You can start out a Do Gooder and end up a Wal Mart

Wal Mart bashing seems to be the ecstasy inducing drug of choice of underemployed and overly subsidized college students and their underpaid but financially astute professors. I just ran across a college web page that has a map so the students could find the local mom and pop stores and other businesses they could shop in, so they could avoid shopping in Wal Mart and thereby being tainted by "unfair trade practices.

" Now, I wonder what is meant by "unfair trade practices?" I contacted one of the students at the college who told me that Wal Mart takes advantage of the poor people in the third World, by paying too little for the products that they make, in order to be able to undercut the prices of the mom and pop stores in the US and put them out of business. So, by shopping at the smaller stores (very few of which are true "mom and pop" outfits, most of them are small corporations), they can help third world villagers to get a fair shake in life, and a better day's wage for a day's work.

So, to make sure I understood the concept, I asked a little more about it. The idea is that there are people in the Third World who are paid something like $.50 US a day to perform unskilled and semi skilled labor. "What are they doing to make money PRIOR to the offer to be ripped off for 50 cents a day?" I ask. "Like, were they working for $30 or $40 US a day, and then Wal Mart buyers come along and say, "Now you must work for us for a mere 50 cents a day?" This student wasn't sure.

So, I ask, "Suppose we could get Wal Mart to go out of business. What would these people do to support their families and what would they be paid for it?" The student wasn't sure. The professors hadn't taught that part yet.

Allowing that most of these sweatshop workers are not land owners and do not own fishing vessels, I ask where would they get their food, and with what would they buy it, and pay their rent with if there were no jobs at all for them? Again, no certain answer. Maybe they would starve, I suggest. Or, maybe their children would join the ranks of those children who are prostituted and sold into slavery by their own parents. If that is the case, I would think that it would be preferable for the entire family to stay together and work together, even for meager wages, as long as they could eat, be warm and have a roof over their heads. After all, that's a whole lot better than our ancestors had it, just a few hundred years ago. No comment from the student.

Then came this question springing from my lips: "Suppose there was no Wal Mart. And, suppose you lived in a poverty stricken area of the US, say down in Arkansas. You live among poor itinerant farmers and unskilled laborers. There are no jobs for them except seasonal work out in the fields, for as little as the farm owners can get buy with paying them. No benefits, no air conditioning, no insurance or workmen's comp. Then, at the end of a 60 hour week laboring in the hot sun, you would see the workers as they went into town, and had very little selection in the local stores, and since the stores were not only in small towns, but there with no competition, the prices were premium for shoddy and often outdated merchandise. Wouldn't you want to HELP them? "Of course," said the student cautiously.

"You think about what you can do, way out in the country, where the economy is awful, pay is seasonal and most of the residents are not very skilled.You know that if you could do something in this one town you would help a few people, but what about OTHER towns with the same situation? High unemployment, scores of unskilled and semi skilled workers, bad economy, high prices, not much variety and no benefits. What if you could find a way to change all this?"

I continued, "As you begin to gather information to find out what the possibilities are, you discover that it is like this overseas, only worse! People in the Third World are willing to work, yet have little opportunity. As a result, many of them are starving, some are sold into slavery, others are selling their children, and there is no hope for any improvement coming from their own government. Even though it would only take maybe 50 cents a day to support one of these people, as you learn from your friend Larry Jones at Feed the Children, International, there just aren't enough Americans sending over that 50 cents a day to make a difference. Suddenly, an inspired idea hits you..."

"What if... What IF you could find manufacturers to use labor forces in these countries, to build factories in them, to have them managed and supervised by nationals, and provide jobs for thousands of Third World workers? And what if the products that these workers made, could be brought to the United States to be sold at deeply discounted prices to any and all who would care to buy them? And what if FURTHER, the sales staff could be the poor and hardworking people who had previously had no opportunity to get out of the orchards and tobacco fields? And that these people could now have indoor jobs, protected from the weather, working year round, with worker's rights, insurance, workmen's' comp, benefits, profit sharing, all the things that had been withheld from them all these years while living in America? If you could DO such a thing, helping people around the world, as well as stimulating the economy nationally, WOULD YOU? Would you???" Silence.

"Suppose further, that you could then bring the same benefits to the underpaid workers in the Third World, that you brought to the underpaid workers in the US? Say, that you could get them the jobs, the good working conditions, the benefits, insurance and protection that only a multi national corporation like yours could offer? Would you offer them the opportunity tohelp their families and friends get higher quality goods made of better quality materials and with better workmanship than they were currently getting from the local shop? Would you be open to do something like, say, open a Wal Mart in China? Would THAT be fair? Would you do THAT? Would you, if you were given that power and that responsibility, since you yourself came from a poor working class agricultural backgound? Would you DO THAT for as many people as possible?"

After a moment of thoughtful silence, the student answered. "I hear you, Devil!"

WalMart is Bad . . . Compared to what?

Seems like you can't win for losing. I was talking with a college student the other night who is totally committed to human rights causes - no problem with that. People OUGHT to be treated right. Then she commented on how she "didn't like WalMart." I let it pass, so she said it again, more intensely - and made sure to say it once or twice more as I told her to just not shop there if she didn't like getting good stuff at discount prices. She bemoaned her lot in life as a poor college student, and how that forced her and her friends to shop at Wal-Mart, at least for the things they couldn't find in Thrift Shops. I like thrift shops. Almost as much as I like eBay, so I had no beef (or textured vegetable protein) with her remarks, yet.

So, knowing I had been baited, I asked her to be specific. "What's so evil about WalMart?" She launched into a vehement, university professor inspired rant on the evils of WalMart. Here's how it went down:

1) WalMart sells poorly made products to people who are looking for deals and can't afford anything better - and the stuff falls apart after a few months.

2) WalMart moves into small towns and forces Mom and Pop stores out of business. In fact, she and her friends are going to put up a website, listing all the Mom and Pop stores near her university, so the students can support them, rather than get better deals at the Evil Empire.

3) WalMart supports bonded labor and slave labor by buying products from corrupt Third World Manufacturers who pay people only about 34 cents a day, and where they beat the little children with sticks if they don't produce enough products to sell in WalMarts in the USA.

There were a couple of other atrocities that came up, but I can't remember them all right now. Remembering how great it is to go to university at the expense of my parents, and having all day to listen to professors rant about the evils of Western Capitalism, I brought a couple of hits of reality therapy concerning WalMart as an evil empire that destroys all it touches in the human rights arena globally.

First: WalMart sells the same national and multinational brands and products as other major retailers throughout North America. If a consumer wants something cheap to get him or her through just the next season or two, you can find it at Wal-Mart, Target or half the stores at any shopping mall in any suburban area in the United States. Or, if you want to buy something that is a little higher quality, you can pay a little more for it, even at WalMart and have a product with a warranty and a reasonable life expectancy. Basically, a person buying inexpensive products will get something that's made more cheaply than something that costs more, whether you buy it at the mall, WalMart or at a flea market or on the Internet. At least WalMart has an insanely liberal return and refund policy. No one mentions that, when demonizing this retailing behemoth.

Second: As for WalMart "forcing" Mom and Pop stores out of business, actually, people who stop shopping at Mom and Pop stores cause them to go under. Now, I have some friends over in Gillette (WY) who run a Mom and Pop store. I can go in their store and buy a Sobe for $1.69. Or, I can go to WalMart and get the identical one for $1.29. That's my choice, and sometimes when I'm in a generous mood, I visit my friends' store and pay significantly more for the same product. I count it as almsgiving. But, in America, consumer is king, and people may shop wherever they care to. I informed my young friend that she was certainly welcome to pay 20% to 50% more for identical items and shop wherever she wanted. After all, this is a right that we have because we live in a free market society.

Third: This one really gets me. My young college friend is an admirable activist when it comes to international human rights. She puts her money and her body where her heart, mind and mouth are. She actually GOES to the countries that her professors teach her about, and she actually helps these kids who are being trafficked by pimps and pornographers. Hats off to her, and may her kind increase.

BUT!!! As I told her, she needs to understand this reality. Say I live in Thailand with my family of a wife and two young daughters. I have no land to grow food on, I have few skills, and am not near a river to catch fish in. There are no legal employment opportunities. So, what to do? Let a "businessman from Bangkok" take my daughters to the city to be "secretaries" and send me a little sustenance money each month or . . . thank my God(s) that a textile factory opens in the next village, where myself, my wife and daughters can work for 34 cents a day each, and be able to stay together as a family, and be indoors, and not have to sell our childrens' bodies for sex with Western travellers on sex tours? In that case, what she and her professors might call a sweat shop is a godsend compared to the alternative.

By the way, even if one could avoid buying these products in WalMart, the same suppliers provide goods to other stores. For example, the $1.29 Sobe that I buy in WalMart is made in the same factory by the same people as the $1.69 Sobe I buy from my friend with the Mom and Pop store.

Now, here's another area that WalMart haters overlook: Prior to such big box stores as WalMart and Target, and Megalo Mart (in Arlen,TX!) people in small towns didn't have access to the things they wanted and needed. So, they used more of the world's energy by having to take a trek into the nearest city in order to get the stuff they needed. Now they don't. That isn't so important to me (We don't have a WalMart here in Green River, WY). But this is really important, as a human quality of life issue: When a WalMart comes to a town, suddenly there are jobs for a few hundred local people. Not just jobs picking apples, trapping beavers or working in the tobacco fields seasonally, with no benefits, and in unsafe conditions. When a WalMart comes to town, people who used to be forced to work in unsafe conditions on local farms (farming is the most dangerous occupation in America) can now work indoors, in OSHA approved environments and even those with marginal intellect and skills can make minimum wage or more, and enjoy medical and dental benefits. Mom and Pop stores, bless their hearts, never could and never would be able to do this.

I think of a neighbor's boy over in Gillette, WY. His parents couldn't send him off to college, and even if they could, he doesn't have the smarts for it. But he's nice as can be. Just poor, and with bad teeth that his family could never afford to have any work done on. He was unemployed and unemployable until WalMart came to town. Now, he brings the carts in from the parking lot, and works stock as needed. He has enough money to rent his own apartment, and pay for his Chevy Cavalier's tags and insurance, and using his WalMart benefits, he's gotten a full set of dentures! There's nothing TOO evil about that! Plus, he's made a lot of friends, loves his job and has a sense of meaning and purpose in his life - he's now got the confidence to apply at a local trucking company for a job that pays a little more. And, with his Wal-Mart resume, he's looking pretty good, because he's been there for three years, has gotten a couple of raises and has a good reference from his managers. What's so wrong about that?

We have a problem in America. We love the underdog and hate those who achieve more than we do. This is tough, because many of our most successful businesses and individuals started out as beloved underdogs. When Sam Walton was a southern good ol' boy, bringing jobs and goods at a great price to his neighboring small towns, he was a pickup truck driving hero - a local boy that made good, giving the giants a poke in the eye with an ugly stick. Once he succeeded and became the largest retailer in the country, we feel it's our obligation to hate what he did, even while enjoying the benefits of variety, low prices and plentiful jobs.

Well, I don't have a problem with WalMarts providing jobs overseas or in the U.S. I don't have a problem with people having a choice when it comes to where they buy things. I don't have a problem with any of it. But I do have a problem with college professors filling the minds of otherwise intelligent students with irrational hatred for a process they don't even comprehend.

Hey! Make fun of your OWN religion! I'll make fun of MINE!

You know what pokes me in the eye? Someone coming to America from another country and then complaining about America and American things, and making fun of Americans. If you don't like America, don't come here! Go back home and make fun of your own country and its residents. Let ME make fun of America and Americans! I was born here and that's my right!

Here's something else that really gets me. Watching a TV show or movie that makes fun of folks with religion, portraying anyone who takes being a Christian seriously as ultimately being a self righteous hypocrite, and anyone who is a Muslim as being a murderous wild-eyed zealot. In most of these productions, at the end, it is proven that serious Christians are deceived, ignorant, inflexible and usually at least adulterous, while condemning others for being sexually active. And, of course, the Muslims get their "just desserts."

You never see a serious Christian as a hero or a Muslim as a good person. And, you never have see a Jewish bad guy! Think about it: How many Jewish rabbi's in movies have turned out to be serial killers or crooks or even simply negative and out of touch? You probably haven't seen them, either!

Most of the time, Jewish people are portrayed as funny, happy, a bit self effacing, and ultimately wise. What's the deal here? Well, when you read the credits and skim the names of the producers, directors and writers, you begin to get an understanding pretty quickly! You're not going to find these guys making fun of their own, and you're not going to find them building up the competition, if that's the right world for it. Actually, I don't get the idea of members of one religion going out of their way to mock and ridicule members of another religion.

You want to poke fun of a religion or the leaders or adherents of a religion? Then poke fun of your own, if you have one. If you don't have a religion, then poke fun of other people who don't have religion. There's plenty of hypocrisy in any group to keep you busy for a long time! You're Jewish? Fine! Make fun of the ironies, the hypocrisy, the foibles of your fellow Jews. Leave the Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Atheists and New Agers room to make fun of their own. You're Muslim? Then make your snide remarks and jokes about other Muslims, and leave the rest of us out of it.

I don't make fun of your religion, so don't make fun of mine. Don't make fun of Christians and Christianity,let ME do it!

How the Church Lost Out in the Late Twentieth Century Part 4

(Cont'd)

After a decade of revelations of sins and iniquities in the leading lights of national ministries, one of my mentors (before I dropped out) told me that the next wave would be the strong church with the low key pastor/leader. See, up through the 70's and 80's most local evangelical churches were referred to by who the Pastor was. Like, "I go to Pastor Smith's church, where to YOU go?" "Oh, we go to Brother Bilko's church." The official corporate name of the church was not as emphasized as the name of the man of God (or during the fad of husband/wife teams co-pastoring, the "couple of God.)

But, all of these successful men of God falling drove people away from the personality oriented churches to more organizationally oriented ones. My mentor told me that the next huge move (this was in 1992, when he told me this) would be for very non threatening, not very charming or attractive men to be leading churches, who would go by the name of the church more than the name of the preacher. I couldn't imagine this at the time. I had made my money, had seen too much and was moving to Sublette county, WY at the time. I just wanted out, to be with my Creator and my own thoughts. But, his idea intrigued me. I couldn't conceive of having a mild mannered, low key Pastor building a large church!

But, that's where the church pendulum swung to. People (white people, primarily, but at this time, it had been the white guys who were caught messing up!))were antsy about trusting a dynamic, powerful, well coifed and well dressed man, afraid they might get swept up into another scandal. They wanted something "safe." So, they sacrificed some of the glitz and emotion for something milder and safer.

The next trend was the "seeker friendly" church. This was the church that would not to anything to offend or scare off a person who may be considering religion. The preachers were intentionally low key, and dressed nothing like the swanky televangelists of the 80's and early 90's. There was an editing of the Gospel message, to keep from scaring off potential attendees.

The churches themselves took on bland, non religious sounding names, names that might connote a mall or a high school. Names like North Breeze Church, South Bay, Westwood, etc. These churches were intentionally non confrontational and non spooky. No speaking in tongues or prophesying, because that would scare away a seeker. No emotionalism or shouting, because that, too might scare off a seeker. No old hymns, because they might seem out of date and scare away a seeker. Then, there was the revision of the message. In these new churches, in an effort to seem mild ( a byword of the white middleclass - "mildly seasoned chicken strips with a hint of basil") and palatable to the unchurched.

So, anything controversial or odd seeming to an unsaved person would simply be glossed over. Away went an emphasis on the Holy Spirit (too spooky), the power of the blood of Jesus (too gory and primitive), the cross (other than Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, which appealed to the entertainment aspect of these seeker sensitive churches), the devil (too archaic), demons (too superstitious sounding), hell (too negative), the Judgment Day (too judgmental), and the idea of answering to God for the deeds done in our bodies and the words coming from our mouths (too guilt producing). Also, the old fashioned idea of "holiness" (without which no man shall see the Lord) was thrown out the theological window.

These Seeker Sensitive churches became the centers of activities, activities and activities. They were built primarily on "Relationships." It was all about "relationships," and dealing with "life issues." Sermon topics would be things like "How to Help a Friend who is Troubled," or "What to do When Feeling Blue," stuff like that.

What would happen when you went to a Seeker Sensitive church was basically this: You'd be met by a Greeter, escorted to a Welcome Center, given a Welcome Packet listing upcoming activities and "teaching topics" (not SERMONS!!!). Then, you might be shown the refreshment table where you could pick up a cup of coffee or orange juice and a bagel - and you'd be escorted to the "auditorium" (not the sanctuary!) where you would be passed off to an Usher who would help you find a seat. You'd enjoy your continental breakfast while watching a Christian music video on a giant screen and then the announcements, produced as rapid fire commercials on the big screen. Then,the House Band would come out and play some music like off the radio, but it's about Jesus, well, actually about "You", and "He." Then, there would be a skit followed by some house keeping announcements by a low key facilitator who also introduces, not the Reverend of the mainline churches, or Brother So and So of the 70's and 80's, but Pastor Bob or just, Bob.

Bob is affable, self effacing, dressed in khakis, dockers and a polo shirt (Hawaiian shirt in the Summer). Bob's not the well coifed televangelist at all. No, Bob is balding, has a bit of a gut and wears glasses. No contacts for HIM! He's not concerned about all that stuff! He just wants you to know that there's a God and he loves you so much, that he wants you to have good relationships and to be happy. That's it! And, you might want to check out some of the many "small groups" where you can build some of the closest relationships of your life. Oh yeah, it all begins with a prayer of commitment - "God, thank you for loving me so much that you gave your son so I could live and know you and fulfill all my hopes and dreams. Thank you for making all this possible. Help me to find my friends and help them check you out. Amen!!! Remember to check out the Opportunities Table on your way out! We love you!"

And that was just the beginning!

How the Church Lost Out in the Late Twentieth Century Part 3

(cont'd)
Jimmy Swaggart became the fodder of late night TV host's comic monologues, and the bane of pulpits across the country and around the world? Was he THAT evil? Was he really the biggest hypocrite on the air? Had he been a phony all along?

No. You have to understand how people are "wired" to understand what happened to Brother Swaggart. As I mentioned in the previous posting, he is a positive, caring and sincere individual who has been on a mission and had a sense of divine calling on his life since he was an early teenager. His only mission was to fulfill his calling. Sure, you have to have a bit of ego to get out there and ACT on that sense of divine calling, but who doesn't have some ego?

Let me get a little deeper into what was going on inside Brother Swaggart and you'll have better comprehension of some of the forces at work in him that brought him to almost nothing, internally. First a basic NLP psychology lesson. Each of us is wired to perceive the world primarily in one of three ways. Some of us perceive the world primarily in a VISUAL sense. We respond to images, pictures and sights. We think in pictures, and use "visual" terms when we speak, such as "do you SEE what I'm saying..;" "Let's LOOK into the Word of God and SEE what the Lord is SHOWING us this morning...;" "Get the PICTURE? Are we SEEING EYE TO EYE?" The visually oriented person is of course turned on or turned of by what he or she SEES, or by a LOOK someone may give to him or her. The VISUAL person would be drawn more to visual pornography than to the physical sensation of touching or engaging in sex with someone (unless that person LOOKED great!).

Then, there is the person who is primarily KINESTHETIC. This person thinks in terms of FEELINGS, PLACES and BODILY sensations. You will hear them say things like, "I just FEEL the presence of the Lord here," "I have a GUT FEELING about this," "I'm not sure I'm WITH you on that, etc." You FOLLOW me, right? The kinesthetic person is more influenced by a TOUCH or physical sensation than by sight or by sounds. The KINESTHETIC person may get physically involved with someone who is not much to LOOK at, but knows how to physically drive him or her wild through sensual touching and caressing.

Third is the person who is primarily AUDITORY. This person may close his or her eyes when talking or listening. He or she uses auditory terms conversationally, with such phrases as "I hear you," "I heard THAT!" "It's like MUSIC to my EARS!" This person cares how things SOUND. Also, this is the person who is the prime candidate to call the 1-900 sex lines, where they can HEAR sexually charged talk, without the distraction of sight and touch.

One other area to understand, as background. Some of us move TOWARDS what we want, and some of us move AWAY from what we DON'T want. In religion, this means that some of us come to church because we WANT to go to Heaven. Others are primarily motivated because they do NOT want to go to Hell.

Now here's Jimmy Swaggart's conundrum: To have the largest ministry in the world, you have to be DRIVEN, you have to have VISION, and you have to MOVE TOWARD what you want. Jimmy is exactly like that. So was the Apostle Paul. BUT!!!! People who did not relate to the other televangelists tended to be not as driven, more KINESTHETIC and tend to MOVE AWAY from what they don't want. They can tell you more what they DON'T like about, say, a TV evangelist than what they do like.

To reach these people, Jimmy had to "become like them in all things," so he could win them. If you listen to his messages from the mid eighties, he had made the change completely. His messages were filled with KINESTHETIC MOVER AWAY language, which EXACTLY negated how he was naturally wired. Put simply, if he naturally was heading north at 80 miles per hour, and suddenly, had to simultaneously move south at 80 miles per hour, he would bring himself to nothing. He negated his inner voice and sense of direction. But he was reaching people like never before. If he complained to his writers and consultants who were now part of the expense machine, that this was killing him, they would say in effect, "The Apostle Paul said he died daily in
order to reach people. Aren't YOU willing to do that?"

Now, how do we know that, despite his kinesthetic preaching style, Jimmy Swaggart is a VISUALLY oriented person? Simple. He never TOUCHED the prostitutes. He was never even accused of having sex with any of them! He wanted to WATCH them fondle themselves and each other, while he "got his pleasure." He had so negated his own inner guidance system that he got past feeling - until it hit him (as the news became public) what he had done. And, his problems after all of this were all related to primarily VISUAL fallings.

What's this mean to the rest of us? Know how you're wired and where your area of temptation will come. Protect yourself heavily in those areas, and never neutralize your own system.

The old saying played out, "the tree will fall in the direction it is inclined" So, Jim Bakker got in trouble by his love for money, power and self indulgence. Jimmy Swaggart, through his visual (lust of the eyes, to put it biblically) inclinations and his losing himself while trying to reach others, and in the ensuing years, scandals broke out in national ministries and mega churches that would make these two look like Boy Scouts. And that gave rise to the next step . . . (cont'd)

How the Church Lost Out in the Late Twentieth Century, Part 2

(cont'd from previous post)

Then, there was Jimmy Swaggart. By the time Jimmy got well known, he was the counterpoint to Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakker's saccarin sweet lovey dovey Christianity that was perfectly at home in the world. Jimmy Swaggart developed the persona of the 19th century prophet who was out of step with the world and indignant on God's behalf against all the compromise and namby pamby "ministry" going on in the name of Jesus.

Where Jim and Tammy were loved by the "over 50" crowd and people who were nice, friendly and enjoyed having a wholesome time without much demand (hence the success of Heritage, USA, their thempark and shopping mall), Jimmy Swaggart appealed more to Joe Sixpack. The working man and woman who felt the world was moving too fast and too much power was being given to psychologists, sociologists and secular humanists, this was the target audience for Jimmy Swaggart.

Now, where did Jimmy Swaggart come from, ministry-wise? How and why did he "fall (over and over again)?" It's common knowledge that he was raised pentecostal, as was his famous cousin rockabilly pianist and singer Jerry Lee Lewis. In the early through mid 1970's, Jimmy Swaggart was just one more voice on the radio and in crusades teaching faith, health and prosperity. I remember well his sermon series on "How to Give Your Way to Prosperity." Jimmy was one of the herd, and was not much better or worse at bringing this message than his contemporaries.

One thing Jimmy had that his contemporaries did not have was a wife with push and drive, a wife that he lived to please. (The political equivalent of Jimmy Swaggart would become similarly famous in the late nineties, for his escapades in the White House.) Jimmy Swaggart's wife, Frances wanted jimmy to be somebody, and she wanted to be married to the most successful man out there. What Hillary Clinton would be to American politics, some would say Frances Swaggart was to American big time evangelism.

Associates of mine who worked with Brother Swaggart in the 70's through the mid eighties confirm that Jimmy Swaggart was and is one of the the most positive, caring and likable people you could ever meet. So, how did he become known as the angry, aggressive fiery prophet who came to have the largest income of any of the televangelists of the eighties?

Simple. Marketing experts, public relations firms, demographic and psychographic experts were hired, from what I understand, at Frances' urging, to help Jimmy move ahead in ministry, to get out of the "me, too" ministry to become the dominant force in evangelism in the mid eighties.

Since Jim Bakker, Frederick Price, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland and other lesser lights were fishing in the pond of the faithful who wanted more money, health, joy, power and the finest things of this world, Jimmy had to move to a pond that wasn't already being fished out. His consultants and researchers brought forth the information about what the average person, "Joe Sixpack" Pure and simple, Joe Sixpack didn't trust the TV evangelists. They were too smooth, too rich, too pretty, too compromising, too worldly, too comfortable moving in and out among the rich and famous.

So, a persona was created, based on this information. People would respond to and support a man of God who was not in love with the world and was not enamored with money, power and celebrity. They would give to a man who would take stands that were unpopular and stand his ground. They wanted a man of God who was stricter than they were, and had "old fashioned" standards.

Now, from what I understand from a former staff member, Jimmy Swaggart himself is a basically nice guy, one you can't help but to like (much as my other friends have told me about Bill Clinton). He's a nice guy who wants to make massive changes and reach and help as many people as possible. When the PR people began to tell him what the people would respond to, it was actually a character very different than Jimmy Swaggart is naturally. In other words, he would have to change.

He would have to become like the people wanted him to be. As I understand it, when he protested that this new character "wasn't him," it was responded that even the Apsotle Paul had to "become all things to all men, that [he] might win some." Was Jimmy willing to pay the price to reach people or not? This was in the mid 1970's. For a test run, Jimmy was still the health, faith and prosperity preacher, and the changes would be made during the live crusade meetings, to test the peoples' reactions.

I remember acquaintances of mine, going to the Jimmy Swaggart Crusade in Lexington, KY in 1975 or 1976. They came back all excited becuse the "anointing came upon Brother Swaggart and he started preaching about women having short hair, wearing slacks and wearing swimming costumes that left nothing to the imagination." He had railed against rock music in the church, pastors engaging in "counseling" and the evils of the Roman Catholic church. They were so taken by this experience that when he did a crusade in Cinncinnati the next year, they got together a bus load of friends and went - they couldn't believe the things he was saying "under the anointing."

That was the beginning of the Jimmy Swaggart as he became known in the late 1970's and 1980's. He was a passionate, caring man who would pay any price and do whatever needed to be done and become whatever he needed to become in order to reach people with the Gospel.

So, what happened? How'd Jimmy Swaggart go from being the powerful prophet raging against sin to a defeated broken man crying on TV, confessing, "I have sinned?" Was he just a hypocrite? No.
(cont'd)

How the Church Lost Out in the Late Twentieth Century Part 1

How'd the churches lose out in the late 20th century? Not the ones that had already lost out, but the ones who were doing ok in the 1970's and 80's? Several things happened back then. First off, there was what I call the "personality" movement of the eighties. Folks like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson got some good marketing/demographics and psychographics teams behind them and found out there was a huge and lucrative audience out there who weren't being fed by their local churches and they were hungry for more.

Some of the people in the viewing audiences came from traditional mainline churches where there just wasn't any power or sensing of the presence of God. They wanted more and found it in the powerful and persuasive personalities of the ministries on tv. Others were members of evangelical and fundementalist churches who just couldn't get enough (preaching, that is) and wanted more straight from the hip messages and teaching. Out of this group, some felt that their own pastors were too negative and critical, and they wanted someone with some joy and faith. Others felt their pastors were too weak and catered to the whims of the people too much; they wanted to hear the kind of meat and potatoes gospel brought forth by Brother Swaggart and others who had crafted personas that seemed genuine, strong and prophetic.

Interestingly, both Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart were from the Assemblies of God church, the largest Pentecostal denomination in America. They both believed the same doctrines, but were advised by their handlers (their hired ones, not the Assemblies of God) to not go fter the same audience. So, Jim Bakker was the happy go lucky, at home in the world preacher who loved Jesus (and everybody else) who was "living the dream." He and his wife Tammy Faye were so lovable and simple that you couldn't help but feel better on some level after watching their program, Praise the Lord (PTL) Club.

Jim and Tammy Faye are best remembered for their lavish lifestyles and her makeup. Jim was the focused, intense straight man and Tammy Faye was his ditzy blonde wife who embarrassed him frequently with her ramblings about shopping at K Mart or her joy at finding a new recipe for tuna fish casserole. Jim would try to get her to be quiet and she would just keep on talking and talking to the camera oblivious to how it was making him feel.




If you look at pictures of Jim and Tammy Faye before PTL, you'll see them as a pretty typical small church childrens ministry team, posing with their Sesame Street type puppets. Jim looks a bit shy and Tammy Faye is a cutish brunette with well
applied makeup, not overdone, and not too ditzy looking. There is nothing very memorable about either of them.

What happened between mediocrity and superstardom? Image crafters, PR teams and marketing money. If you want your ministry to prosper, you need money. If you need money you need to reach and relate to the people who have the money. It costs money to minister.

You also have to remember that, at that time, there were no big televangelist superstars. There was of course, Billy Graham, but he wasn't a superstar. And you had Oral Roberts, who had come from being a demon expelling Pentecostal Holiness tent preacher, to a United Methodist (in 1968) lay preacher. He lacked the educational requirements of the United Methodist church to become an ordained minister. But, the UM connection made him more palatable. More on him in a later posting. And, there was Rex Humbard, who was the pioneer television evangelist, but he was getting older, and there was plenty of room for a young, energetic COUPLE, where both men and women could personally relate and become saved and filled with hope. But, again, all this takes money.

Who has the most discretionary money? Not teens or twenties. Certainly not young families in their thirties, or those in their forties, trying to pay their mortgage and putting their kids through college. The folks with the most expendable income are those in their fifites. As a rule, their mortgages are low, of not paid off, their kids are raised, and they are at the peak of their earnings. Plus, they are at a time in their lives when they want to do something significant with their lives and resources. All they are looking for is a cause worth investing in, and leadership they can trust.

How do you rapidly get their trust? By linking to people and instituations that they trusted in the "good old days." For people in their fifties and sixties during the early eighties, the good old days (when their kids were young, life was full of hope, crime was nearly non existent, drugs hadn't taken over the minds of the youth) were the early 1950's. How can you link to these memories? Simple: By modeling individuals whom these people loved, trusted and longed for.

In Jim and Tammy's case, this was to model themselves after George Burns and Gracie Allen. Jim had to home the likeable but basically serious aspect of his personality, becoming like Burns, a nice guy who somehow found himself and his wife in front of a national audience. Tammy became a caricature of the character played by Gracie Allen: a ditzy blonde who said whatever popped out of her mouth, inadvertantly embarrassing her husband, but definitely connecting with the audience. To heighten the effect of her lack of sophistication, Tammy Faye needed a hook. What better hook than being too simple minded and unpretentious to be able to put on her makeup correctly?

This gave her the position of underdog (like Gracie Allen) and provided the basis for innumerable ribbings and jokes from Jim. This evoked sympathy from the viewing and the studio audience and endeared her to other women who were less than Barbie dolls, and were unable to relate to the beautiful women on TV, like Farrah Fawcett-Majors, and the women of Dallas, and Falcon Crest.

So, Jim and Tammy came on the air each day, living the lifestyle of the rich and famous, being as ordinary of a couple as you could wish for, and marvelling at how God had put them on national tv. Their self deprecating humor and love for everyone made the viewers feel connected and full of hope. After all, if Jim and Tammy could make it, the viewer could, too! That was a major part of their appeal. When Tammy began her recording career, her best loved song was... "You can make it!" People needed love, they needed faith and they needed hope. Jim and Tammy Faye dolloped out immense servings of all three each day, in every market in the US for a half hour a day.

But, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker weren't everyone's cup of tea. Some saw them as too worldly, too silly and too compromising, as they fawned all over their celebrity guests, and seemed to have little discernment. That's where Jimmy Swaggart came in... (cont'd)