An Irritation

I just got off the phone.

I talked with some young lady from "Such and Such Exciting and Fantastic Terrifically Great and Awesome Youth Ministry" from out in Texas. She asked me with a cheerleader-esque bounce in her voice, "Do you have a youth ministry?" (My initial thought was, "No, but the Lord does...")

I answered in the affirmative and then she proceeded to ask, "How many do you have?" (I wanted to say "How many youth ministries?" or "How many young people attend?") I answered that we typically have about four or five teenagers.

Insert sigh of resignation..."Oh, well, thank you sir."

And then she hung up! The call lasted less than thirty seconds. No explanation for her call. No reason why she called this little church in western North Carolina from the BIG state of Texas. Was she conducting a stupid survey? Does she work for George Gallup? What?

Evidently churches who minister in the diminutive do not count in their economy.

Argh!

Opportunities to be UnChristian

Moving always brings with it its challenges. There are extra bills to pay, changing addresses with creditors, getting utilities turned on, getting settled in a new community, adjusting to a new lifestyle, and taking advantage of opportunities to be UnChristian.

I have had a couple of those since my family and I have made the move to Waynesville, NC. The transition time always takes your character into question for some reason and when those clerks take your money and discover you are "from out of town" (though you just moved here) there always seems to be that cross-ways glance of affirmation with the manager. We stopped at K-Mart to pick up some necessities. My wife desired to patronize K-Mart because we literally had not shopped at K-Mart for nearly ten years. (I'm not intimating that this is her fault, by the way.)

We had just recently received our new checks from the new bank and the clerk, a very young lady, nearly beamed as she welcomed us to Waynesville. She ran the check through the verifier and to our chagrin, it was rejected for some reason. "That typically happens to out of town folks."

Wait a minute. We aren't from out of town. We live here now. I have a local bank account.

To our chagrin the check had been rejected and she pointed us to an 800 number that we could call and see why the check was rejected. We had already written several checks since our transition and I knew we had ample funds in the checking account. Needless to say I was upset. So was my wife, who does not handle these things well.

We began scrounging for cash and could only come up with about three-quarters of the amount of the bill. "Is there something you don't need that you can take off the bill?" The intonation of her voice placed the emphasis on "don't need."

We need all these things or else we would not be here buying them. What is wrong with you?

My wife chimed in, "Put this back." The toilet paper? Are you out of your mind? I curled an eyebrow in response; "It's OK," she nodded back. I sure hoped she knew what she was doing (my wife, that is).

As we were going through a couple of other items we potentially "didn't need", the manager joined us and with all the tenacity of Barney Fife, "What seems to be the problem here?"

Oh, no problem sir, just the riff-raff trying to rip off your store. The clerk explained the dilemma and I felt like Chevy Chase in a National Lampoon's movie.

"Oh, this happens all the time to out of town (there's that phrase again) folk." Just call that 800 number and they will work it out. Thank you for shopping K-Mart." Did he just say that? He literally said that.

Nevertheless, we got what few items our meager amount of cash-on-hand would allow, sans toilet paper, and headed out the store with our tails tucked between our legs. When we arrived home and tucked the kiddos in bed, I promptly called the infernal 800 number that had been thrust in my face. After pressing one for English (Arrrghhhh!), I answered all the automated questions and finally got to talk to a real, live, human person.

"Ahh! I see the problem. The clerk misentered your driver's license number. She duplicated the first two."

So it was neither my fault nor my wife's, nor Barney's, nor the kids who were obviously agitated because we had been standing in line so long next to all the impulse buy items that they so desperately wanted to touch and had been told no about a hundred times already yet the temptations still remained and they were tired and ready to go to bed and had drawn enough attention to warrant a police investigation; IT WAS THE CLERK'S FAULT.

Later that night I thought of the myriad of ways I might have handled that situation and I breathed a prayer before going to bed, thanking the Lord for helping me to hold my tongue and not telling Barney to put his bullet back in his pocket. Being prepared for those kinds of incidents is not easy, but thankfully, I was. Though I was greatly irritated at the situation, it turned out to be a simple mistake, one I have been known to do. And I didn't shame my Lord in the process.

Jonathan's Undoing

Jonathan Falwell has gone on record as defending Ann Coulter.

Her point was that Bill Maher, a liberal, can get away with saying the most scandalously terrible things about a national leader, so she’ll do the same thing since it is evident that that type of language is acceptable on the public airwaves.

But that language is not acceptable.

That is, if you’re a conservative.

And so the media has been reporting, quite erroneously, that Ann Coulter has stated that she wishes John Edwards was killed by terrorists.

It would be funny if it weren’t so pitiful.

You see, the truth doesn’t seem to matter these days.

The media appear to be more concerned with creating perception than reporting the news.

It sometimes amazes me that members of the mainstream press do not even comprehend the basics of a story. I wonder if they are simply slow-minded or if they are willfully blinded by their political agendas.

It’s got to be one or the other.

Whatever the case, it is increasingly evident that there is no equal playing field in the so-called mainstream media, the great embracers of “diversity.”

Miss Coulter was on the Fox News Channel’s “O’Reilly Factor” on Thursday night and she seemed to be worn out by the continuing dishonest portrayals of her words.

Who wouldn’t be?

So I say this to Miss Coulter: As long as you continue to contradict the policies of the mainstream — which expect us to gullibly accept everything they say — you will carry a target on your back. This is a truth that my dad experienced almost daily throughout his 51 years in ministry.

It is apparent that when you stand up for conservative values, and especially when you stand up for Christian values, you will be ridiculed. But as my dad often said, we are not called to be popular, we are called to be faithful.

Ann, rest assured, there are millions of people in this nation who appreciate your willingness to step into hostile fire in order to point out the inconsistencies of the mainstream. May you be bolstered by our prayers and well wishes.

Jonathan posted on the same take on this issue as my new blog friend Luke took me to task for. However, I stand by this position: Ann took her opportunity. She could have responded differently--but she didn't. Her distaste and anger against John Edwards colored her response. She calculated what she wanted to say and said it. Ann's remarks may have been taken out of context and used by the media against her-in a manner of speaking. However, Ann's previous bromides (see my previous post) against the Edwards family does not make up for sniping yet again at the presidential hopeful.

Laying conservatism aside, when are conservatives going to become examples of the very values they proclaim? Laying Christianity aside, why is it OK for a (proclaimed) Christian to talk this way? This type of language is not acceptable; it isn't even permissible to joke around about someone's death. Conservatives should expect better than this for those who tout that they support our values in the public square. For Jonathan to defend Ann Coulter is disingenuous at best, foolish at worst. My hope for Jonathan was that he would not have trod the same political path as his father. I guess I am wrong.

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.

Can I Scream Now?

Currently there is a lot of right-wing entertainment of ridiculous what-ifs and theatricality in print over the tragedy of this past Monday at Virginia Tech. This article from The Conservative Voice is a farce, absolutely inappropriate and frankly, disturbing.

If five or ten unarmed students had rushed the shooter and mobbed him and beat him to a pulp, some would undoubtedly have been wounded or killed, but the rest of the students would have been saved. Charge! Throw textbooks, staplers, anything handy. Pick up pens, pencils. Jump the shooter, tackle him, pile on, crush him to the floor with massed bodies, stab him in the eyes or neck with pencils or pens. (Click the ballpoints out first--makes a better stabbing instrument that way.)

To run this article with the title "The Virginia Tech Massacre's Lessons" totally overlooks that those were people killed, a deranged young man, desperately seeking something (albeit clueless as to what that was), who, incidentally, also has a family who is utterly humiliated over their son's actions, and that there are families who need love and care right now; not macho posturing.

But what I find even more horrific is the comparison to the Flight 93 heroes of 9/11.

I am reminded of Flight 93: Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, and all the other passengers who were brave enough to charge the hijackers and prevent that plane's crash into the Capitol Building or the White House.

In my mind, there is no comparison. Regardless of what the Flight 93 heroes did, inaction would have guaranteed death; but the alternative also meant death. These were kids with a thread of hope that they might live, not men doomed to die whether they were successful in their plan of attack on the terrorists or not. At Virginia Tech, there was a potential way out; on Flight 93 there was no way out.

Equally horrific is the writer's comparison to the war in Iraq.

I am reminded of our soldiers who have charged the terrorists, taking the fight to them overseas, rather than sitting passively at our desks waiting to be shot or bombed or gassed or nuked here in the USA.

No comparison. At all. Period.

An Impoverished Gospel

When you think of someone as having been changed by Christ, what does this call to mind? In our self-centered, egocentric, the world-revolves-around-me culture, change almost always involves a reversal of financial status as indication that God has radically changed a person's life. Unfortunately, the evils of the prosperity Gospel are subtly and insidiously infiltrating every corner of Christendom, morphing the Gospel of repentance into a Gospel of success.

Consider this illustration from LifeWay's Spring 2007 Life Answers Sunday School quarterly:

In high school I had a friend named Brock. He was what we called back then a "motorhead." All Brock talked about was working on cars and dirt bikes. He would show up for school in grease-stained clothes, long unkempt hair, and usually was bumming money for lunch. His grades were poor and his wallet was poorer. If there had been a "most likely to be a failure" category in the yearbook, he would have won by unanimous vote.

I didn't see Brock again until our 20th class reunion. When I saw him, I couldn't believe my eyes. Standing before me was a successful businessman, straight out of GQ. His expensive suit and well-groomed appearance were such a departure from the last time I saw him that it was hard to believe. I learned later that he had started his own company, and it had assets above one million dollars.

At the very heart of the Gospel is the concept of change. When Jesus enters into your heart and begins changing you into His likeness, the change is so dramatic that the people around you can't help but say, "You're a different person." And this is how it should be. radical change can serve as a signpost to us that our experience with Christ is real and valid (p. 15).

OK, what was wrong with Brock? Why did he need to change? How does Brock serve as an illustration of radical change, a real and valid experience with Christ? He was bedraggled, poor, obviously didn't own a comb, and enjoyed tinkering on cars. This makes him a viable candidate not for the transforming power of the Gospel, but rather Extreme Makeover. The implication here is that being transformed into the likeness of Christ means you have a bulging wallet, a fat bank account, and you walk in the upper echelon of society. Evolving from welfare to faring well is the essence of the Gospel.

Perhaps I am nit-picking this Sunday School quarterly, but sowing seeds such as these can only bear bitter fruit. The prosperity message is the single greatest heresy plaguing American Christianity right now and such errant teaching should not even be entertained. Too many believers are led astray thinking that God wants them to prosper financially when the Word of God teaches purely contradictory to the prosperity message.

The prosperity teachings rob churches of their evangelistic effectiveness, squelches missionary endeavor, and mints shallow believers, believers more concerned with their wardrobes than the plight of the poor. I do not consider this a wholesale endorsement by LifeWay of the health and wealth teachings, but to sow the wind reaps a whirlwind. Taking baby steps like these can still move you in the general direction of disaster.

Because you say, "I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing, you do not know that you are wretched, miserable, blind, and naked." Revelation 3:17

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.

Valentine's Day at LifeWay: Love Like Jesus

Back during the Christmas season, I wrote a post about the apparent silliness of LifeWay's "pray while you shop" campaign. Leave it up to LifeWay to outdo themselves, and outdo themselves they have. For all you over-enamored, starry-eyed, twitterpated lovebirds, you can go to LifeWay and learn to love like Jesus! The link takes you to LifeWay Store's main page with a second link that will take you to peruse the online catalog of their new "Love Like Jesus" line of novelty gifts (just in time for Valentine's Day). You can get the Love Like Jesus embroidered pillow. Or the Love Like Jesus divided heart tray (no irony here). Or the Love Like Jesus tote bag. Maybe your darling heart would like the Love Like Jesus plush bear with a photo holder.

LifeWay is promoting the new line of gifts with Jesus' words from John 13:34, "Love one another;" of course, that is LifeWay-ese for "come go shopping." To take one of the most profound, life-altering statements Christ ever made and turn it into a selling point is deplorable. I shudder to think that this is what Jesus really meant when he said those words, especially the context in which He said them.

After He had just denigrated Himself to that of a foot-washer, acknowledged who His betrayer was and loved Him anyway, and knowing that He was only a few heartbeats from the ignominy of the cross, He gave each one of His disciples a little memento of His coming: a heart-shaped coffee-mug with a matching coaster. Jesus' timeless message to His disciples, us included: Go shopping.

Oh, and sorry to let the cat out of the bag, but I thought I would give you the dirt on LifeWay's upcoming selections. For the doctor in your family, there will be the Heal Like Jesus set of medical equipment, replete with a Heal Like Jesus examining kit. For the teacher, the Teach Like Jesus chalk and board set. For a modest price, you can get a Sermon on the Mount or Sea of Galilee backdrop. For the prayer warrior in your family, you will certainly want the Pray Like Jesus prayer shawl, mat, and knee-pads. And for the lawyer, the Litigate Like Jesus matching coat, tie, vest, slacks, and cummerbund.

I think I need a good dose of Pepto-Bismol for the soul.