. . . And Church Happened (A Personal Response)

A few comments about a book I just finished, called  . . . And Church Happened, by Walt Hoffman [ellipses are part of the title].  This is less a review and more a personal reaction to the events described in this book. In fact, I wouldn’t even recommend this book to anyone who wasn’t directly or indirectly involved in a period of recent Christian history known colloquially as "The Jesus Movement,” which took place during the late 60's and 70's, and tapered off in the 80's.   

I became a Christian during that period, in January 1979, to be precise, and almost immediately got swept into that movement, though at the time I had no conception of a grander scheme or movement or whatever. I didn’t grow up going to church, had no interest in or appreciation of church history, had no point of reference, nothing to compare to or rebel from, no context, no pretext, no subtext, nothing. Just me and Jesus Christ, a midnight encounter (I was slightly stoned) in a studio apartment on the corner of 14^th and Electric in Seal Beach, California. Christians call it being “born again.” So do I.

I said this is less a review and more a personal response for several reasons. My conversion and subsequent church experience took place not only around the time the events of this book were coming to a close but also in the same geographical vicinity (Orange County). More significantly, the events of this book parallel almost to the letter my own involvement with a church remarkably similar to the church described in this book, with several key differences. It’s those differences that I need to focus on.

The events of this book span a period of time between 1969 and 1989, so I read this book from the standpoint of trying to place myself (peripherally) in all that was taking place in the early 70's. I was still in high school when their Bible study began, and I became a Christian and started back to school (CSULB) as a transfer level junior in January of 1979 right around the time the people in this book were becoming a church. The ministry I eventually got involved in was founded by a man named George Geftakys (headquartered in Fullerton). I was deeply entrenched in that ministry around the time the church Hoffman describes (located in Garden Grove) was coming to an end. So there’s probably a bit of overlap in terms of what was happening a few miles up the freeway between these churches, but a totally different trajectory.

The thing is, in the early years of my involvement with the Geftakys ministry, we, very much like the people in Walt’s church, believed "and church happened," as well. Nearly everything I read in this book was familiar to me, with a few exceptions. Yet, as I said, it was those exceptions that made the difference, chiefly, the Geftakys church was ultimately injurious while the Monday Night Bible Study church was apparently healthy.  While the Geftakys ministry could rightly be labeled, if not a cult, then cult-like, the Monday Night Bible Study was a vibrant expression of Christ’s church. Nothing more, nothing else.

Back to the book (for interested readers). Key events include--

·      the conversion of a troubled young man named Floyd in 1969;

·      Floyd’s role as a camp counselor a few years later and the nine boys he mentored;

·      the decision by those boys to continue the bond that began in camp by meeting weekly at what became known as Monday Night Bible Study, which would be taught by the author (Walt Hoffman);

·      the growth (in numbers) of Monday Night Bible Study and the subsequent decisions the group made to adapt;

·      the growing awareness that God was doing something, but what?;

·      the process of acknowledging what the group had for years resisted: the possibility that Monday Night Bible Study might, in fact, be an actual church;

·      the collective decision to become an actual church;

·   the steps the group took to be sure everything they did was grounded in Scripture;

·      the gradual diminishing (in numbers) of the church;

·   the eventual dissolution of the church.

That last bullet point was a new concept to me. On page 193, Hoffman wrote, “As we were never called to permanence, we recognized this could be a sign that God was finishing his work called Monday Night.”

Never called to permanence? I circled that sentence and wrote in the margin, “a new thought?” Yes, a new thought, because my parallel experience with something analogous to And Church Happened could better be described as,  “And Church Went Wrong,” or “And Church Missed the Mark,” or “And Church Miscarried,” and so on. Though the Geftakys vision for a New Testament gathering and all its Biblical expressions and practices were uncannily similar to the vision the Monday Night Bible Study believers understood, George’s ministry ossified while Monday Night Bible Study assembly seemed more organic. Rather than allow what appeared to be an organic, living thing (an assembly) to be born, develop, grow, age, and die like all organic things, George’s ministry continued well beyond its life expectancy, ultimately becoming a decaying corpse: austere, rule-bound, harsh.

In the margins of the book, I noted the difference between the two “founders” (I realize Walt Hoffman would reject this label, but it’s for lack of a better word that I use it). And I think the key difference has to do with humility. Where Walt seemed to go out of his way to be sure he wasn’t imposing rules, George (and his wife Betty) apparently could not fathom how a ministry could be maintained apart from rules. And where Walt sought advice from people outside the group and encouraged members of the assembly to interact with other ministries, George increasingly built walls and hedges around his church.

Many of us, after awhile, uncomfortable with the restrictions and growing isolation, finally left (my husband and I included), but others stayed until the inevitable implosion and even beyond (there are still a few loyalists). Walt Hoffman’s book closes with an appendix that lists the names and ministries of over 50 “alumni” of Monday Night Bible Study; a book written about the Geftakys ministry would have to include an appendix of countless alumni whose lives, psyches or faith were damaged, some irreparably.

Questions that plague me: If what happened to me that night in Seal Beach was an authentic salvation experience (which I believe it was), why was I not "led" to the healthy church and instead gave my loyalty and allegiance to what would ultimately turn out to be, if not a cult, then quite nearly one? It's all in the past, of course, and the fruit of those years is three beautiful children, a stable marriage, and, yes, an intact faith. But I always wonder why God didn't steer me differently. 

Ah, so there it is.

No Wonder Trump Loves the Poorly Educated

Like the "university" named after him, Donald Trump is a fraud. The institution (now called "Trump Entrepreneur Initiative") is facing three class-action lawsuits, two out of California and one out of New York State. Ian Tuttle of National Review provides details below. 

No wonder Trump loves the "poorly educated." They give him their money and their votes.

"Yes, Trump University was a Massive Scam," by Ian Tuttle (National Review, February 26, 2016).

Don't Take The Bait: Climate Change Debate not Settled

Here's the bait: "Don't you believe the globe is warming?"

Implication: How you respond determines whether you're a "denier."

No room for nuance or complexity; no discussion about ramifications, solutions, priorities. Just the gavel and the judgment. Welcome to the brave new world state.

I refuse to take the bait. The globe may be warming, but questions of cause and effect, solutions and priorities are still wide open, in my view.

Here are two short videos that are worth considering, both posted on Prager University's website (I have a few words to say about Prager U following the videos).

The first video, "What They Haven't Told You About Climate Change," is presented by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore's focus has to do with the bigger picture of climate change, putting change over time in perspective and raising questions about man's contribution to global warming. Of course, Greenpeace has completely disassociated itself from Moore, including publishing a statement on its website denouncing Moore as a corporate sell-out. To which I say, What's new? Scientists who question the so-called settled science of climate change do so at their own professional risk, which is probably what accounts for the frequently cited but highly dubious statistic that 95% of scientists agree that climate change is a catastrophic problem.

The second video, "Is Climate Change our Biggest Problem?" is presented by economist Bjorn Lomborg, who is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg's work, too, has been subject to scrutiny and criticism, and he has been accused of flip-flopping (correcting?) previously-held views and conclusions. The video is useful, I think, in its pragmatism.

"What They Haven't Told You About Climate Change,"presented by Patrick Moore.



"Is Climate Change Our Biggest Problem?" presented by Bjorn Lomborg.




A few comments:

For those who were previously unfamiliar with it, Prager University is not an accredited university. Founded by conservative talk radio host and author Dennis Prager, the site offers professionally-created five-minute videos hosted by experts in a variety of fields. The site is free to visitors. More about their mission and vision here. 

I find Prager U to be a good resource as conversation starters or class-writing assignments. Obviously, most (if not all) of the topics can't addressed fully in 5-minute spots. It's up to visitors to do whatever further research or inquiry they wish. Indeed, if I had any "druthers" as to how Prager U might be improved, I would like to see "For Further Reading" sections listed for each topic presented. 

As for those who would dismiss the views of Moore and Lomborg because they've been denigrated by mainstream media and climate change alarmists as "deniers," I can only say, Don't buy it. I refer you to Kirsten Powers' recent book, The Silencing, which illustrates what she calls the "illiberal" left's tactics of silencing by intimidation. She writes about it here in The Daily Signal. You can read my mini-book review of her book in this June 3, 2015 blog entry here.

"Get up, Lad"

If Victor Davis Hanson is concerned about something, I take notice. Here he explains what he thinks is behind the rise of Trump and the importance of respecting, not dismissing, Trump's supporters. 

The Classicist, with Victor Davis Hanson: "The Trump Aftershock"

My take? Cause and effect. Donald Trump is the direct result of Barack Obama's presidency. For nearly eight years Obama has shown nothing but disdain for his critics, has mocked and caricatured his political opponents, has broken faith with those he promised to bring "hope" to, has circumvented procedure, violated protocol, wreaked havoc on the political process, exceeded his executive power and dared Congress to stop him, and, in my view, has been the mitigating factor behind the balkanization of our country. Nearly everything Obama touches has turned to ash, the opposite of the Midas touch. The man is a divider, not a uniter, yet he had the gall yesterday, in yet another pompous scolding, to call for "healing the nation's partisan discord" and "poisonous political climate."

Classic. He decries the poisonous political climate that he not only nurtured but masterfully exploited.

No surprise, then, as Professor Hanson concludes, the inevitable rise of a Donald Trump, who has charged in like a warrior on his steed, talking smack and promising to rout the bullies. "It's a jungle," he sneers. "But I'm from the jungle . . . I know the jungle. I'm your guy." 

And so the GOP implodes.

These candidates need to stop the circular firing squad and focus on their real political adversaries, which is actually what Marco Rubio was trying to do, albeit clumsily, that evening at the New Hampshire debate: keep the focus outward, onto Obama. Instead, he crumpled under Christie's withering belittling and ended up looking foolish.

As for Rubio, who thanks to the giddy media suffered serious damage at the New Hampshire primary, it's possible he can recover. After the debate mishap and then his clumsy post-debate handling of it afterwards (sticking to his guns, by golly), he seems to have gotten the memo. He spoke to his supporters after the NH vote and apologized, said he messed up ("it's on me"), and promised it wouldn't happen again.

Good for him, not blaming Christie. 

But . . . I'm pretty disgusted with Christie. I've liked him for so long, but his behavior the night of the debate was petty and inexcusable, especially coming from a man who had no chance of becoming president. Now I wish him good riddance (he pulled out of the race). Some analysts are saying it was a Kamikaze attack, murder-suicide. Not a good way for him to end his run.

If Rubio does somehow survive--if he fares better at the next debate, has a strong showing in South Carolina and subsequent states, and manages to eclipse the bad storyline with a new, even better one (down but not out, that sort of thing)--maybe this will have been just a hiccup. 

"Get up, lad, and finish the race."

No, Mr. President. "Islam" Does Not Mean "Peace"

Sometimes people say things, not because they're true, but because they wish them to be true. Broadly speaking, that's a problem. But it's a particularly dangerous problem when a world leader says things that are patently false in a public setting. Such was the case this week when President Obama visited a mosque in Baltimore and said in his remarks that the word "Islam" means "peace." 

To be sure, Obama is not the only president to have said this. In the dark and terrible hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, former president George W. Bush said basically the same thing. I get it. It sounds good. We want it to be true. These are beautiful words, and many Muslims, in America and around the world, are no doubt wonderful, peace-loving, people. 

Nevertheless, wishful thinking should not form the basis for a president's public remarks, let alone his foreign policy. The word "Islam" does not mean "peace." It means "submit." This is not a fine distinction nor a matter of semantics or culture. It's a core tenet of the religion's doctrine and history. 

A few examples: 

• What Makes Islam So Different? addresses the myth that "Muslim apologists sometimes claim that the root word of Islam is 'al-Salaam,' which is 'peace' in Arabic:

 "An Arabic word has only one root.  The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.”  There is no disagreement about this among Arabic or Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.     

"Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace can be brought about by forcing others into submission.  As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, 'Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law.' 

"In truth, the Quran not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also orders them to  subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule.  This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its military and demographic success in conquering other cultures."

• The Noble Quran, in a section called "The Repentance" directs its adherents to "fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

• A (female) Islamic scholar at Al-Azhar University in Egypt, who is considered moderate by other Muslims, explains that Islam sanctions rape of non-Muslim female prisoners.

• Pew Research data reveals that a large majority of Muslims across the globe accept the Islamic practice of forced conversions and the implementation of Sharia law for all citizens, not just Muslims.

• The documentary, "By the Numbers: The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions and Demographics," narrated by Raheel Raza, reiterates these data. Raza, a Canadian Muslim feminist and activist who dares to speak out against radical Islam, is also president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow. Watch the (short) documentary here. 

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali, seen here among the panelists in an Intelligence Squared debate, and here in this conversation with Bill Kristol, has been speaking out about the radical nature of Islam for years. 

Eighteenth century philosopher Thomas Paine said something that, in my view, has profound ramifications in this current climate of political correctness as it relates to multi-culturalism and diversity: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." 

President Obama appears to be listening to people who are either ignorant or deceptive, more likely, the latter. He's certainly not listening to people like Raheel Raza or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. America needs a leader who will face reality with open-eyed clarity and not wishful thinking. I pray we get it right this time around, and that it's not too late to repair the damage of this naive president's foreign policy malfeasance.