Student-Run Tolkien Fan Group Holds Meeting On Campus Near The Gnarled Oak of Wonderment and Community

The 6^th Quadrangle Community Gathering of the Tolkien Fan Club at Dallas Seminary met last Thursday near The Gnarled Oak of Wonderment and Community on campus. Secretary Warzarn the Hobbit took the minutes.

The meeting was called to order by Pantafar, Wizard of The Good. He reminded all members that they are to refer to one another at the meeting using only their code names, not their given names. A discussion quickly arose among several members who all claimed to bear the rightful name of Gandalf, and Pantafar was unsuccessful in stopping that discourse before it erupted into an argument.

“I should be the rightful Gandalf, because I am older and wiser than the rest of you,” said ______ Smitherington.

“But I came back from a C average last semester, so that’s analogous to rising from the dead like Gandalf,” replied ________  Covingslap.

The disagreement quickly disintegrated into fisticuffs, with Gandalf Smitherington prissily waving his manicured fist in the general direction of Gandalf Covingslap’s perfectly goateed face. After several Middle Earth insults were tossed back and forth, Pantafar retook control of the meeting and declared both Gandalfs to be Bagginses.

The next item on the agenda was the LOTR Viewing Party that is currently scheduled for The Third Day at Saruman’s dorm room. Some question existed about whether or not all three films would be shown, but the group was alarmed to learn that Saruman had left “The Return of the King” in his mom’s basement. Fortunately, Samwise Gamgee Johnson raised one bony finger to the heavens and exclaimed lispily that he had a dvd copy in his cloth knapsack (made from recyclable fibers). The group held its breath with anticipation as he sashayed over to where he had carefully laid his knapsack. His Toms shoes made only ecologically responsible noise as they swished to the rhythm of his delicate gait. Reaching into his knapsack, Johnson retrieved his own copy of “The Return of the King,” and the group sighed with relief.

The next item on the agenda was a scheduled debate between Gamling  Habernathy and Theoden Gleem regarding the true nature of Old Man Willow. Gamling claimed that Old Man Willow was a tree that made a brief appearance in the first novel, but Theoden argued vociferously that Old Man Willow had actually been born long ago, before the Dawn of Time, before the Awakening of the Elves--thereby rendering it transcendental and outside the lines of narrative truth. Some follow-up rebuttals were exchanged, mostly dealing with Gamling’s lack of precision in understanding the Middle Earth narrative, and Theoden’s preoccupation with producing a special chart he had made to prove the actual time line of Old Man Willow.

Two more votes were taken: one established The Lord Of The Rings as the Most Awesome Book Ever Written Since, Like, Ever. It was a unanimous vote, taken by a group comprised of 22-year-olds who had never read anything not specifically assigned to them (including The Lord Of The Rings). The other vote was for who would serve as the new chair of the 6^th Quadrangle Community Gathering of the Tolkien Fan Club at Dallas Seminary. Chairman Pantafar the Wizard of Good announced that he will be stepping down to concentrate on writing his Master’s Thesis, which will postulate that the Bible is an allegorical rendering of the true canon of The Lord Of The Rings.

The Witch-King of Angmar mostly pouted in the corner of the room and refused to participate in the proceedings once it had been established that Galadriel the Royal Elf had opened his Tupperware and eaten his arugula salad with the low-fat dressing. He remained silent for most of the meeting, pensively stroking his chin-curtain quasi-beard and biting his nails. Chairman Pantafar promised the Witch-King that he would be the Bearer of the Ring at the next meeting, and would receive a free latte gift card to Starbucks as a result.This seemed to cheer up the Witch-King of Angmar somewhat, and he chewed more joyously on some bean sprouts from The Community Plate of Nourishment.

The final item on the agenda was the LOTR Festival, to be held at Radagast The Brown’s duplex in the Village near uptown Dallas. A vote was taken, and it was decided by the group that all would be responsible for bringing refreshments and handing out fliers. A complaint was lodged by Forlong the Fat about the amount of reading he had to do for his historical theology class. The rest of the group clanged their thumb-cymbals in unison and solidarity with Forlong the Fat, and the meeting was adjourned. Within minutes, the collection of bicycles and Vespas that were parked near The Gnarled Oak of Wonderment and Community had disappeared, and the collective IQ of the campus was raised slightly.

An Open Letter To My Homosexual Friends and Family

I wish to set the record straight on a couple of things regarding Christianity and the furor raging over homosexual marriage. I do this in hopes that we can have future discourse, and that it not be poisoned by straw man arguments or name-calling. Understand that this is written in a spirit of genuine sincerity, by a man who does not wish to be at war with his fellow Americans for any reason.

I am a Christian. This most likely does not mean what you think it means; in fact, allow me to share all the things it does NOT mean—for these myths are merely designed to shut down discourse, not foster it. I was not born a Christian. I willingly chose this path in my life, and was fortunate enough to be born into a country where I have that freedom. Throughout most of recorded history, in other places, making this choice has cost people their lives.

Being a Christian does NOT mean that I hate you. I do not hate you. In fact, I love you. After all, it was because someone else loved me that I learned to trust Christ—and I would be the ultimate ingrate to Him if I responded to that love by not also giving it to you. Being a Christian does NOT mean that I’m perfect, or even consider myself perfect. Being a Christian does NOT mean that I am intolerant or hateful or bigoted or narrow-minded. On the contrary….being a Christian requires me to share my faith, which cannot be done in a vacuum. If I’m to obey that missive, I have to know you and love you and listen to you. I actually have to be tolerant of you to have discourse with you.

Being a Christian simply means that I have come to terms with my own essential worthlessness. I recognize that I am totally depraved. I was born that way; it wasn’t a choice I made. It’s one of the ramifications of the broken world in which we live, and I am humble enough to admit that there is no good in me apart from Him. Being a Christian also means that I accept that the Bible is the Word of God. You may find this ridiculous, but I did not make that choice to win your approval—or anyone else’s. In fact, I was openly hostile to this belief before I came around, and I totally understand that this view is openly reviled in our culture today. I hold it anyhow. Such a belief is no less indefensible than any of the other things we humans put our faith in on a daily basis.

Yes, the Bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. But in one such passage (Romans 1.24-32), the apostle Paul makes the argument that we are all born into depravity. That infamous list of sins he catalogues also contains “refusal to acknowledge God,” “greed,” “envy,” “strife,” “deceit,” “gossips,” “slanderers,” “haters of God,” “insolent,” “arrogant,” “boastful,” “disobedient to parents,” “unloving,” and “unmerciful.” So, in the eyes of God, being disobedient to one’s parents is in the same category as homosexuality. If I am to point a finger of harshness at the homosexual, I will have to point one at myself, too. Full disclosure: I have been guilty of every single one these things EXCEPT homosexuality. What is the significance of this? It means that I’m no better than you, and you’re no better than I. It means I’m no worse than you, and you’re no worse than I. The Christian, by definition, simply believes that we are all born into sin—and that we are constitutionally incapable of rectifying that. I can’t be “good,” no matter how I try. Apart from God’s grace, I cannot help but continue to be guilty of the aforementioned sins. In fact, even with God’s grace, I frequently have a whale of a time wrestling with them anyhow.

If I try to follow someone else’s rules for being “good,” I will fail. If I trust myself to be “good,” I will fail. I can only find redemption by trusting Christ for my salvation—not my ability to be a good boy, or follow rules, or go to church, or win arguments. I am powerless to save myself; He alone can save me.

It’s very important to me that you understand this last part especially….because my belief in the total depravity of Man is an inherently cardinal doctrine of historic Christianity. It is not a personal judgment that I pass on you. It is not a form of hate. It is not bigotry. In fact, if you’ve ever said, “nobody’s perfect,” you’ve essentially landed on the same fundamental human truth. I believe this, and to the extent that I have any righteousness in me at all—well, it ain’t because of anything I do (or don’t do). Anything good about me at all is a gift from Him.

This is a humbling fact, and one of its ramifications is that I am not at liberty to see anyone else’s sin as being greater or lesser than mine. It means that I am not free to place myself on a level above anyone else. It means that, as long as I’ve been given breath in this life, I should live out my faith sincerely and in love toward others. This doesn’t mean, however, that I must always acquiesce to others’ point of view.

I mentioned earlier that I live in a free country. This individual freedom has its genesis in a group of Puritan Christians who had wandered from England to Holland and finally to these shores, hoping to set up a society in which they were free from persecution for their beliefs. By the time the nation was born more than a century later, the Founding Fathers weren’t explicitly Christian—in fact, they deliberately set up a pluralistic society, in which all are free to worship and believe as they see fit. I personally like this set-up. If we lived in a deliberately “Christian” country, my guess is that it wouldn’t take long to degenerate into sectarian violence and oppression…because, again, that’s just what is inherently in us. But to be free to be Christian or atheist, Buddhist or Hindu, Catholic or Protestant, heretic or unbeliever….this is the essence of individual liberties. I support this—wholeheartedly, because I believe that a free country is the safest place to live out my beliefs.

Because of my beliefs as a Christian, I disagree with many of you on the subject of homosexual marriage. This doesn’t mean that this is the default position of Christians, however: there are Christians who disagree with me on this issue, as well. It is important for you to remember that much of my disagreement comes from my political understanding of the definition of “rights” and freedoms, much more so than it does my faith. But my faith DOES inform my beliefs, and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Many of you no doubt think it’s completely preposterous that a college-educated man could possibly believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible is His Word. I respect that view, as well. Believe me….walking through this life by faith seems ridiculous to even the most ardent Christians, many times. I’m no angel, and never have been. I don’t hold myself out to be a great example of some sort of model “man of God.” But I believe what I believe, as I’m sure you do, as well.

You are free to think of me as misguided and misled. I am free to think of you the same way. You are free to believe that “sin” isn’t how I have described it here. You are free to reject Scripture. You are free to reject my argument entirely. This doesn’t mean that we hate each other. My disagreement with many of you on this issue is on the basis of principles which I hold very dear. Your support on the other side of this issue is, I assume, also based on principles which you hold dear.  As long as we both realize that there are good people on both sides of this issue, we can keep from descending into the abyss of real bigotry and intolerance by assuming that The Other Guy is motivated by hate. Disagreement on a political issue is not the same thing as hate. Please….let’s both agree to this.

I will, of course, exercise my freedom of speech to advance the cause that I care about. Just as you no doubt find fault with my premise, I will find fault with yours. But this isn’t “hate” so much as it is simple civil discourse. I don’t want to see one homosexual beaten or cut off or harmed in any way. I don’t want to see any business interests by homosexuals shouted out of the public sphere. I don’t want to see building permits denied to homosexuals. I want supporters of homosexual marriage to be free to donate their money to GLAAD without fear of public mugging on Facebook. If you can admit that you feel the same about my side of the equation, then I believe that we have set the parameters for the sort of healthy cultural debate that could only happen in our great nation.

Because I love and value you, I look forward to having it.

It's Hard Out Here For An Amateur Theologian

Dear Taxpayers:

I am writing in hopes of gaining your support on an important issue that is close to my heart. I am a poor seminary student, and as such am attending a private theological graduate school. One of the rules that they have at my school is that while I am there, I must agree to not drink alcohol. I think this is really unfair, inasmuch as I’d like to have a Scotch every day after class. Because it costs so much money to go to private theological seminary, I don’t earn enough to be able to buy my own Scotch. And so I would like to ask you, the American taxpayer, if you could find it in your collective heart to pay for some of that cost, AND to force my private theological seminary to also pay for it.

I am a really bright student, so I did the math on this Scotch business. If I purchased one bottle of Scotch each week, that would amount to almost $400 a month in alcohol expenditures. That’s $4800 a year—almost a whole summer salary for a poverty-stricken theologian-in training like me. Add to that the statistical probability that I might still not be quite worth $4800 a year once I graduate, and you can readily see the problem.

According to the statistics I am using, over 40% of seminary students are finding it problematic to pay for their own alcohol. Even though we signed an agreement voluntarily adhering to this policy, of course we feel that our lack of integrity should still be subsidized by the American taxpayer—and, most importantly, the seminary itself. Thanks to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sabellius—who coincidentally shares the same name as a 4^th century heretic—we now should be able to look forward to our federal government mandating that our seminary fund this alcohol provision as a means of upholding “men’s health.” Since having to pay for my own Scotch would have a deleterious impact on my health, you can see why this issue is so important to me.

I knew of one seminary student who wanted to violate his agreement and purchase some alcohol, but learned at the liquor store desk that the seminary insurance plan didn’t cover alcohol. He had to turn away from Habib, the manager, and slink away in shame. This shouldn’t happen in the 21^st century. This war on men’s health by our private theological seminary is shameful and should be changed by the force of law.

I hope that I am hailed as a civil rights hero by our Glorious Leader, President Barack Obama. Maybe he’ll call me to make sure I’m alright and my feelings aren’t too hurt by all the negative press I’ve been getting about my unique health needs. After all, it was really hurtful for that radio talk host to make fun of me and call me a drunk. This is about rights. Not the rights of my seminary, mind you (they’re Christian, so they don’t really have rights)—but the rights of me. Also myself and I.

I have the right to drink large quantities of Scotch after class. I have the right to have you pay for it. I have the right for the government to make the seminary pay for it. Ya’ll help a brother out here. 

President Obama Apologizes To British For American Revolution

President Obama, flush with encouragement from the Salon.com editorial board, ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to formally apologize to England for the American Revolution in 1776.

“It is time we as a nation move past our petty nativism and finally apologize once and for all to the innocent British redcoats, particularly King George III,” he explained. “The notion of American exceptionalism is profoundly offensive to the rest of the world, and I want to sincerely apologize for it.”

No response was forthcoming from Britain, other than the sound of confused stammering from the House of Commons.  The President hopes to stage a ceremonial burning of the Declaration of Independence on the Mall in Washington, D.C., as a token of goodwill to our neighbor across the pond. It is believed that it would also make a nice gesture to Islamofascists who like burning things.

“I can’t apologize enough for the accidental burning of the you-know-what a few weeks ago,” whispered the President in a hushed, reverent tone. “It’s difficult to imagine that that happened. I completely understand your response of 6 dead Americans; it makes perfect sense to me. And I’m also sorry that I let 42 consecutive minutes pass without an apology about my first seven apologies.”  Bowing repeatedly, the President backed away from the podium and retreated back into the West Wing, where it is reported that he is working on an apology for the invention of plastic, as well.

It is not immediately known what effect the apology will have on frosty American-English relations. The British are angry that American feminists with severe haircuts and sensible shoes issued such an organized backlash against a British-based airlines that dared to hire attractive women to work as stewardesses. The Americans are angry at the British for honestly believing that the Beatles should be mentioned in the same breath with Jimi Hendrix. President Obama famously sent back a bust of Winston Churchill that had resided in the White House for a long period of time, ostensibly because Churchill is the one who said, “anyone under the age of 30 who’s not a liberal has no heart; and anyone over the age of 30 who’s not a conservative has no brain.” It is well-known that President Obama is over 30.

The descendants of some American patriots are outraged over the apology, but the President has instructed his Attorney General Eric “I Haven’t Been Convicted Of A Felony Yet” Holder to file a suit against them ordering them to stop using the word “patriot.” “That’s a hurtful word, and only serves to exacerbate the tensions in the world today. We are all citizens of the world,” the President’s teleprompter read. The Department of Education is working diligently to expunge any record of American victory at Yorktown or anyplace else. “We’re sorry for having those in our books in the first place,” the President said with lowered head.

No apology was issued to the 43 million babies murdered since 1973, the families of U.S. soldiers murdered by Afghan militants, or the families of 9/11 victims. But sources close to the President report that he is also working on an apology to the microbes found in the polar ice caps of Mars, since an American probe is known to have crash-landed there.

Wouldn't Jesus Wear Tom's Shoes?

It’s trendy right now to engage in a bunch of self-flagellation over being Christian. Oh, we’ve been so prejudiced! Oh, woe is us…we’re turned so many people off! Oh, how could we have been so narrow-minded! Oh, why can’t we all just give up on the Culture Wars and buy Tom’s Shoes already?

Really, Christians? 

Are we still wringing our hands over the Crusades (which were started by the other side, by the way….go back and read your history)? Are we still upset that the Founders of America weren’t explicitly Christian? Are we still upset with ourselves for not abolishing slavery in 1776 instead of 1863? Or is our self-loathing attached to more recent causes, like the Great Cultural Divide of the 1960’s—you know, where we staid, formal, stuffy old Christians condemned hippies to hell because they didn’t wear ties to church? Every time I turn around, I see another Christian—tellingly, it’s usually a Millennial like Tim King—doing a mea culpa for the horrific cultural transgressions of earlier Christians. The unspoken message seems to be, “I’m sorry for the older Christians who talked about things that embarrassed me. But look at me….I’ve got the same stupid haircut that you have, and wear the Tom’s shoes, and use a Mac, and *gasp* vote for Democrats! So you see? You can still join the Christian Club!”

Enough already. If you’re going to add your voice to the conversation that’s been going on for 2,000 years, it would be helpful for you to add something pertinent, relevant, edifying, and maybe even new. But Mr. King, it is evident that you are history-challenged, as well as doctrinally infantile. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone noticing that you posted on CNN (The Communist News Network), or that you are a Millennial. Millennials are famous for not knowing what the heck they’re talking about but still giving themselves mad props for saying it anyway.

If I understand your beef correctly, your biggest problem with “certain” Christians is they seem “obsessed” with the Culture Wars. In fact, your criticism leaves absolutely no doubt whatsoever who you think are the real offenders: “The Jesus I read about in Scriptures taught love, acceptance, peace and concern for the poor, but the Christian leaders on TV and radio always seemed to be pro-rich, pro-white, pro-America and anti-gay.”  Elsewhere, in case your audience missed it, you clarified the Bad Guys even further: “When Franklin Graham sets up double standards of faith for Republicans and Democrats, when Pat Robertson intones about a coming “secular atheist dictatorship,” when the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins goes off about the dangers of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and other “anti-family, anti-religious, anti-Christian policies,” when the great test for the next President of our country is who has “real” theology and who has “phony” theology, it might make for good sound bites.”

So your real problem is with Christians who take their Christianity seriously. Christians who read the Bible seriously. Worse yet….Christians who happen to be conservative. And you are blaming THEM for young people leaving the Church? Let me help you out with the facts.

As a Millennial, you naturally don’t believe that anything that happened before you were born (or the invention of the iPad, whichever came first) bears any societal relevance. But, as usual, you are wrong. Let me remind you that these same “Culture Wars” that you so eloquently (and in a similar sheep-like fashion to everyone else) decry were started by the Left. It wasn’t a bloated, tie-wearing, Scripture-quoting conservative Christian that sued to remove prayer from the public school. It wasn’t a conservative who pushed a synthetically-engineered social engineering paradigm on a culture that resulted in a 52% divorce rate, a generation of latchkey kids raised on television, and the bloated welfare state. It wasn’t a conservative who did an end-around to avoid the vote of the majority in order to get 9 people in robes to write law for the rest of us. It wasn’t a preacher who sued to have the Ten Commandments removed. The Left started this, and in response, a generation of Christians finally rose up in the 1970’s and 1980’s because they were alarmed that their faith was being quickly removed from the public square. Before the Left declared war on Christianity, Jerry Falwell was just a Baptist preacher who tended his own flock. Pat Robertson was just a Pentecostal preacher who tended his own flock. What drove these guys to prominence was that they felt called to stand up for the faith that was under direct and legal assault from the “free” country that promised to guarantee those same liberties. They’ve both become bywords for religious intolerance—which is a stunningly Orwellian irony, since the only reason they became prominent in the first place was to combat religious intolerance. And what's really ironic is that NONE OF THESE GUYS EVER ADVOCATED BEING INTOLERANT TO SOMEONE ELSE. That's just the non-sequitur that YOU slapped them with.

Now see if you can follow along with me logically: why is it not ok for Christians to make their voice heard in the public square? You seem to think it’s just fine when Saul Alinsky does it. When followers of his proto-Marxist rhetoric make placards and march on city squares and raise their tiny minority-voice to be heard above the din of the majority, you hail them as heroes. You name streets after them. You name schools after them. As a Millennial, you were definitely raised in a time and a place in which such citizen-activists (previously known as ne’er-do-wells who couldn’t find a job if you pointed them to one) were held up as models of behavior that you should emulate. Why is it ok for Barack Obama to be a grievance-stoking “community organizer,” but it’s somehow wrong and hypocritical and a big turn-off for a Christian to do the same thing? The hypocrisy, sir, is all on your side.

Now I would like to broadly agree with one principle that you stated—your biggest point in your essay was to state that not all Christians are Republicans. Of course, you also implied that as long as many Christians ARE Republicans, you Millennials will keep leaving the Church—and this says more about your maturity than it does Republican Christians—but I’ll come back to this in a moment. For now, I’d like to agree with your central premise: that you don’t have to vote Republican to be Christian. Congratulations on accidentally landing on a kernel of truth….a kernel of truth that was well-known among Christians long before you fancied yourself a Hobbs-esque philosopher with that Captain Obvious Observation. No one has ever taught this. Falwell never said this, Robertson never said this, Tony Perkins doesn’t believe this. In fact, the only people who preach that your religion is always a function of your politics are YOUR people…you know, the ones on the Left.

I will state it for the record: a Christian does NOT have to vote Republican, but accepting the mythological narrative that centralized wealth redistribution is something Jesus favors is every bit as nonsensical as you accuse Franklin Graham of being. What makes you think that “love, acceptance, peace, and concern for the poor” is the territory of the Left? Your Great Society—voted on and foisted on the American people in 1965 (again, before your time) with actual Scriptural proof-texts—actually had the opposite effect. It produced hate, rejection, intolerance, and a broader underclass of unemployable citizens than has ever existed since the inception of this great country. We have enough history now to guide us to the only correct conclusion: if you truly have any concern for the poor, then you will reject the same tired ideas of increased taxation and government redistribution.  

So let’s put Christianity and politics in perspective—not a Millennial strong suit, but you have to try if you want to be in a grown-up conversation—by reminding you of history once again. There are, broadly speaking, two political ideologies battling for world supremacy at this moment: egalitarianism and libertinism.

You can be a follower of Jesus Christ and be either. Period.

If a libertarian says you have to be libertarian to be Christian, he is being prejudiced. If an egalitarian says you have to be egalitarian to be Christian, he is also being prejudiced. I don’t see what’s so difficult to understand about this—but then again, I hail from a generation in which we were required to read Orwell, and could recognize political doublespeak when we hear it.

You can follow Christ and be either one, but your best chance of staying alive for the longest amount of time and being able to live out your theology successfully is in libertinism. That’s just an observation; not a dogmatic pronouncement. When you live in a society in which “everybody is free,” you will have to live with inequality. The only perfect government will exist when Christ returns and brings it with Him. Conversely, when you live in a society in which “making everyone equal” is the overarching value, you will see individual liberties get stripped away in order to enforce that. Eventually, your liberty to believe in Jesus Christ WILL get stripped. Not MAY—but WILL. That’s history. When you get so offended by that observation that you leave the church in a huff, you display your own immaturity. But until Christ returns, you on the Left will wonder how Christians on the Right can vote against wealth redistribution. And Christians on the Right will wonder how Christians on the Left can vote for a man who actually supported an infanticide bill on the floor of the Illinois State Senate. And both sides will still be Christians, assuming that both still confess the central creeds of orthodoxy that have existed since Chalcedon (A.D. 451…I know….it’s before your time).

If you’re leaving the Church because you associate it with conservatism, then you demonstrate that you know precious little about the mission and nature of the Church—AND conservatism. So while you’re on your Mac tablet, read up on your history. When you decide to add your voice to the ongoing conversation, make sure you’re adding something that is worthwhile—not just a retread of an argument made by Jonathan Alter at Newsweek years ago (I know…it’s  a magazine. How very quaint.)

Mr. King, you were right about one thing: if 62% of college-age young people are leaving the Church, it’s the Church’s fault, not college’s. I couldn’t agree more. I’ve long argued that we’ve spent too much time ripping out our pews, creating Christian rock bands, changing our hairstyles, and generally trying to ape the people around us. We’ve ceased to be effective ministers of the gospel to a hostile culture because we no longer have faith in our own message. Perhaps if we’d spent less time lighting candles and having frank discussions about sex in youth group, and actually teaching these kids what we believe and why we believe it, they wouldn’t be so quick to toss their faith overboard when they get into Dr. Leftoflenin’s class. An unexamined faith is a weak faith, and we’ve done a terrible job at teaching and strengthening our young people’s faith. The bigger problem, from our vantage point, is that we’ve basically withdrawn from the culture entirely. Our kids go to home schools or Christian schools or youth groups, then go to Bible colleges, then work in churches, and never have to rub elbows with the world.  We have our own music, art, schools, political structures, and even neighborhoods. It’s completely unscriptural. Perhaps it would be better for them if we spent their youth group years inculcating them with real doctrine and apologetics and logic—then sent them to secular university to live out that faith. Then it would become real to them.

But you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. You cannot toss the Falwells and Robertsons under the bus because you’re embarrassed by their conservatism. The Church is bigger than liberal or conservative. You are espousing one side of that—liberal—and out of the other side of your mouth you are excoriating the other side, conservatives. When people leave the Church, they leave for their own reasons. When you elevate the Equalizers over the Freedom-lovers, you are committing the same blasphemy you thundered about in your essay.

Grow up and stop it.  

Top 10 Ways Civilization Would Have Been Different If My Wife Hadn't Bought 1,235 Curtain Rods And Blinds To Install

1. I would have finished reading After Death, by Dr. Herbert Luckock, and then formulated a response thesis regarding a conscious existence in the afterlife that would bring hope to millions.
2. I would have read a few more chapters in The History of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez, causing me to place the book back onto its place on the shelf. Once there, it would have taken up just enough space to warrant my building another 8’ tall bookcase, thereby having to purchase two full sheets of $45 birch wood, and helping the economy accordingly.
3. I would have finished my re-reading of Heller’s Catch-22, causing me to be in a satirically humorous mood for the remainder of the week. This, in turn, would have given me just enough goodwill to not direct violent thoughts toward Red Oak drivers who are incapable of driving faster than 18 mph. Bloodshed would have been averted.
4. I would have taken my dog, General Sam Houston, for a long walk through the neighborhood. This would have helped stabilize my blood pressure, and would have staved off the inevitable stroke or heart attack that will eventually fell me, thereby cutting short my corpus of work (mostly snarky posts) designed to edify all of Mankind and glorify God.
5. I would have been unable to put off any further the task of changing the oil in our cars. This, in turn, would have caused me to tell my son to change the oil in our cars. Doing so would have taught him responsibility and pride in his work, and he would have grown up and been a conservative. Instead, his sense of entitlement that oil changing is beneath him will inevitably cause him to grow up and march loudly on a state capitol somewhere, waving placards and demanding other people’s property.
6. I would have taken a nap. This would have caused me to put off writing my exegetical paper for Dr. Fantin, which would have caused him to thunderously condemn my sloth, which in turn would have resulted in my still having to write the same paper, but in a much more hurried fashion. Now I’m accidentally going to write it well. Hopefully.
7. I would have brushed up on my Russian, inspiring me to join the State Department and forge healthier relations with our Russian brothers and sisters. This, ultimately, would have led to a final and lasting trade solution that would have enriched the United States beyond measure.
8. I would have finished writing my book, “Why Marx Is Still Wrong.” I would have then mailed it to President Obama, who would have read it, changed his mind about his worldview, and changed parties.
9. I would have hammered out a peace deal between the “Palestinian people” and Israel. Everyone would agree to get along, or else “I’m going to have to come over there.” The Nobel Peace Prize Committee would have called my house a few days later to congratulate me.
10. I would not have had the inclination to write this missive, which in turn has kept me from hanging blinds and curtains.