The Muppets have always presented themselves to the world as actual persons both on and off set. Most film and TV characters stay well within the boundaries of their imaginary worlds, their respective actors walking out of the studio at night in khakis and sneakers, ready to resume a normal human existence. Not so with the Muppets: Kermit the Frog or Miss Piggy can show up anywhere, at any time, their lower halves always conveniently off camera or hidden behind well-placed scenery.

So it doesn’t at all surprise me to see Kermit and Miss Piggy being interviewed in the clip above concerning the recent Muppet movie, not the actors who voice them. It also doesn’t surprise me when Muppets do some spur-of-the-moment political commentary: the Muppets have always been a “for adults, too” type of production. But taking a shot at Fox News is surprisingly tame fare. It’s really only interesting because it’s being spoken by a Muppet, making it more “funny” than “controversial”.

But when Kermit responds to Miss Piggy’s quip with, “Boy, that’s going to be all over the internet. You are in such deep water”, she replies, “Yeah, if they take what I say seriously, they’ve got a real big problem.” An interesting exchange between two talking felt animals. We currently live in an era where Muppets not only feel free to voice their political opinions, they also realize that their opinions will probably be heard and taken somewhat seriously.

If you’re reading this, you’re most likely someone who spends some considerable portion of your week commenting on and “liking” things online. It’s also likely that at some point in your life, you’ve done this while hiding behind a pseudonym and an avatar (kind of like your own Muppet, right?), and you most likely have some never-updated blog from a few years ago hiding in some forgotten corner of the ‘net. Our Americanism instills in us the idea that everybody should be able to say what they want when they want to say it, and the ‘net provides us with a voice and a platform for broadcasting it to the world.

Being able to speak our minds in the public forum is a very, very good thing. History has seen the excesses and evils perpetrated by unquestioned and unfettered institutions who sought to silence the masses. But therein lies a challenge, especially for believers.

Having a voice and a platform only makes a difference if you actually have something to say, if you have content to back up the cool new blog format or quirky Instagram avatar. That content takes thinking, prayer, and work. Living in an age where even Muppets can offer political criticism and be heard ought to inspire us not only to speak more, but to speak better.

Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians has always fascinated me: “[T]he weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5) Many of us know that the world of ideas is a serious business, but Paul does us one better and makes it a cosmic business, one of intense spiritual warfare. The world of ideas is an even bigger deal than we thought, and we can’t take our opportunities for granted.

You have an amazing voice and platform constantly at your fingertips. Use it well.

The last week was one of the most eventful, and yet most uneventful weeks in recent pro-life history. Here’s the condensed version:

On Tuesday, January 31, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation announced that they would no longer give grants to Planned Parenthood. Pro-life advocates cheered, donated money to Komen, and sent them messages of encouragement. Pro-choice advocates booed, donated money to Planned Parenthood, and sent Komen messages of discouragement.

A few days later, Komen announced that they would continue giving grants to Planned Parenthood. Pro-life advocates booed and accused pro-choice advocates of lying and bullying. Pro-choice advocates cheered and accused pro-life advocates of lying and being insensitive to breast cancer.

Now most of the nation hates Komen, Planned Parenthood has received a huge boost in donations on top of Komen’s returning grants, and pro-life advocates have to discern what this means for their movement.

Perhaps a good place for the Church to begin its soul-searching in this drama’s aftermath is with the activist tactic that shaped the drama: boycotting.

What Happened?

By most accounts, the blow-up over Komen’s funding of Planned Parenthood began last year when LifeWay Christian Resources recalled a pink Bible they sold which benefited Komen, due to complaints about Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood. In a statement, LifeWay said:

Though we have assurances that Komen’s funds are used only for breast cancer screening and awareness, it is not in keeping with LifeWay’s core values to have even an indirect relationship with Planned Parenthood.

This action undoubtedly put some pressure on Komen to end ties with Planned Parenthood, but it wasn’t the only source of pressure. As WORLD Magazine’s Marvin Olasky pointed out, Life Decisions International might have also influenced Komen’s decisions to cut funding, since Komen had been on their boycott list. In a blog post released after Komen cut their funding, LDI appears to take some credit for the foundation’s change in policy:

Many people are rushing to take credit for the Komen decision, including some who were thoroughly opposed to our boycott… While a handful of individuals played key roles, the real heroes are the countless numbers of pro-life activists and organizations that have continued to pressure the charity over the years.

Similarly, LifeNews.com implies that pro-lifers deserve some credit for Komen’s decision:

After years of protests and criticism from pro-life advocates, the biggest breast cancer organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure has announced it is halting further grants and donations to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

[Note the deceptive language in this statement. Komen made donations to Planned Parenthood's breast cancer work, not their "abortion business."]

Fox News reported that the Alliance Defense Fund “praised Komen”:

…for seeing the contradiction between its lifesaving work and its relationship with an abortionist that has ended millions of lives.

And finally, Slate’s Rachael Larimore wrote:

[T]he Komen foundation would not have acted as it did if it had not been hearing similar complaints from pro-lifers for years. It could not have been a decision that it made lightly. I’m grateful that it listened to the concerns of men and women who told them they would not donate to Komen as long as it had a relationship with the nation’s largest abortion provider.

It’s clear that LifeWay, LDI, and “countless numbers of pro-life activists and organizations” had been pressuring Komen for years to sever ties with Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, many of these groups believed that Komen’s initial decision was influenced by their boycotts and public criticism. These groups had good reason to believe that they were influential, since Komen initially indicated that they cut funding to Planned Parenthood because of an ongoing investigation regarding the illegal use of funds to provide abortions, which happend to be the primary concern pro-life advocates had with donating to Komen: 

Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.

Even Planned Parenthood and its supporters agreed about the reason Komen severed ties with them. From USA Today:

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has depicted Stearns’ probe as politically motivated and said she was dismayed that it had contributed to Komen’s decision to halt the grants to PPFA affiliates.

“It’s hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women’s lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying,” Richards told the Associated Press. “It’s really hurtful.”

The story quickly spread that Komen had given in to the pressure from the pro-life movement, which resulted in a backlash from the media, politicians, and former Komen supporters. This led Komen to release a new statement saying that the primary reason that they would stop giving Planned Parenthood grants was because they did not offer mammograms. Rather, they only referred women to places that did mammograms and then reimbursed the women from Komen’s grants.

This motivation seemed far less political and quite reasonable: why give money to an organization that would only have to pass it along to another organization? That can’t be efficient. So now, Komen’s goal was to make better use of their funds so that they could do more to help women, but it was too late. The narrative had already been written.

The Ironic Responses

The way Christian and conservative groups responded to Komen’s second statement is revealing. They immediately began criticizing Planned Parenthood and the media for accusing Komen of making a political rather than a logistical decision.

Casey Mattox, Alliance Defense Fund:

Despite Komen’s plea that “[m]aking this issue political or leveraging it for fundraising purposes would be a disservice to women,” Planned Parenthood immediately made this issue political and leveraged it for fundraising purposes, accusing Komen of bowing to political pressure.

Wizbang:

Imagine that. An organization whose sole purpose is to fight against breast cancer wanting to give their money to organizations that actually aide in fighting breast cancer… So it seems that the narrative that Susan G. Komen is some sort of right-wing extremist, anti-abortion group doesn’t really hold water, now does it?

Randall K. O’Bannon, National Right to Life News Today:

[W]hen Planned Parenthood and their media machine swung into action, they talked not about what Komen’s Brinker began with in her video — that “We have the highest responsibility to ensure that these donor dollars make the biggest impact possible” — but that PPFA was ‘alarmed and saddened’ at the decision, which they attributed to “political pressure”.

Please catch the irony here: those who praised Komen for responding to pro-life complaints by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood were now mocking Planned Parenthood and “lefties” for accusing Komen of responding to pro-life complaints by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. While I’m confident that pro-choice advocates lied and used deceptive language during this ordeal, I am much more troubled by some of the arrogance and deception coming from Christians who ought to know better.

The irony, unfortunately, only gets worse. Once Planned Parenthood supporters began to complain to Komen and threaten a boycott, Christian and conservative groups called them “bullies.”

Douglas R. Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI):

Pro-life people want all corporations, be them for-profit or not-for-profit, to stop supporting Planned Parenthood. Failure to do so will result in a boycott. We are not demanding that they fund pro-life groups. Pro-abortion apologists, on the other hand, want all corporations to give money to Planned Parenthood. Failure to do so will result in a boycott. And once a corporation begins to support Planned Parenthood it better not even think about having a change of heart. Isn’t that extortion? If these people truly cared about the health of women, they would accept the Komen decision and urge Planned Parenthood to seek private funding.

Rod Dreher, The American Conservative:

The liberal blacklist. Of course I support anybody’s right to withhold money or approval from any organization for any reason. But let’s just be clear what’s going on here. Komen broke ranks, and for the cultural left, that cannot be understood, forgiven, or overlooked; Komen must be ruined. Nothing Komen or Nancy Brinker has ever done for women in 30 years matters to these people. This is war.

Elizabeth Scalia, The Anchoress:

Yesterday’s insane reaction to Komen, by the press and the government gave me a mental image of Moloch, enraged and stomping and roaring because there was a threat of less meat coming to his fire.

Today, Moloch is appeased; the media’s heartbeat and respiration are returning to normal. They and their pals in DC can take a nice, deep cleansing breath and sit back and smile, understanding what they have just demonstrated to themselves, their enemies and the world: you don’t have to fall in love; just fall in line, or you will fall, altogether.

The Day of the Bully has dawned.

The message here seems to be that it’s okay for pro-life groups to boycott Komen because of its relationship with Planned Parenthood, but it’s not okay for pro-choice advocates to boycott Komen for its relationship (or lack thereof) with Planned Parenthood. It is just when we do it, but bullying when you do, both sides seem to think.

In the end, Komen caved to the greater pressure of Planned Parenthood’s supporters and returned (probably) to its policy of funding Planned Parenthood.

A Moratorium on Boycotts 

Everyone wants to cry “Foul!” when the Other Side uses its power to force its will on someone, but when we do it, it’s not only justified, it’s heroic. And I think this impulse, this feeling that it is somehow unjust for the Other Side to use its power to influence private organizations, has some truth to it.

Christian activism tends to take two forms, political and economic. The basic method in both cases is the same, though: we work for justice and goodness by using our votes and/or dollars to influence those in power. This is, after all, the way our country, with its free market democracy, works.

While I don’t want to argue that we should totally abandon political action or dismiss money’s influence, I do think that the Komen situation reveals the dangerous nature of attempts to force positive change through coercion. This kind of change is fickle and passing. If we can force Komen to change their policies with our boycott, then what is to stop another, bigger boycott from forcing them to change back? As we have seen with Komen, the answer is “nothing.” Whether it is through votes or dollars, coercing someone to accept our position is nihilistic: it suggests that real change — change of heart and mind — is impossible, or unlikely, and so the safest bet is to make it profitable to adopt our beliefs.

Perhaps instead of using our power to influence our country, we ought to offer the world an alternative that persuades with its beauty. Russell Moore touched on this in his Christianity Today article:

We don’t need a Christian foundation to compete with the merchants of death. We don’t need one more coalition with enough signatures to counter the threatened boycotts of the abortion rights peddlers. And we sure don’t need to sell bumper stickers with a line drawn through a pink ribbon.What we need, first of all, are churches who recognize that this isn’t all that surprising. Mammon is a jealous god, and he’s armed to the teeth. We need to create the kind of counter-culture that constantly shines the light of Christ wherever these false gods exist in our own affections. And then we need to demonstrate what it means to believe that a person’s life consists in more than the abundance of his possessions.

How do we create this counter-culture that Moore mentions? I think of efforts like Care Net‘s pregnancy centers, which give support to women with unwanted pregnancies. Missions like this work to demonstrate Christ’s love by caring for and meeting the needs of others and doing the hard work of providing alternatives to abortions.

I’m not arguing that Christians should not have initially boycotted Komen, nor that we should never use boycotts, but I do think that this mess shows this tactic’s deeply problematic nature. Rather than devote time, money, and energy to forcing Komen to cut ties to Planned Parenthood, rather than complain because the Other Side used its influence to get Komen to recant, and rather than complain about the (probably very real) media bias, let’s offer the world an alternative that actively demonstrates Christ’s love.

Update 02/08/12

On Tuesday the 7th, Karen Handel, vice president at the Susan G. Koman Foundation, resigned and spoke to Fox news about the controversy with Planned Parenthood. In her interview, she condemned Planned Parenthood and their supporters for their backlash and pressure:

All of us should be saddened that an outside organization will put this kind of pressure on another organization around their processes and granting and how they do it and to whom they are going to grant.

An outside organization putting pressure on another organization (Komen) around their processes and granting? Like Life Decisions International and many other pro-life groups pressuring Komen to not give Planned Parenthood grants?  Lylah M. Alphonse at Yahoo! gets the hypocrisy here:

But she also admitted that long-standing outside pressure from pro-life groups who objected to Planned Parenthood’s abortion services triggered the decision to change the grant criteria. Rather than criticize these groups for pressuring Komen, however, Handel — who last week described Planned Parenthood as a “pro abortion group” and who ran for governor of Georgia on a pro-life platform promising to eliminate state grants to the women’s health organization — told Fox News that Komen needed to avoid the controversy.

This exchange illustrates the heart of my argument beautifully. Handel seems to be blissfully unaware that if she condemns pressure from “outside organizations” she’s also condemning the very movement that helped to inspire Komen to cut Planned Parenthood to begin with. It’s “pressure” when they do it and “controversy” when we do it.

Again, I’m not opposed to Christians choosing to withhold giving to a charity that they believe would use their money to support immoral actions. But we have to acknowledge that when we play the game of political and economy power–especially when we organize and try collectively to compel others to follow our morality–there are other, bigger, less ethical players with a lot more experience waiting to teach us a lesson. We can complain all we want about them using their influence to pressure Komen, and how unfair it is, but we’d be much better off finding more effective and winsome ways of promoting and defending Life.

Branding strategy is all about precise target definition with custom messaging developed to reach that particular group of people. It works. That’s why most brands, companies, and organizations do it. But there is a danger in becoming ultra-focused on the specific preferences of the target while disregarding the preferences of the market at large.

Case in point: Burger King.

Seth Stevenson’s article at Slate details Burger King’s use of a narrowly targeted campaign to its “‘superfans’ — meaning young dudes who eat fast food on a near daily basis.” Focusing upon this smaller target, Burger King employed the creative services of agency Crispin Porter & Bogusky to produce the creepy, plastic mask-wearing King and — according to Stevenson — other “campaigns that valued provocation above substance and casual cruelty above inclusiveness.”

Ouch. But double ouch for Burger King, for sales have dropped. Stevenson wonders “if actively ignoring, and even offending, every other demographic category in America might be unwise for a nationwide brand that could potentially find solid customers among women, children, and men who don’t wear Ed Hardy T-shirts.”

This has me wondering about Christian-based messaging that is intended for our target but is seen by the market at large. Are we like Burger King, targeting our Christian “superfans” without regard for others who hear our message? With better messaging, we could potentially attract Christ followers among those who don’t wear WWJD gear.

Scriptures tell us there will always be opposition to the grace of God found in Christ Jesus. No matter how we communicate, some will be offended by the Gospel.

I’m not suggesting we water down the Gospel or shape every church event for newcomers. I am proposing, however, that Christians should be aware that our message reaches more than our superfan base, and we could be more mindful of the argot, tone, and message we use. Fellow CaPC writer Alan Noble says it well in his column this week:

“If Christians (myself very much included) would consistently and seriously pursue adopting habits of speech that befit our calling, I am convinced that we would honor God before the world, win over enemies with our love and reasonableness, and divert time away from unprofitable debates and controversies so that we might devote ourselves more to loving our neighbor and fulfilling the Great Commission.”

Scriptures teach us to “let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6) and to “let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).

By the way, Burger King has switched ad agencies. They learned the hard way that targeting a message to your superfans doesn’t mean that they are the only ones listening.

A running theme in my column last year was the various ways in which the church has wrongly adopted vicious and self-interested discourses and rhetoric which are so popular in our country. Charity is seen as people-pleasing or being “PC.” Complex issues are reduced to simplistic caricatures and fiercely defended. Opponents are mocked. Giving offense is a badge of honor. And opposing perspectives are summarily dismissed.

I’d like to add another item to this list of ungodly conceptions about how Christians should speak:  Our duty is to tell the Truth and share the Gospel, and nothing else. So, we should not be concerned with what people think about us.

To help clarify what I want to talk about, here are a few variations of this belief:

If you care what people think about you, you’re being pragmatic and will probably compromise your faith.

We’re told the world will hate us, so there is no sense in being concerned about how others perceive us, especially the ungodly.

Some Christians have been so brainwashed by “political correctness”  that they are worried about hurting people’s feelings rather than telling the Truth.

We are to be God-pleasers, not people-pleasers.

A few weeks ago, I was shocked to come across a passage in Romans that I believe radically challenges this view of how we ought to interact with people:

Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

(Romans 12:16-18 ESV)

I had a number of reactions to this passage.

First, how antithetical this is to our tendency towards arrogance and disregard for others, particularly online. Truly, how often do we consider whether or not our words will promote harmony? Our culture delights in and rewards those who spread controversy, but do we? Should we? There is currently an entire sub-culture in Christianity that subsists on criticizing and stirring up controversies, all under the name of “discernment.” At Christ and Pop Culture we try to ensure that we discuss issues that we believe are important to and for our readers, but I’m sure we’ve also fallen at times to the temptation of spreading controversy over promoting harmony.

Second, note Paul’s warning about repaying evil here. Perhaps you don’t feel that you “repay evil for evil,” but it is quite common for Christians to justify their political party or politician or a mocking portrayal of an opponent by saying, “Well, the Other Side does this all the time.” Isn’t this the kind of logic that Paul commands us to reject?

Third, what struck me most about this passage is the command to “give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.” Not only does Paul command us to spend time considering how others will evaluate our actions, but he even calls us to act on their evaluations, to do what will be “honorable in the sight of all.” So, although we should not be seeking the approval of men, we ought to do what is good or honorable in the opinion of all, when possible. I think that this idea has many implications for how we speak and act in the world. We might ask ourselves:

Can I tell the truth in this circumstance without offending this person, or is there a less offensive way to say this?

Can I speak out against this political ideology so winsomely that my opponents will admit that my actions are honorable?

Can I correct this brother or sister so that all people see my love for them?

Can I share the Gospel to this person so that they and other unbelievers agree that my methods are good and honorable?

So often, we allow the rightness of our cause (or the perceived rightness, as is all-too-often the case) to justify all kinds of arrogance and disregard for our neighbors, but Paul calls us to use actions and words that befit the rightness of our cause.

If Christians (myself very much included) would consistently and seriously pursue adopting habits of speech that befit our calling, I am convinced that we would honor God before the world, win over enemies with our love and reasonableness, and divert time away from unprofitable debates and controversies so that we might devote ourselves more to loving our neighbor and fulfilling the Great Commission.

Naming a child is perhaps one of the most personal and one of the most challenging decisions that parents face. There are a number of factors to consider—tradition and novelty, spelling and pronunciation, familial and ethnic heritage, relationship to surname and sibling names, and meanings. Then there is the reality that while name changes are possible, most of us keep our first names for our entire lives, making an offspring’s nomenclature an important legacy.

We see this kind of naming throughout the Bible, where angelic visitors dictate the names of important figures like John (“God is gracious”) the Baptist and Jesus (“Yahweh is salvation”) himself. Consider, for instance, the names of Hosea’s children, a son called Jezreel after a valley known for its bloodshed and a daughter Lo-ruhamah to mean “the Unloved.” While most parents I know don’t face the pressure of God dictating their children’s names to make theological points, it’s clear that the practice of naming carries tremendous responsibility.

For much of U.S. history, naming trends remained fairly mainstream, with a small pool of names serving the vast majority of families. Yet increasing diversity, greater desire for uniqueness, and more exposure (in the digital age) to naming fashions means an ever-expanding list of possibilities. It might seem like an anything-goes era, but governments throughout the world still regulate (to varying extents) the choices allotted to parents. Take, for instance, the New Jersey couple who lost custody of their son, named Adolf Hitler. Or note that in Massachusetts, names are limited to forty characters (much less generous than New Zealand’s one hundred), all of which must be letters in the English alphabet.

All of these regulations serve as reminders that children are not solely the property of their parents. They belong to their parents, the state, themselves, and God. Finding a name that pleases all of those parties can apparently be quite tricky, but the effects of a naming decisions—whether orthodox or eccentric—can last a lifetime.

Last Monday was Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a day when we offer a gesture towards admitting to our country’s horrible history of racism and acknowledging the courage of MLK to oppose it. As nice as that is, I can’t help but think about the way many Christians still think about race and racism. Things I’ve heard, read, thought, or said in the church:

“If they want to improve their lives, they should stop being so lazy and arrogant and get to work.”

“Our government is the real problem. If we just cut these people off from the welfare they are abusing, they would be forced to do real work.”

“Their culture is immoral. It promotes promiscuity, violence, substance abuse, disrespect of authorities, and playing the victim.”

“Their problem is that they don’t stop talking about ‘Racism’ as if it’s still an issue. Racism is done. Only hillbillies are racists these days.”

“Black people are making white people racist by stereotyping all of us as racist and taking our jobs and education and school-grants. Just treat everyone equally and racism will be gone!”

In other words, the church has an incredibly serious problem, which is itself a part of a national problem of immense proportions: Many of us assume that racism and racial discrimination are no longer significant issues in our society, when in fact they are. For example:

An incredible percentage of the Black male population of the US is incarcerated.

According to one study, white men make 11% more hourly than black men, even when you take factors like education into consideration.

As if that weren’t bad enough, black unemployment is usually around twice white unemployment. Yeah, you read that right. Think 8% unemployment sounds bad? Try 16%.

Have a traditionally black name? It could be harder to find a job.

Are you a black woman? You will probably not get married, in part because many elegible black men are in jail.

Young black man in New York? You’re probably going to get stopped and frisked by the police. Try not to look suspicious. And remember to respect and trust the police.

We could go on, but you get the point. Much of contemporary racism is structural. It has to do with our school systems, the media, hiring practices, unconscious (or conscious) racism in business, racial profiling, the decline of marriage, single-parent homes, etc. Yes, there are still plenty of people who are consciously and openly bigoted, but I suspect that the majority of discrimination that a black person in the US experiences comes in the form of unacknowledged institutional racism.

I believe that the racial discrimination facing black people in the US is easily one of, if not the biggest problem in our country and our churches. I know, you want to say our biggest problem is the economic crisis, but when you consider unemployment, the wage gap, cost of incarceration, and social programs for the poor, I have to think that discrimination is also costing us a lot of money and productivity. Racial discrimination is a destructive force in our society which profoundly hurts everyone, but particularly the victims of abuse.

. . . . . . . . . .

With these concerns, it was with great excitement and joy that I received the news that John Piper was to publish a book on racism: Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian.

This is the kind of high-profile exposure that we need to make the US church recognize institutional racism and take action. I was even happier when I saw that Piper began to give his book away. Unfortunately, it seems that while Bloodlines calls attention to racial inequality and the importance of racial reconciliation, it does so without accurately representing structural racism or presenting a reasonable solution.

Dr. Mark Mulder, associate professor of sociology and director of the urban studies minor at Calvin College, published a critical review of Piper’s book at Comment. He claims that Bloodlines has three major flaws. First, Piper “seems to have no sense that whites have more culpability than African Americans in this race/racism equation.” Second, Piper downplays the role of institutional racism by emphasizing personal responsibility. And third:

“[B]ecause he does not understand structural racism—Piper actively promotes the ‘miracle motif’ as the antidote to racism in the U.S. He argues that the answer to racism ‘is not government help or self-help, but the gospel of Jesus Christ’ and that ‘what is needed is a miracle.’ In essence, Piper asserts that conversion to Christianity is the only hope for the race problem. Such an attitude demonstrates an extreme obliviousness to the insidious nature of modern racism.”

Mulder concludes: “Yes, as Piper elucidates, the gospel gives powerful hope and impetus for reconciliation. However, racial justice also necessitates that Christians be committed to actively addressing the insidious structural nature of racism.”

Although I have not had the opportunity to read Bloodlines yet, if Mulder’s review is accurate, I have to agree with him that Piper’s solution ignores the reality of institutional racism. However, I think Mulder ultimately undervalues the role of the Gospel in racial reconciliation.

The Gospel does more than give “powerful hope and impetus for reconciliation”; it demands our humility, self-sacrifice, love for our neighbors, and hunger for forgiveness. I agree with Piper that the Gospel must be at the center of any attempt of racial reconciliation in the church. But I also agree with Mulder that the Gospel must motivate us towards critiquing structural racism, as opposed to only looking to change some attitude inside of us and our neighbors.

. . . . . . . . . .

I have no specific suggestions for how the church in the US ought to proceed with facing modern racism, but I do have a few general ideas:

1. Educate yourself. If we can’t acknowledge that institutional racism is real, we can’t do anything about it.

2. Begin with the Gospel, with Christ’s ultimate work of reconciliation and what it means for our neighbors. Allow that to humble you, to expose your pride and prejudices, and to embolden you to love ever more.

3. Read the thoughts of Anthony Bradley, one of my favorite voices in the PCA, on how we can love the city and minister to minorities. Bradley, I think, gives us a good place to start.

Lord willing, the church will lead society in racial reconciliation, and in so doing will reveal itself to be Christ’s disciples by loving one another. And there are some hints of it already happening.

Update 01/23/12

Just to be perfectly clear: I am grateful that Piper wrote this book and I agree with him that the Gospel must be at the heart of any attempt at racial reconciliation.

Update 01/24/12

I had this chance to read over Piper’s chapter on the structural vs personal approach to racism in the US, and I think I understand Mulder’s point a bit better. Piper clearly asserts that structural racism exists and must be addressed, however, he favors personal responsibility by devoting more time to pointing out the flaws in some failed attempts to address structural racism. So, to be clear, Mulder’s problem seems to be that Piper tries to be “fair” by giving structural and personal approaches equal time, but he ends up privileging personal activism when the emphasis ought to be on structural changes. Here’s Mulder again:

“The weight of social-science evidence consistently demonstrates that racial inequality in the U.S. has more to do structural discrimination than with personal responsibility.”

“Piper rightly asserts that Christians finding their ultimately identity in Christ would be a significant step toward reconciliation. What he gets wrong is his assumption that that would qualitatively change residential segregation, employment discrimination, and impoverished school districts.”

For weeks now, we’ve been preparing my daughter for the impending arrival of her sibling (circa June, though I optimistically like to tell people late May). We talk about things that babies do and potential names for her little brother or sister. This time around, we’re hoping to find out the baby’s sex, in part to help prepare my daughter with the official name and language to greet the newcomer. When I told her we’d soon find out if the baby was her brother or sister, she enthusiastically said “and then we can change which one!” I can see we still have a lot of discussing to do, so it’s lucky I’m only halfway to the due date.

Aside from the name and the pronouns, there’s not a whole lot that matters about the baby’s sex at this point. Our nursery set, baby gear, and early infancy apparel are all “neutral,” in part because we thought more of the practical finances of not re-purchasing than we did of choosing a gender-specified theme. Yet our refusal to find out the first time really irked some of our family members; there was the usual good-natured guessing but also some pressure that I found strange—like one person who told us we could always tape a bow to a baby girl’s head at the hospital (don’t worry, we didn’t). I’m uneasy about the same pressures with this pregnancy, because while I believe that gender is beautiful and God-given, I don’t think it fits the narrow definitions we culturally assign, especially to babies.

I think the pressure to categorize children says more about the adults than it does the children; and, no, I’m not talking about parents wanting to know their babies’ sex, which to me seems like an exciting way of getting to know a child before birth. Like so many things, it’s not the knowledge of the baby’s sex that is problematic for me, it’s why we want it and what we do with it—and those motivations can be as mysterious and varied as individuals. Consider for instance, the history of the colors that seem obviously gendered to so many of us today. It wasn’t until after World War II that pink was allocated for girls and blue for boys; around World War I, the color schemes were just the opposite (with blue deemed daintier, and thus more appropriate for girls), and early twentieth-century parents chose white for all their children because it was easy to bleach (and, I imagine, hand down). It’s not that earlier parents didn’t care about the sex of their children, but that the way that sex gets expressed through gendered expectations isn’t nearly as historically static as we might like it to be.

I’m excited to find out the sex of my second child, to finalize a name with my family, and to engage in more interesting discussions with my daughter about her new sibling. The baby’s sex is an important piece of information to me right now (partly because it’s the only one I’m going to get for a while), but the complexities of this child’s character will keep manifesting long after the nursery set is outgrown.

I find that highly unlikely. But to be fair to Pastor Bentley, evangelicals do this sort of thing quite often. They may not actually put tattoo parlors on the grounds, but they will change the dress code, change the music, and change the decorum of the auditorium in order to make the place a bit more culturally appealing. Am I saying that the pastor who dons cool glasses, sports a soul-patch, and wears avant-garde t-shirts is doing the same thing as Pastor Bentley? Yes, I am saying that. They share the same motivation even if they do not share the same method. Isn’t that what the Cowboy Church does? They make cowboys comfortable by singing songs country/western style, and they have rodeos and such to make cowboys comfy. What’s the difference? Is it simply that the culture finds tattoos more distasteful than barrel racing?

In the interest of not becoming a total curmudgeon, I want to say that every church ought to concern themselves with making folks feel welcome. The church ought not despise tattoos, cowboy hats, or beatniks of any sort. But they should not be overly self-conscious of the fact that they don’t have a lot of those types in their midst, and they ought to consider the possibility that it isn’t their lack of cultural conformity to a certain group that is making them uncomfortable: It could actually be the gospel that is freaking people out.

Let me give an example. Suppose there is a mostly middle-class white church out there who realizes that they are not doing a very good job of reaching the young urban community. These mostly middle-aged folks astutely observe that the younger urbanites dress different, talk different, and listen to different music. In order to reach them, all these church people, even the grandpas, decide to wear hipper clothing, grow whispy goatees, and start listening to hip-hop music. Do you think that will make young urbanites feel more comfortable, or do you think it will simply make the church look ridiculous?

That’s what happens when the church forgets herself. We are not called to conform ourselves to every fashion that pop culture cooks up. We can’t, and we look foolish when we try. Instead of trying to cloak ourselves in the latest trend, we ought to be busy putting on the garb of holiness. That would include loving people who are different than we are, not necessarily looking like they do. I believe that love will draw more broken people than a tattoo parlor, don’t you?

According to the latest NPR-Thomson Reuters Health Poll, almost one-third of those surveyed made losing weight a New Year’s goal. Plenty of marketing platforms take advantage of these New Year’s hopes and dreams by escalating promotions for their weight-loss solutions between Christmas and New Year’s Day.

Special K cereal launched their What Will You Gain? campaign with an interactive promotional booth in New York’s Times Square. Special K representatives invited female passersby to step onto an oversized scale. The brave ones who took the leap discovered that the scale didn’t actually display body weight. (Whew!) Instead, it offered a “personalized” word of encouragement, such as courage, moxie, confidence, or joy. This character trait is what could be gained if the participant lost that extra burdensome weight.

The women featured in the TV spot seemed to love the idea.

My feelings are mixed. I see some good things, as well as some troubling things.

Let’s start with the positive. It’s true that losing weight isn’t all about the number on the scale. There are benefits to being a healthy size that have nothing to do with your weight. And especially for people trying to reach a healthier state, it’s easy to become obsessed with seeing a certain number on the scale by counting more numbers (calories and carbs and fat, oh my!). Special K has done a great job of taking the focus off the scale and onto the person’s heart.

But that leads me to this campaign’s negative. Character traits are not linked to numbers on a scale. Someone at a healthy body weight is not guaranteed freedom from fear, withdrawal, uncertainty, and discouragement. Certainly the achievement of your health goal will be a positive experience, but it won’t be a cure-all for what ails your heart.

We have to watch for messages like these that tell us an external problem is causing our character defects. Scripture tells us, quite clearly, that our hearts are in desperate need of life and health which only God can provide. We cannot blame our character flaws on anything other than sin having its way with us.

So yes, be healthy and stick to your New Year’s goals. But make sure you aren’t counting on an external fix for an internal issue.

Memes are strange, sporadic, and unpredictable. Some Internet uploads go viral while others don’t, often without much good explanation as to why. But if you stare down the dark well of Internet memes long enough, your eyes eventually adjust to the light. In looking at the weird world of meme in 2011, certain patterns became apparent as to what makes memes hit or miss, stay or leave.

Here are my scattered thoughts on these certain attributes of memes that go meme. They are disconnected ideas, to be sure; if you step back and try to piece them together as a whole, these attributes don’t seem to fit together. But maybe this shouldn’t surprise us. Memes are surprisingly disconnected in themselves.

People love things that are cute. Does it involve kitty cats, small children, or puppies? If it contains some form of culturally established cuteness, the chances are high that it will go viral. Whether it’s a cat playing the piano, a little girl giving herself a daily pep talk in the bathroom mirror, or a child biting another child’s finger — if it’s cute enough, it’s meme gold.

People love to laugh. This may seem glib and obvious, but it’s one of the most important truths of meme. A vast majority of memes become memes because they make us laugh. On the flip side, countless attempts at meme humor are uploaded to the ‘net with high hopes of hitting the viral humor jackpot that never make it off the ground. It’s usually because they just really aren’t that funny.

People love a punching bag. I’d call it something like “Nickelback Syndrome”: People love something they can “love to hate.” The sentiment is always just enough over the line to be a tad asinine, but with enough of us involved in it, we can justify our participation. Music videos, celebrity facial features, and awkward personal photos all become fodder for a communal punching bag in the world of meme.

People want to be part of something. Some memes are more participatory than others, but all memes evidence our desire to belong, even if it’s simply taking part in the re-posting process. It’s even inherent in the idea — a meme isn’t a meme unless you can say “everybody’s doing it.” Memes are made by and for the masses en masse.

Every now and then, people impress you. This isn’t really an attribute, just more of a statement. My personal favorite meme of last year, the deaf woman who heard, was an intensely moving experience to watch, and I was impressed and excited when the clip went viral. It’s amazing to live in an age where images of such moments can be captured in a digital format and viewed across the world, and equally amazing when such a moment makes a meaningful impact on the lives of those who view it. Often the world of Internet meme can seem shallow, just a corner of the peanut gallery reserved for smartphone and laptop junkies. But beneath the surface you find real people interacting with a real culture around them, and sometimes those people bump into something meaningful and remember for just a second who they’re supposed to be. This is the image of God showing up.

And so, like bits of tacky jewelry, we adorn ourselves with these scraps of image and sound, passing them from person to person for a time, and we call it Internet meme. As we turn the corner into 2012, I’m curious to see what nonsense and wonder we will choose as our cultural accessories. My hope is that our choices will leave me impressed.

Our local library is developing a new outdoor playspace for children; their goal is to integrate the design of the play space into the natural landscape. It’s already one of my daughter’s favorite places to play indoors (thanks to a lot of books and a delightful children’s librarian); outdoors, there’s a duck pond surrounded by sloping hills, a flowerbed, and a small foot-bridge. Neither our town nor our library is particularly large nor wealthy (though the library does have a modern, newish building funded by an endowment), but this project represents a lot of things that I hope to see trending soon: natural play and community renewal.

As much as we love our local library, it’s not the first place I think of for outdoor play. There are a couple of playgrounds within easy walking distance, but we also live in an area filled with creeks, beaches, and forests. My daughter loves to hike (which usually involves her running out on the trail and me carrying her all the way back), throw rocks in the river, examine the leaves, collect pinecones, and admire the occassional bold creature. She is free to run and play in God’s creation, to watch the sun set and the moon rise over the river. Because of the natural beauty our area affords, my daughter is growing up to revel in the beauty of all that God makes.

I love that lesson, especially combined with the efforts of our library to make that a communal experience. In an economic downturn, it seems that public spaces (and libraries) continue to lose funding, and yet these places have perhaps the most to offer struggling communities. Two are better than one, and pooling community resources offers not only the joy of fellowship but also opportunities that are simply not available for many individuals or families anymore. As much as I understand the trials many people are facing right now, I’m excited by the opportunities our library is providing to get outdoors, get together, and rediscover the beauty of God’s creation in nature and our neighbors.

And so I just asked myself, “What were my top 5 favorite memes of 2011?” and I was able to come up with my own list pretty quickly. Then I thought, “What do all these memes have in common?” And frankly, what they all had in common was that I remembered them.

This list (which is pretty close to my original) represents the memes of 2011 that we all most likely remember, which is kind of the whole point. Memes are not necessarily memes because of some particular quality or set of qualities; memes are memes because whatever qualities they may or may not have, they enter public consciousness in a pervasive, culture-affecting way. Some Internet fads pass into meme because they’re funny, some because they’re moving, some because they’re fun to take part in, some because they’re particularly meaningful. But all of them affected our lives in a way that we remember.

So here you go. The top 5 memes of 2011.

***

#5 The many phrases of Charlie Sheen.

It was hard to decide on #5. This was the point where things start to get fuzzy, where things like Steve Buscemi, Pop-Tart cats, and “first world problems” start to feel about the same. But when I searched my heart, the answer came to me in perfect clarity: It’s all that weird stuff Charlie Sheen said.

Sheen had a phenomenal year of being a jerk. Phrases like “tiger blood,” “Adonis DNA,” and “winning!” (the most popular) from his ludicrous interviews quickly became priceless bits of sleazy nonsense, all too good to not be things we procured for our own ends. Through Twitter hashtags, autotuned YouTube vids, and just plain personal over-quoting, we made sure our lives were tinged with the words of Charlie Sheen for quite a while. We will always remember “winning!” every time we see a rerun of Two and a Half Men.

#4 Tebowing

Tim Tebow is our famous Christian of the moment. I like the guy a lot; he’s turning out to be a great example of integrity and sincerity in the midst of the usual cesspool of professional athletes. But in late 2011, his celebratory touchdown position of taking one knee in thankful payer was something fans and detractors began lampooning to no end. In this act of “Tebowing,” people took pics of themselves in the pose all over the place, submitting them to sites for public perusal.

Though Tebowing is basically a spin-off of the year’s earlier internet hit “planking” and a latecomer to the 2011 list, it has quickly made itself worthy of the Top 5, mainly because of Tebow himself. He’s everywhere these days, the current centerpiece for public dialogue on religion and personal sincerity. And whenever we think of Tebow, we will always think of “Tebowing.”

#3 Occupy Wall Street’s Pepper Spraying Policeman

I wanted to avoid this one, but it just kept popping up for me. This is probably the only one that I’ve included mostly due to its poignancy.

The Occupy Wall Street movement was one of the major newsmakers of 2011, bringing conversation and contention to light between all sorts of people. One of the more controversial moments of the movement involved a police force dressed in riot gear sent to disperse a group of students on the UC Davis campus. The event ended with a policeman nonchalantly spraying a can of pepper spray on a seated line of college students, with the action invoking outrage from a variety of commentators and media outlets.

In response, images of the pepper spraying policeman began to be superimposed on countless photos in silly and serious ways, highlighting what many considered to be the senselessness of the event. Here was a meme that was funny in effect, but funny with a serious point. We will always remember the images the pepper spraying policeman when we think about Occupy Wall Street.

#2 Planking

Planking was the most egalitarian of this year’s memes. Any man, woman, or child can lie face down on something and have someone take their picture. There is no learning curve or set of higher aptitudes needed to take part in planking (and also no potential issues of conscience to sort through like in Tebowing).

The competition of planking was in creativity of location and setup. People planked at weddings, in the middle of rush hour, at the Grand Canyon, on top of telephone poles, alone, and in groups. They submitted their pics to sites across the Web, hoping a shot of their horizontalizations would rise to the top of the list and be seen by someone somewhere. Needless to say, things tended toward further and further extremes in people’s hopes of garnering attention, sometimes with sad results when things went awry.

We will always remember planking, mostly because it’s way too ridiculous to forget.

#1 Rebecca Black “Friday”

No contest here. Rebecca Black’s terrible music video for a terrible song was this year’s top meme. It was awkward, catchy, viral, quotable, and malleable enough to be lampoon-able again and again. And since it was tied to a day of the week, it kept coming up over and over and over and over in offices and schools around the world. We sang it, got tired of singing it, and then sang it again. A meme that can’t die is a true meme indeed.

“Friday” is now an archetype — the rare kind of meme we compare other memes to (i.e., “it’s not as funny as Rebecca Black”). “Friday” is the 2011 meme that we can now add to the class of high memes like “Double Rainbow,” “Charlie bit my finger,” and “LOLcats.” It’s a modern meme classic, and the meme of 2011. We will never forget Rebecca Black because she’s, well, Rebecca Black. 

***

The meme stream of 2011 contained a number of strange, fascinating bits of pop culture. These bits tell us a number of things: We still don’t like putting up with jerks (at least not the really big ones), we’re looking for sincerity and not quite sure what to do when we find it, and we all want to be part of something meaningful and world changing. We also want to be part of a community and feel included even if it’s because of something silly, and, as always, we can’t live without the things we all “love to hate.”

Memes always bring out interesting facets of our culture, and it definitely was an interesting year. It leaves me curious to see what the ‘net holds for us in 2012. And maybe next year will be graph-able.

Facebook makes it easy and painless to give a thumbs-up approval to everything from a snarky status update to a favorite product or celebrity page. With a single click, we add to the number of loyal fans and gain a few seconds of cyber-transcendence.

But as business and brand pages seek to increase their fan count through social media campaigns and pushes, I am left perplexed. What tangible help is a high fan count when it only requires a quick click and no commitment? Competing brands may even collect “likes” from a single consumer… so which brand does that consumer prefer? “Likes” are a dime a dozen, and brands need to be careful not to count their coins too quickly.

Fathom Analytics is helping brands sort through the vague “like” factor with its new “Relationship Quality Index.” It analyzes a brand’s Facebook activity to produce an index score based on:

• number of fans
• momentum (how quickly the brand has been acquiring fans lately)
• fan engagement (how often fans post on or interact with pages)
• emotional quality (how much/how positive emotion is expressed on comments)

The measurement of the relationship past the initial engagement (the click of the “like”) is key. Some “likes” are given merely to receive a one-time coupon or get entered into a giveaway; “Likes” given in that context are not relationally strong when compared to a loyal brand user.

In many ways, this person-to-brand index could be applied in person-to-person contexts. I may willingly give a thumbs-up to an acquaintance, but that doesn’t mean I will have regular, positive engagement with that person.

And what would the “Relationship Quality Index” tell me of my relationship with Jesus? (The book Not a Fan by Kyle Idleman may address this very notion, but I’ve not read it yet.) Knowing Jesus is a relationship, not a one-time thumbs-up action.

Brands are clamoring for higher fan counts in the hope that those “likes” will turn into loyal customers. Interestingly, it seems that Jesus took the opposite approach: He didn’t seek the approval of the masses and instead invited those who really wanted to be with Him.

I realize that brand loyalty is fleeting and a relationship with a brand is silly when compared to loyalty to Christ and a relationship with Him. But the “Relationship Quality Index” reminds me that important relationships need more than an initial thumbs-up if they will grow into something valuable.

In fact, the “Twelve Days of Christmas” actually represent the twelve days from December 25 to January 5 (the day before Epiphany, which marks the Magi’s visit to the Baby Jesus). This season has traditionally been one of celebration to follow the Advent season of reflection leading up to the birth of Christ. Shakespeare’s comedy Twelfth Night (c. 1601) served as entertainment during the festive season between Christmas and Epiphany, and the familiar song “The Twelve Days of Christmas” (published c. 1780, with probably earlier roots) highlights the celebration that can continue throughout the season of Christmastide; just don’t ask me to remember the gifts for each day.

Now, I’m not advocating more shopping (though there are some good post-Christmas sales) or more parties for those who may already be wearied by a hectic holiday season. But if the buildup to Christmas leaves you feeling worn out, take heart in the ancient traditions that remind us (whether we choose to celebrate them or not) that there’s always more. Here’s hoping that your Christmas Days were filled with peace and joy, and that your Christmastides will raise and rejuvenate your spirits.

At this late date, I bet most of you have finished your Christmas shopping. But if you haven’t, here’s a gift idea from an unlikely source: Red Cross.

In its new TV campaign, Red Cross beckons: “This year, let’s take a break from all this stuff and give something that means something.” Their first spot is titled “2011 Holiday Giving with Fred.”

Not only is the animation brilliant, the message matches it. Seeing piles of stuff strips consumerism of its sparkle. And the call to action is clear and inspirational: Give a gift to Red Cross in someone’s name.

A second spot reaches out to all of us who love making New Year’s resolutions. It’s titled “2011 Resolve to Give PSA.”

This spot’s messaging hits at the core of a resolution: to make life changes so that your quality of life is better than it was during the previous year. Red Cross takes it a step higher: make life changes so that someone else’s life is better than it was during the previous year.

I like that both messages place a positive spin on acts that receive lots of flak: Christmas shopping and resolution-making. Neither of these are evil acts, but their meaning can be lost when they’re done without heart. Red Cross calls us back to meaning, back to heartfelt giving and caring.

And this is the Gospel’s message — not that we must stop all gift-giving or life-changing resolutions, but that we do them to show the deepest kind of love, the kind that lays down its life for another. That’s the reason we celebrate God’s gift to us in Christ Jesus, and that’s the reason we have hope for change.

I hope these two spots have encouraged you as much as they have encouraged me. Merry Christmas gift-giving and Happy New Year’s resolution-making to you!

“Emphasizing Jesus Without Demonizing Santa” by Erin Newcomb, writer:
My daughter thinks of Santa Claus the same way she thinks about Winnie the Pooh: as a fun character in a storybook. She typically refers to him as Sinterklaas, because the only time she’s ever seen him was at an Old Dutch festival; based on that experience, she also thinks he rides in a red boat and parades around with giant birds on stilts. Since she’s only two, she has no memory of receiving presents on Christmas Day and no one has told her to expect gifts from Santa.

Our approach is not to demonize Santa (which, in my view, makes him a lot more important than he actually is), but to emphasize Jesus. So we do an advent calendar together every night, counting the days until Christ’s birthday. We’re planning a party where my daughter has requested blue cupcakes and corn. I might make some executive changes to the menu there, but I’m thrilled about her excitement every time she says “Mama, what are we waiting for?” and then answers her own question “Jesus’ birthday!” Sure, she’ll get gifts, a few stocking stuffers of little animals, but the main gift will come from her parents—books that focus on Jesus and his incredible, imminent birthday.

“When Your Children Believe Anyway” by Brad Williams, writer:
My wife and I very much want Christmas to be about the Christ Jesus that we love and not about the imaginary Santa. In general, we tend to be against tricking our children unless it is short-term and for the sake of humor. And, in a way, telling your children that there is a jolly old fat-man dressed in a red suit flitting about the world in a sleigh full of gifts pulled by flying reindeer sounds like a pretty grandiose joke to pull on them. It must be great fun to chortle whilst one’s children fall for that gag.

But since we didn’t want to be curmudgeons and ruin the prank for everyone, our compromise was to frame Santa around St. Nicholas of Myra. We told our children that Saint Nicholas was a real person who loved Jesus and gave away his wealth to those in need.  So Santa was real, but the present incarnations are just people playing pretend.

Yet, our son stubbornly believes in Santa, and his sister has followed suit. We have decided not to out-right crush their misplaced faith in Santa, but rather to logically persuade them of the impossibility. So far, they are resilient in their belief and are as cute as cherubs in their defense of the jolly old elf. One day, they’ll realize the truth, and that we were always honest with them.

“The Disinterested Approach” by Seth Hahne, illustrator:
While I’m certain my wife will have her own say in matters (though I doubt it will differ from my own in anything but trivialities), my current guess as to how we will deal with, speak of, or explain Santa Claus will be wholesale neglect. I’m imagining that it just won’t come up in any real way. When my daughter first encounters Santa, it will doubtlessly be through the lens of Who is this new imaginary character? My easy, disinterested response will sit squarely along the lines of Oh, he’s like Totoro. But he’s a Christmas Totoro. Only, not as cool as Big Totoro.

It’s pretty simple in my imagination and I doubt it will be any more difficult than that. She’s already well aware of the difference between fantasy and reality. She considers Totoro and Howl and Sophie and Ponyo to be her friends, but she knows they only exist in the panel in our living room (i.e., in stories). I don’t imagine her involvement with Santa will be any more robust; especially as our own disinterest in the red, white, and black Xmas superhero becomes apparent. I have never held any particular fondness for the tradition myself and haven’t ever felt any loss associated with never having believed in or cared about the mythical figure. Wondering how to deal with Santa is, for us, as much a non-issue as planning how to explain to our children the political platform of William Henry Harrison.

“The Importance of Gratitude” by Ben Bartlett, writer and associate editor:
Santa is pretty straightforward in my mind. He’s pretend. He encourages being good simply to get stuff.  And he steals credit from generous family members.

Perhaps someday I’ll tell the story of St. Nicholas, and why there are good connections between his generosity, the giving of gifts, and the greatest gift of all. But thanks to the confusion created by a secular world in love with possessions, the distinction is too difficult for my three-year-old to parse.

So, my son and I had this conversation when Isaiah saw some Santa toys.

Isaiah: Daddy, who is that?

Me: That’s Santa Clause.

Isaiah: Oh. What does he do?

Me: Well, he’s pretend. People like to say he comes down their chimneys and leaves them presents.

Isaiah: Why?

Ben: I have no idea.

There’s one other reason Santa is ignored at our house. Parenting is full of uncertainty and constant worry about missed opportunities, making clear chances to teach gratitude valuable. So when my kids receive presents this year, they will be expected to say, “Thank you,” to the giver in each and every circumstance. To put it bluntly, there’s just no room for untrue stories about Santa.

“Admit it! Santa is Kinda Creepy” by Drew Dixon, editor
My wife and I took our 5.5 month old daughter to the lodge at the local State Park to have pictures made with Santa. To be honest, it wasn’t our idea–we were invited by another couple in our church who recently had their first child as well. We love these friends dearly and jumped at the opportunity to spend time with them. Evelyn stared at Santa, grabbed his beard, and stuck her fingers in his mouth. It was adorable.

My wife and I had already discussed how we would approach Santa and we thought that we would simply tell Evelyn that he was a man from Turkey who loved Jesus and graciously gave away his wealth to help others in need. However, as “Santa” awkwardly nibbled at my daughter’s fingers, I couldn’t help but wonder if it’s possible to avoid having to deal with the more troubling aspects of Santa lore. We don’t want to be the family that ruins everyone else’s fun by telling the truth about Santa and yet there are certain aspects about him that I feel will necessitate correction if my daughter were to professes faith in them.

Admit it–the idea that Santa sees children when they are sleeping and knows whether they have been bad or good is creepy. These are things that only God knows and sees–I cannot see how attributing such qualities to Santa would aid my daughter in understanding God. Further, the gospel tells us that God gives us good gifts because he loves us not because our works merit them. I don’t want to miss an opportunity to teach that to my daughter. I will give her gifts but it will be clear that they are from her earthly father in hopes that doing so will point her to her heavenly one.

If you haven’t yet heard of The Elf on the Shelf, look out. Quite likely there is a small, plush elf surveying your every move and reporting it back to the big guy at the North Pole. That’s the basic premise behind the product, which sells online for $29.95 for the story and accompanying elf. Children are instructed to name their elves, thus activating the elfish magical powers that enable the little sprite to report back to Santa each night on the children’s behavior. Parents are encouraged to perpetuate this tradition and move the elf to a new location before the children wake up each morning. I can understand the origins of this product—children wondering how Santa constructs his naughty/nice list and manages his worldwide Panopticon-style surveillance. I also see the appeal of the hide-and-seek aspect of the elf; we’d do the same thing with our cats each morning, but, honestly, they don’t move that much.

I happen to find the elf’s appearance creepy rather than cute, but when it comes to holiday kitsch, I realize aesthetics often fly out the window for many of us. My biggest question regarding the elf is the purpose. It seems possible to enjoy the story and the doll without taking either’s implications too far, but that’s not the intention suggested by the manufacturers. I’ve often wondered what families who use “Santa is watching” during the month of December do for discipline the other eleven months of the year. The language of the website is positive, emphasizing the “catch ‘em being good” philosophy:

Excellent listeners and even better observers, these scout elves are the eyes and ears of Santa Claus. Although they cannot be touched, or else they may lose their magic, the elf will always listen and relay messages back to Santa. Taking in all the day-to-day activities around the house, no good deed goes unnoticed; these scout elves take their job seriously.

The underlying implication remains though, that these elves report the naughty just as assiduously as the nice, and that the elf is always watching to keep kids in check. And, based on the Amazon.com reviews, that’s precisely how many parents use it.

It reminds me of the same way that so many people view God, always watching, keeping score, perpetually enforcing penalties. What gets lost in that view is that God sets limits for our own good, not because He requires our good behavior; holiness is its own reward, and God wants us to obey Him out of love, not fear of punishment. That doesn’t mean that punishments and consequences aren’t real, but I always get the impression that our sin saddens God because (as even we flawed earthly parents understand), parents hate to watch their children suffer and sin leads to eventual and sometimes eternal suffering. At Christmas, we celebrate God coming to live and suffer with us to be reminded on Resurrection Sunday that He already did everything to protect us from our own sinful selves. That’s the powerful corollary message of Christmas—the babe born in the manger grows up to die on the cross. So keep your elf on the shelf, if you like. Move it around each day and enjoy the family fun it can inspire. But remember too how far beyond naughty and nice Christmas ought to take all of us, how the Christ child—perfect and pure and holy—took on human flesh, not to be “Big Brother” but to be the Messiah.

Each year the Liberty Counsel publishes a “Naughty and Nice list.” The list reports on retailers that acknowledge Christmas and those that do not. “Naughty” companies include, American Eagle, Old Navy and Staples while Walmart, Target, and JC Penny are made the Christmas-loving “nice” list. The Liberty Counsel, however, is not just letting us know what companies celebrate Christmas but also calling upon Christians to boycott those that do not.  For instance, the LC describes The Gap like this:

Naughty for six years over flagrant disregard for “Christmas.” Web site: “the GIVE JOY Shopping Event,” “GIFT me” and “Shop Perfect Holiday Presents” on home page. Search revealed only two secular items listed under “Christmas.” Printed ads in popular magazines “I Want Candy.” Company purged “Christmas” in stores or other advertisements. Contact Gap to politely explain why your Christmas dollars are spent at competitors who embrace “Christmas.”

The persistence of things like the LC’s “Naughty and Nice List” tells us something about the state of evangelicalism in America. If we really think that pressuring businesses into using proper terminology in their advertisements is going to accomplish anything for the kingdom of Christ we are being terribly naive.

In America, we are blessed with religious liberty—a freedom that many people across the globe do not enjoy. Yet it seems we are constantly looking for ways that our religious liberty is being denied. Perhaps the lack of persecution in America causes us to feel as if something is lacking in our religious practice. As a result, many Christians manufacture persecution and spread rumors that the white house was going to ban Christmas trees and rename them “Holiday Trees”. Many claim our religious freedoms are being denied when private companies exercise their free speech by refusing to promote Christian products.

If we really believe in the principle of religious liberty, we must believe that it applies to all people, including those who do not celebrate Christmas. Deliberately replacing “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays” may be motivated by a refusal to celebrate the Christian aspects of Christmas, but should we be offended by non-christians refusing to acknowledge our savior or businesses attempting to sell products in neutral, inoffensive ways? One of the great blessings of being an American is our constitutional right to refrain from celebrating all kinds of things. Our non-christian neighbors have the right to “take Christ out of Christmas” if they so choose.

Most Americans don’t care how you greet them at the mall and very few businesses are deliberately removing “Christmas” from their holiday marketing. Most businesses understand that Jesus sells. Evangelical groups like the Liberty Counsel and the American Family Foundation have been surprisingly successful in getting businesses to “put Christ back” in their holiday advertisements. This is troubling for two reasons.

First, when we express personal offense over the refusals of others to celebrate Christmas we misunderstand Christ’s kingdom and how He calls us to advance it. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) and his baptism is not with water but with the “Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matt. 3:11). To participate in His kingdom, you “must be born again” (John 3:5). Jesus’ most direct command on our part in advancing this kingdom is to “make disciples of all nations … teaching them everything that [Jesus] has commanded.” (Matt. 28:19-20). These spiritual realities of Christ’s kingdom illustrate the folly of trying to shame anyone into it. Jesus came to “seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10) not to chide them for refusing to celebrate his holidays.

Secondly, I fear that evangelical groups like the AFA and the LC don’t realize what they are asking for when they demand that businesses include religious terminology in their advertisements. If we want Christmas to retain its spiritual significance in our hearts, surely we want to avoid conflating its commercial aspects with its religious ones. If there is any force that has succeeded in “taking Christ out of Christmas,” it’s American consumerism. The fact that some evangelicals want companies to recognize our holiday when they sell us their products is at best naive and at worst hypocritical.

We need to admit that in fighting to “keep Christ in Christmas” we have embraced consumerism and neglected to love our neighbor. If we have any hope of infusing the holidays with spiritual significance, we must stop shaming those who don’t celebrate Christmas and start serving them instead.

Illustration courtesy of Seth T. Hahne.

Would you be comfortable with the knowledge that a pedophile visited your church this Sunday? Would it rattle you to know that a homosexual couple had been slipping into the back of the sanctuary to listen to sermons? Would it bother you less to realize that the only sexual deviant in the congregation on Sunday morning was you?

It seems to me that the church is losing the battle for the hearts of sexual sinners. Sadly, many believe that it is the right application of the law of God and the gospel call to repentance that is doing this. I do not think this is the case. I believe it is our own self-righteousness and the elevating the sin of the “other” very high, while down-playing our own besetting sins as minor, that is keeping us from gaining an audience.

Jesus was pretty specific on how easily we can become adulterers: “I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). If we take seriously this teaching of Jesus, then we all walk away as sexually deviant. Every last one of us has had, and will have, unlawful sexual desires. The reason we are not satisfied by our current spouse or our singleness is because we are fallen sinners. It feels normal to indulge in our particular transgressions because sin is the new “normal” ever since Adam and Eve transgressed the law of God. Our culture is correct about the impulse to lust being inborn and pervasive, but it is wrong in teaching that these impulses are okay.

So take heed, Christian. Your heart is as wicked as anyone else’s. You have had many, many trysts unseen. Even at church, our hearts and minds have wandered to fantasies that are unlawful and wicked in the sight of God. Instead of reveling in grace, we have indulged in mental escapades such that if they were broadcast on the Power Point at the gathering of the saints, we would run back to our own houses ashamed to be seen in decent company.

Do these impulses manifest naturally? Do these scenes of your fantastic sexual escapades arise unbidden? If they do, welcome to the sinful human being club. I’m not talking only to the guy who finds the body of another man sexually provocative, or to the woman who enjoys the looks of another woman, or of the pedophile who wretchedly desires the bodies of young children. I’m talking to the teenager who makes advances on his girlfriend, to the husband who clicks on porn in the dead of night, and to the woman who fantasizes about the handsome but gentle cowboy from the Hallmark Channel.

Every time you walk into an assembly of the saints, you are surrounded by perverts. You may count yourself as the chief. Only you and God know how often your mind has wandered to places you should not go, to people you should not be with, to scenes too racy to show in any theater in America. For all you know, your mind is the most smut-ridden of them all.

How can we sneer at any couple, any person, who comes to our fellowship with the slightest inkling that they need grace? We ought to be thankful that they came at all! Does this realization mean that we should be lax in security in the nursery? Or naive about sexual predators in general? God forbid! What it means is that we ought to let the Scriptures take us down a notch or two and realize that we “straight” folk are as lustful as “gay” folk — and equally broken.

That’s why we love the gospel: It can save us all from all of our sins. It can even save Jerry Sandusky. I hope he goes to a church this Sunday who believes in that kind of good news.

Marketing messages are often crafted to sway commonly held perceptions about a specific product or a usage situation. If the message is strong enough, consumer perception will shift, opening the door for a larger customer base or an increase in sales.

Fashion designer Harvey Nichols seeks to do just that in a new TV spot titled “Walk of Shame.”

The spot parallels the shame of the morning walk home after a one-night fling with the shame of wearing bad fashion. According to the spot’s message, you can avoid all that by wearing a Harvey Nichols dress. You can walk confidently, knowing that your dress makes you look fabulous even on your walk of shame.

Credit goes to the actresses wearing the non-Harvey Nichols dresses. In these wordless scenes, the women send a powerful message of shame with their posture, the way they walk, and their tugging on their ill-fitting dresses. Their shame hangs like a cloud.

As for the spot’s star, the woman in the Harvey Nichols dress, she looks pulled together and completely comfortable in her dress (and in her own skin). We are led to believe that her dress lends such confidence that the typical walk of shame is transformed into a pleasant stroll home.

In reality, wearing a designer dress doesn’t eliminate the regret that comes with a one-night fling. Most women — 58%, according to a study published in Human Nature by Anne Campbell, Professor of Psychology at Durham University — feel tremendous regret after casual sexual encounters.

The Harvey Nichols spot is actually geared toward this majority of women, because they would be able to relate to the shame feelings portrayed. What the spot fails to mention, however, is that shame comes from violating behavioral standards. Merely shifting the perception we hold of the walk of shame does nothing to ease the regret that takes up residence in the heart.

Shame is very real and very powerful. That’s why it took Jesus dying on the cross to overcome it for us. It’s true: we need something to cover our shame. But it’s not a Harvey Nichols dress. We need Christ’s robe of righteousness, instead. But I don’t think that message, as true as it is, would do much to sell Harvey Nichols’ designer clothing.