Our Aggressively Inarticulate Generation

I had a long conversation with a very good friend yesterday morning about a difficulty he has encountered at the church he serves and essentially it is a doctrinal matter. Doctrinal matters tend to express themselves in very real and practical ways in congregational life and we were talking about ways to handle what he has been dealing with. He made a statement that has become a problem not just in church life, but as we were talking I extended it to include the sum total of society, and especially young people.

He said that it is unbelievable that many Christians are unable to really articulate what they believe. This is due in large part to many folks simply believing they already have it together and hence no need to really study or define oneself as a Christian. More likely their identification with an institution or organization becomes expression enough to then make a de facto response such as "Well, Southern Baptists (for example) believe..." In fact they really have not addressed the content of the question. What do you believe?

The ability to express oneself has taken on a completely different meaning and in spite of the widespread availability to education and even self-helps. In our media saturated society and the txtmsging vernacular that has overridden everyday speech it is no wonder young people even have the ability to express themselves.

Because, like, you know, I like went to the grocery store yesterday, to like pick up a few things, for my BFF, you know, my wife, and when I like put my stu-uff on the you know, the rolly thingy, I gave a shot-out to the clerk. I like, said, "Good afternoon. How are you today?"

"Huh? Oh, I'm cool man. You cool?"

"Yeah, I'm cool; despite the searing heat outside."

"Huh? What kind of heat?"

And so it goes. I was reminded of this comedian after that brief diddy of an exchange. Its about three minutes, and he can express himself much better than I can. :)



The conversations here at The RP have reminded me of the need and ability to express oneself. To Joe I owe a debt of thanks--and here's to a few more "articulate" convos at The RP. :)

Christmas and Eschatology

I have been told many times that there is an apparent "war on Christmas", that secularists and liberals are trying to run Christmas out of the public sphere. I am also told that secularist engineers are recklessly encouraging American retailers to sweep the term "Christmas" under the rug so as not to offend their base of customers. Congress has even passed a resolution affirming Christianity as "a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, [and] is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world."

In this post, I want to offer a different perspective on America's "drift into secular monotony," as one prominent preacher has put it. I am persuaded that this "war" has much less to do with Christians being on the defensive as much as they are on the offensive. The current climate of dispensational eschatology has warped the Christian's triumphant spirit into an aggressive attack on anything non-Christmas, perceiving it as anti-Christmas, and that the appropriate response is to go on the defensive against it.

Dispensational eschatology, a la' Left Behind, really does not inspire the church to greatness. The eschatology essentially says that the church is going to wither up and shrink from the earth until there is a rapture that will come and rescue the few faithful remaining Christians from a horrible end. This overtly defeatist tone has pushed the church into a supposed corner and therefore it interprets itself as having to come out with tooth and claw borne so as to defend itself from secular humanist and atheistic attack.

According to the House resolution mentioned above, there are 225,000,000 Christians in America. Obviously then, Christians occupy a majority status on America. Of course we must account for nominal and carnal Christians, not to mention indifferent ones. Plus, there are the vocal minority that continuously claims that Christianity is being assaulted upon every street and avenue. Wither then the brave Christian?

We have picked and chosen the wrong enemy and it isn't the secular humanist or the atheist. Our adversary is still the devil and he gets great pleasure watching God's children flounder wasting their precious evangelistic time waging a war for Christmas. God has not called us to be culture warriors; rather, He has called us simply to be faithful. Persecution is something that should be expected; indeed we are blessed when persecuted (Matthew 5:11). If a "secular", a "liberal", or an atheist reviles Christmas, we should count our blessings, not get on the offensive, rattling our green and red sabers.

By recapturing the triumphalist tone of Christmas we can cause more good for the Savior than by marching to the drum beat of the culture warrior. Consider Isaac Watts' words in the second through fourth verses of Joy to the World, which ironically, really is not a Christmas hymn:

Joy to the World, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat, the sounding joy.

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders, of His love.

Notice just a few considerations and Scriptural reflections. Jesus is on the throne of David, has been, and will continue to be (Acts 2:29-35).

"Joy to the World, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ..."

Mr. Watts also recognized Christ is extending His rule unto all the nations and is putting all His enemies under His feet (1 Corinthians 15:25-26).

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found...

As a final reflection, Watts realized that Christ's rule was "already" though still "not yet." The government indeed rests upon His shoulders and His rule would increase until consummated (Isaiah 9:6-7).

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love...

Jesus rules as King of kings and Lord of lords. This is much reason for the Christian to celebrate Christmas yet to remember that Christ already reigns and does not need His rule spread by coercion or force, but by simple evangelistic witness. The eschatology of Christmas is not one of defensive market and media aggression but one of triumphant hope and a victory that has already been won.

In His days, the righteous shall flourish, and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth. Those who dwell in the wilderness will bow before Him and His enemies will lick the dust. Psalm 72:7-9

Ann Coulter: More than Ad Hominems

I have blogged on Ann Coulter before as a plea to fellow conservatives to abandon her outright. As she hasn't tread over the line before, now she is calling for the murder of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

When a guest on Good Morning America urges the murder of one of our leading presidential candidates, somebody has exceeded the limit. A person who does that needs to be, should be, ought to be, must be kicked off the air permanently.

Edwards, though I disagree with him on numerous fronts, should not be the target of such attacks, nor his family. What exacerbates these attacks is that these come from a self-proclaimed, Bible-believing, Christian lady. Coulter has referred to Edwards as a "faggot" and mocked the death of his son in other venues. It is one thing to take an opponent to task for holding views differing from your own, but this is shameful and tasteless, beyond ad hominems.

What is even more amazing is this comes from someone who has also stated publicly in the past, "Christ died for my sins and nothing else matters." "I'm a Christian first, a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it." "Christianity fuels everything I write."

However, Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards called her on the carpet. Courteous, clearly displaying restraint and civility, Mrs. Edwards calmly requested, addressing host Chris Matthews:

I'm calling you … in the south when we -- when someone does something that displeases us, we wanna ask them politely to stop doing it. Uh - I'd like to ask Ann Coulter -- if she wants to debate on issues, on positions -- we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today -- um but uh it's quite another matter for these personal attacks that the things she has said over the years not just about John but about other candidates -- it lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want to use the opportunity … to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.

But as is her usual style, she played it off as a joke. This is the type of joke that a playground bully plays and then nasally responds, "Sorry Ms. Crabapple." The joke should be on her--and she should be removed from network broadcasting.

Parsley's Saber-rattling

Via OneNewsNow, Pastor Rod Parsley is rattling his saber over Christians becoming "culture warriors."

"When you speak of the church, most of the church's present impotence, its compromise -- its failure, if you will -- I believe stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what it really means to be a Christian after all," Parsley says.

"The message much of the church preaches today is but a mere shadow of the real thing," he continues. "And as a result, we've become a midwife to births of entire generations who are ill-equipped to engage the culture, unprepared for the rigors of the call of Christ, and unwilling to fight for their King."

It seems Pastor Rod is conflating Christianity of the Bible with this American religious mix of warring in the name of Jesus and patriot pastor talk about the army of the Lord. Where in the Bible are we to take up such arms? Forgive me if I have a slight problem with the culture warrior motif to spread Christian values and ideals. The Bible I read seems more attuned to turning the other cheek, going the second mile, and loving one's enemies into the Kingdom, not converting them at saber-point.

Before the church can be victorious in the culture war, says Parsley, its members must deal with their own sins. "We need repentance," he says. "[We need] individual, moral reform. It was John the Baptist's first message. It was Jesus' first message. Unfortunately, it's our last message."

So the mission of God's church is not missions and evangelism, caring for the poor and downtrodden, ministering to the least of these, but to enact moral reform? Yes, Rod, wear that "moral police" badge with pride.

The Decalogue for Drivers

The Vatican has taken road rage seriously. What the cops cannot handle, evidently religion can, and so they will try by issuing the Ten Commandments for drivers. They include obeying speed limits, praying before getting behind the wheel, justice in the event of a crash, and not driving slow in the passing lane (OK, that one isn't really in there, but it ought to be).

The Rev. Keith Pecklers, a Jesuit professor of liturgy at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, said Martino was clearly responding to an underreported social concern: an increase in traffic deaths in places like Italy and Spain because of speeding, as well as an increase in road rage, aggressive driving and DUI in places like the United States.

"It may be surprising for people because we're accustomed to the church speaking out about sexual matters, capital punishment, immigration," he said. "The point Cardinal Martino is making is that driving is itself a moral issue. How we drive impacts on the lives of ourselves and others."

Pecklers dismissed any suggestion that Martino's "Ten Commandments" were at all sacrilegious, saying it was "creative pedagogy" that would certainly get people's attention. He stressed that they could never be considered binding in the way the official Ten Commandments are.

Ahh, yes, here is yet another meager attempt at trying to coerce Christian behavior by legislating morality. No, the indwelling presence of Christ cannot lead believers to drive like Jesus would, but enacting a bunch more laws sure will. If we do not expect people to be obedient to traffic laws, how will imposing extra laws make certain that happens? I certainly appreciate that the guidelines are attempting to ensure that the use of a vehicle should not be an occasion for sin, but will a parody of the Ten Commandments do the trick? Creative pedagogy indeed.

As NPR blogger Tom Regan wryly commented, "HA! I always knew those guys in muscle cars who swerved by in no-passing zones were going to hell."

Bill Maher and the Grace of Double Standards

I am not much on Bill Maher because he is generally a nasty man with even nastier opinions and I don't blog much on the opinions such as his. However, this time speaking ill of the dead, he has yet to be called out on his irreverent and just plain mean statements regarding the death of Jerry Falwell. While the national media has taken about every opportunity to blast the dead leader, Bill Maher's hate rhetoric goes unchallenged.

The Morality in Media spokesman [Bob Peters] says while Christian leaders should not get special treatment, they should be treated with respect. "I'm not saying that Christian leaders shouldn't be criticized when they've done something wrong," he points out, "but if there are rules of civility that generally apply, why should it be that it's okay to violate those rules when it comes to Christian leaders...?"

Of course, this is not an effort to "countenance nastiness in any direction," Peters insists. "I just think the same standards should apply," he says.

And they should.

Creation Museum Opens this Weekend

Staff and volunteers at the new Answers in Genesis creation museum have prepared diligently for this weekend--opening weekend--of the new $27 million facility formulated to "uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse." The museum is 65,000 square feet, located in Petersburg, Kentucky and features animatronic dinosaurs, state-of-the-art models and graphics, more than 50 educational videos, a model of the Grand Canyon, and a bookstore.

Pundits and naysayers will also turn out in droves as this article contends.

As the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum prepares to open Monday with its message that the Bible's story of creation is literally and scientifically correct, a growing group of scientists, educators, clergy and concerned citizens will be countering the Creation Museum's message with their own "Rally for Reason."

"We're people interested in science over superstition," said Edwin Kagin, a Union lawyer and Kentucky state director of American Atheists.

Even more scathing was Kai Ryssdal's commentary on NPR yesterday, quoting physics professor Lawrence Krauss.

How much money and glitz does it take to institutionalize a scientific lie? In the case of the Creation Museum, about $27 million worth.

The reason for this museum is quite simple: The historical record in Genesis must literally be true. Since this is incompatible with essentially all of modern scientific knowledge, therefore modern scientific knowledge must be incorrect.

But if you want to renounce modern science as flawed, then an intellectually honest approach would be to also renounce technologies such as airplanes, cars and even radios that work using precisely the same scientific principles that tell us the earth is well over 6,000 years old.

But that's not the approach the Creation Museum takes. It renounces knowledge, but has spent lavishly on creating the illusion of science.

So, they've created a museum that appears scientific, but that simply lies about the science instead.

The Creation Museum uses dazzling and expensive animatronic displays made possible by hard-won advances in science to suggest the viability of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

That includes a six-day creation of the Earth, a 6,000-year-old universe, and a world where dinosaurs and humans happily roamed together. All of these are inconsistent with everything science tells us about the natural world.

Alas, such scientific fraud is not subject to legal intervention unless there is a financially injured party.

But what of the intellectual injury to thousands of young children who might visit the museum — built to be within a day's drive of two-thirds of the U.S. population — and who come out confused about science, the very thing that can give them a competitive edge in the modern world.

Religion doesn't have to be bad science. And, similarly, bad science shouldn't be defended simply because it might have a religious basis.

While religious tolerance is important, there should be little tolerance for promoting or consuming such religiously motivated scientific fraud.

A statement of the museum's intentions are in the "about" section of their website.

The Creation Museum will be upfront that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice, and in every area it touches upon.

We’ll begin the Museum experience by showing that “facts” don’t speak for themselves. There aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. We’ll then explore why the Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.

How much of the Bible should we accept as fact and how much should we receive as metaphor? This is the question behind this issue and one that will never be settled. If an extreme metaphorical position is adopted, then where should the line be drawn that certain events, people, etc. cease to be metaphorical? Krauss did not advocate abandoning the Bible altogether, just those parts that do not agree with scientific fact. But the creation museum does not advocate abandoning science altogether, just those parts that do not agree with the Biblical record. Who is right? Who is wrong? What do you think?

Rod Parsley: Dr. Falwell's Successor?

Speculation about Dr. Falwell's "successor" abounds in the blogosphere and across the Internet. It seems that Rod Parsley, Pentecostal megachurch pastor in Columbus, Ohio, may be positioning himself to do just that.

In a recent statement on his website, Moral Majority clone Center for Moral Clarity, he stated his profound admiration for Dr. Falwell and claimed that Dr. Falwell was a mentor of his in the early years of his ministry, having grown up Southern Baptist. Parsley has been given nicknames like the "raging prophet," the "patriot pastor," and a "talibangelist" by severe leftists. This past Friday evening, an honorary doctorate of humanities degree was conferred upon Parsley at commencement exercises at Liberty University. Parsley was saddened that Dr. Falwell would not be able to hood him himself, because Falwell was a "gracious friend and patient teacher."

What saddens me is the parroting of the religious right rhetoric.

Like Falwell, Parsley believes Christians must be the moral watchmen for their nation. "The liberal left media continue to pound away and tell the church to get back within the confines of its sanctuary walls," he asserts, "and if there's anything Dr. Falwell taught us, it's that we, having an experience with Christ, must be salt and light and infuse ourselves into every strata of society. And it is not only our privilege but it is our God-given right in
this Judeo-Christian worldview nation to vote -- to vote our values."

Parsley says one way conservative, Bible-believing Christians can carry on the legacy of Dr. Jerry Falwell is by staying active in the public square [emphasis mine].

Have God and conservatism merged into one? I agree that Christians should make their presence known in the public square, but if Christians are only making their political views known, then of what benefit is it? Being involved in politics as the sole source of transformation is to hack the Gospel off at the knees. To "vote our values" makes Christians nothing less than proselytizers, not witnesses. Too often Christians have substituted voting values for testifying to God's work of grace in their lives. It cannot be the only thing you do for Christ! This is not the only voice conservative Christians should have.

I also must remind everyone that Parsley is the same man that not too long ago, called for the imprisonment of adulterers. Never mind that Jesus actually released an adulteress, and if Parsley is consistent in his application of this belief, then three of the top contenders for Republican nomination for 2008 would therefore be in jail, the party he has historically endorsed.

Christians should be salt and light, but in my opinion, this misuse of Jesus' command has become code and has been divested of its true Scriptural meaning. We are failing in what it means to be salt and light. What was it that turned the world upside down in the first century church? It certainly wasn't Paul's and Silas' engagement of the Roman Empire in diplomatic and political discourse. It was by the faithful proclamation of the Gospel, both individually and corporately. That alone will bring the transforming power of God into our midst, not proselytization into
religious clones.

Even in His Death...

...he still polarizes. Dr. Jerry Falwell is one of the most polarizing firgures to have ever called himself an evangelical.In reading many blogs about Dr. Falwell as a man, a visionary, a leader, a pastor, and a preacher of the Gospel, the opinions have ranged from "glad he is dead" to "bold man of God."

I have had a decided opinion of Dr. Falwell, and as a conservative living in Virginia, one cannot listen to Virginia Baptist news without the names Dr. Falwell, Liberty University, or Thomas Road Baptist Church eventually coming up. As a preacher of the Gospel, few could rival Dr. Falwell for his bold proclamation, his tender invitation, his compassionate identification even with the poorest of sinners. As a pastor, the Thomas Road Baptist Church family loved him; he was willing to get his hands dirty with ministry, reaching out to the lowliest of drug addicts and alcoholics, condemning abortion yet doing all in his evangelical sway to open another shelter for unwed mothers.

One thing I can say about Dr. Falwell, as some have already noted on their blogs, Dr. Falwell made some onerous statements. I will not rehearse those. Regardless of the sharpness of his tongue, no one would have ever caught Dr. Falwell in an adult book store. His integrity in witness and committment to his family, immediate, church, and to the larger Body of Christ, rose above every other character flaw he may have had, and if anything, I respect his boldness and courage. Greatness as a man of God is not precluded by any personal bias one may have for any man, whether conservative or moderate in their theology.

I disagreed with Dr. Falwell on politics. He was too close to too many politicians, nor were his political affiliations consistent, and his galvanization of a "values voters" block was too single-issue and too polarized for my tastes. His legalistic and fundamentalist bents made political favor part of a personal relationship with Christ and with that I take issue. Christ is part of no political party. But all that is personal bias.

Dr. Falwell was radical. He was extreme. He made people mad. However, having met Dr. Falwell, shook his hand, attended services at Thomas Road, heard him preach in person and on radio, he was a sweet man. But when he became political, he morphed into something entirely different. Here is where I diverge with the man, for better or worse.

I appreciate, admire, and respect the contributions of Dr. Jerry Falwell to evangelical Christianity, culture at large, and even to us as Baptists. May God bless his family, watch over them during this time of crisis, and may a man of God be raised to fill his enormous shoes.

Children are Bad for the Planet

I normally criticize the right on this blog, but this comes from the decidedly left and all I can say is, no.

No.

No.

No.

Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.

"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.

Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

Thank you professor for that keen insight. Let me offer my commentary:

"Bwahhhhaahhhaaahhhahhhhhhaaaa!!!!" And just in time for Mother's Day.

(H/T: Vision Forum Blog)

Delta Farce

Has anyone seen the trailer for this new movie, Delta Farce? I saw it last night channel surfing and I found it quite troubling. I'm not comfortable with Larry the Cable Guy in a military uniform, not that I have regard for him anyway, but it seems Hollywood can sink their talons into any story or topic now, no matter how poorly they treat it. This smacks of poor taste and even poorer judgment, just like two other movies I refuse to see, Flight 93 and World Trade Center.

One of the bits they showed in the trailer was a sergeant badgering the soldiers about taking them to paradise. When they arrive in Iraq, he equivocates and says "Oh, I meant Fallujah."

I shudder to think how this film will portray the Iraqis if they do at all, but I am tired of everything being for sale, even the war in Iraq. Maybe I am a bit more sensitive since my brother is in the army. However, I cannot see turning Iraq into a B-grade parody positive.

You're Rich and Didn't Even Know It...

...compared to everyone else in the world, that is. It is our tendency in American culture to place a heavy emphasis on wealth and our rabid consumerism fosters a desire for more, no matter the cost. Even the lowest rung on the ladder in America is wealthier than third world countries.

H/T to Henry Cate for pointing us to this site that helps to put things in perspective. I have always said that I am rich, I just don't have a lot of money. Maybe I need to stop using that trite statement because according to this rich list, I am in the top 3.81%.

Go see for yourself, and stop griping.

All Things New...

The tragedy last Monday has occupied a lot of my thoughts and prayers over the past week. I will continue to pray and seek God's face to help me process everything, particularly the content of the last post. However, I was gladdened to come across this story ran in the state Baptist rag. It represents in a way the next step needed to cope with the Tech tragedy.

Some carrying lunch pails, and all bundled against the cold, Amish children walked to their new school in Lancaster County on Monday [April 2, 2007], six months to the day after a gun-toting neighbor walked into their old schoolhouse and shot 10 students, killing five.

[...]

The Amish community demolished the old schoolhouse to erase a reminder of the horror experienced there. Four of the five girls who were shot Oct. 2 have returned to the new school, called New Hope Amish School.

Yes indeed, He makes all things new. I think the name of the new school is very appropriate and communicates much to the world about their faith in God and His ability to redeem any situation for His purposes and for good. May the victims' families of this past Monday's tragedy find the same hope, the same healing, as these dear people have. May the Virginia Tech community also be able to move past this tragedy and embrace hope, the hope that is only found in Jesus Christ.

But we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces
perseverance, and perseverance, character, and character, hope.
Now hope does not disappoint...
Romans 5:3-5

A Ministry of Presence

I had considered entitling a post "Please Don't Blog About This," to plea with fellow bloggers to delay offering dry, theological sentiment in the wake of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, but I know the voice will not be heeded. Blog friend Streak has already addressed the ridiculousness of the media in covering mass tragedies and blathering on and on about, well, nothing.

But Pastor Chris, the Evangelism Coach, expressed my sentiment about this better than I could.

Questions about the sovereignty of God will come. Questions about the character of God will be asked. Question about evil and questions about human responsibility will be examined.

But now is not the time for theological discourse.

We have theolgoical answers. Scripture informs us, teaches us, and guides us. But it's not the time for logical and dry explanations.

People hurt.

It’s time for compassion and a ministry of presence.

Thanks, Chris.

Tooling Around the Web...

...and found some of these articles; hope you find them as interesting as I did. I have a few posts swirling around in my head and will get those out fairly soon. Until then, hope these will satiate the appetite.

Chuck Baldwin knocks one into the cheap seats with this commentary on Duped Christians.

By simply claiming to be "Christians," today's politicians are making dupes out of multitudes of believers. They are trusted and revered in much the same way a faithful and beloved pastor would be trusted and revered. No! They are trusted and revered MORE than are their pastors.

Pastors would not be able to get by with the lying, deceit, and dishonesty that politicians routinely get by with. Many believers give politicians much more honor than they give to their pastors. How foolish!

By nature, most politicians are self-serving opportunists who cannot see past the next election. In fact, many (if not most) of them are downright dishonest. After all, only a dishonest man could raise his hand and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then proceed to ignore and violate it without so much as an afterthought.

In this case I see Chuck as absolutely correct. Somehow, right wing politicians, using God-speak and hymn snippets have deceitfully won the hearts of many conservatives but are simply broadening their power bases. (HT: Dave Black)

**********

Once again, Dan Edelen jars us from our materialistic slumber to bring to our attention 21st century indentured servants via, of all things, kids' meal toys and how they come into being. How ought the church to respond to this horrid social injustice?

At one time, middle-class Americans made those toys. Now they’re made by very young adults (and in most cases, children, as some estimates say up to 250 million children between five and fourteen-years-old slave away) in factories in countries many Americans can’t find on a map. The factory owners house them in barracks where they sleep head to toe. They work twelve to sixteen hour days, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and even on their limited breaks are typically not allowed to venture off the factory property without supervision. In truth, they have nowhere else to go. Worst of all, if we found the kind of coinage lying on the street that those workers make as their hourly rate, we’d think it not worth the risk to bend over.

Dan reminds us that our excess costs something. It may not be something we can see or even touch, but it costs--and it may be costing a little life that has no hope of a future. Ever. All for a happy meal toy that will bunker our landfills within minutes after purchase.

**********

And this from SBC 2nd VP Wiley Drake is just plain troubling. He has written a letter to Don Imus, after the uproar over his racist remarks, ready to offer absolution to the shock jock.

I certainly do not approve of what you said, and in retrospect it appears that neither do you.

Even though I am not your pastor I would be glad to meet with you and pray with you and witness your confession to God, and help you claim forgiveness, that indeed will be forgotten by God.

2nd VP Drake then cordially invites Mr. Imus to be on his radio show. Somehow this smacks of Jerry Falwell gushing over Newt Gingrich's "confession." Mr. Gingrich admitted to the affair in a two-part interview with Dr. James Dobson, during a “Focus on the Family” broadcast. Falwell said:

I was pleased to hear Mr. Gingrich state: “I’ve gotten on my knees and sought God’s forgiveness.”

He has admitted his moral shortcomings to me, as well, in private conversations. And he has also told me that he has, in recent years, come to grips with his personal failures and sought God’s forgiveness.

I have been very impressed with the spiritual maturity of this man and am convinced that he has been honest and forthright in clarifying his past failings and his quest, as a Christian, for God’s forgiveness.

It is just as Mr. Baldwin stated above...

The Three R's: Reading Writing, and Revelation?

Should the Bible be included in America's classrooms? At least this is what one professor thinks. Stephen Prothero, chair of the religion department at Boston University, writes in an interesting piece, originally written for the LA Times. His take on this issue is from a purely practical standpoint, and honestly, a view I have yet to hear, yet one I fear. He claims that because biblical references saturate political speech, Americans need to bone up on their Bibles.

Biblical illiteracy is not just a religious problem. It is a civic problem with political consequences. How can citizens participate in biblically inflected debates on abortion, capital punishment or the environment without knowing something about the Bible? Because they lack biblical literacy, Americans are easily swayed by demagogues on the left or the right who claim — often incorrectly — that the Bible says this about war or that about homosexuality.

Prothero's solution to this societal ill is to begin teaching biblical literacy in the classroom. He claims that since the Bible is of foundational importance to Western civilization, that it would serve America well to have it taught from a neutral stance, simply as a cultural document. Because biblical references are commonly used in everyday speech in the public square, with little knowledge of why they are used or their origin, that:

What makes sense is one Bible course for every public high-school student in the U.S. This is not a Christian proposal. It does not serve the political left or the political right. It serves our young people and our public life.

So what do I fear? Fretfully, this: should (or could) the Bible be taught simply as a cultural document, for biblical literacy's sake, in public schools? Is that even possible? One thing Mr. Prothero does get right is this:

Yet U.S. citizens know almost nothing about the Bible. Although most regard it as the word of God, few read it anymore. Even evangelicals from the Bible Belt seem more focused on loving Jesus than on learning what he had to say.

More on the Sexualization of Our Kids

It is plain to see that the overt sexualization of our culture is having deleterious effects on our children. Clothing and doll manufacturers are psychologically damaging young girls encouraging them to readily identify with immorality, provocateur, and subject matters too mature for them to handle. The British newspaper, the Telegraph, has reported on how these products' marketing manipulates a child's desire to be loved and cared for and teaches them improper ways of dealing with those feelings.

A generation of very young girls is being psychologically damaged by inappropriate "sexy" clothing, toys and images in the media that are corrupting childhood, leading psychologists warn today.

They say marketing takes unfair advantage of children's desire for affection and the need to conform, leading to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression.

Apart from clothing for five- and six-year-olds, with old-fashioned frilly frocks replaced by mini skirts, plunging necklines and sequined crop tops, the report specifically criticises "Bratz dolls".

These outsell Barbie dolls in Britain by two to one and come dressed in miniskirts, fishnet stockings and feather boas.

The Bratz manufacturers confess that they are aimed at sale toward pre-teen girls. To regular readers of The RP, there are no surprises that Disney has contributed to the problem. The Telegraph continues to report:

Disney's Little Mermaid or Pocahontas "which have more cleavage, fewer clothes and are depicted as sexier than characters of yesteryear" are also picked out.

Where is the church's voice in these matters? It is strange that the same parents who are ready to pounce on pedophiles and hormonal adolescent boys are the same parents sending their girls to school (and church) dressed like trollops, advertising something they are incapable of selling.

The Telegraph also ran a portion of an interview with Dr. Jean Kilbourne, co-author of a forthcoming book, So Sexy, So Soon, that addresses this direct link between cultural sexual imprinting and the rise in under-age sex.

Dr. Kilbourne told The Daily Telegraph: "You see these clothes everywhere, tight T-shirts for little girls saying 'so many boys, so little time', that sort of thing.

"Parents think it is clever but they cease to think that when their child becomes sexually active at 12. There is huge pressure on girls to look sexy and dress provocatively at a younger and younger age and boys are getting graphic sexualized messages. But parents can say 'no' and REFUSE TO BUY THIS STUFF [emphasis mine]."

(HT: Doug Phillips)

Cinderella: Greeting Card Trollop

Do you pay particular attention to items that are for sale that are targeted toward children?

Today, my family and I were in WalMart (I know, I know). We were searching for the latest flimsy cardboard cutouts that they might give them to their friends next Wednesday in the name of Valentine cheer. As I perused the seasonal aisle of Valentine's flotsam, I began to notice a trend among several of the boxed sets of cards.

The boys' cards were what you would expect; Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Superman, Spiderman, and Pirates of the Carribean, your standard testosterone inducing fare. However, many of the girls' cards were along the same level. They were hormone inducing, but not for the same reasons as the boys' cards.

The girls' selections were comprised of notably, Disney Princesses, such as Cinderella, Ariel (The Little Mermaid), and Belle (Beauty and the Beast). Tinkerbell of Peter Pan had her own box and then there were the Bratz; radical, pre-adolescent change agents.

The Disney characters were noticeably different from what I remember from my childhood and adolescent years as well as recent family viewing. Cinderella was not what these cards portrayed her to be. In the film, she was innocent, virtuous, chaste; an unspoiled maiden, the envy of her wicked stepsisters. Cinderella was not the trollop brazenly and voluptuously brandished across those children's boxed sets of Valentine's Day cards.

Without being overly descriptive, Cinderella was posing in such a way to betray her "best" features; a hand provocatively slung back on her hip; slyly leaning forward in a much bustier dress than she wore in the classic movie; all accompanied by a mischievous "come hither" look. The Tinkerbell cards were much worse, some of her poses offering a soft porn flavor.

The departure from the childlike innocence of the original movies to parallel the erotic love often associated with Valentine's Day is especially troublesome, particularly on a child's set of cards to be handed out to other children. This is not the same Cinderella that scolded Bruno the dog for dreaming that he was chasing Lucifer the cat; "That's bad!" Cinderella insisted.

Cinderella would also say "that's bad" to how a slick greeting card company turned her sweet, chaste demeanor into provocateur rather than further dignifying her as the patient lady in waiting that she most assuredly was; not to mention the simple fact that the cards are aimed at sale to children.

The message that this sends to young girls is obvious; chastity, propriety, and modesty are no longer virtues. It may not be implicit on the face of each and every little card, but the seeds of impropriety and immodesty are being sown and they cannot be denied nor overlooked.

Cinderella is the wrong character to impose this kind of licentiousness upon. Tinkerbell might have been crafty, sneaky and even downright mean; but Cinderella? The Bratz seem to have been created for the express purpose of instilling sexuality and a mall mentality in the minds of young girls before the age of nine, but Cinderella? The extrapolation is sickening.

Why contort Cinderella? Why defame her good nature, undermine her humility and ridicule her femme sole? She could easily be the poster-girl for chastity and purity. I know the answers to my questions. If it can be instilled in the minds of girls at a young age that sexy, provocative dress, sly backward glances, and flirtatious body language "works" and gets them what they want, then why not start early? Its what boys look for and what they expect, isn't it? Cinderella was communicating the way girls ought to look and act, and chaste is not it.

Nevertheless, my girls did not notice Frankenrella. Thankfully, they were more interested in the barnyard animal, Care Bears, and bug-eyed house pet cards.