Another Author Who Preaches to the Anti-Christian Choir

 For as long as there have been men and women living and working together in any kind of organized societies, there have been men and women who wanted to take the easy, lazy way in any activity. If they were clever enough, they would even invent rationales to the effect that cutting corners and ignoring specific requirements produced a _better_ result.

The Body of Christ has not been immune to the lure of the shortcut and the compromise. Thus Franky Schaeffer, son of the famous Christian author Francis Schaeffer, could sink so low as to endorse the gospel-mocking book "Devangelical," an autobiography by a woman calling herself Erika Rae (Emergency Press 2012). Mizzzzzz Rae is the chief editor of Scree Magazine, and (not at all to my surprise) lives in Boulder. Her book is yet one _more_ book pretending to be daring and bold as it simply recycles what hundreds of "refreshingly irreverent" books have been doing for decades: pouncing on every example of professed Christians _not_ practicing the love of Jesus, and pretending that the hypocrites discredit the basic doctrines _about_ Jesus. And when Franky Schaeffer praised her, he wasn't taking a brave stand, he was taking his risk-free turn in line to beat a dead horse.

Throughout the book, Mizzzzzz Rae inserts "clever" little explanations of Christian jargon. For instance, she defines Evangelism as "The act of letting everyone around you know your spiritual stance, so that they will be dazzled by your certainty enough to also decide to believe as you do, thus gaining the reward of eternal life for all concerned." She similarly sneers that Godliness is "Often confused with pretending one is actually God in matters of judgment, piety, and denial of human desires." Mizzzzzz Rae apparently relies on us not to have noticed just how stuck-up and arrogant
the _secular_ culture can be about momentous issues like what's a fashionable outfit to wear this year, or which teams will make it to the NBA playoffs.

Near the end of "Devangelical," she offers the great punchline: again, simply recycled from all the other "liberating," "innovative" testaments of same-old same-old secular humanism. She says:

"Feed the hungry. Clothe the poor. Take care of those who need it. Relieve the burdens of others. This is what is REAL. The problem for me is quite simply that the larger Evangelical culture has gotten away from this somehow, and it has become impossible for me to overlook the disconnect. The core message of Jesus -- that there is no law above loving God, and your neighbor as yourself -- has been twisted so thoroughly that it looks a whole lot more like: glut your soul with pep talks, if you have any cravings for life on Earth use these approved substitutes, prioritize the saving of souls over destitute bodies, decorate your buildings, and then go there and hide."

The shortcut, the easy way, would be to nod, smile, and agree that Erika Rae is _ever_ so profound. But those who know me, know that I try to get past the surface appearance to the roots of things. Therefore Mizzzzz Rae doesn't get a free pass with me. Of course, those who _don't_ want to look past the feel-good language will desire to believe that if I criticize Mizzzzzz Rae AT ALL, this must mean that I want poor people to starve. Too bad if they think this. Reality is reality, and I'm digging up some reality here.

The single biggest flaw in her same-old same-old humanist creed is that, in claiming to identify "the core message of Jesus," she is claiming that Jesus' mission on Earth WAS NOT ABOUT ANYTHING BIGGER THAN merely declaring a message. If you make Jesus out to be _only_ a teacher, you show that you want no part of the _actual_ Incarnate God.

Teachings about generosity and charity already _were_ available to humanity _before_ Jesus entered incarnate life. And both before and since His earthly life, the problem with humanistic charity has been that people aren't consistent with it. It is not only churches that may have greedy, self-serving leaders; plenty of _secular_ charity organizations also turn out to be channeling most of the money they receive into the bank accounts of their directors. And in the case of the supposedly noble United Nations, you can find blue-helmeted "peacekeepers" EXTORTING SEX from impoverished
women and children as "payment" for the delivery of humanitarian aid. So exactly how is getting rid of churches going to ensure better performance of humanitarian service?

If you say that people's _material_ welfare is the _supreme_ value, then the provision of this welfare will increasingly be in the hands of people who _don't_ have the Spirit of God living in their hearts. Thus, for instance, we get John Hickenlooper, when he was Mayor of Denver, devoting an enormous budget to ending homelessness in Denver-- and finding by the end of his mayorship that homelessness HAD NOT DECREASED. This kind of thing was understood by C.S. Lewis, who wrote that if you exalt the secondary values above the primary ones, you WON'T EVEN fulfill the secondary values.

 Jesus also understood this, well duh; so He _didn't_ come to Earth merely to _tell_ us, "Be nice." He came to atone for our _failure_ to "be nice." He came to redeem the eternal souls that Mizzzzzzz Rae pretends are of little importance. As for hiding in decorated buildings: yes, that happens-- but I already said that Erika Rae was choosing to regard the worst examples as the typical model. In my more than forty years as a believer in Jesus, I have _never_ been part of any church that _wasn't_ actively involved with tangible aid to needy persons. If Mizzzzzz Rae wants to play with straw
men, she won't get far playing that game at the doors of the food bank my church supports, or on the White Mountain Apache Reservation where my church assists young people facing the problems of adolescence, or in African countries where my church and other churches help to provide safe-water wells in rural villages.

Mizzzzzz Rae can always find ignoramuses for whom it will be the path of least resistance to nod and smile and pretend she is "daring." But I know Christians who have _actually_ done brave deeds, and I'm not impressed by Mizzzzzz Rae.

 In writing his endorsement for Mizzzzzz Rae's book, the disgraceful apostate Franky Schaeffer pretended that America was suffering from "the stranglehold of insane religion." His saying this was just one more example of the phenomenon that Mr. Lewis aptly described as "rushing about with fire extinguishers when there is a flood, and crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under." And Franky Schaeffer's expecting to be taken seriously proves that HE REALLY KNEW that, far from being dominated by evil religious bigots, America's culture was already deeply under the sway of the sort of unbelievers who would welcome Erika Rae's politically-correct irreverence. That's how it is with today's fashionable scoffers: they play-act at "heroically speaking truth to power," while knowing that their own side IS ITSELF THE POWER which enjoys a license to censor the actual truth.

Daring to Commit the Sacrilege of Defying the Icon Betty White

Outside of kung-fu movies, nobody thinks that it's possible for a human male to have testicles which AREN'T vulnerable to crushing. When anyone speaks of a man as "ballsy," or as "really having cojones," neither the speaker nor any teenage-and-up listener EVER thinks for a single instant that a literal claim of invulnerable testicles is being made. They all understand that the real reference is to the energizing role played by HORMONES FROM the testicles.    

But no trivial consideration of actual truth was going to deter Betty White when, something like five years ago, she "cleverly" said that testicles should not be associated with strength and bravery because testicles are physically fragile. The vagina, she insisted, should be the symbol of strength and bravery, because the vagina is designed to endure extreme physical stress.

But a vagina, in and of itself, is not what makes a brave woman brave either. We tend, quite reasonably, to speak of a brave woman as having a brave HEART.

Betty White scored a totally phony Gotcha, by "refuting" a claim THAT MEN HAD NOT BEEN MAKING. She was allowed to get away with it because she's a celebrity, and because lots of women were looking for the next chance to high-five each other and screech fake laughter over an imaginary "proof" of female supremacy.

When a Facebook meme was made of Mizzzzzz White's words, it used a photo of her doing a forced triumphant wink. She can wink until her eyelids rupture, but this won't make a badly-aimed cheap shot not be a badly-aimed cheap shot.