What has a Mormon to do with an evangelical university?

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, February 18, 2007

Under “normal” conditions, I would resist the urge to write another post on Mormon presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. However, when a friend and Regent University alum sent this to me, I just couldn’t resist. As the official press release from Regent reads, the school is “pleased to announce that Mitt Romney will deliver the Regent University Commencement Address on Saturday, May 5, 2007.”

Founded in 1978 by Pat Robertson, Regent has a reputation in the evangelical and secular world for its academic standards–particularly in the areas of law and communications. (On Feb. 11, students from Regent University’s School of Law won the American Bar Association’s Negotiation Competition. Regent succeeds last year’s winner, Harvard Law School, in claiming the top prize for legal negotiation.)

As the Regent press release notes, “Romney joins Al Gore, Bob Dole, Wesley Clark, Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak, Hanan Ashrawi and others as recent principal speakers on the Regent University campus.” Kudos to Regent for exposing its students to individuals who do not necessarily fit the right-wing, evangelical stereotype. (I can’t help but wonder if Dershowitz’s Harvard would ever invite Robertson to speak … )

That being said, what are we to think when a university which exists “to bring glory to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit” invites a practicing Mormon to deliver the commencement address? From my observation, college commencement speakers are usually chosen because they represent models of success that graduating students may someday attain. As an entrepreneur and family man, Romney deserves our respect. But, as a Mormon, his religious beliefs are far from conventional and are contradictory to the basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity.

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be that Romney’s appearance at Regent is the result of two converging political dynamics? The first is that Romney must allay the concerns of the evangelical voting public by downplaying Mormon distinctives and aligning the religion as merely another “denomination” within the broad landscape of American Christianity. Giving the commencement address at a prominent evangelical university definitely helps accomplish this objective. The second is that Pat Robertson may see Romney as the only candidate capable of effectively challenging the democratic juggernauts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Therefore, he may be willing to overlook the conflict of Romney’s faith and Regent’s mission for the purpose of enhancing Romney’s reputation among evangelicals.

copyright 2007, Strang Communications

When leaders play games with God’s resources.

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, January 25, 2007

I read a story recently about a group of church leaders who took up an offering among their respective ministries and brought in more than $2 million. I was surprised to discover, however, that the money wasn’t raised for hurricane relief, AIDS orphans or training for pastors in the developing world. No, the leaders gave it to a friend: a prominent televangelist on his 70th birthday. Huh?

Now, I must confess: I’ve been the recipient of a few “Pentecostal handshakes” in which someone surreptitiously passed me a $20 bill and encouraged me to take my wife to a nice restaurant or fill the tank with gas. (Yes, that was in the ’90s.) But this level of extravagance smacks of the corporate arrogance that brought companies like Enron and WorldCom to their knees, a self-serving ethic that assumes that an organization exists for the betterment of its leaders, not for the fulfillment of its mission or the service of its constituents.

I’ve heard too many stories of fat-cat preachers throwing money around like ten-year-olds at a game of Monopoly. They’ll give each other Rolexes and BMWs, all the while encouraging their congregations that, when they step into “divine prosperity,” they too can exercise this level of “generosity.” Generosity! Since when is generosity defined as one rich person collecting money from a bunch of average income earners and then giving it to another rich person? Wall Street has a term for this so-called generosity: corporate incest. Capitol Hill has one too: graft.

Call me idealistic, but I expect better of the Body of Christ. I expect leaders to allocate every penny as though eternal souls depended on it, to model stewardship by accumulating as little as necessary and redirecting the blessings they receive to the areas of greatest need. From a biblical perspective, generosity is exemplified by those who gave out of need to meet an even greater need. Consider the impoverished Philippians, who gave Paul money for the starving Jews. Consider the widow who gave her last penny–or the one who gave her last meal.

Yet some of us have been taught that a birthday gift to a millionaire evangelist is equivalent to buying the freedom of a slave in Sudan. “It’s all planting a seed in the kingdom,” we’re assured. Sorry, but I’ll let that offering plate pass me by untouched. Some would argue that recipients of such gifts are usually very generous people. “They’ll just turn around and sow it back into the kingdom,” they contend. Maybe, but what does this look like to a world that observes the church through a lens smudged by corporate scandals and political corruption?

While most of us will never be wealthy enough to pass multimillion-dollar checks to each other in appreciation for the heroic sacrifices we’ve made for the cause of the gospel, this story serves as a sobering reminder of our dark tendency to turn in upon ourselves and justify all manner of self-indulgence, to slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on our successes while the world looks on in disgust. Maybe someday, if the gospel has saturated every corner of the world and nobody’s going to bed hungry, we can justify this level of triviality. Until then, there’s work to be done. And it’s not our money anyway, is it?

copyright 2007, Strang Communications

Should we cover the ‘nakedness’ of leaders who embarrass us?

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, January 3, 2007

Once again, a Christian leader who has otherwise accomplished much to advance the cause of the gospel in the past five decades has issued a cringe-inducing public prediction–much to the glee of late-night comedians and faux news anchors. The situation made me think of the often overlooked account of Noah’s post-flood lapse found in Genesis 9–one of the strangest stories in the Bible.

For some, the patriarch’s drunkenness serves as a cautionary tale on the dangers of wine-bibbing. Others have used it as substantiation for the so-called “curse of Ham” and justification for the oppression of the African peoples (who some believe descended from Ham). In its setting immediately following the flood, the account stands in parallel to Adam’s first sin and the consequences it brought to his descendants. It serves as further reinforcement that, even after the cleansing effects of the flood, the potential for human wickedness had yet to be effectively dealt with.

However, a secondary application of this narrative seems to be this: We share responsibility to guard the reputations of our elders–even in their most embarrassing moments. This principle is vividly countercultural in a society of voyeurs and gossips who delight in the downfall of the high and mighty–from dictators to CEOs and televangelists. But where are the Shems and Japheths who will “cover the nakedness” of respected leaders who say and do foolish things? When high-profile leaders make bizarre predictions and threats, where are the family members and staff who will gently help them reconsider their actions and preserve their reputations in their later years?

In practical terms, perhaps leaders should surround themselves with people who have the intestinal fortitude to ask them whether they really want to make that prediction about the tsunami, the nuclear bomb or God destroying all the homosexuals with fire. Perhaps these leaders should hire a media adviser to help them communicate to the secular press without sounding like religious nutjobs. Maybe leaders should submit their more unusual or risky prophecies to a group of their peers before airing them publicly.

I’m not suggesting we use a different set of standards for fathers in the faith, or that we make a habit of justifying the actions of an embarrassing few. And I’m not absolving the guilt of those who should know by now how to guard their tongue in front of a microphone and TV camera. However, we should do everything in our power to help and encourage those with a broad hearing to more effectively represent the Body of Christ.

copyright 2007, Strang Communications