Take the Christmas Personality Test

The Christmas season is upon us once again, and like every year, it’s pretty much a guarantee that you’ll be hearing the same old thing from the usual suspects. Which personality do you come closest to?

A. The Killjoy

The Killjoy, aka Killjoy to the World, is not a fan of Christmas by any stretch of the imagination, and might even become disoriented or hostile around blinking Christmas lights and some Christmas songs. You’ll usually hear the Killjoy harping on about Constantine, the origins of winter solstice festivals and how "Jesus didn't celebrate Christmas so neither am I." May also believe that Thanksgiving and Flag Day are of the Devil. No one knows exactly where this anti-Christmas mindset came from, but some believe that it results from receiving too many sweaters as Christmas presents during childhood. Although small in number, Killjoys have a disproportionate presence on blogs. Warning: Keep the Killjoy and the Pro-Christmas Activist apart at all costs.

B. Merry Melancholy

The Merry Melancholy likes Christmas in theory, but may have the same effect on people as the Killjoy. Although the Melancholy truly enjoys the season, they are prone to complain about how Christmas has been “commercialized and secularized” and rarely miss an opportunity to state that the real meaning of Christmas has been lost. Each year. Every year. They may also contrast how much we spend on Christmas with how much we give to the church. Merry Melancholys typically find employment as Pastors.

C. The Pro-Christmas Activist

The Christmas Activist loves Christmas, especially when it comes to giving the gift of boycotts and petition drives. When not writing letters to the editor over why we-shouldn’t-care-about-whatever-percent-of-the-atheist-population-thinks-about-Christmas, they are seeking out and flaming anti-Christmas blogs written by Killjoys or doing all their Christmas shopping online at BillOReilly.com. Open to running for elective office.

D. The Anti-Pro-Christmas Activist

The Anti-Activist is not necessarily a Killjoy, and may in fact love everything about Christmas, but can quickly take on Melancholy traits when within earshot of a Christmas Activist. In this state, the Anti-Activist may be prone to blog incessantly about how Christians-would-do-well-do-focus-their-efforts-on-more-Christ-like-endeavors-like-working-soup-kitchens-and-stopping-global-warming-rather-than-supporting-Focus-on-the-Family’s-stupid-Christmas-boycott-of-the-Gap. The Anti-Activist despises pro-Christmas crusades and will usually respond by initiating an anti-pro Christmas crusade. The Anti-Activist has been known to say that they enjoy the company of a Killjoy and Melancholy, but it’s unclear whether this is just a ruse to tick off the Christmas Activist. May also run for elective office, but only if the Christmas Activist is on the opposing ticket.

Karaoke, Cookouts and Christianity

Karaoke: there is nothing worse than listening to some narcissistic no-talent hack butcher a perfectly good song, but after the freak show is over and he’s finally screeched, yelled, barked and groaned his last note, you’re expected to applaud. I don’t think so. So I admit that I just might be, perhaps, a tad bit biased against Karaoke to begin with.

However, I’m no prude. Or at least I thought I wasn’t. But really now, wouldn’t most parents assume that when going to a cookout organized by Christians and attended by approximately 60 children, that the Karaoke songs would not include lyrics like:

“Baby I want your love tonight. . . feel you pushing deeper inside of me.” That’s pretty darn close to an exact quote, and there was plenty more than that. Tragically, the woman who sung it had squirm-in-your-seat lack of talent, even by Karaoke standards. And the damn song just . . . wouldn’t . . . end.

“Last night, I did things I'm not proud of . . . And I got a little crazy . . . I don't even know his last name.” ("Well honey, in this song, Carrie Underwood has sex with a stranger, and because she was drunk, she can't remember his last name, assuming she ever asked in the first place.")

“Feels like the firrrrst time, feels like the very firrrst time.” (I suppose there are alternative interpretions of that particular song by Foreigner - I just don't feel like exploring their meanings with a 7 year old).

There were others. I'm truly surprised that "Like a Virgin" wasn't one of them - I expected to hear that one before the night was through. The choice of songs reflected either bad judgment, or, as I expect, the total absence of judgment. Thankfully, our kids were either in the bouncy slide thingamajig or the pool. Their were plenty of Christian teenagers listening, though.

Sorry to break the news to you, but being a Christian (parent) means being set apart. Different. We aren't going to do what the world does as a matter of course or live by the culture's standards. That doesn't mean that there is some exalted version of a proper Christian cookout to aspire to (open and close with prayer, serve grape juice and play Keith Green throughout?) - hardly. But I'd like to think that exposing kids to sexually themed lyrics is over the line, Christian or non-Christian line, for that matter.

I feel like a cross between the clueless parent who drags his five-year old along for the rated R movie, and the 90-year old deacon complaining because the youth group played Petra during Sunday school.

Oh, well. The fireworks display was a site to behold. Twenty-five minutes of the big stuff.

Evangelicalism No More - Mark Your Calendars

The Internet Monk has written on the coming Evangelical collapse. Ten years from now. I've already put it on my Outlook . . .

Executive summary: lots of doom and gloom with some rainbows.

"Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake." He says this "has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith. "

Not really. First of all, it's fair to say that the culture war was brought to them. Evangelicals had a few choices: do nothing, bow to peer pressure and reject Biblical teachings on life and sexuality, or take a stand. This "either-or" false dichotomy is raising its head once again, as if one can't be politically informed and engaged while true to the faith. Do you know of any conservative Evangelicals who can't articulate the Gospel anymore? I don't either. (I certainly hope your average Evangelical can do a lot more than that, btw).

We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it.

Well, maybe it is accurate, but I'm not up on the studies of where our young Evangelicals are at theologically, etc. . . . Any studies to confirm this? Barna, maybe . . .

Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

Is that really the purpose of Christian education? To stop "secularism" in America? Because I spend a lot of money each month on Christian education, and frankly, I don't care what some yahoo in Vermont thinks about God when I see these direct debits every month. The goal of Christian education should be to support and compliment a parent's existing commitment to teach their children that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and to demonstrate that spiritual faith and intellectual knowledge compliment one another, as opposed to being mutually incompatible. If that ends up affecting the overall culture, great - welcome side effect, but not the purpose.

He says that he hopes the changes will remove the "prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ."

I agree that it is a parasite that should be removed, but I think the health and wealth Gospel has been aptly condemned withing mainstream Evangelical-dom, so I think he overstates the problem. Hank Hanegraaff has been beating the drum on this for years.

Some of his interesting points:

Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion?


Short answer: if they aren't doing it now, I wouldn't be too optimistic about the future.


The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether.

There is something to be said for focusing on the church's vices vice the culture's (I Corinthians 5).

"I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement."

Any studies on modern house church movements? I imagine it is pretty strong in China and similiar countries where freedom of religion is not so free. There is a growing movement in the US. I think in some ways people are drawn to it thinking that "oh, we are just going back to the simplicity of the N.T. days" etc. I wonder if it was really that simple. The grass is always greener, as they say . . .

SHRED - "Snobs Hate Red Envelope Day"

The Internet Monk posted criticism of the Facebook phenom "Red Envelope Day."

RED was started by Matt Stokes. Matt wants people to send a red envelope to President Obama saying, "This envelope represents one child who died because of an abortion. It is empty because the life that was taken is now unable to be a part of our world."

Simple enough. One more petition for me not to be involved in.

Matt will take no offense, however, as even he admits that in one sense, it's a "useless" activity, i.e. no laws are going to change as a result. We all know that. Matt smartly encourages more substantial efforts such as supporting adoption and crisis pregnancy shelters. Well and fine.

IMonk takes a different tact: he thinks there is something wrong with participating in RED. Or, more accurately, something wrong with Evangelical-dom:

"This is a perfect representation of where evangelical Christians are in about every area I can think of: theologically, missiologically, ecclesiastically, culturally, politically. It’s perfect."

Not only that, it's a McCarthy-esque plot to single out the "real Christians" from the fake:

"It’s this kind of meaningless symbolism that causes division and argument for no reason. The whole plan is an artificial loyalty test."

Wow. Did this guy have some sort of traumatic experience with a stack of petitions back in the day? There is nothing "theologically, missiologically, ecclesiastically, culturally, or politically" problematic with this petition. It's a petition for crying out loud. Sort of like sending a letter to your Congressman or writing a letter to the editor, or posting on IMonk's blog. Making your opinions known is the American way, after all. And obviously the petition is not a Christian "loyalty test," although it might double for a snob test depending on how much you doth protest when asked to participate in RED. (For example, I register as a "2" on the snob factor scale, and IMonk peaks at about "6.8").

Btw, if you post on IMonk, be advised that the words "sucks" and "jerk" are acceptable (based on what I've seen in other posts), but if you use the term "snob" or "stupid petition" (like I did) IMonk will actually edit your comments in such a way as to possibly lead people to believe that you cursed a blue streak and that the all-seeing "moderator" was forced to "edit" them. (That's pure genius, btw. I love it and plan to use it on my critics, assuming someone ever posts to this blog).

I, on the other hand, fully welcome any sort of mild put-downs here (esp. if they are directed to my critics).

Five Ways to Prove You're a Hip, Retro, Non-Conformist Evangelical

There is nothing worse nowadays than being seen as part of some organized religious group. People today want to stand out from the crowd, develop their own opinions, which probably explains why there are so many people with stupid blogs. (clearing throat)

But it's even worse if you're lumped in with Evangelicals. That's a death wish right there. People make fun of you. Not to your face, granted but . . . um, . . . well, you hear stuff on T.V. Like on the Bravo network. I'm sure they probably said something bad about us at one point. And there was that "Crazy Christians" episode on "Studio 60." (Oh ya, we never forget). Plus, you have to worry about people thinking you have some sort of man-crush on Pat Robertson. Yet, despite these misgivings, you aren't willing to leave the fold. You want your independence, or at least the chance to prove how very unique you are.

Well, here are a few tips to help you prove to your buddies that you aren't a regular old, dyed-in-the wool, Evangelical:

1. Constantly remind everyone that your all-time favorite book is Mark Knoll's "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind." (Actually, that's all you need to do, but I included four other tips just in case).

2. Be critical of Francis Schaeffer. That's like totally cool nowadays. Plus he's dead, so he can't respond. If you need extra shock and awe, follow the lead of "Chris," an obviously brilliant, up and coming 23-year old scholar who dismissed Schaeffer's work "He is There and He is Not Silent" as "too didactic." Wow. I had to look that one up. So you will your friends, most likely.

3. Anytime your one-issue Evangelical friends talk about abortion, emphasize that we need to also support "creation-care." For those of you that don't know what "creation-care" is, it's basically secular environmentalism plus some prayer and Bible verses. (Hat tip)

4. Come election-time, always remind people that God isn't a Republican. Because we really need to hear that one. Also, pepper your vocabulary with terms like "speaking truth to power" and "social justice."

5. Say you're a big fan of Tony Campolo.

Lego-Wars

So I'm looking for something for the kids to buy me for my birthday (always fun). They are into LEGOs, specifically Star Wars. I figure I'd recommend my wife get something like a Death Star or the Millenium Falcon. Might cost what, $100 or so?

Sure, a little expensive, but what the heck. It's my B-Day.

Not quite. How about $485.95?!

Ya, I think I'll be passing on that one. (Darn it.)

Remember the Days . . .

. . . when you had to think really hard to come up with concrete examples of media bias? Everyone knew it was there - you could tell from the slant of the stories, the emphasis on certain facts and not others. But when it came right down to it, the smoking gun proved elusive.

That changed over recent years, especially with the 2008 election thanks in part to the chananigans of MSNBC, who eventually replaced two of its pro-Obama commentators because the "reporting" got so bad. It was like listening to a bunch of frat boys from an Ivy League chapter of "Young Democrats." The AP couldn't say it any better: "Olbermann began to have difficulty keeping his opinions in check, or simply stopped trying."

MSNBC is at it again. Just as Gov. Jindal was walking towards the podium to give the Republican response to Pres. Obama's speech, someone from MSNBC muttered on-air the words "Oh, God."
You can hear the resulting laughter from others in the studio. Apparently, the thought of disagreeing with President Obama provokes a measure of disdain and mirth from that particular network. (Or maybe it was a prayer to President Obama asking forgiveness for having to present an alternative viewpoint.)

Comedian on Conan O'Brien - "Everything's Amazing, Nobody's Happy"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus

Funny stuff.

. . . When the Doves Cry

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration for just about anything and everything. Well, after the Bush White House failed to install electronic record-keeping for e-mail when switching to a new system, it turned out that millions of messages could not be found. Naturally, CREW assumed a vast-right wing conspiracy afoot and launched a lawsuit, accusing the Bush administration of trying to hide something.

The Bush-led Justice Department thereafter attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed, but when Obama was elected President, hope was renewed for CREW. After all, with left-leaning progressives in control, surely things would be different . . . wouldn't they?

Not on this issue. Turns out that the Justice Department is also trying to get the lawsuit dismissed. Ouch.

But unlike their scathing criticisms of the Bush administration, CREW was much more subdued this go around, merely fretting in mild terms that the Obama administration should do more to "adequately preserve records belonging to the American people." Just a disagreement between gentleman, in other words. How very civil of them.

And for the record, I'm sure many Americans are just chomping at the bit at the thought of being able to wade through hundreds of thousands of mispelled emails from lower level employees asking each other what time the staff meeting is or whether they should go to McDonalds or Burger King for lunch.

We Never Talk Anymore!!

America is a nation of cowards on race. So says Mr. Eric Holder, recently appointed by President Obama to lead our nation's chief law enforcement agency. Attorney General Holder said that we "need to confront our racial past" and "understand our racial present . . . we simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial."

Urging greater interpersonal dialogue is something I might expect from Dr. Phil . . . but the Attorney General of the United States?? Kind of weird. What's next, the head of the Treasury Department calling us a nation of jerks because husbands don't communicate enough with their wives?

If Mr. Cizik had his way . . . ?

Mr. Cizik, formerly of the National Association of Evangelicals, believes that Christians should be more receptive to the idea of giving out contraceptives to avoid unwanted pregnancies, i.e. we should give teenagers birth control. I wonder how many Christian parents will take him up on that? I can only imagine the conversation . . .

(Dad is sitting on the couch watching TV. His daughter comes down the stairs looking all dressed up): So, I hear you’re going out on a date tonight?

Daughter (smiling): Yep. Going out with Brad.

Dad (eyebrow raised): Brad again, huh? This is the fifth time you've gone out with him by my count. Must be serious . . .

Daughter (looking a bit embarrassed): Stop, dad. He's nice, I guess . . .

(Dad gets up and reaches into his wallet): Well, I’ve been meaning to give you this and now is as good a time as any. Here you go.

Daughter (drawing back): Dad! What are you, crazy? That's a condom!

Dad: I just want my princess to be safe.

Daughter (mouth agape) Why in the . . . what is mom going to say?

Dad: We talked about it. She’s totally rad with it.

Daughter: Dad, no one says “rad” anymore and, more importantly, you and mom said it’s wrong to have sex outside of marriage.

Dad: Oh, we say lots of things, honey. And don’t be naïve - everybody your age is doing it.

Daughter: I’m not! And what about the Bible? The Bible says . . .

Dad (holding up a hand): Hey, I’m all for the Bible. I’ve learned so much about how the government should care for poor people, that we should protect the environment from global warming, practice tolerance. And your ideals, however dated, are really great. But when you do have sex, at least you’ll be protecting yourself against [he shudders] an unwanted pregnancy. God certainly doesn't want that. So just hang on to this for me, will you?

Daughter: (confused)

(He reaches back into his wallet): Look, even -I- carry a condom when I go on business trips.

Daughter (lip quivering): Why in the world would you do that?!

Dad: Well, your mom and I talked and we decided if temptation came calling, that it would be better for me to protect myself against the risk of HIV. It's just common sense. And we all know that having an affair is pretty much inevitable for married couples these days. Even your mom carries a condom around in her pocketbook.

Daughter (staring blankly):

Dad: Well, I’m glad we had this little talk. I think I hear Brad driving up. Now you two go have fun!!

Saying what you mean, Meaning what you say

This is late coming, but in case you didn’t know, Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is no longer affiliated with the NAE. The NAE is anchored in 60 denominations with about 45,000 churches, representing millions of Evangelicals and Mr. Cizik is a long-time lobbyist and media spokesman on a variety of Evangelical issues. He was selected by TIME magazine in 2007 as one of America’s top 100 thinkers. That being the case, I’m not sure what Mr. Cizik was thinking in December 2008 during his interview on PBS.

On gay marriage: “I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”

On having the government supply contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies: "I think finding those who are in trouble, in crisis, helping them through this and if need be, even supplying what government presently doesn't do, namely contraception, is an answer to reducing unintended pregnancies.”

The interviewer was notably surprised by this response: "Wait, wait. I think I heard you say government supplying contraception. That's got to be controversial." "Among some it may be," Mr. Cizik replied, "but I don't think so. We are not, as I have said previously, we are not Catholics who oppose contraception per se."

That was Cizik in December 2008. Very (very) shortly thereafter, he “apologized.” His brand new post-PBS stand on gay marriage and civil unions? "I categorically oppose 'gay marriage' and see now that my thoughts about 'civil unions' were misunderstood and misplaced. I am now and always have been committed to work to pass laws that protect and foster family life, and to work against government attempts to interfere with the integrity of the family, including same-sex 'marriage' and civil unions."

Talk about an about-face. That’s almost like invasion of the body-snatchers. I mean, did he suffer from some momentary bout of peer pressure while appearing on PBS and say what he thought might sound hip and retro to the interviewer, only to realize when he got back to the office that it really wasn't too cool with the vast majority of Evangelicals?

Of course not, but I think I would have more respect for him if he just stuck to his guns, even though I disagree with his positions. Or former positions.

Great Moments in Animation

Superman vs. Captain Marvel in "The Clash."

Justice League Unlimited, Season One, Episode 20.

He's baaaaaack!

Cal Thomas is at it again, predicting the end of religious conservatism, decrying those who put too much faith in politics and power . . . blah blah blah, you know the rest.

I wonder - just who are these misguided Christians who have been so hoplessly ensnared by the lure of absolute power? Name names, please! Inquiring minds want to know. (All I did was vote for McCain. I'm not sure if that counts).

I enjoy Mr. Thomas' columns and his perspective. But the "death of the religious right" thing just plays into the left's morbid fantasies of a public square minus conservative people of faith.

Don't mind Cal too much. He gets a little depressed anytime a Democrat gets elected President. Sounds like a broken record to me. Time for him to upgrade to CDs or something . . .

The Stimulus Plan

"Well, we've got to do something."

I agree. How about being patient and reasonable, carefully considering the problem and coming up with the best solution, as opposed to just doing "something"?

Let's say you're standing in front of your car on the side of the highway, hood open. You don't know much about cars, but you know enough by the clunking sounds, dripping oil, smoke, and strewn parts on the ground that an expert mechanic really needs to check this out, take the time to give it a diagnostic and break out the expensive tools.

But you're going to be late for dinner. You just called your wife and she has steak on the table. Steak! You can't just warm up steak, it's meant to be eaten right now. And she planned this special for you. So instead of waiting for AAA to show up, you start playing around with the timing belt. Before you know it, the car isn't making any sounds now. Why? Because you figured you "had to do something."

"Well, we've got to do something." Never have so many sounded so ridiculous.

The Shack

Haven't read it. Don't plan to. No particular reason, but from what I have gleaned, The Shack just doesn't appeal to me. Amazing success story though, from a publishing point of view.

I have been searching for reviewers of the book. You know, people who actually review a book for its literary content, as opposed to listing the many things that are theologically wrong with it, or how it changed my life and can change yours.

How Can You Defend Someone Who is Guilty?

(Once you sell your soul to the devil, it's actually quite easy.)

I get this question every now and then. Never had a client ask me that, though. Hmmmm.

I think there are two kinds of people who ask that question: those who haven't given it much thought, and the just plain curious. I'm happy to oblige either.

Everyone deserves a defense (the Bill of Rights bears this out), and due process of law goes all the way back to Biblical times:

Deuteronomy 17:6: "On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness."

In other words, even if that scum-bag Azariah is guilty and worthy of capital punishment, he "gets off on a technicality" if Lamech was the only one who saw him do it. Under the law of Moses, Azariah can't be put to death. That's obvious enough. But what if there are two witnesses, and that other guy, Nadab, was rip-roaring drunk at the time? (on grape juice, of course). Or had a motive to lie? Well, the person who first pointed this out was a defense attorney.

The job isn't for everyone. Certainly not. But our civilian and military criminal process, when working as it should (two sides duking it out firmly but fairly under the rules of ethics), will get to the right result much more often than nought. I've worked as a prosecutor, a trial defense attorney and now as an appellate defense attorney for the military. All are great opportunities and interesting work, and each teach valuable lessons on justice, mercy and the human condition.