Pretend to Care for Fun and Profit

Does this sort of thing make you as sick as it does me?

At one grocery store, they want to sell me a cloth bag for $1.99 so I won’t use their paper bags.  I don’t mind that they want to do that, but I do mind that they (very thinly) attempt to disguise their real motives by claiming that this will ‘help the earth.’  No, it won’t.  But it will help the grocery store – and that would be fine if they had the guts to admit it and not hide behind the idiocy of environmentalism.

At another grocery/department store their ever-present-and-babbling TV screens urge me to buy their ‘organic’ products – which happen to be much more pricey than the regular stuff.  I don’t mind the store hocking the organic junk.  But I feel like throwing a piece of fruit at the big screen when it tells me how this will ‘help the environment.’  It will help the store.  I wish they had the guts to admit it, and not hide behind the idiocy of environmentalism.

And the problem goes beyond the simple hypocrisy here.  When companies begin to think they can profit from the stupidity of environmentalism, they suddenly become willing accomplices with the idiot environmentalists to ram their stupid ideas down the throats of the rest of us.

Here is a possible way for a company to ‘cash in’ on the environmental movement in a way that would be both honest and helpful for the general welfare.  Companies could put bounties on the heads of environmentalists.  You bag one and bring it in, and you get cash, store credit, or some other tangible reward.  The higher profile the environmentalist, the bigger the prize.

Yes, yes – I know it is not morally permissible thus to kill.  But couldn’t we just temporarily assume the leftist ethic of the environmentalists, which often assumes the permissibility (and for some, even the desirability – and some have so said) of killing unwanted babies?  Then, just before bagging some unwanted environmentalist, we could simply say, “Sorry, we thought you were a baby!”

I suppose not.  But can’t we dream?

Pushing Me Toward Hate

 

It’s official now, and I will publically admit it:  I am very close to hating the Obama administration.  I think I am about to hate Obama himself.  Why?

Not for the policies, as bad as those are.  They are simply designed to destroy liberty and turn what little is left of a free society into soft fascist state.

What I am about to hate Obama for is what he has done to me, to my mind, to my attitude.  He ran for president as the first (partly) black man to do so.  He allowed his supporters to turn his election into a racial matter.  I have never cared what color a person is.  But the incessant harping about Obama’s mixed race – as stupid as some of that harping is – has made it almost impossible to ignore race.  And that is wrong.

I wanted to evaluate Obama as a person, period.  That has not been permitted.  People keep screaming that I must evaluate Obama as a ‘racial unit’ of some kind.  That is demeaning both to him and to me.  He seems to revel in being demeaned like that.  But I hate the fact that these people are trying to suck me into all this.

True to his disgusting form in this regard, he has appointed someone to the Supreme Court who – everyone insists – must be evaluated, not as a person and a justice, but as a ‘Latina woman.’  I have tried very hard, in a society that sometimes makes it very difficult, NOT to evaluate people in terms of sex and race.  (Note:  not ‘gender’ – words have a gender, humans have a sex.)

But now the fact that this justice-deficient ‘justice’ is a Latina woman is being rammed down my throat.  And I am very close to hating all the people who are doing that, from Obama and his administration to those nit-wits in the United States Senate who are pushing for the confirmation of this – not person – but this ‘Latina woman.’

I am very close to hating all the people who are doing these things, because they and what they are doing is evil, and it is hard not to hate evil, even when it is personified.

I hate that they are trying to make me hate.  May God bring swiftly upon them all the reward they so richly deserve for being purveyors of hate.

Church Gone Awry

This is from:

John Calvin at 500 -- Faithful and Welcoming Luncheon, General Synod Grand Rapids

presented by Charles Hambrick-Stowe

By contrast, the tendency in the UCC since 1957 has been overwhelmingly toward human action, social action, social reform, living your faith in the public arena. Our activism -- our gift -- believing means doing -- most certainly stems from our Calvinist heritage (whether UCC members know this or not). But -- and this, it seems to me, is the spiritual problem of the United Church of Christ -- our commitment to faithful living is no longer rooted in a theology of redemption. In many places and at many organizational levels of the church, the very concept of justification and sanctification are ignored or even rejected as obsolete, meaningless, or hurtful doctrines. Salvation is construed as getting in touch with your true self, perhaps especially your true gendered self, so if there is a theological emphasis at all it is on the doctrine of creation ("God doesn't create junk") and, with regard to Jesus, the doctrine of the Incarnation, God-with-us, validating us just as we are. But . . . the Fall? Atonement? Reconciliation of sinful humanity with the God of holiness? Word that Christ died for our sins? Who in our churches knows what any of this means anymore?

Kent comments:

This is from a group of United Churches of Christ that are attempting a kind of reform movement within that group.  These ‘Faithful and Welcoming Churches’ see their group as an alternative to withdrawal from the UCC.  While they don’t like the direction the UCC has gone, they don’t think becoming an independent congregation is a good idea either because, among other things, they think a denominational structure can help keep churches from going astray!

One has to ask, “How’s that working out for you in the UCC – which by your own admission is so messed up that you have to have this reforming group?!?”  Nevertheless . . .

It is very interesting to get this inside look at some of the things that concern a reform-minded minister of the UCC.  Hambrick-Stowe is here particularly interested in the heritage from John Calvin.  But some of the matters he mentions here transcend Calvinism.  ‘Activism’ can be a good thing IF you know what to be active for.  Too often, ‘activism’ has become a code-word from ‘actively promoting state-enforced socialism.’  This is certainly true of most of the UCC.  I hope this is not the case with these ‘Faithful and Welcoming’ people.

The characterization that in the UCC, “Salvation is construed as getting in touch with your true self, perhaps especially your true gendered self” has become the standard fare in the mainline denominations.  I can sympathize with anyone who found that sort of thing in the group he was affiliated with and wants to do something about it.  And who can be surprised that a man who admires John Calvin wants to reform something!  While I can’t fully agree with the approach of the ‘FWChurches’ (that’s what they call it) people, I also can’t help but wish them well.  Almost every church I have ever known needed some degree of reforming.

But beyond all this, we should make note of something very important.  These matters that Hambrick-Stowe complains about here – serious departures from the Christian faith – are pandemic in much of the UCC.  Some churches, and some ministers, are much further ‘down the tubes’ than others.

It is within the theological/ecclesiastical mess that B. H. Obama found his ‘church home.’  It is where he learned ‘Christianity.’  It is the source of his ‘theology’ such as it is.  There has been a lot of discussion about Obama’s religious background, where the Obama family will attend church while he is president, and so forth.  While that might all be of interest to the media paparazzi, if you want to know what Obama thinks about religion, you need to look at what the very worst parts of the UCC believes.  That is Obama’s spiritual womb.

As this insider reveals, it is not a pretty picture.

Better Than Elections

"Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents, as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens."
--George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788

Contrast the above with what follows:

Congressmen Who Vote for Government-Run Health Care Agency Should Be Its First Customers
Thursday, July 09, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill Monday that urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others.  The bill, H. Res. 615, says members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care bureau should become the inaugural customers of government-run health-care.

Kent comments:

The fact that anyone would need to propose this kind of legislation is one of many signals of the end of the Republic.  There is now and has been for some time a political class - much to the chagrin of those who love liberty.  Elected officials at the national level have bestowed upon themselves all sorts of perks, many of which do not end when their term of office ends.

My guess is that H.R. 615 will never see a vote in the House.  Far too many who serve in the higher levels of government take the phrase ‘an honor and a privilege’ to mean, “I now deserve special privileges.’  And have them they do.

For some time now I have been convinced that we would be much better off replacing elections with citizen lotteries.  It would work like this:  the names of all those age-qualified for an office, residing in the appropriate location for that office, would be put into a big hopper.  (This could make a fun TV show, by the way.)  When the time came for a given office to be filled, a name would be drawn.  If for some reason that person did not want to serve, another name would be drawn, until a willing person was found.  A person could serve at a given political ‘location’ (House, Senate, etc.) only once.  The person serving would have all reasonable expenses paid out of the public treasury – nothing more.

And that’s how we would fill our various offices.  I think the is a very high likelihood that we would have better government with this system.  It appears to me that the ability to convince people to vote for you in an election is more likely to make you an undesirable office-holder than it is to make you a good office-holder.

Of course, with a citizen lottery in place of elections, we would get some ‘losers’ in office.  But when you ponder the likes of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi (just to name a couple), how likely is it that we would do worse with a lottery?  I would much rather trust political decisions to one of my randomly-chosen neighbors than to the kind of people who run for office, often seeking power and prestige.

People selected in a lottery who agreed to serve would be people who didn’t really want the job, but agreed to do it temporarily.  These are both excellent qualities for office-holders.  When they finished their terms in office, they would be back living under the conditions they were creating.

You might think I am joking about this, but I am not.  There are so many things to recommend this system, and almost none that count against it.  What do you think?

Addicted to Projection?

What follows is from a sermon/article:

8 Ways to Help Your Congregation Fall in Love with the Bible

John D. Barry
Editor-in-Chief, Bible Study Magazine » Logos Bible Software »

3. Forget to Prepare a PowerPoint

Disconnecting from the Bible is easy when you don't have to open one. In our effort to be hip, we can distract people from the Bible with multimedia. When used poorly, PowerPoints can make the sermon feel like a show rather than a learning opportunity. I am not suggesting we stop using multimedia—I believe it is a powerful tool for keeping people's attention and illustrating points. But I do suggest you skip it for a week or two and crack open the Bible at your pulpit instead. The Bible will only be understood as a page turner if we turn its pages.

Imagine that instead of you reading the chosen passage for a week, you asked the congregation to read it aloud or to themselves. It may not work the first week, but people will certainly remember to bring their Bibles the next week. This is multi-sensory preaching—you are not just engaging their eyes and ears; you are engaging their sense of touch. When people physically explore the Bible using multiple senses, they continue to think about it when they leave, and they will probably pick it up again during the week.

Kent Comments:

This whole article is worth reading – this is just a small section.  Notice that this advice comes from a Bible software editor.  So you can’t complain that he is just some anti-technology dude.

This whole matter is related to the musical point I made in an earlier blog entry.  There is a clear and present danger that technology can grow out-of-control in the church assembly and change it into a show.

When everything is projected, as Barry points out, we can end up decreasing the number of senses people use in our church meetings.  He is quite right – there is great value in people thumbing around and through the printed pages of Bibles.

For people new to the church, it is like a guided tour through the scriptures.  On the way to a passage in Isaiah, people will pass other books of the Bible.  They might become curious.  On the way to find the little NT book of James, people might notice Hebrews.  And notice this:  a projected scripture text cannot be in context.  When people turn to a passage in a Bible, the whole context is available if they need to check it.

Some of the same can be said of always projecting words of songs onto a screen.  People never see musical notation at church meetings – just words.  They never see the notation for various parts, and thus there is not much help for harmony singing.  Just viewing the musical notation repeatedly, as happens when we look at traditional church song books, can help people begin to see how musical notation works.  We miss all that with the way most churches now use – perhaps overuse or misuse – projection technology.

I am not opposed to projecting material for sermons, singing, and so forth.  But it seems to have become an unwritten law in many congregations that everything, always, must be projected, in spite of the fact that there are these obvious problems with projection.  That law is stupid, and it ought to be repealed.

If your congregation thinks it just couldn’t live without its projector, perhaps it has a technology addiction problem.  It is one thing to use technology – it is another for technology to use us.

Of Orange Juice and Environmentalists

I recently purchased some very tasty orange juice, the kind that has never been frozen.  Being of modest means as I am, I would not normally buy that kind.  But last week at the grocery store it was marked down to 91 cents per half gallon.  On my orange juice box (and at the listed website) I found this little notice:

As I explored the website I found this:

Cool Earth is a UK based international organization that is working hard to rally everyone's efforts to halt climate change. By participating, you're helping us give Cool Earth the tools to protect the world's most endangered pieces of rainforest. Together we will preserve more rainforest and help stabilize our precious climate.

Visit the Cool Earth site to learn more.

So I visited the “Cool Earth” site to learn more, and I learned that their motto is “Keeping Carbon Where It Belongs.”  According to the Cool Earthers, carbon belongs in forests.

I must give this group credit.  Their immediate goal is to convince people to donate money to keep people away from ‘rain forests’ and thus ‘keep carbon where it belongs.’  I saw no mention on their website of lobbying governments to force people to do anything.  Unfortunately, the Cool Earthers are part of Guardian Environment Network which is clearly devoted to using the state to interfere with humans doing much of anything that would in any way change the world.

And so we have come to the point where all sorts of companies, like Tropicana, are using the ‘green’ movement as a marketing tool to the kind of muddle-minded people who would like governments to further and further restrict human activity in favor of ‘not changing the planet.’

One problem with all this is theological.  God made us to ‘subdue’ – which includes ‘using’ - the planet, and even other planets if that is feasible.

Other problems are technological.  Why should we think carbon belongs only in forests?  Why should we even worry about the ‘location’ of carbon when CO2 – a very tiny percentage of our atmosphere and only a small part of many ‘greenhouse’ gases – has been increasing in the last several years while the temperature of the planet is flat-lined?

We are rapidly approaching a situation in which those of us who simply want to live and use the earth in productive ways will have to engage in warfare with environmentalists.  If we surrender to them, we can expect to live miserably, or perhaps not at all.  They have their tentacles in many locations now, even orange juice containers.

Rather than just sit back while we slide back into the stone age, it is time to declare war openly on the environmentalists.  They have made themselves the enemies of civilization.  Civilization needs to fight back – soon and hard.

We Don’t Sing – And I Think I Know Why

We love music – can’t seem to get enough of it.  It’s with us everywhere we go – in the car, on hold on the phone, in the restaurant, underlying every TV script, in our CD players, and on our radios.  We love listening to music.  At least, we have given up trying to escape it.  What we don’t do much is sing.  In fact, singing with any degree of enjoyment, satisfaction, or overt delight is becoming more and more the practice of a select few.  Oh we may belt out a few bars in the shower, or sing along with a favorite oldie; and we participate (more or less) in the obligatory singing that comes with worship on Sundays.  But singing as an activity we enjoy, one that exercises our faith, draws us nearer to God, and puts the world on notice regarding our most basic life convictions – well, it simply isn’t much done.

from WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SINGING?  By T.M. Moore

Kent Comments:

It’s almost a case of both too much music and not enough music at the same time!  Why don’t we sing?

I confess that I do, often, perhaps too much now and then.  But this author cited above is right, and I have some ideas about why this is the case.

I noticed a correlation between church people singing and the advent of the ‘Christian music’ industry.  It appears that as the ‘Christian music’ industry grew, church singing has decreased.  At first glance you might think people listening to music more would make them want to sing more.  But it hasn’t worked out that way, and we probably shouldn’t be surprised.

Most of us are not nearly as good as those who produce the music of the ‘Christian music’ industry.  They are professionals.  We are just duffers in comparison.  Naturally, the more you listen to them, the more you realize that you sound bad in comparison.  Who wants to sound bad?

But its not just that the music of the Christian music industry exists and we listen to it.  The problem is exacerbated by the fact the the church has often abandoned its more traditional music for the music of the Christian music industry.  If we sing ‘Shall We Gather at the River’ or its kin, we don’t sound nearly as bad as when we try to sing the works of the Christian music industry.  Those works were written, in most cases, by and for the professionals.  We have heard the professionals perform them, and our church singing stinks by comparison.  So, naturally, we don’t want to hear ourselves sing that – we want to listen to our CD instead.

Another element that comes into play here is the ‘bandification’ of church music.  The more complex and ‘band-like’ accompaniment is at churches and the snazzier the ‘praise teams’ become at churches, the more likely we are to just listen and not sing.  After all, you don’t have to sing along at a concert to enjoy the music.  As church gatherings become more like concerts – something most churches seem to try to do lately – the congregation becomes less likely to sing, and more likely just to listen.

There are and have always been segments of Christendom that are ‘non-instrumental’ for theological reasons.  While I do not think these theological reasons are sound, the non-instrumentalists do gain one practical advantage over the rest of us:  they sing.

For obvious reasons, they have to!  It is nothing like a normal concert.  There is no instrumentation that can cover up the singing.

I visited a small non-instrumental church a couple of years ago.  They were just average people from all walks of life.  But their ability and desire to sing were astounding compared to much of my experience.  They actually devoted some church meetings to practicing singing as a congregation – imagine that!  But even though I was a one-time visitor, their music, while not simplistic by any means, was very sing-able, even the songs I had never heard before.

Many circumstances have compounded the tendency for Christians not to sing.  It would be a true service to God’s people to remedy those circumstances and restore singing.