The time has come for Espresso Roast to be put in moth balls. I will not be shutting it down, but there will be no new posts coming (at least for the foreseeable future). I think all of us who were to serve as contributors had the best intentions, but our schedules just haven't allowed it and I don't have an appetite for writing in the fashion that ER has been over the past few years.

Please keep your subscriptions active in case we do fire it up again so you'll know what's going on, but I can offer no guarantees. As for me, I have started a new online journal using my domain name, DavidCPrice.com, which will really be just that--a simple, online journal focused not on articles, but on personal thoughts and reflections. I invite you to check it out as I hope it will be a place that can serve as an encouragement to those who may visit.

Thank you to all of you who have been an encouragement by your faithful visits and thoughtful comments over the years. I hope to see you over at my new journal...and don't stay silent, I need your insights there, too. Blessings!

David C. Price

Labels: David C. Price

As reported in the Virginian Pilot, Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, who has made predicting the future an annual tradition, predicts a recession and a major stock market upheaval are on their way for the U.S. On Wednesday, Robertson suggested that Americans will be paying much more for gas at the pump, specifically forecasting that oil would reach $150 a barrel, with the dollar continuing to lose value. "I also believe the Lord was saying by 2009, maybe 2010, there's going to be a major stock market crash," said Robertson, who also acknowledged that his prophecy of a nuclear terror attack in 2007 failed to unfold. Responding to why the U.S. was spared "possibly millions" of deaths in a serious terrorist attack last year, Robertson said, "All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us." [from Crosswalk.com]

Oi vey! By the way, does he ever predict any good news? Doesn't it just seem that, according to Robertson, God is always hacked off?

Labels: David C. Price

And so we shelve God and put him in the same category as Santa. We’ll believe in anything else, or nothing at all. As long as we maintain our cynicism and disbelief in the God of the Bible, the devil is pleased. I find it interesting and disturbing that the older people get, the less likely they are to receive Christ as savior and Lord. It’s as if sin grips our hearts tighter and tighter as time goes on, hardening our hearts and pushing us deeper into our skepticism, making it tougher and tougher to believe. This is why Jesus says,

Unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child—this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matt 18:3-4 (HCSB)

My experiences in reading the Scriptures to my son has reminded me that our churches need to be very active and intentional in sharing the truths of Scriptures with children. We need to invest more resources and energy and attention to the ones that often receive the least amount of attention. More importantly, fathers and mothers of young children need to be mindful not to miss the incredible opportunity we have to tell our little ones about the Lord and the accounts of His works that have been laid down in the Bible. They won’t only enjoy these exciting tales chronicling God’s works in history, but they might even actually believe them.

Do you ever wonder what goes through the minds of, supposedly, grown people who are supposed to be leading kids in a positive direction, but act like delinquent middle schoolers themselves? Check out how this 46 year-old "coached" his students in Georgia:

"A public school coach in Marietta, Ga., drove students around the area in his pickup truck, instructing them to thrash Christmas displays after dark," [the Catholic] League said. During their Dec. 8 vandalism spree, 46-year-old John Hayes and several middle school students damaged a number of Christmas displays, let the air out of inflatable figures and rearranged plastic reindeer into X-rated sexual positions. According to the WGCL TV, Hayes has been charged with trespassing, contributing to the delinquency of minors and reckless conduct. [From Crosswalk]

Yeah, Merry Christmas to you, too, Coach.

Labels: Christmas, crime, David C. Price, vandalism

Strangely beautiful. I have a brother buried there, so there is something very special to me about this.

Labels: David C. Price

Free condoms should be given away in pubs, clubs and taxis to reduce the levels of unwanted pregnancies and sex infections, experts say.

Research by the University of Southampton found strong links between binge drinking and unsafe sex.

The poll of 520 people attending sexual health clinics found 76% said they had unprotected sex due to drinking.

And those with sex infections drank 40% more on average, the International Journal of STD and Aids reported.

Let's look at this again:

People are drinking too much so they're getting drunk. By getting drunk, they're having unprotected sex because they're too drunk to know the difference. Because they're having unprotected sex, they're having babies and contracting sexual diseases. Therefore, give them condoms and they won't have unprotected sex and, thereby, prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexual infections.

Hey, Genius...if they're too sloshed to know they're having sex, they're not going to be able to put on a condom...that is, unless the taxi drivers are going to volunteer for that, too. Sheesh!

Full article here.

Labels: David C. Price

From the BBC: Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.

I must admit that I was completely surprised by this admission that Dawkins considers himself a "cultural Christian," not because it makes him a Christian, but because he gives credence to the fact that Christian societies are most certainly better ones. We need to be clear on the former point, though: Do not read into this that Dawkins is really, in any way, calling himself a Christian. He simply supports the influence and expressions of it. In other words, he likes the results of Christianity, but thinks it's all still a figment of someone's imagination. So, if it works, great, but don't expect much more from it than that.

In the article, Dawkins explains that he does not want to put an end to Christian tradition. In fact, he states, "[Britain] is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims. So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."

The last point he makes is arguable to say the least, but is this a case of wanting to have it both ways? Perhaps. I simply think Professor Dawkins is...how should I say...delusional. He claims to "fully recognise the full historical and cultural significance [of Christianity] in our country." He even goes so far as to say, "We should all be aware of that and celebrate that." The question I have is "why?"

If Christians are suffering from some sort of "God delusion," why would we want to celebrate delusional behavior in any form? How delusional must it be to encourage people to live in a fantasy world? The reality is, even Dawkins understands that true Christianity leads to the kind of society that everyone wants to live in. However, if there is nothing of substance behind it, it cannot last. As a matter of fact, the further we get away from Judeo-Christian influence, the more dangerous and out of control culture becomes. The reason is that simply embracing common morality doesn't work. Without a transcendant law-giver; a universal morality, there is no "common morality," but instead, man can determine whatever "rules" he chooses. In other words, one society could say that citizens killing one another on a whim is wrong while another deems it perfectly acceptable. Who is "right"? Simple...both. There is no "right."

The argument often comes back that no society would choose such rules since we naturally do that which promotes the common good of man; sort of the old survival of the species theory. However, that assumes that the survival of the species is desirable by all. Mass murderers and terrorists might have a different idea of "good." Again, what is the common "good" of man? It all depends on who is defining it. We certainly cannot limit it to just mass murderers and psycho-terrorists. Many governments, even today, have pretty broad ideas of what is good, killing people for what most in the West consider insane. Just look at what one culture wanted to do to a woman who mis-named a teddy bear! Hmm, common good, huh? She was actually lucky. She only got off because of the governmental pressure placed on their leaders to release her. Don't forget, we're talking about the Western government shaped by Judeo-Christians values are the ones who pushed for the release.

I want to go on record as saying I am absolutely against social Christianity which emphasizes mere actions as opposed to a heart transformation brought on because of a personal relationship with Christ (unfortunately, our churches today are full of social Christians!), but when society loses its Christian influence, it eventually dissolves into Relativism. This is the philosophy in which morality is based on the individual's own ideas of what is good and right, thereby leaving no basis for that which is actually and objectively good for that society. (For more of my comments on the subject of Relativism, use it as a keyword in the search Espresso Roast feature on this blog). Mr. Dawkins seems to realize this, to at least some degree, making even is own "godless delusion" hard to actually live with.

Read the complete BBC article here.

Labels: atheism, Christianity, culture, Darwin, David C. Price, Evolution, God, religion

David Frum (National Review Online), believes Mitt Romney has made a huge mistake commenting on the content of his faith. He says that by answering the question of "Do you believe in Jesus," he has opened up the door for "What do you believe about Jesus?" along with other questions Romney will have great difficulty answering satisfactorily, especially for orthodox Christians.

In trying to dodge questions about the content of his particular faith, he has, in fact, open the floodgate of such questions. Frum concludes that by Romney bringing to the center his particular belief in Jesus rather than keeping the argument focused on his commitment to being the best president possible, he has engaged in a game in which he cannot win.

I tend to agree with him and believe we may see a dramatic drop in Romney's position as these questions begin to flood in. Why is this important? Because we understand that belief in Christ must be centered in the person of Jesus as revealed through Scripture. Just any Jesus won't do and, like it or not, what you believe about Him shapes your worldview and, ultimately, who you are as a person...and a president.

Read Frum's post here.

HT: Between Two Worlds

Labels: David C. Price, politics

Here's an article my dad wrote about "The Golden Compass" that he allowed me to post here. Rick Reeder is the Director of Missions for the Caldwell/Lyon Baptist Association based in Princeton, Kentucky. He was recently elected Second Vice President of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, and as been involved in ministry for about 30 years. He can be contacted by email at: bro_rickreeder@bellsouth.net
--Kim

The Golden Compass: Leading Children in the Wrong Direction
By Rick Reeder

By now, most people with children, and many with grandchildren, will have heard of the movie starring Nicole Kidman, "The Golden Compass". If not, you will. What may have escaped many, including myself until recently, is the sinister theme of the movie, and especially the book series that it is based on. The trilogy of books (I hear there may be a fourth) was originally published under the title "Northern Lights" and written by British author Philip Pullman, a self-avowed atheist. As a matter of fact, given the many years the books have been around, and the awards that they have won, it is amazing to me that we are just now hearing of this. So what are others who have been following his work saying about him? Peter Hitchens, a writer for "Mail On Sunday" said, in 2002, that Pullman is the writer "the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed." Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League has produced a pamphlet entitled, "The Golden Compass: Unmasked" and says that this series "sells atheism to kids". "Evangelical groups like The Christian Film and Television Commission, run by Ted Baehr, and James Dobson's Focus on the Family say they're taking a wait-and-see approach to the movie, although Baehr has plenty to say about the literary version of the series...Baehr said. "We'll put out writings on the book. Children who buy into this are going to be trapped in a sad, desperate world." So let's consider what the story is actually about.

I was so curious about this, that I rented the first of the three books on audio and listened to all 14 hours of it. It is a compelling tale of 12 year old girl, Lyra, who stumbles onto intrigue and adventure of another world. Even in her fantastical world, armored bears can talk, there are witches and angels who fly and other strange creatures. And in this adventure, the Northern Lights, or Aurora Borealis, play a significant role in the setting of the story. Everyone has what is called a demon, in the form of an animal which appears to be one's conscience, or soul. But animals do not have a demon. So they are immune to what humans have to endure. There are many dangerous near death encounters for Lyra and others who are helping her discover the mystery of the Dust (the verdict is out on what this represents, and Pullman has not said) and how to stop its affect on humans. She comes into possession of an alethiometer, or the Golden Compass. With the right intuitive gifts, she learns how to read it, thereby being able to discern if people are telling the truth (aletheia in Greek means "truth or true"). This gives her an edge over others in her quest to see what the adults are up to, and why so many children are turning up missing. She finds that the adults are experimenting with the children to discover how to reverse the effects of the "dust". Well, you get some of the picture.

I must admit, as I write this and remember the story line of the book, it would be very enticing to a child, and difficult for a parent to resist giving in to the temptation to satisfy a begging son or daughter who wants to see this movie. But I think you should resist, and I will tell you why. Pullman says that his works are an atheist answer to C.S. Lewis' books, such as "Chronicles of Narnia", that try to teach Christian ideals to children. According to the entertainment section of foxnews.com, Pullman is quoted as having said in an interview, referring to the Chronicles of Narnia, "I hate them with a deep and bitter passion..." and has called the series "one of the most ugly and poisonous things" he's ever read. In case you think I am reading too much into this movie, consider that there has been a backlash from both atheists, and people of faith. The atheists and fans of Pullman are steamed and accuse him of caving in to the religious right for allowing the anti-God themes to be muted in the movie itself, since these themes are so prevalent in the books. The faith community is sounding the warning bell because of the not so subtle attempt to raise the interest level of the book series through the movie, so that parents will rush to the bookstores and rip these books off the shelves for their children this Christmas and beyond. There seems to now be an attempt to distance Pullman from the movie version of the books.

On the website http://www.bridgetothestars.net/, dedicated to the movie, the bio section on Pullman says that "He seems quite bent on having absolutely nothing to do with the film adaptations that are currently being written and produced by New Line Cinemas..." But that does not seem right, since he is said to be a co-screenwriter on the film. I suppose it could be "technically" true. Maybe he wanted the movie to present his more overt aversion to the idea of God, religion, etc.

Don't misunderstand my position. I believe there is a lot in organized religion, especially the unbiblical kind, which is dangerous and distracting to the truth of the Bible, and the glorious gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. But these books, promoted for discussion in public schools, in video games, and now in movies, are not the correct forum for a child to get his or her view of God, Heaven, Hell, salvation and eternal things. Especially when in the end, the "authoritative" God is killed. Do we really want to contemplate what our society will be like with a generation of children growing up with no respect for God or the Bible and think they just might be able to pull off a "God homicide"? Who among us thinks children should come to the place where their consciences may be assuaged from guilt for wrongdoing (or as the Bible says, sin) by just doing away with God? There is enough of that going on without parents being duped into aiding and abetting the quest for a dead God.

I can tell you, the research I have done tells me that this is not a movie you want your children to see. You might be interested to know at this point that Mike Cherry, owner of the Capitol Cinema in Princeton has had similar concerns about the movie, and has decided not to run the film, although it could mean a loss of revenue to his business. I want to applaud him for this decision, which shows what a real conscience check can do for you. I'm glad that he was more concerned about children being led astray than losing some money. Of course, I was not surprised of his decision. I am sure that in the long run, a commensurate reward will follow. You might want to let him know that you appreciate what he did.

One final word. I think it would be a good time to remember the words of the Lord Jesus concerning leading children astray, or keeping them from Christ. Here is what Jesus said, "Permit little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God like a little child shall in no way enter it.'" (Luke 18:16-17). Again, He said, "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." (Luke 17:2) If the Golden Compass sends just one of these youth or children in the wrong direction, I sure would not want to be Mr. Pullman.

Labels: Kim Reeder

Dangerous, my friends, dangerous. In an Associated Press article, another over-zealous player has yet again "guaranteed" a win over the undefeated New England Patriots:

Defensive back Anthony Smith is so certain the Pittsburgh Steelers will end the New England Patriots' unbeaten season, he is guaranteeing a win Sunday in Foxborough.

The Patriots (12-0) may have the perfect record, Smith said Wednesday, but it should be New England that is worried about the Steelers (9-3) rather than the other way around.

``People keep asking me if we're ready for the Patriots,'' Smith said. ``They should be asking if they're ready for us.''

I love this, though, because immediately after making this kind of prediction, he qualifies it:

Is Smith so confident that he is willing to copy one of former Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter's familiar motivational ploys by guaranteeing the Steelers will win?

``We're going to win,'' Smith said. ``Yeah, I can guarantee a win. As long as we come out and do what we got to do. Both sides of the ball are rolling, and if our special teams come through for us, we've got a good chance to win.''

Get that? He guarantees it as long as the Steelers come out and do what they've got to do. Translation: as long as we play well enough to win, I'll guarantee a win. Actually, he even backs off of it and then says they've got a chance to win. The only thing that comes to mind as a response is, "Duh!" What kind of guarantee is that? Any team that does what they need to do to win will win. If special teams comes through?

OK, so we've got this dude saying that as long as both sides of the ball are rolling (i.e. as long as both offense and defense are playing well) and as long as special teams are playing well, they'll win. Uh, offense, defense, special teams...yep, that's everybody. So, as long as everybody is playing well, they'll (have a chance to) win. Gotcha.

Fortunately for the Steelers, not everybody on the team is making such brilliantly thought through statements:

Despite Smith's abundant optimism, no other Steelers are designating Sunday as guaranteed win day. Linebacker James Farrior, cautioning that Smith hasn't been in the NFL long and may not realize what he is saying, doesn't think the Patriots will pay any attention.

He better hope they don't. Now, the Steelers may win (that is, of course, if all the Steelers are getting it done and the Patriots don't show up), but I wouldn't bet on it.

What do the Patriots think? Safety Rodney Harrison, asked by Fox Sports Radio about the comments, answered, ``Who was it?'

Told it was Smith, Harrison said, ``Never heard of him.''

That's about right.

Labels: David C. Price, sports

Though I in no way agree with the writer of this article, I think it important for us to read them. I think it supports my position of being careful in how we "protest" particular cultural expressions. Again, our boycotts tend to make advances in the "battle" but do they not hurt the Christ-position in the war against darkness?

I think it important for us to re-evaluate what our intended goals are in protests and boycotts and is it worth the price we pay in our influence and in communicating love to a world that is looking for it anywhere they can find it.

Perhaps that's why they look for love in the darkness...they can't see the light in us.

December 5 Addendum: Here is an excerpt of an article by Albert Mohler offering a good perspective on the movie:

A good first step would be to take a deep breath. The Christian faith is not about to be toppled by a film, nor by a series of fantasy books. Pullman has an agenda that is clear, and Christians need to inform themselves of what this agenda is and what it means. At the same time, nothing would serve his agenda better than to have Christians speaking recklessly or unintelligently about the film or the books.

This is about the battle of ideas and worldviews. While Christians will not celebrate the release of this film, we should recognize the mixture of challenge and opportunity that comes with millions of persons watching this film and talking about the issues it raises. When the movie is mentioned in the workplace, in school, on the playground, or in the college campus, this is a great opportunity to show that Christians are not afraid of the battle of ideas.

HT for Mohler article: Tim Ellsworth

Labels: Christianity, culture, David C. Price, Jesus

In spite of the fact that this is like the third post involving Mike Huckabee, these really aren't meant to be endorsements (personally, I've not decided who I'll vote for). This is, however, a really good response to question regarding evolution in a recent debate.

Labels: David C. Price, Evolution, politics

Massachusetts, a state I have a love-hate relationship with (love the state, hate the socialism), now has a proposal to ban spanking of children in all cases except extreme danger...even in your own home.

The proposal, submitted by a nurse, would ban corporal punishment, including spanking, in all cases for children under 18 unless it is to save them from danger. Parents would face charges of abuse or neglect, according to The Boston Herald.

I think it's ridiculous. All real spanking (as opposed to beatings) is to save them from danger. The kids in the most danger are those who do not receive such punishment and allowed to do whatever they wish (which they're not equipped yet to do). Is it just me or is the Massachusetts government illustrating, once again, they're over the wall?

Labels: David C. Price, Parenting, politics

I received an email yesterday asking me to sign a petition pledging to boycott the new anti-Christian movie, The Golden Compass. This will go to distrubutors, I believe, and voice our displeasure. What a great opportunity for Christians to bind together and stand up for our rights, right?

This idea of boycotting is something that I have pretty definite feelings about and have written on before. So, I've decided to simply re-post my response to an old call for boycott.

Back in June of 2005, it was a call to boycott Ford Motor Company for their support of the homosexual agenda. Today, it's over a movie that is reported as anti-Christian. Neither of these "agendas" do I support. However, I will not openly boycott them either. I will personally boycott them by simply not giving them my money. I will not let my child be exposed to it and I hope no one else will either. I may even encourage those within my sphere of influence not to see it...probably will (just did), but that's the extent of a boycott or petition I, personally, will take part in. Why? Glad ya asked. Here is my response, originally posted here:

I am no fan of boycotts. Sure, they often have something of an effect in changing the minds of those to whom the boycott is directed (or at least gives them pause), but I am concerned that it is the kind of situation where one can win the battle but lose the war.

Rarely does the general population look at those who are calling for a boycott with favor. No, I am not advocating a "friend with the world" mentality, but please, if these well-meaning folk want to do more than simply force people to act differently through punishment, I believe a different approach might be called for. In my humble opinion, boycotts, generally speaking, serve only to isolate and marginalize the group boycotting, punish the group being boycotted, and galvanize the group the offending company is supporting. I don't know, sounds like a lose, lose, lose scenario to me.

If Christians are to stand against evil but love all individuals involved, perhaps a different strategy is called for, because with this one, the Christian is seen as someone who merely wants bad things out of society so he doesn't have to look at them. It appears self-centered. That is not the call of Christ. Should Christians stand up and be heard? Absolutely, but it must be done in such a way that fellow sinners know that they are being treated with love and compassion, just the way we all want to be treated. It must also be done in such a way that the Christian Church does not look like just another special interest group. That's a tough one to be sure.

What's an alternative? I think there is nothing wrong with an individual withholding money from any group or company that doesn't share his or her core values. People do that all the time. Further, I think there is nothing wrong with individuals communicating with the company, expressing displeasure for something that company is doing with the money that is being given it by consumers. That, too, is done for various reasons regularly.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with a group like the AFA communicating the facts about a company with its members or subscribers in order for them to make informed decisions about their spending habits. But that's where I think it should stop. Individuals should then act on their own convictions and in such a way that the door remains open to communicate love to a world in need of a bunch of it without having to overcome the obstacles of punitive actions towards a corporation.

Is there ever a time for a boycott? Perhaps, but we should always err on the side of mercy without sacrificing the integrity of the message of Christ. There are many companies from which I have withheld financial support, but that doesn't mean that I must, in so doing, mis-communicate to the world that I hate an entire group of people. Do what your convictions tell you to do with your money, but leave the door open to demonstrate compassion and love for the world around you.

More on the subject of boycotts.

Labels: Christianity, David C. Price, Film

My wife and I are going through this class at church called "Starting Point". It comes with a book and set of cd's originally done by Andy Stanley at North Point Community Church. On one of the cd's today he said one of the most interesting and thoughtful things I've heard in a long time. I listened to it like a hundred times trying to memorize it, so I hope I can do it justice. (I could have written it down but I was too lazy, plus I didn't have a pen handy and it was too much to text into my phone) He says, (and I quote loosely),

"One of the greatest evangelistic tools, that is, one of the greatest environments where non believers can become believers is by being around Christians who are simply being 'Christians'. It is the closest they will ever get to being in the presence of Jesus Christ."

Wow...that's amazing. Did it hit you like it did me? In case you might misunderstand, let me put it in context. He was talking about how it is the responsibility of believers to build healthy relationships with one another becuase it is through followers of Jesus Christ that God continues to work in the world. He was relaying that just as God worked during the time of Abraham, Moses, David, and the Prophets, he now works in the world through Holy Spirit in the church and through His people.

Now please view his statement in this context. He wasn't trying to say that unbelievers were never "in the presence of God" in the sense that God was not "around" them or working "in" them drawing them to salvation. He was simply rephrasing the old adage that "You may be the only Bible another man ever reads". It was just a little more potent.

In other words, there is something supernatural about the healthy relationships that believers have with each other. They truely are "brothers and sisters" in Christ. As a result, the work of Jesus in their lives together and the observations that unbelievers draw as onlookers is one of the most powerful "tools" as he says, to draw unbelievers to Christ. It kinda sounds like something else I once read...

"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another"
-Jesus in John 13:35

Labels: Kim Reeder

Alex's post got me thinking about the whole "black friday" phenomenon. Having worked in retail now for ten years (yes, what was I thinking?) I experience each year the rush and pandemonium that surrounds this eventful day.

Last year, I arrived at my workplace at five in the morning to meet between ten and twenty people standing at the door in the freezing cold just to get their hands on a massive deal we had on televisions. We didn't even open the doors till six. To keep them happy and to keep them from leaving, my manager sent me to Walmart to buy donuts and coffee. This year wasn't so crazy at a different store where I work...we didn't have any tv's, but some lesser deals that weren't so popular.

I suppose I have mixed emotions about the whole experience. On the one hand, Black Friday creates a lot of excitement for the true "shopper". I've known some people who relish the whole challenge of getting to a store at four in the morning, just to be the first in line. If you are of that thinking, Black Friday is a fun and enjoyable experiences. Just to get home at the end of the day and know you were the "early bird that got the elmo" is somehow satisfying. It's the whole "thrill of the hunt" idea. Somehow I think these people would be the ones who, if they lived in the country, would pull up at your house at six in the morning in their pick up truck, get you out of bed, just to show you that big 12 point buck they got on the first day of deer season. Where else in our society can we get that kind of rush? Except maybe in trying to beat the other drivers to the nearest parking spot?

Then there's the matter of stewardship. Say I wanted to buy my wife a new leather jacket for Christmas. Would it be better to spend 200.00 dollars on a regular priced one or 50.00 between the hours of five and eleven am on black friday on a special buy? Or say I needed a new saw from Home Depot. I can pay 99.00 everyday or 59.00 on T-giving weekend? I know which I'm choosing.

On the other hand, there's the danger that Alex mentioned in his previous post. We live in the most blessed nation in the world, yet marketing gurus know how to get under our skin. Flashy ads convince us there's one more gadget we can't live without. So, this hype and frenzy builds in our minds to the point that instead of spending Thanksgiving day actually being thankful, we spend it pouring over Black Friday ads planning where we're going to be at 4 am the next day.

One more little tidbit. Ever wonder why it is that most of the "special" deals at retailers are usually "while supplies last" and if you show up on Saturday they'll be gone? I'll tell you. Many of the black friday specials are "one time only" deals. Some of that stuff is regular stuff reduced for the weekend, but most of it just comes in for that day. Retailers know that if they lived on those specials, they would go out of business. They are just "teasers" to get you into the store. They know that if you'll get to their store first, you won't go somewhere else, and after you've "saved" your money on that special buy, you'll often "spend" your money on something else because "oh, well we're already here, and look at that other great deal!" So, like Alex indicated. Let's keep it in perspective.

Labels: Kim Reeder