Prevailing Winds "For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom . . ." 2 Cor. 3:17, TNIV

Goodness. You’d almost think Lollapalooza had just pulled out of Moscow. The Palouse Blogosphere is popping with Reformed scholars weighing in on the sinfulness of tattoos, piercings, and other signs of — you guessed it — father hunger, sprinkled with a generous dose of sinful insecurity.

Specifically, He Whose Wisdom Must Not Be Questioned and his lovely wife, She From Whom All Things Femina Spring, have devoted considerable time recently to the subject of body adornments, the things they don’t like, disapprove of, and thus condemn as sinful in both origin (insecurity) and expression (wearing “the colors” of the Enemy’s team). A young woman, he says, who gets a tattoo, any tattoo, is a young woman desperately wounded by a neglectful, immature, un-masculine father. She’s insecure in her identity, both as a woman and, if applicable — which it certainly is in the feminized, culturally-compromised, whimpering Church As He Sees It — as a Christian. She may adorn her shoulder with an IXOYE, her ankle with a rose, her lower back with an intricate set of Celtic knots, or have inscribed, in Latin, the entire Decalogue on her upper back; all the same, she is thus adorned with proof that she lacks a Dad who’s on the Covenant ball, who disdains the Proverbs, believes not in the promises, and likely can’t grow a decent beard.

Same things for piercings. In Wilsonville, it’s laudable and lovely for women to pierce their ears and style their hair and wear makeup appropriate for making them pretty in their enduring and defining roles as The Glory Of Their Husbands. But a delicate diamond nose stud? Triple-pierced earlobes? An eyebrow anchored by a gold ring? That’s rebellion. That’s insecurity. That’s sin, and that’s — all together now — because of Father Hunger.

Boys who pierce, or boys who get tats, also manifest Father Hunger, in the form of the rebellion, insubordination, and desire to look “cool” that leads them downtown to nervously pick out a barbed-wire band for their skinny, rebellious, snotty upper arms, or head to the mall for tiny studs in their ears to show that they’re studs. We know, because Wilson tells us, that it’s mostly non-Covenant young men who do this sort of sissyish, gender-bending, rock-star-idolizing thing. The regenerate young man who chooses to look degenerate is in need of a good whack, or several, with the Proverbial rod of discipline, which, Wilson notes helpfully, ought to bring shame and grief to both father and son, with no balm of empathy offered by the congregation.

There’s no reason for me to state the obvious: Lots of pierced and tattooed people genuinely and deeply love Jesus. Isolating, judging and condemning them doesn’t serve the Church and certainly doesn’t evince a humble hand extended to those outside its walls. While I might find some piercings distasteful, and I only have three ear piercings myself, it’s not the piercing or inking itself that indicates anything more than an ability to withstand pain. I don’t have any tattoos, I don’t plan to get any tattoos, and I’m puzzled at some that I see (is an eight-inch Tinkerbell on the back really going to look good when you’re 80?). Nonetheless, if I see a young man walking down Third Street with a swastika tattooed on his shoulder, my evangelistic efforts will be energized by the swastika, not by the ink. If this sounds absurd to you, you’ve been, perhaps, too engrossed in praying imprecatory prayers to notice the Spirit’s movement in the world around you.

See, reasonable and mature Christians don’t judge outsiders on the basis of tats and studs, don’t condemn those in the pews on the basis of tats and studs, and reasonable and mature pastors don’t persist in dividing to conquer the congregations entrusted to them. The Apostle Paul chose to accommodate culture, without sinning, so he could simply do what the Lord told him to do: Preach the Gospel to sinners and open doors for the Holy Spirit to save souls.

What a wonderful thing it would be if that were even a low priority in the Christ Church/Logos field house overlooking apartments full of pierced, dreadlocked, and tattooed young people desperately needing an introduction to Jesus Christ.

Trust me. I’ll have more on this later.

I’ve begun recently to add a few bits o’ trivia about myself, and “Mary” wants to know why. Fair enough. So . . . I don’t know personally most of the people who read this blog, and they only know me through what I write. It would be easy for them to conclude that I’m diligently trudging through life obsessed with Christ Church, Doug Wilson, and patriarchy, allowing for no joy, amusement, or even eccentricities, much less other interests. That would make me terrifically one-dimensional. I’m not. Being multi-faceted in my interests gives me credibility as a real, live, normal human being when I write about the Kirk — not a single-minded recluse sniffing about for every wind of bad behavior from Anselm House. That there’s a fairly consistent stream of noxious practice and preaching wafting from Wilson’s office doesn’t mean that I’m unable to stop and smell the roses across the street.

“Mary” may be bored, but I do appreciate her question. I hope she won’t be offended if I mention that while I got kicked out of Brownie Scouts when I was 7 for wearing shorts and not the official B.S. skirt, as well as for being a tad mouthy, I turned my life around enough to be named my high school graduating class’ featured speaker (1978). The sky-blue suede platform espadrilles I wore were just as fabulous as you’re imagining, complementing well the welding goggles-sized frames I wore, a stunning melange of thick plastic, gold accents, and blue and yellow swirls.

Why, yes, in fact — I WAS “all that . . .”

I’m not a real fan of former president Bill Clinton, but kudos to him and thanks to God that the two U.S. journalists held captive in North Korea have been freed. Originally accused of “hostile acts” and illegal entry, the two women were sentenced a couple of months ago to 12 years of hard labor — which, in North Korea’s prison system, could’ve resulted in their death or indefinite captivity. News of their release is most welcome, and I’m grateful that Clinton used his influence to secure their freedom.

. . . A few little-known, and undoubtedly little-cared-about, facts about your host at Prevailing Winds:

If I could have any material item in the world — anything — I’d pick a brand-new Airstream travel trailer, something on the low end of Airstream indulgence that could be towed by our 2003 Dodge Dakota. I suspect I’m in for a long wait, but a gal can dream.

I love board games. I’m a dreadful chess player, a novice cribbage player, an OK backgammon player, and a crackerjack dominoes fiend. Really. The gloves come off and battle is declared . . . even though I lose more than I win, I manage to look tough in the heat of competition. Ask my niece.

My favorite movie is “The Color Purple,” followed by “Waiting For Guffman,” “Broadcast News,” and “Boys On The Side.” An eclectic list made more puzzling, I guess, by the fact that I’ve never seen “The Wizard Of Oz.” And, if I’m lucky, I’ll turn 90 without being subject to Dorothy’s whiny voice above the clamor of flying monkeys and chirping little Munchkins. See “a gal can dream,” above.

Finally, I am not a summer person. Not a warm-weather person, not a sunny-skies person, not a temps-in-the-90s person. Give me gray, cloudy, cold, and wet, and I’m happy. Odd, but happy. Bring me September, please!

The Everlasting Blogstalker who has reformed his ways — he no longer uses stupid pseudonyms, but the names of real people whose beliefs he then misrepresents — responds to my “Devious Snakes” post with this little nugget of Christian integrity:

(copied and pasted from comments received on my personal email account):

You need to learn the difference between the letter O and the number 0. I commented as R0SE HUSKEY, not as ROSE HUSKEY. Or, to use lower case, I commented as r0se huskey, not as rose huskey. So there. (end of comment)

There you have it, folks — a mature, reasonable approach to dialogue codified for the rank amateur in “The Serrated Edge” and other skylarking tomes. By the way, the cowardly liar who wrote the knee-slapper above says he’s not Joshua Nieuwsma, and I believe him. Now, Joshua ought to be ashamed of himself for his comments on poor people — remember, he weighed in on their dental hygiene and yards full of crap as his contribution to a discussion on poverty — but I don’t think he’s paraded through cyberspace as Rosemary Huskey.

See, Joshua is a young man. In the culture of the Kirk, you have to be quite a bit older to be that immature.

(This is from Rose Huskey, maligned and slandered by the lying impersonation of a reader who, I fear, knew not who he was tangling with. She identifies the originator of the “smelly and bad teeth” comments I noted with disdain in my post today on poverty; I don’t know if that man is the Rose-impersonator, and I don’t much care. It’s easy to see how clearly he or they reflect the contemptuous attitude and contemptible teaching of the Kirk’s leaders on the subject of poverty, the poor, and the right response of Christians).

From Rosemary Huskey:

Imagine my surprise when my good friend Keely forwarded to me the following comment allegedly written by me. Of course, she recognized immediately that neither the syntax nor the sentiments expressed even remotely reflect my perspective:

Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:15:16 -0700
From: noreply-comment@blogger.com
To: kjajmix1@msn.com
Subject: [Prevailing Winds] New comment on What Poverty Is and Isn’t.

R0SE HUSKEY has left a new comment on your post “What Poverty Is and Isn’t”:

Reading this, it seems that in some ways there is a smaller difference between your position and that of “local conservative circles” than one might have imagined. Poverty has many facets, but primarily it is a spiritual problem. It is a set of attitudes — a state of mind.

By the way, I have to disagree with your emphasis when you write:

“We don’t know what we need to know, and Who we need to know, to be saved from our sin and be reconciled to a Holy God. Without the proclamation and reception of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we are left with a knowledge gap as wide as the chasm between us and God. There’s a Way, but it’s not known to those who need it.”

If there was genuine lack of knowledge, there would be no culpability. In that sense, the problem is not a knowledge gap. In fact, if the problem was just a knowledge gap it would be God’s fault. But God says “they are without excuse” precisely because they actively sought to suppress the knowledge of the truth. The real problem is ethical rebellion.

People with yards full of worthless crap need to deal first with the worthless crap in their hearts. Generally speaking, when the heart of a man changes, his external situation will change to reflect the change in him. This too is to the glory of God.

Rose Huskey:
My response to the blasphemy above is simple and to the point – please note that I’m not nearly as gracious as Keely. The pompous little prick who commented disdainfully about the living conditions and buying practices of people he identified as poor is Joshua Nieuwsma. http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6768. It is amazing to me that the young jackass wasn’t rebuked publicly for his shameful remarks. I guess Doug has neglected to preach on Proverbs 17:5 —

“Whoever mocks the poor reproaches his Maker: and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.”

Meanwhile, outside the Wilson-led (metaphorical) compound, those who love and honor Jesus Christ will be about their Father’s business.

The Real-Life Rose Huskey

The following comment was submitted in response to my post on poverty, and I include it here for reasons that may surprise you. Or not.

It seems that there is no level to which “covenant Christian” men here and abroad will sink in making their obnoxious, inane, and puerile points, and that’s why I now have to OK them before they hit my blog. The comment below is predictably smug and poorly reasoned, but I’d accept it in the spirit of honest debate. But it was authored by someone cowardly enough to not use his real name and stupid enough to use instead the name of my good friend Rosemary Huskey. Rose is aware of this and is preparing her response. Here’s mine:

First of all, you lying coward, you’ve sinned not just by hiding behind some dumbass pseudonym, as you usually do, but by representing yourself as someone else — someone you consider to be an enemy of Wilsonistas foreign and domestic. You probably thought that slinking into my blog under the name of a noted Kirk critic and good friend of mine was clever. It isn’t. You continue to exemplify the spineless barking and deceitful prank-playing that real men, and real Christians, repent of shortly after turning 13. This is not “skylarking.” This isn’t “monkeywrenching” liberal media. This isn’t even a serrated edge of satire. This is lying, pure and simple — you’ve claimed to be another person, and you’ve said things publicly as if she were saying them. Shame on you.

Second of all, you pompous and vituperative ass, Rosemary Huskey, who has never in her life used a pseudonym, never hurled insults without making a larger point, and never shrunk back from defending righteousness and opposing sin, is infinitely smarter and inestimably more decent than you. I would not want to oppose an angry Rosemary Huskey in a rhetorical dark alley, and I’m gobsmacked that you are evidently as stupid as you are dishonest in thinking you can pull something like this.

You are a liar. The truth is not in nor anywhere near you, and you stand condemned before a holy God and everyone reading this blog.

May God have mercy on your shriveled, toxic soul.