The biggest problem this article is that it makes my former Harding professor sound like Enid Strict — as if he were taking attendance and wagging his finger at the folks who skip Wednesday night Bible class. Anyone with five minutes and an Internet connection can figure out that's not where Dr. Elrod is coming from. So, leaving that impression in the article must be due to incompetence, laziness, or spite. Given the "cult" references, I've got a guess.
I wonder if Dr. Elrod even got an email or a phone call from the author. Didn't journalists used to do that sort of thing? Judging from this post, it doesn't seem so.
On the other hand, the biggest problem with this post, is that it lends itself to caricature. Yes, I know. You were just having fun. We should all lighten up. I generally agree. What I wondered when I first read it, though, was how on earth do you know whether Fred Thompson is an active, attending member of one of "our" congregations? If he were, he doesn't owe you a press release about it. It seemed a bit presumptuous, which I guess some people think is okay as long as you're attacking a conservative politician. It reminds me of liberals screaming about divorced conservatives or conservatives who never served in the military. All of a sudden, liberals pretend to think those things are important, even though they really don't. The goal isn't to make any sort of legitimate point, but merely to separate conservative politicians from their constituencies
What difference does it make anyway? Jimmy Carter taught plenty of Sunday school classes, but that didn't keep him from being a disaster of a president.
Post a Comment