Charlie's Angels

Project Angel Tree is a Good Thing. Or it would be a Good Thing if the people running it would just get out of the way.

The program, part of Charles Colson's Prison Fellowship, collects and distributes Christmas presents for the children of prisoners. This is heartwarming and noncontroversial. It's also a fine example of Matthew 25-style Christianity in action: "I was in prison and you came to visit me." What's not to like?

Well, it turns out there's a problem. The folks at Prison Fellowship want to help these little kids at Christmas, but not quite as much as they want to spread the Gay-Hatin' Gospel.

Trent W. alerted me to this story via e-mail. It seems the Friends Congregational Church of College Station, Texas, is no longer allowed to collect Christmas presents for the children of prisoners. The United Church of Christ congregation had been supporting Angel Tree for 10 years before they were told this fall that their help was no longer wanted.

Initially Friends Congregational was told that this was because they were in conflict with Prison Fellowship's "Statement of Faith." Had that been true, it would have been strange enough. After all, you're not required to swear the Marine Corps Oath before your donation will be accepted by Toys for Tots. But it turns out that wasn't the real problem.

The real problem, as this letter from the church to Prison Fellowship (.pdf) explains, was that Friends Congregational doesn't hate gay people enough:

The [Prison Fellowship] representative, however, informed [Pastor Dan De Leon] that according to our church’s Web site, we are an Open & Affirming congregation. Friends Congregational Church has publicly upheld this stance since 1996 as a clear, unapologetic means of extending an extravagant welcome* to all in our community, regardless of social status, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. The representative went on to say that the Board viewed homosexuality as deviancy from Scripture, and this position, when held up to our Open & Affirming identity, excluded us from the Angel Tree Ministry. Although one might read between the lines of the letter we received to come to this conclusion, this detail by which Friends has been excluded is not found in the assertion that we must be Trinitarian and uphold the Bible in all matters of faith and life; nor is this wording clearly offered anywhere in the Prison Fellowship’s Statement of Faith.

The letter recommends that Prison Fellowship should state more clearly "the criteria by which it claims that churches and millions of their faithful congregants are to be excluded from assisting the imprisoned and their children, who, consequently, will not receive joy and love in the form of gifts at Christmas." Ouch. The problem, of course, is that Prison Fellowship thought they had stated this criteria clearly with that bit about "upholding the Bible in all matters of faith and life." They assumed that "uphold the Bible" means the same thing as "excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians." That is, after all, the "most common perception" of American Christianity.

The letter goes on to pose three questions for the straight and extremely narrow ministry:

1) To the child whose parent is in prison, does it matter who is providing him or her with gifts at Christmas?

2) Is God displeased that a gay man or woman goes Christmas shopping for a child orphaned by society, or is God overjoyed that a child such as this is receiving love mirrored after God's love: expecting nothing in return?

3) Finally, at the end of the day, does it really help or does it hinder the mission of Angel Tree Ministry to disqualify churches like ours on the basis of an anonymous giver being, as you suggest, deviant from Scripture? If you feel that it helps, then we are sad to say that you have your work cut out for you, because all of us sinners who breathe God’s good air deviate from Scripture every day. This includes everyone from our congregation to the well-intentioned members of the Prison Fellowship Board.

I've got nothing to add to that except perhaps this: Don't mess with those UCC folks. They seem all meek and mild, but get between them and the people they're trying to help and they'll dope-slap you upside your self-righteous head.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* "Extravagant welcome." I like that. When I use that, a lot, in the future, you'll know that this is where I got it from.

Comments

[mcc]

Hasn't Colson already been having trouble with the courts lately for pushing the religion just a leetle too hard for anything that retains state endorsement?

[Tokyo (was Edo)]

Am I the only one who sees in that inverted Angel Tree logo a giant pair of barbed pincers?

Am I the only one wondering how this would get spun on Fox?

Or is this just me?

[Tonio]

From my reading about Watergate, Colson was a holy warrior where Nixon is concerned. From my reading of Colson's pieces on the Post/Newsweek OnFaith site, Colson is a holy warrior where Jesus is concerned. Conversion to Christianity didn't change his basic personality - he still views people who disagrees with him as mortal enemies. At least he's not making up crazy schemes to boobytrap anyone who shows up on the six o'clock news criticizing Christianity. (That we know of.)

[A Kennedy]

Were you aware that the roadrunner was a neopagan?

Wile E. Coyote -- warrior for Jesus.

[Glenda]

All the Whos down in Whoville thought him so crass
They held hands in a circle and kicked Colson's ...

And if a Who butt-kicking isn't enough to bring him around, send the ghostly trinity of Jacob Marley, Bob Marley and Marley the dog.

[McMartin]

Tokyo@9:20: No, I too saw it like that.

[Stacia]

"uphold the Bible" means the same thing as "excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians."

I was referred to this site by a friend several weeks ago, after I inadvertently started a great big chunk o' drama on another forum. See, I'm not Christian, and don't know much about Christianity, but the impression I had of Christianity was pretty much summed up by what you said above. As far as I knew, Christianity had specific rules which said being gay was wrong, and the few churches who tolerated gays did so without "official" approval. When I mentioned this on that other forum, though, I was slammed by a few dozen Christians who insisted that I was an ignorant dope for thinking such a thing. They asked me where did I even get that idea? I was told it was obvious that Christians were pro-gay and even a quick Google search would show that Christianity is very much *not* anti-gay.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. A quick Google search pretty much confirms my initial idea that Christianity is anti-gay, even though it really isn't. The anti-gay camp is louder, more vocal, more convinced they're right and gets more attention in the media. I think they may even be the majority; I notice that only two churches were kicked out of the Angel Tree program, which I assume means most churches qualify because they're adequately anti-gay enough to participate.

It's all so confusing. I've been extremely grateful for your site because it's helped clarify for me the disparity between the different camps within the Christian religion, although I don't think I'll ever understand all the nuances and differences and contradictions. (And I'm glad for your years of Left Behind posts; they kept me entertained during the recent ice storms. I'm already up to 2005!)

Anyway, I wanted to say that, and hopefully I've said something really offensive so we can get into a good flame war about it all.

[A Kennedy]

Well, I'm offended. Where do you get off talking about different Christian "camps?" What, do you think we're like really bad drag queens or something?! And just what do you have against drag queens???

Ah... I'm spent.

[PurpleGirl]

A former controller at my job collected toys/money for Angel Tree. It's so sad that the governing board would be such wankers as to hurt the children. I mean, talking from the family values perspective, Angel Tree helps keep families together, provides children with good things like feeling they are special, etc., and, well this just makes me sad.

[Cyllan]

I notice that only two churches were kicked out of the Angel Tree program, which I assume means most churches qualify because they're adequately anti-gay enough to participate.

I suspect that most churches are more passive on the homosexual issue, and the assumption is that if a church is not specifically "open" then it passes muster.

[Luke]

hmm, that's...interesting.

As a faggot, I appreciate the UCC acting like grown ups. Having spent forever and a day having Christian nutters (excluding the Quakers, various Methodists, some Anglicans, and the UCC) cross the street to start a riot, making me feel the need to sashay over and cover them in yards tule and bad Cher covers, at least, now, I can take a break.

More seriously, aren't these the people who got their "when you have to go there, we'll be glad to take you in" ad rejected two years ago? I kind of feel like writing them a check....

[Doctor Science]

They don't want your money, Luke, they want you to come to services! I have it on good authority that there are cookies afterward ...

I would like to point out what Apostle Paul notes in his first letter to the Corinthians (NIV):

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Similarly, I can't see what wrong we do if we accept things from persons who live openly in sin (if we consider that a sin), unless we compromise ourselves by making compromises in order to get more donations. Or, if we cause weaker brothers to fall:

Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

I would not do the same as the Prison Fellowship, but I can understand them.

[Froborr]

*shakes head, sighs*

I looked at the Barna Group link you had there Fred, and yeah, that's the impression you get of Christianity if you're not one, unless you make a real effort to learn. The Christianity non-Christians see is homophobic, mysoginistic, Luddite, ignorant, materialistic, and hateful. *I* know Christianity's not like that because I made an effort to learn about it. Most of my friends still see Christianity that way, though I've attempted to explain that only the lunatic fringe is like that.

[Froborr]

*shakes head, sighs*

I looked at the Barna Group link you had there Fred, and yeah, that's the impression you get of Christianity if you're not one, unless you make a real effort to learn. The Christianity non-Christians see is homophobic, mysoginistic, Luddite, ignorant, materialistic, and hateful. *I* know Christianity's not like that because I made an effort to learn about it. Most of my friends still see Christianity that way, though I've attempted to explain that only the lunatic fringe is like that.

[Axiomatic]

Am I the only one wondering how this would get spun on Fox?

Or is this just me?

"They're trying to make our children gay!"

[Jesurgislac]

I can tell you how this would be spun. The claim would be made that "political correctness" is trying to force acceptance of "homosexuals" on a worthy Christian program, and as a result this program may have to shut down, causing all these little children not to get presents this Christmas, and it will be all the fault of these "politically correct" Christians and the selfish homosexuals.

You really need a "gay hatin' gospel" tag, Fred...

[Nenya]

Unnamed person quoting Paul up there: That's one of my favourite passages of his, and a reason why I don't think the man was entirely nutty, despite some of his issues in other passages. It's very interesting that he points out the need to not trample all over your brother's scruples if you don't have to, while at the same time calling the people with very strict rules the "weaker" ones, and the ones who are confident enough to eat or drink whatever they want the stronger ones. I imagine Paul didn't think of this same principle as applying to homosexuality, but to me it really fits.

It doesn't, however, address what to do if you want to convince your friend that eating meat sacrificed to idols/shagging people of the same gender is really all right. (From experience I know it's a long, involved process for most people, and that being exposed to the occasional meat-eater can be helpful, though jarring to the "weaker" person's conscience.)

[Praline]

That's the most unChristian thing I've ever heard. And almost everybody I know isn't a Christian.

[MikeJ]

If you cause your brother to savor meat that was sacrificed to an idol or stuffed in a g-string, you haven't caused him to sin. Those aren't sins, as even the letter writer acknowledges about one of them. What sin could you tempt your brother into other than hating you for accepting what he wrongly perceives to be sin?

[Rosina]

Looking at their site (particularly the bit about evangelising children), and remembering other posts in the last week (Christmas decorations - a "sore point" with US Jews, Atheists, etc; are Mormons Christians; self-identification) and the gay-hating Gospellers, I have to ask - to whom are these gifts given? Solely to the children of practicing Christian prisoners, or to the children of all prisoners, even if their imprisoned parent is Muslim or gay? Since it involves insisting that the child must be evangelised: When you deliver the gifts, please remember that Angel Tree is about the Gospel and a gift for the child of a prisoner. Preparing your team to present the Gospel is at the very heart of a successful Angel Tree experience, and we will provide you with several evangelism resources for this task I assume that prisoners who do not want their children to be preached at by a particular brand of Christianity (because they are not Christian, or are not of that brand) will have to refuse the gifts in order to avoid getting the unwanted evangelism. Imagine if Father Christmas came down the chimney and preached that your father was a sinner who would be going to hell-fire because of his behaviour in or out of prison, that he worshipped false gods and would deserve what he got when killer Jesus came down.

Although the idea of giving gifts and support to the children of prisoners is undoubtedly good, linking it with hard-sell evangelism makes it much, much worse than a Christmas tree in an airport. Where is the atheist/non-Christian outcry?

[Jesurgislac]

Nenya; Unnamed person quoting Paul up there: That's one of my favourite passages of his, and a reason why I don't think the man was entirely nutty, despite some of his issues in other passages.

Agreed. I think that passage is incredibly smart. In effect, he's saying to people who are yelling at other Christians for eating meat that had been offered up for sacrifice that only someone who was weak in faith would care about such issues.

The political strategy behind not allowing churches into the program if they don't actively condemn LGBT people is the same strategy behind the Catholic church's opposition to legal equality for LGBT people. If you believe it's a central tenet of Christianity that all LGBT people are damned to hell as miserable sinners unless they lead lives of frustrated misery, it's very, very necessary to make sure that LGBT people leading ordinary, decent lives - buying toys for children whose parents are in prison, getting married, adopting children - do not appear to be receiving any approval at all from any Christian organization.

[Rosina]

Project Angel Tree is a Good Thing. Or it would be a Good Thing if the people running it would just get out of the way.

The program, part of Charles Colson's Prison Fellowship, collects and distributes Christmas presents for the children of prisoners. This is heartwarming and noncontroversial. It's also a fine example of Matthew 25-style Christianity in action: "I was in prison and you came to visit me." What's not to like?

Just to add that I really disagree with Fred on this. It is not heart-warming and non-controversial: it is divisive and/or exploitative. It says if you are in prison and you want your child to have a gift at Christmas - when you and your partner are desperate to provide some sort of present - you have to accept that our attempts to evangelise your child. And to evangelise them into a particular doctrine of Christianity (not sure if you get to choose, in a large area. Can the parent say: "I'm a Catholic: get the Catholics to give my kid a gift and a sermon - not the Southern Baptists!"?) And that's before they started weeding out the more liberal and welcoming churches.

It is so un-heartwarming that I am getting angrier by the minute.

[Rosina]

Jesu - forget for a moment the evil of excluding LGBT-welcoming churches from the gift-giving (and the hatefulness of the Catholic Church), and think about the LGBT prisoners and their children who surely must exclude themselves from receiving this charity, if they are not excluded by the Angel Trees themselves. Because if they accept, any gift is going to be given with a special sermon on how Daddy or Mummy is a sinner and going to hell. Churches not participating in this scheme can perhaps concentrate on being much more charitable towards local prisoners who are otherwise not going to be given anything.

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina, I actually started composing a comment in response to yours about the Angel Tree people seeing the gift-giving as a means of providing evangelical Christian propaganda to vulnerable children: and then I deleted it because it was, quite literally, nothing but incoherent, angry spluttering.

It hadn't even occurred to me that they'd be such right bastards that even gift-giving was turned into an opportunity to make children and parents feel bad.

[Emily H.]

If you cause your brother to savor meat that was sacrificed to an idol or stuffed in a g-string, you haven't caused him to sin. Those aren't sins, as even the letter writer acknowledges about one of them. What sin could you tempt your brother into other than hating you for accepting what he wrongly perceives to be sin?

What measure of sin does anyone have except their own conscience? If you cause someone to violate the principles of their conscience, then they have sinned, if only in their own minds.

If I sneak meat into the soup I'm making for my vegetarian friend, or if I wave my cheeseburger in front of her going "Yummmmmmm," then I'm at the very least being incredibly rude. I'm asking her to go against her conscience, I'm asking her to shoulder the guilt that goes along with that. If that's not causing someone else to sin, what is?

Similarly, when I dated a guy who didn't believe in premarital sex, I didn't argue with him on the issue, or try to seduce him. It would've been wrong for him, and that's enough.

[cjmr]

I forgot what political statement on Prison Fellowship letterhead I got that made me drop them from my donations list.

It would be peculiarly ironic if it was the same one that made me drop them, a few years back. I remember a thread here about them using their Angel Tree fundraising mailing list to send out political materials.

[Jesurgislac]

Scott: Aww. *hugs* We know your woe. We feel your pain.

Emily: If I sneak meat into the soup I'm making for my vegetarian friend, or if I wave my cheeseburger in front of her going "Yummmmmmm," then I'm at the very least being incredibly rude. I'm asking her to go against her conscience, I'm asking her to shoulder the guilt that goes along with that. If that's not causing someone else to sin, what is?

If you sneak meat into the soup you plan to have a vegetarian friend eat, you're not just being rude: you may well be giving them painful indigestion. (Depends how long they've been vegetarian: but after a while, going back to eating meat gives a long-term vegetarian painful gut-cramps and other effects. I speak from experience.)

If you're eating a cheeseburger in front of a vegetarian friend with every evidence of enjoyment, while your vegetarian friend is happily tucking into a delicious felafel wrap, why should your vegetarian friend care? I wouldn't.

I suppose if you were deliberately pushing the cheeseburger under my nose and inviting me to smell how good it was, I would get both amused and annoyed - amused that you would be stupid enough to think that the disgusting smell of your cheeseburger would tempt me to eat it rather than my delicious felafel, and annoyed at your not letting me eat my tasty vegetarian meal in peace. But it would be your shoving your cheeseburger at me that I would find annoying - not your enjoying it yourself.

The two situations do not equate. Your forcing me by deception to eat meat is an actual injury, both to your conscience and to my stomach. Your enjoyment of eating meat in front of me is no injury at all.

Similarly, when I dated a guy who didn't believe in premarital sex, I didn't argue with him on the issue, or try to seduce him. It would've been wrong for him, and that's enough.

Indeed. But, once you had stopped dating him, if you met someone else and had a lovely affair with him, you should not be expected to keep this a secret from your ex-boyfriend, if it were to come up normally in an ordinary social situation. Because he doesn't do pre-marital sex, doesn't mean you have to refrain or to go into the closet about your having sex with people you are not married to.

The direct equivalent to same-sex marriage: people who do not want to marry someone of the same gender should not be required to do so (obviously!) but neither should their personal prejudices be allowed to stop other people who do want to marry from doing so - nor should their personal prejudices require such marriages to be kept invisible and out of sight.

[Rosina]

I deleted it because it was, quite literally, nothing but incoherent, angry spluttering.

I went shopping before I descended into the same thing - which is another sign that twinship crosses boundaries from all directions.

I have no difficulty with a church giving presents to, and a party for, its own members' children, any more than I would have a problem with the local cricket club doing the same. But a prisoners' charity should be openly accessible to all prisoners and their families. Even if Angel Fire doesn't restrict its bounty in theory, its practices and policy would make it anathema to many desperate people.

[Dash]

Angel Tree/Prison Fellowship is inconsistent. Many of their participating churches put up trees where just *anyone* can donate, and they sure don't ask any questions on their online donation form. Sort of a funding version of "don't ask, don't tell."

To pull out another passage by Paul, I Corinthians 5 talks about how the church at Corinth should treat a man who is sleeping w/his father's wife. Paul, who is evidently in a position of some authority over the church (he says he has judged them, although at a distance), tells them to kick the guy out (or at least to exclude his participation in the communion feast). He specifically does *not* say anything about refusing to have anything further to do w/the Corinthians until they get rid of the guy, nor does he say he's going to tell any of the other churches not to have anything to do with the church at Corinth. In other words, it's an internal church matter.

But Prison Fellowship/Angel Tree is not in the position of authority over this particular (or any) UCC church that Paul was in WRT the Corinthian church, so it's far from clear that they have a scripturally supported right to refuse to accept UCC's participation in the AT project, especially since their attitude in other contexts is "don't ask, don't tell, just give us your money."

I do hope PF is consistent, though: in verse 11, Paul tells them to get rid of "extortioners," "railers," and "the covetous." So, I trust they're checking their member churches to insure that no one remains in fellowship who is (e.g.) working for a mortgage company involved in the practice of getting people into houses they can't afford, employed by a credit card company that sends out unsolicited pre-approved card offers to college kids, etc. "Covetous"--ouch! That's gonna hit a few people. (Three fingers pointing back at myself, of course.)

Oh, and there are those "railers." Um, . . . Mr. Colson? A word with you, sir?

(Note: quotes are from the King James Version; if King James English was good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me.)

[Dash]

@ Rosina: Churches not participating in this scheme can perhaps concentrate on being much more charitable towards local prisoners who are otherwise not going to be given anything.

I second Rosina's proposal, and I'd like to see something started on a national level by the more welcoming churches.

[Tonio]

The direct equivalent to same-sex marriage: people who do not want to marry someone of the same gender should not be required to do so (obviously!) but neither should their personal prejudices be allowed to stop other people who do want to marry from doing so - nor should their personal prejudices require such marriages to be kept invisible and out of sight.

Absolutely.

But it would be your shoving your cheeseburger at me that I would find annoying - not your enjoying it yourself.

While I agree with you in principle, the issue is the person's reason to annoy you. For whatever reason, the person finds your dietary practice to be objectionable and wants you to change it. If someone's personal practice doesn't harm others, there is no reason for others to be offended by the practice. This definitely applies to same-sex marriage.

My wife and I were vegetarians for a few years, and my own family ridiculed this in passive-aggressive ways. By an odd coincidence, a few wild turkeys were roosting in our yard during autumn one year. On Thanksgiving my brother held up the plate with the remains of the turkey, and he asked me if I wanted to put this outside for the wild turkeys to eat. He pretended that the turkeys were saying, "Fred!! You never called, you never wrote..." And then my father joined in, pretending that the turkeys were mourning their mother.

[Lee Ratner]

As a Jew, I wonder why some Christians take the allegedly anti-homosexual parts of Leviticus so seriously. While there are more than a fair share of anti-homosexual Jews, especially in Orthodox circles, homosexuality is not considered to be the biggest sin by a long shot amoung them.* Idolatry and murder are the top sins in Judaism.

*The traditional Jewish explanation for the anti-homosexual parts of the Bible is that homosexuality is a sin because it has no chance of resulting in pregnancy. Maimonides stated that male homosexuality is considered worse than female homosexuality because at least no sperm is wasted amoung lesbians. Jewish tradition does not see homosexuality as a cosmic evil that will reduce society to ruins, which is why even anti-homosexual Jews rarely rage like anti-homosexual Christians.

[Rosina]

He pretended that the turkeys were saying, "Fred!! You never called, you never wrote..." And then my father joined in, pretending that the turkeys were mourning their mother.

I'm not sure if this is humour directed against vegetarians. It seems to me to be the same sort of joke that meat eaters make, and have no doubt been making for thousands of years. It doesn't hurt the sheep that we mutter 'Mint sauce' as we pass, nor the pheasants who visit our garden (the male is also called Fred, by the way) that we discuss sausagemeat stuffing in their hearing. I've never seen it as anything other than childish humour, and a kind of traditional acknowledgement that the meat we will eat is currently running around. Although you know your family best, of course, it may just be you being over-sensitive.

[Jesurgislac]

Tonio: While I agree with you in principle, the issue is the person's reason to annoy you.

That was the principal point of my comment, really. Someone who loves chilli making yum-yum noises over their spicy-hot food at someone who cannot tolerate spicy dishes, is being equally annoying.

Really, you know: so you harm no one, do as you will is a perfectly good rule to live by.

[Tonio]

It seems to me to be the same sort of joke that meat eaters make, and have no doubt been making for thousands of years...Although you know your family best, of course, it may just be you being over-sensitive.

I can appreciate that aspect of the joke. I suspect it's a way of dealing with the unpleasant thought of taking a creature's life for our nourishment. That's the same impulse behind the grisly humor often heard in hospital emergency rooms and newspaper bullpens and police squadrooms.

Having said that, most of my family had a long tradition of cutting down my personal choices through bad jokes and passive-aggressive comments. This has included my taste in entertainment, my choice of career, and my choice of spouse.

Maimonides stated that male homosexuality is considered worse than female homosexuality because at least no sperm is wasted amoung lesbians.

Must...fight...urge...to sing...Python song...

[Geds]

If you're eating a cheeseburger in front of a vegetarian friend with every evidence of enjoyment, while your vegetarian friend is happily tucking into a delicious felafel wrap, why should your vegetarian friend care?

I think this is a common mistake among people. We tend to think, "I like to do X. Bob over there doesn't do X. Something must be wrong with Bob." Or, alternately, "I have a really hard time with Y. Everyone must have a really hard time with Y."

I've never been a vegetarian per se, but there have been times when I called myself a "functional vegetarian" because I just wasn't eating that much meat. Even for me, an avowed lover of the cheeseburger, if I was in one of those periods and wasn't suffering from a protein deficiency you could have waved a cheeseburger under my nose and eaten it with exaggerated gusto and I probably would have shrugged you off. (That's the editorial you. I assume that I would be laughing too hard to shrug anything off while watching Jesu attempt to eat a cheeseburger with gusto in order to entice me.)

It's actually much the same problem as we see in the variety of Christianity illustrated in the above post. There's an ingrained attitude that the whole bringing gifts to children thing somehow proves a point about Christianity that they just don't get/haven't yet accepted. In short, it's "Jesus is better than your parents, who are criminals and can't afford to buy you stuff."

I honestly think that would make Jesus weep. I believe that if Jesus saw a child who was hurting because of a missing parent and a feeling of being left out that Jesus would find a way to help that child because it's the right thing to do, not because it's a "witnessing opportunity" or whatever. But hey, that's just me.

It's slightly off-topic, but the postmodern/neo-orthodox/Emerging Church/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it movement as I've witnessed it in action is flawed. There's a move away from hard-sell evangelism to a "be like Jesus and show the love of god" attitude. Now, in general, I am a fan of generosity and caring about people. It's what I try to do. However, I've mostly seen it implemented with a subtle, smug, "I love you because of Jesus and that's the only way anyone can love," attitude. The idea itself, like Angel Tree, has merit.

But execution matters. In fact, the execution of the idea is more important than the idea itself. I don't want your "love" if you're just doing it because some pastor told you Jesus said you should love me. And I wouldn't want your gift if it came packaged with an attempted indoctrination for my (theoretical) child.

[Grey Duck]

It's things like this that make me happy to be a member of an Open and Affirming UCC Church.

They don't want your money, Luke, they want you to come to services! I have it on good authority that there are cookies afterward ...

At my church it has always been donuts. Though we have cookies sometimes...

[mmack]

Must...fight...urge...to sing...Python song...

C'mon Tonio, Key of C, ready:

"Every sper. . . . . . ."

[Fraser]

Jesu, as a vegetarian--what you said!
Scott, I know you can make coherent statements, so why do you keep building comments by stringing together Mad Libs?

[Filbert]

The politics of giving... I had a colleague (in grad school) who had worked at a missionary hospital in Africa. "That's wonderful," I said. "What did you do there? I didn't know you had medical training." He didn't. His job had been to pray with people who had come in for treatment. This was not a majority-Christian area, and the prayers were pretty Jesus-based. He wanted to point out that they got medical treatment first, then the prayer - that's better, I suppose, but the patients were still directly shuttled from one to the other, without a real opportunity to say no. Still. Medical care in Africa is precious. If it's this or nothing, I'm not going to object too strongly. But I thought less of his work after the explanation than before.

[Buhallin]

This just goes to show what ignorance can do to you.

I had no idea Angel Trees included enforced sermons on the recipients of their gifts. It's just repugnant.

Toys For Tots it is, then. At least the worst I have to worry about with them is that the kids may end up with an unhealthy affection for yelling "HOOOAH!" all the time.

[cjmr]

Well, since I don't have any compunctions about contributing to anyone's earworm problem:

Obligatory Python Link

[lightning]

On Christmas charity.

Theological question is, "who is charity *for*?" For the giver, to "build up treasure in Heaven" or for the receivers, to make their lives a bit better?

The current crop of "Christian" churches obviously sides with the first.

[Luke]

Either cookies or donuts would be fine. I'll see if there's somewhere I can volunteer. Right now, I've been sticking with Planned Parenthood escort, because nothing says comfort like a 6' 3" muscular gay man. I will, of course, google UCC DC....

[lightning]

The inverted logo reminds me far too much of this

"Devil's Claw". The one in the picture would be about a foot from top to bottom.

[Bugmaster]

Amusingly enough, I've never met a vegetarian who hadn't tired to convert me to vegetarianism at some point. Most usually give up after the first polite attempt, though. If only all the Christians I've met were like that, too...

[Tonio]

Bugmaster,

When I was a vegetarian, not only did I never try to convert anyone, I rarely discussed the subject unless someone I knew noticed that I wasn't eating meat.

But before and since, there were a few people who tried to convert me. But they were hardcore vegans as opposed to run-of-the-mill vegetarians. I suspect that most of us know plenty of vegetarians who don't discuss the subject outside of their close circles of friends. The same would be true of moderate Christians.

[Geds]

I just hope Fred doesn't decide that since Jesus would support this, and I have two good kidneys, I should be forced to share.....

Yes. Because Fred will totally advocate for this thing that half of a 30-person group have decided to do of their own volition as an example of Christian love.

You know that some things in life are voluntary, right?

[JoXn]

I personally would advocate that if you decide to do this thing, you don't refuse to donate your kidney because it might go to a homosexual. Kinda defeats the point of the gesture.