I’m not sure if this is an actual idiom, but Eddie Izzard used it once, so I’ll blame him.

Anyway, Mollie at GetReligion opened a question in this post, but left no forum for discussing it, so here it is:

Whether they admit it or not, many Americans adopt a view similar to that held by Dobson: Christianity is mainly about behavior and feelings. Christians of all stripes � as well as folks who don�t define themselves as religious � tend to judge Christians� fidelity to their faith (and adherents of other religions) by their actions. Many of them incorporate personal testimonies into the equation as a means of speaking to behavioral change or a change of feelings. I bet that many readers are nodding their head and saying, �And what�s the big deal about this?�

Well, this view is extremely different from that held by other believers, myself included. In my church body we don�t really speak of personal behaviors or statements � as Dobson seems to have done � to determine someone�s religious status. Instead we point to whether they�ve been baptized.

Now I�m aware that this is a very contentious issue and ours is not the place to debate which view is correct. And I�m fully aware I�m giving short shrift to the theological issues. I just think it�s interesting to see the two views so succinctly highlighted in a mainstream media article.

Well, for any GetReligion readers that happen by, or anyone else, for that matter, this is the place to debate the issue. I know that there are a number of more important things to be debated within Christian theology and practice, but this one has piqued my interest for the moment.

The first thing that seems odd to me is that when questioned, Fred Thompson’s spokesperson said he “is indeed a Christian. He was baptized into the Church of Christ.� I was baptized into the CofC myself, and I know that — for the most part — the movement believes just as Dobson does. In fact if you ask a member, he’ll probably quote James 2:14-26, which boils down to verse 18: “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.”

I think that baptism is an inadequate determinant of faith, because it points to one moment in time. It’s one decision that could have been made in any state of mind; it could have been the result of coercion, confusion, fear, or any number of factors other than belief.

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

Romans 2:25-27

I believe that you can substitute baptism for circumcision. This doesn’t downplay the importance of baptism. But if there’s no life change after baptism, it’s clear that it was just a meaningless dunk. And if there’s life change before baptism, as with the believers at Cornelius’ house, the Bible points to that as the moment.  But notice that Peter still has everyone baptized: “‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.’ So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Anyway, it seems to me that the Bible points to more than baptism or a conversion experience as the evidence of true Christian faith. What do you think?

This reminds me of this exchange in The Incredibles:

Helen: Everybody’s special.

Dash: That’s just another way of saying nobody is.

The Anchoress calls it “the takeover of mediocrity”:

If the Queen starts talking about how “special” we all are, and how “amazing” everyone looks, the takeover of mediocrity - in language, social discourse, historical reference, etc - will be complete.

What ever happened to the meritocracy that supposedly exists here? People were supposed to advance based on their talents, skills, and a little luck. But now we’re not supposed to acknowledge that some kids are smarter or more gifted than others, because the others might feel inferior. But the problem is, we’re supposed to pretend that every child has equal potential, and that if they work hard, they’ll all achieve greatness.

Unfortunately, that’s not true. Some people will never achieve greatness, even if they work harder than everyone. It’s not society’s fault. Hard work should be rewarded, but success will be rewarded more. You know why? A hardworking and moderately successful businessman won’t produce as much as a lazy but very successful businessman. And if two people work equally hard, the one who’s more successful, more productive, deserves more of the reward.

But that kind of reward structure is on it’s way out in this society. It seems the West is tumbling towards socialism, and there’s not enough traction to stand in its way. Okay, that was a bunch of unfounded paranoia, but you get the point. If everyone’s special then everyone’s normal. We’ll have to start looking for those people who aren’t special.

So, I saw 300 last night and it was great. There was less fighting and much more story than I had anticipated, and I was glad for it. The cinematography was amazing, it really did look like art. After watching it, I just don’t understand where people got their criticism. Did they actually watch the movie?

One of the few war movies I’ve seen in the past two decades that doesn’t include at least some nod in the direction of antiwar sentiment, 300 is a mythic ode to righteous bellicosity.

So when your country is invaded by someone like Xerxes, whose desire is only to rule everyone and everything on earth, you’re supposed to hint at some “antiwar sentiment”? What should they have done, sent a UN Ambassador…Joe Wilson, maybe? This movie is about defending your home from conquerors. No antiwar sentiment needed.

Here are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with the “bad” (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown people. Disfigured people. Gay men (not gay in the buff, homoerotic Spartan fashion, but in the effeminate Persian style). Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians. Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws. Elephants and rhinos (filthy creatures both). The Persian commander, the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is a towering, bald club fag with facial piercings, kohl-rimmed eyes, and a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him.

I have to admit, Xerxes was a little femmish. But he was the only one. There were no others. There were some disfigured people in the movie, one instance was in Xerxes’ chamber…everything in there was messed up. Even the regular people. I’ll get to the other instance later. I don’t see any problem with the whole ten-foottall giants thing, or the animals.

There were maybe 10 Persian faces seen in the whole movie. The rest wore masks of some sort, or were dead and so their skin was grey. Of those, there were a couple of black guys, and some Arabs. But that makes sense, because the Spartans reference them as an “army of slaves” several times. Where would the Persians have gotten their slaves? from the eastern and African lands they conquered. What color were those people? If you don’t know, consult Encyclopedia Britannica.

…Leonidas is not above playing the tyrant himself. When a messenger from Xerxes arrives bearing news Leonidas doesn’t like, he hurls the man, against all protocol, down a convenient bottomless well in the center of town. “This is blasphemy! This is madness!” says the messenger, pleading for his life. “This is Sparta,” Leonidas replies. So, if Spartan law is defined by “whatever Leonidas wants,” what are the 300 fighting for, anyway?

Well, Leonidas tells the messenger that in Sparta all men, even messengers, are held accountable for the message they deliver. After he tells him that, the messenger proceeds to insult Leonidas’ wife (the queen) and Sparta, telling him that if he doesn’t surrender they’ll blah blah blah… So Leo gets a little ticked, and kicks him down the well. The next line is where I start to wonder if she actually saw the movie, or just watched to trailers. The reason Leonidas only took 300 soldiers is because Spartan law wouldn’t allow the army to fight during a religious festival. She deceptively puts quotes around “whatever Leonidas wants,” but as far as I can tell she just made this up, because I listened for it the whole movie. It ain’t there.

One deformed hunchback, Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), manages to make it to adulthood and begs Leonidas for a chance to serve Sparta in the 300. Sure enough, when he’s turned down, the hunchback confirms his moral weakness by accepting Xerxes’ offer to join ranks with the Persians.

She makes it seem like they spat on Ephialtes and kicked him out of their camp. In fact, Leonidas was kind and respectful. He gave very good reasoning for not allowing Ephialtes to join the 300. The Spartans used a phalanx formation, and Ephialties would have been unable to protect the man to his left. Besides, would she be on board with the US military accepting deformed and otherwise handicapped people into the ranks just because they really really want to? Yes, and I just had an intimate dinner with Rosario Dawson and Jessica Rabbit. The movie also makes Ephialtes reason for defecting pretty clear, and it’s not “moral weakness”. And if you look into it, he actually did betray the Spartans.

It seems to me that Dana and a number of other reviewers are preoccupied with the ghosts of their own fears, or the spirit of their own desires. This movie is different from what you may be used to…and that’s a good thing.

Jim Wallis & Friends at God’s Politics have spent quite a bit of digital ink throwing stones at James Dobson. Not only do they throw stones at him, but they misrepresent him so as to make a bigger target. Now, I admit that I don’t know much about Dobson, and what I do know I’m not excessively fond of, but that’s beside the point right now.

One of the things they hammer him on is not confronting or speaking out against Republicans in sex scandals. So why no love for this exchange with Newt Gingrich?

James Dobson: [In a private meeting a few weeks ago,] I asked you a pretty bold question. And I appreciate the fact that you didn’t seem offended by it. But I asked you if the rumors were true that you were in an affair with a woman obviously who wasn’t your wife at the same time that Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were having their escapade.

Newt Gingrich: Well, the fact is that the honest answer is yes. But it was not related to what happened. And this is one of the things the Left tries to do and one of the places where, frankly, I think the way this report of the special counsel was written weakened the case.

I drew a line in my mind that said, “Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept felonies and you cannot accept perjury in your highest officials.”

Dobson: Well, you answered that question with regard to Bill Clinton instead of referring to yourself. May I ask you to address it personally? You know, I believe you to be a professing Christian and you and I have prayed together, but when I heard you talk about this dark side of your life when we were in Washington, you spoke of it with a great deal of pain and anguish, but you didn’t mention repentance. Do you understand that word, repentance?

Could this expose the fact that for all their talking about how Jesus is “neither Republican or Democrat”, they’re as partisan as MoveOn.org?

If this isn’t news, I don’t know what is:

“Over the past 29 years of my life I have been an aggressive, creative and strategic supporter of gay and lesbian issues,” Cothran wrote. “I’ve organized and participated in countless marches and various lobbying efforts in the fight for equal treatment of gay and lesbians.”

A few paragraphs later Cothran dropped her bombshell, “But now, I must come out of the closet again.” She continued, “I have recently experienced the power of change that came over me once I completely surrendered to the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

Yeah, I hadn’t heard about it either. Her conversion is being questioned by some. I don’t know what to think, yet. Maybe if the media would pay a little attention to it, as the SBC Baptist Press think, then we might find out if she’s legit or not. Of course, that’s probably not likely.

H/T Jacke.

Next Page »