “Sensibility over creeds”; 3) “Impatience with organized religion”; 4) “Present applicability”; 5) “Fascination with the metaphysical” (p. 156).

We often talk about young adults as the church of the future, but in reality they are the church of the present. If the church doesn’t engage them – which involves listening with respect – there won’t be a church in the future. The Piatts offer us an excellent primer on the faith and desires of this broadly defined cohort. They write with energy and commitment. This is a book full of compassion and grace. They call a spade a spade, but do so without judgmentalism. Anyone wanting to connect with younger adults will want to read this excellent book. That the Piatts are Disciples, like me, only makes it better!

Not saying goodbye: Just so long, and thanks

Saturday, June 21st, 2008

Not saying goodbye: Just so long, and thanks

By CHRISTIAN PIATT

Back in 1998, when I first came to Pueblo to work as an educational consultant for the school district, I sent a handful of writing samples to the Lifestyle editor, with the hope of picking up some arts reviews, and maybe a feature or two.

Unlike many editors with whom I have worked in the years following, this particular man responded quickly, positively and encouraged me to jump right in.

After teaming with the other Pueblo Chieftain reviewers for several months, the editor offered me the opportunity to do a feature story on a local student with special needs. The final product, though less than groundbreaking, was a real boost for a guy in his 20s hoping to make a career out of his passion for writing.

By the end of the 1998-99 school year, I was transferred to Seattle, and then Denver, and finally to Fort Worth, where I stayed while my new wife completed her seminary schooling at Texas Christian University. The work I had done with the Chieftain was the foot in the door I needed to break into doing work for several other papers and magazines in the years to follow.

In 2004 we were called as a part of her ministry back to – of all places – Pueblo, so I gave my old friend and editor a ring. He not only welcomed me back into the fold, but offered me my first chance to write my own weekly column. From there, I’ve had the privilege to go on to write columns and other pieces for several magazines and Web sites, as well as pen two books, edit a series of forthcoming young adult books and even consult on a new translation of the Bible. The field of professional writing is a lot like establishing credit; everyone wants you to have prior experience but few want to offer you the opportunity to gain it.

Marvin Read was that person for me. He not only took a chance on me, but he also encouraged me, even when my work was hardly up to the standards that it should be, perhaps because he saw some potential worth cultivating.

I honestly believe that I owe a debt of gratitude for the many rewarding opportunities that have followed since he allowed me to scribble down some reviews of “Annie” and other local productions, some 10 years ago.

Marv also has been a good friend, and though, with his departure this week from many years of service at the paper, he will no longer serve as my editor, I hope to maintain the bond of friendship we have shared. He is a man of great patience, wisdom, love and faith, and his contributions as a community leader and speaker have done much to promote tolerance, peace and a more ecumenical perspective to faith in our modest city.

Though I’m hardly impartial, I can say with confidence that Marv has developed one of the most engaging, thoughtful and substantive faith sections I’ve ever seen in a daily newspaper.

He’s consistently stood behind his writers, even when he didn’t entirely agree with them, recognizing that the freedom to share and debate ideas was paramount. He has taught me much about journalistic integrity, literary discipline and about how to find and hone my own voice as a writer within the greater American faith forum.

Marv will be missed by many, and certainly by me.

At the ripe young age of 70, he’s finally embracing the much-deserved rest that a lifetime of hard work has afforded him. If you see him on the streets of Pueblo, which you likely will, shaking hands on the sidewalk of dc’s on b street or working on a double scotch and water at one of the local taverns, make sure to let him know that, even though he may not have his mug on the front page of the Life section every Saturday, he’ll hardly be forgotten any time soon.