I happened to catch Play Misty For Me on TV the other night. It being an old Clint Eastwood flick, I was a big fan when I was a kid. This one was pretty much a precursor for Fatal Attraction, which came out shortly after I graduated high school. Play Misty was riveting and suspenseful, for its time. And I considered how Avant-garde such a portrayal of acceptable (and thus unacceptable) behavior single people would engage in back in the early 1970’s.
Eastwood plays a radio DJ living a fast-paced, playboy lifestyle – juggling women – when a psychotic woman takes an unhealthy interest in him. She cuts her own wrists in a jealous rage one moment, and he comforts her by snuggling with her on his bed through the night afterward. Her psychotic manipulations seem to work … for a while. And as I watched that scene, I thought to myself: It’s not love, but it’ll do (I guess). I mean, just what does this woman expect? She manipulates, controls, twists, and then butchers her way into what ever she wants, but it sure ain’t love.
It was just then that a strange thought crossed my mind: This seems like church to me.
Here’s the thing: As I look around this “Christian” town at all the churches we have on nearly every corner, I still have yet to find even one that takes the poor in off the streets. Loving the poor… yeah. That’s right there in the ink. It’s not between the lines; you don’t have to extrapolate it from fancy doctrine or exegetical and theological analysis. No. It’s right there in the ink – perhaps most famously in Matthew 25… which says, in part, “when I was [homeless], you took me in”!
Did I say the church of Lubbock ignores these people? No. I did not. For certainly, we feed them, which is an important part of loving them. But then we offer them tents on the other side of the tracks. And I gotta say: It’s not love, but it’ll do (I guess).
You may be reading here for the first time (unlikely really) and thinking, what does that have to do with a psychotic woman stalking you?
Well, that’s where the analogy gets stretched, but I am concerned that the real agenda at church is not merely to welcome homosexuals (which I am in favor of – as I fully believe Jesus wants), but in endorsing the homosexuality – AND DOING SO WHILE LEAVING JESUS TO LIVE IN A TENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS!
Do I sound like a nut job?
I think maybe so. I have worked very hard in accepting and affirming this church – even on this blog. My rhetoric has cooled a lot. I have not confronted any pastors recently. I have not dragged any American Flags around any sanctuaries for a long time. And instead, I have written about prayer, about foster kids, and even singing the praises of Vandelia Church (rather than criticizing) – all things that used to be out of range for this blog and this ministry! And for what? Who is listening? Who cares?
For crying out loud, I wrote a post called “WHAT IS HOME?” seeking insight and discussion from my readers, but I only got 4 responses!
How is it that the church of Christ, the bride of God’s son, is more interested in finding “love” in anal sex than in loving the poor? And how is it that we settle for that?
I guess I will be the one to break this to you: That ain’t LOVE! And NO, it won’t do. No. Agape is not the same as two men giving each other the business up their bums! Read your Bible! Love covers a multitude of sins, but it does not claim that evil is good. No matter how Avant-garde you think today’s acceptable behavior is, you won’t find Jesus engaged in it. That is not a light in your tunnel of “love”; it’s a really ugly disappointment.
I join John the seer in calling the church to pull out of that whore! (Rev. 18:4). That ain’t love, and it won’t do.