I had a patient who kept pulling his IV line out because he said he couldn’t “get up and move around” while attached to the IV pump. (He had done it a couple times a shift for a couple days…and he was a hard stick). I told him he needed to use the call button to ask for help unplugging the pump, etc. if he needed to get up. I also sternly told him that, under NO circumstances, was he to pull the IV out of his arm again, he needed the fluids/medications, etc.
Well…a couple hours later I walked by his room and it looked like someone had been slaughtered in there! The bed was soaked with blood, blood was spattered on the walls and the furniture, and there were pools of blood on the floor leading to the bathroom. I went into the bathroom, and there he was…standing at the sink washing his face…with blood POURING out of the IV tubing that he broke so he could get up! I quickly tied the tubing to stop the bleeding and he seemed dumbfounded about what the big deal was…looking right at me and saying “You said not to pull the IV out of my arm, right??”
If you were on the Internet in the early aughts, you probably already know exactly where the above sentence comes from. It's the first line from "The End of the World," the zany 12-year-old animation that depicts an imagined scenario in which the countries of the world come together to, well, destroy each other. The nasally voiceover is unmistakable, as are the crude and colorful sketches.
"WTF, mate?" "But I am le tired!" and "FIRE ZE MISSILES!" — these immediately recognizable lines all come courtesy of "The End of the World." But for some time, little was known about the video's creator — until it was revealed that animator and filmmaker Jason Windsor was the teenage mastermind behind the viral hit.
Mic recently spoke to Windsor, now 31, about the animation's origins, the consequences for his own career and the evolution of viral videos on the Internet.
Mic: Could talk a little bit about the process of the creation — how you got the idea for it, who you worked with, and how you put it into motion?
Jason Windsor: It was circa 2003 or so, and I had just graduated high school, and some friends and I were hanging out late at night and talking about the state of the world. We were at a park, and we started drawing pictures of missiles flying from one side to another with tanbark on the sidewalk. It was that period in time when really crappy flash videos were the thing. I just basically laid down the voiceover myself. The process wasn't much more than just like, recording the voiceover and then sort of going through and making crude flash drawings.
So after you created the video, how did you get it out there? Was it on albinoblacksheep.com at first?
JW: So it was on that site and, I feel like, eBaum's World. This was pre-YouTube, so places like that were starting to curate Flash videos and stuff. It doesn't even really have my name on it or anything. I sent it internally — I didn't actually post it anywhere. I sent it to some of the same friends — this was back in the days of, like, pirating and Napster — and one of my friends had all of his channels overseas for getting pirated music and stuff. He sent this to some of his people, his hacker people overseas, and somebody somewhere eventually posted it. It made its way online somehow, but I'm not exactly sure how.
What was the timeline from when it initially came onto the scene to when it totally blew up?
JW: Gosh. Less than a year.
What was the response like? Did you gain any sort of notoriety from this video, from the audience?
JW: It was a little later, in 2004, that I got one of my first freelance gigs with [advertising firm] Wieden+Kennedy working on some Nike spots. And that was basically because of the animation. The creative director who was working on those Nike spots called me and was basically wanted to do the same type of thing. And this was when, like, a lot of marketers and ad agencies were like, "Oh, viral videos! We need to figure out what to do with viral videos! That's the thing!"
Some people will occasionally quote it and be like, "Oh, I remember that video!" It's always surprising when that happens, because I didn't intend for it to go anywhere. The widespread-ness of it is kind of cool. It's kind of weird how it became Internet-popular.
Do you think that it launched your career in that way?
JW: Kind of. I was heading in the direction of animation and filmmaking, live action, that sort of thing. And so to get connected, especially with Wieden, early on, was huge. But I felt like I had a little bit of a tug-of-war early on, because I was getting gigs that wanted that sort of style of animation, and I was like, no, I want to make something cool and flashy and design-y!
Were there any negative consequences in terms of your career and the path you ended up going down?
JW: As soon as my mom saw it, she was horrified at all the foul language. But I think she's gotten over that. If you go on the YouTube comments, there's a good mix of people who love it and people who think it's the worst thing that's ever been created. YouTube comments are a good place to humble you a little bit. I feel like the world got over the crudely animated Flash video. It had its heyday and then we naturally got out of it.
Given its timing — you created it in 2003 — this was post-9/11 and around the time of the invasion of Iraq. Did that influence the content you put into the video?
JW: Yeah, definitely. I t Basically, we were talking about the state of the world, especially with nuclear weapons. Some things have changed since then, and some things haven't, but I think it was just that sort of... "What's going to happen?"
Some of the actions we were taking as a country were questionable in our minds, and just seemed like we were doing what we've done a lot of in the past, which is to go somewhere and create more enemies for future generations.
Was it a conscious choice to leave your name out of it?
JW: [Laughs] No. And I probably wouldn't have wanted any YouTube money, so I wouldn't have put my name on it. But, you know, maybe I would have if I had known it would have gotten quite the traction that it did. But, no, it was just sort of like, oh, damn, there's 1,000 hits on this thing already, and I didn't realize it!
But this was before the era of monetizing content on the Internet.
JW: I don't know exactly. The dude who tracked me down from Wieden, he used Internet magic or something. I had a personal portfolio website at the time that it somehow got linked to. There was also a website that someone put up, like, endoftheworld.net. [Editor's note: The website that sits at that URL isslightly differentnow.] It had a little blurb that was like, this video was created by someone named Jason Windsor; if you know anything about this person, send an email. But no, I'm not exactly sure. The Internet is a pretty amazing place.
It certainly is for things like that. Do people still refer to you as the "End of the World" guy?
JW: I think so. I work for a shop that does Web explainer videos, and there are a couple of other designers that work there that knew of [the video] when I started working there, and they would say, "I need to take a picture of you to send to my college friends because we used to watch this video."
Did you make any money off the video?
JW: Oh, yeah. I made a bunch of money — at least a bunch of money for a 19-year-old, for an entry-level animator. I made the most money off the voiceover. I had to join the Voice Actors Guild and was getting residual checks. Total, between those two: maybe like $25,000, from that first job, over the course of a few years.
But you didn't make any money off of the video itself?
JW: No. From "The End of the World" itself, I got nothing. Yeah, that [profit] would have been from jobs after.
That's a shame. It was so popular!
JW: Yeah. [Laughs] That's what I was saying. If I had known it would get several million hits on YouTube, and that I could have monetized that, then maybe I would have put my name on it.
Do you think that there's a formula for a viral video? If there were to be a recipe for it, what would be involved?
JW: It would be two parts popular culture, two parts political climate, two parts nostalgia reference, and then — no, I don't know. [Laughs] I don't think there's any way to create a viral video. Something really captivating, something really funny, that people want to share. That's been the question of advertisers since around 2003 — what makes a viral video? What's the formula?
Viral content has become more commercialized, whereas back when your video came out, it was this new thing that people weren't as accustomed to. Without being too reductive, it was a bit more of an innocent time — it wasn't about making money, and it wasn't about selling things.
JW: Oh, totally. And even with the Nike spots that I did [after], they were trying to reference that same style. I feel like the response in general was basically that, uh, we can tell what's going on here — this is a Nike ad that's trying to look like this other thing. Sellout, sellout, sellout! That sort of thing.
What do you make of the timing of the video's release? Do you think it played a role in ushering in a new age for the things that are popular on the Internet?
JW: I like to think that it helped the progression of funny Flash videos and animated Internet videos. As far as ushering in a new age, I don't know. I hope that it progressed that medium, anyway. But that's sort of how things are on the Internet — it's so exponential, a bunch of people see one thing, and then it just — it is so explosive.
What happened after "The End of the World"? What are you working on now?
JW: I went to film school in Portland, and I've made a few short films. I'm working for a shop right now doing explainer video animation. But yeah, I'm still animating, still working in live action, raising my 18-month-old. And yeah, that's about it.
This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
So as you probably know, most of our modern adapted fairy tales actually come from much, much darker stories! Here are some original fairy tale endings (if you like this sort of thing you can read more "True Endings of Disney's Tales" here).
“OK, we are in… Maryland. Third from the left, here you go, take one, pass it down. Remember, you have to get involved with the political process for Democray to work.“
“Um… shouldn’t you be dealing with the Wrecking Crew? They’re like, right there.”
Fewer Mobile Bundles makes me sad. I only buy the Mobile Bundles now, and I'm certainly not going to buy a regular bundle that has one or two mobile games. I just don't play games on my PC anymore, so it's not worth it.
You may have noticed that we took down the “Mobile Bundle” tab at the top of our site today. That doesn’t mean mobile bundles are gone! It simply means that we’re updating the way we do mobile bundles. Instead of having a new mobile bundle every two weeks, we will be putting mobile games in more places across the site and will feature special mobile bundles throughout the year.
If you’d like to know more about our mobile game offerings, we suggest following @humblemobile on Twitter, which we will use for upcoming mobile announcements about games in the store and in bundles.
It works pretty well, but could be better still. Maybe Google should buy Wolfram Alpha.
The Google app has been getting smarter and smarter as time goes by. First it started with the Knowledge Graph, which provided information on single entities. Then it became more advanced, recognizing facts about those entities and answering simple questions.
Now, Google will be able to answer more complex questions. Questions with multiple factors to them (as shown above) can now be answered by breaking down each part of the question behind the scenes. Google’s goal was to understand the intent of the question based on the various parts.
Hit the source link for more detailed information about this change. It’s always interesting to read what Google has to say about these things.
“Batfleck is too fatherly” Yes, Batman acting too fatherly, completely out of character….
fyi this isn’t even his kid, and he knows it, but he is this baby’s dad now whether Selina likes it or not.
Like
There is so much about Batman vs Superman that looks ridiculous but Batman being fatherly is not one of those things
Have you seen the batfamily?
*snorts* Bruce “isn’t a dad?”
(Pls. Bruce having to put up with Dami’s shit is the best thing ever)
Like please. Bruce not a dad? Bruce, acting “too fatherly?” Pshh, not possible. The entirety of Batman canon would like to disagree with you. He might not know how to express his feelings all the time, but he cares deeply about each and every one of his kids, and has shown it on multiple occasions. I guess we also have to ignore that he actually legitimately has a biological child and three legally adopted children in canon.
Bruce being “too fatherly.” Heh. That’s a good joke.
Q - W - buttE - R - T - sYrup. That spells Breakfast of Geektastic Champions with your new Keyboard Waffle Iron. Wireless and battery-free, this keyboard charges and functions atop your choice of power source--electric, gas, or open flame.
Though not labelled individually, the Keyboard Waffle Iron's design does include place holders for 60 standard letters, numbers, special characters, and typist's functions, all symmetrically shaped, dug out, and non-stick-coated to receive your favorite batter. The iron itself is made of lightweight die-cast aluminum fitted with a Bakelite heat-resistant handle for waffle flipping. The package also comes with a 20-strong digital recipe booklet, including vegan and gluten-free waffle options.
Get your Keyboard Waffle Iron for 11% off for a limited time from Dude Exclusives.
I definitely don't agree with the conclusion, but it's an interesting analysis.
“Which is Better?” is a new editorial series that dares to compare the best of pretty much everything. In this rundown, I’ll break down everything from story to characters in an attempt to declare which of these modern classics is truly better.
The last decade has been an excellent time for television comedy, much more so than anything we’ve seen on the big screen. And I argue that The Office is the show that kicked everything off when it premiered in 2004.
Not only did it introduce a brand new format for network comedy (at least in America), it ushered in Steve Carell as a mainstream comedian and launched the careers of Mindy Kaling, John Krasinski, Rainn Wilson, and even Ed Helms.
The influence of The Office is undeniable, and it will be remembered as a classic sitcom for years to come. But what I want to know is if it’s better than another show that started on NBC. That show is Community.
Of course, you might think this is a weird comparison. And I did consider Parks and Recreation as a more suitable competitor due to their similarities in both production and status. But to be honest, Community was a show that managed to captivate audiences in a way The Office never did, which is why I think it’s more useful and even interesting to compare one of the most widely recognizable sitcoms of all time with one of the least recognizable, but still beloved, sitcoms of all time.
In a way, these shows can be considered polar opposites (Community even mocked the mockumentary episode format twice during its run). The Office represents a resistance to change, as do its characters. Everyone wears suits, they work for a paper company, and each of the characters is further along in age.
Community was always a leaner, more youthful show that grew with the times since its pilot in 2009. It was a show that clicked with online viewers the most because it was more of an “Internet” show in both tone and delivery. While The Office lasted nine seasons as a network powerhouse due to the swath of ages it could appeal to.
So, which is better? In order to find out, I’ll be breaking down each aspect of the show and awarding points to the winner.
First, let’s talk about…
BEST LEAD
There might be some debate on this, but the de facto lead actor for The Office is undeniably Steve Carell as Michael Scott. Granted, he departed the show after seven seasons, but Community also suffered cast shakeups like this that almost ruined the show.
In Community, the lead actor is a little clearer, at least at first. Joel McHale as Jeff Winger was the lead of the first season, to be sure, but a fun twist in Community is that each season presents a different actor as its focus, similar to how the original Teen Titans on Cartoon Network gave each character their own main plot each season.
But to keep things simple, we can reasonably assign Jeff Winger as Community‘s “main” lead if that makes any sense. In a way, though, that’s not good for Community.
Jeff is a great character. He’s well-rounded, provides some of the wittiest lines in the series, and serves as a foil to your expectations in a lead actor. But Michael Scott simply wins in each of these categories, sometimes by a pretty huge margin.
Like Jeff, Michael Scott is a lovable douchebag, but many of his best scenes aren’t reliant on his supporting cast, unlike Jeff Winger. Steve Carell just has better timing, and his character delivers some huge laughs. He’s also a fresher character that took a lot of people by surprise when the show started.
Jeff does evolve in some unique ways, but when Community starts, he’s a character we’ve all seen before (which is referenced in the show itself). And even the Jeff we get later on just doesn’t hold a candle to Michael Scott.
I’m going to have to give this one to The Office.
BEST ENSEMBLE
One of my favorite things about The Office was how its mundane cast managed to offer a surprising amount of depth parallel to the lead. You watched the show to see what Michael Scott would do next, but your heart was in the supporting cast, mainly Jim and Pam.
The major downside, though, is that the magic of the supporting cast certainly waned over the years. Storylines between many of these characters failed to get better, and when the show lost Michael Scott, viewers flocked in droves. It’s almost like Michael Scott was too good of a lead for the rest of the cast to lose.
In comparison, Community also had major issues with cast members, notably Chevy Chase as Pierce. By the end of the fourth season, the show was in shambles after losing its creator, Dan Harmon, as well, and we thought the show would finish on a very poor note.
But if you look at the show as a whole, the ensemble of Community was far more consistent than The Office. These characters do rely on each other quite a bit for the best laughs (Troy and Abed in the morning), but that’s not a downside. And even when the fifth season saw the midway departure of Donald Glover, the show managed to pick up the pieces and move on gracefully, much better than The Office in my opinion.
I think this is because Community simply had better, more realized characters. They were all relatable because they were at a starting point in their lives, and their outcast status is a good reflection of the show overall. The cast in The Office was always set in their ways, so you got more humor from laughing at them, than with them. You were never that excited to go on a sales call with Andy Bernard, but you were thrilled to go on a blanket fort adventure with Troy and Abed.
For me, Community has the better ensemble, hands down.
BEST JOKES
We’re talking about comedies, so it only makes sense to figure out which one has the best sense of humor. This is a little tough because these shows present their comedic situations in very different ways.
The Office, for the most part, relied on talking heads and “Michael Scottisms” to carry the humor forward, though it also used a lot of cringe moments as well. I was never a big fan of these, but I will give The Office credit for having excellent writing in nearly every season.
Community was also a funny show, but it relied much more on reference humor and parodies. On the one hand, this was a different and refreshing form of comedy that helped cement the show’s cult status. At the time, no other show on network television was doing something this creative with Dungeons and Dragons, claymation, or video game characters.
I can remember a lot of jokes from each show, and I don’t think one is obviously better than the other overall. But I’m going to give this one to The Office because even during its worst season (the eighth), it still managed to provide some great laughs. Community had an abysmal season four that was gracefully short, but incredibly flat on humor.
The point goes to The Office.
BEST STORY
The story setups for these shows are drastically different from each other, but they’re also similar in a few ways.
The Office starts in the middle of things with characters who already know each other. Its inciting event, downsizing, is resolved pretty early on, and the rest of the show is more of a series of “micro stories” that don’t connect much season to season.
Community also starts in the middle, but much earlier in the middle. When the show begins, the characters have been in the same class for a little while, and they’re just getting to know each other. Unlike The Office, there are clear goals for each character, beyond who’s in love with who.
Jeff wants to become a lawyer again, Annie wants to redeem herself, Shirley wants to start her own business, Pierce wants to have a family, Troy wants to find purpose, Abed wants to understand people better, and Britta wants to prove she can make a difference.
In The Office, we have far less compelling, and somewhat depressing, stories for everyone. Michael wants everyone to like him, Dwight wants Michael’s job, Jim wants to date Pam, Pam wants to be happy, Oscar wants to get through the day, Kevin wants to become increasingly dumb over the years for no apparent reason, Angela wants everyone to adhere to her values, and so on.
Everyone is sort of just living for the moment, but not much else. And I’d argue it’s pretty difficult, even after nine seasons, to pinpoint the motivations for each character.
What makes Community excel is how much heart it has in its seasons, and that comes from well-written storylines that stick with you. As much fun as it was to wonder who Michael was going to date next or how Jim and Pam would deal with having a baby, I cared more about Jeff’s destiny as a lawyer, the darkest timeline, and how they could save Greendale from Chang.
I have to give this one to Community.
Alright, it’s a tie, so this next one takes it all!
BEST FORMAT
The Office is a mockumentary, which means it makes you think its characters are being candidly filmed at all times. It helps the writers tremendously, because they can streamline character reactions without making you wonder what they’re thinking. They just say what they think about the episode’s events by talking to the camera one-on-one.
This helps create a solid pace and rhythm for the show, but it has its downsides. Because the format is so rigid, the jokes have to be delivered in the same way every time. Jim always shrugs at the camera. Michael says something insane in his office. Dwight overreacts to something, and someone comments about it in a later interview. This gets pretty stale after a while.
Another downside is that you rarely get to wonder what’s going on in the head of each character because it’s spoon fed to you. To be fair, they didn’t let this happen much in the first two seasons when it came to Jim and Pam’s storyline, as they wouldn’t dare admit their flirtation to the camera. But once this longing was fulfilled, the show started to dumb down a bit.
Community uses a traditional single-camera setup, which means each scene is shot independently. So the show is a little snappier and relies on a lot of quick edits to move its story along. The nice thing about this is that it forces some great performances out of every character, but there are still some downsides.
The show had a habit of juggling one too many storylines, so the pacing wasn’t always on par with a show like The Office. And like The Office, its simpler setup still elicited some joke repetition. But I have to point out that Community solved this problem early on, ditching its more traditional format in the first season to be zanier and wackier in the second.
That’s actually the beauty of Community and what makes it a blast to watch over and over again. Each season is a self-contained show in a way, but it’s all cohesive. And I think this is because overall, the show had much more freedom to do whatever it wanted. So yes, we got a show done in the style of Law and Order, a two-episode paintball fight, and an homage to chaos theory.
If we’re going to talk about a format that brought out some of the best moments between each show, then Community wins by a small margin. The Office was important, and it was definitely memorable. But its popularity ultimately softened it, while Community‘s simpler format and small expectations allowed it to do huge things that we should have gotten from The Office.
It’s a tough a call, but the final point goes to the winner, Community.
While The Office is certainly a classic, elements of it are somewhat lacking. But Community manages to have an edge when it comes to story, the ensemble, and format, making it the superior show in my opinion. I won’t deny that The Office is a little funnier and has a better lead, but Community is the show I’ll be returning to more often than not as the years go by.
But hey, that’s just my opinion. Which show do you think is better? Be sure to sound off in the comments.
Extra Credits:
A category I left out was “Jim and Pam” or “Troy and Abed?” If you know me even a little, then you know where I land on this. Just keep in mind that one show had the sense to dial one of these pairings back.
Forgot to bring up that Community‘s pilot aired right after The Office, which is how I watched the show for the first time. Full circle, I guess?
Sadly, I couldn’t think of a way to weave the dean in, except to point out that Community did a great job of brining side characters into the fold. The Office did the same with Daryl, but for me, my heart will always belong with Dean Pelton.
I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni
The truth is, chivalry has basically fuck all to do with women, and everything to do with horses.
See, the word “chivalry” comes from the French word “chevalier,” which comes from “cheval,” which means “horse.” Chivalry is literally just “rules for if you have a horse.” This was an important set of rules to have in chivalry times. Horses were the Blackhawk Helicopters of the Middle Ages; if you had a horse, you could absolutely kill anybody who didn’t have a horse and nobody was going to say a god damn thing. The only thing stopping you was chivalry.
That’s what chivalry was for. Chivalry was – and still is – basically a way of saying, “okay, I have an optimized death machine between my legs, maybe I should look out for people who don’t have one of these.” So it’s not that chivalry is specifically about defending women because women are weak. It’s that chivalry is about defending people who don’t own horses, and in the middle ages women didn’t own shit.
“Chivalry boils down to three things: mercy, charity, and humility. Mercy means being conscious of your advantages, and treating other humans gently. Charity means giving without expecting anything in return. Humility means accepting your mistakes, and recognizing that those who don’t have your advantages aren’t your inferiors.“
Joe’s Crab Shack is eliminating tipping from its restaurants. Servers will start at $14 and hour, according to Restaurant Business, and the bumped wages will be offset by price increases of 12 to 15 percent.
Egyptian antiquities officials have scoffed at claims by the Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson that Egypt’s ancient pyramids were not built as pharaonic tombs but used to store grain.
“Does he even deserve a response? He doesn’t,” said the antiquities minister, Mamdouh el-Damaty, on the sidelines of a news conference about recent thermal scans of the pyramids that could reveal hidden tombs.
She figures she’s hugged about a half-million departing or returning Fort Hood soldiers since the start of the Iraq war in 2003… spending hours as lines of men and women stooped to embrace her.
Soldiers simply call her the “hug lady.” Now they want to help her fight.
“I’ve had breast cancer since 2005,” Laird explained Wednesday in a soft voice. “It has metastasized to my bones and my lungs.”
Laird is now too sick to be where she wanted to be Wednesday: The Veterans Day parade in Killeen.
I've always thought freckles are cute. Apparently that's a common enough opinion.
If you have freckles and feel self conscious about it, don’t fret. Apparently, freckles are in.
A new Kickstarter campaign for Frek Yourself has just launched to fund a semi-permanent freckle kit using their stencil + formula method:
There have always been two problems with creating artificial freckles. First, it’s really hard to create a realistic pattern. Natural freckles have a random pattern & sizing variation, but freckles applied with a pencil are all the same shape of the pencil tip. Second, pencil or makeup freckles smudge really easily. Our product solves both of these problems.
The kit comes with 72 self-adhesive stencils and a rollerball of formula that is similar in formulation to sunless tanner. The freckle patterns look natural and last 2 days. Users who apply Freck Yourself every morning have several layers of faded frecks, which produces incredibly realistic results for four to six weeks.
I like his response. The "think of the children" crowd don't seem to realize that this decision was made for the children. This decision helps protect children from having a very difficult decision between choosing between their church and their family until they are old and mature enough to make that decision.
Question
Hi Gramps,
Could you please better explain the reason the Church Handbook for Bishops was changed to exclude the blessing and baptism of children of same-sex parents? The recent news about this has managed to cause a big rift in my non-Mormon family members.
Unfortunately that answer only works for those who have a strong and powerful faith that the church is led by God through His Prophet and Apostles. For non members and for members of less firm faith, that simply does not work for them. They need reasons, rationalizations and logical answers. Even if we had all the other ‘reasons,’ (some of which the church has given) it still would not be good enough for many who have already made up their minds on what they think the correct answer should be and not accepting anything less.
But you asked me for reasons for non members. I will do my best knowing the limits of what we know and what others are likely to accept. And knowing that I can’t do as well as the leaders have already done.
First lets talk repentance and marriage. Both are important, both have lots of doctrinal support. In just about every case repentance can work together with marriage strengthening it and making it better. There are only two cases (that I am aware) that repentance requires the destruction of a marriage. Destruction of a marriage is a huge deal with all kinds of fallout and long term consequences. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World for details if needed) Those two cases are polygamous marriages (currently forbidden) and homosexual marriages.
This is not a new or recent change of doctrine. The stance against children of polygamists becoming members while still children has been in place for a long time. Expanding that to cover the children of homosexual marriages only became necessary after homosexual marriages became possible.
In both cases the Church has to consider what is best for all the people involved and find a balance between those that are innocent, those that are trying to live up to the covenants they made, and those who are not interested changing their ways.
It seems to me that the Church is acting in a way to protect the innocent by not putting them under the covenant of baptism, until they are mature enough to understand the sinful nature of the homosexual parent’s relationship and balance that with the very natural and and understandable love and affection children have (hopefully) toward them. That is a hard balance for adults to find. For a child that could be very much impossible, so the Church protects them by pulling itself out and not allowing the child to become a member.
Of course not being a member does not mean the child can not be fellowshipped if allowed by the responsible adults over them. If this happens the lack of baptism and actualmembership might hurt the child’s feelings when they notice and that is regrettable. But dealing with feeling left out, as painful as it might be, is a normal childhood experience. Feeling like you have to choose between a parent and the church is most decidedly not.
So Melanie when you hear people attack the church on this issue with the cry of “Think of the children” you can rest assured that the Church, its leaders, and the Lord have very given much thought of what was best for them. And then they acted accordingly.
In addition to the “think of the children” attack, there is also the “Christ wouldn’t do this” In the context of denying baptism of children until a later time those that think this do err and do not understand the scriptures. Two examples come to mind:
First is the story of a leader of the Roman army found in Luke 7:2-10. He was a gentile, and he came to the Lord asking Him to heal his sick servant. The leader clearly had faith and a willingness to do as he was told. Yet Christ did not instruct him to be baptized.
The second is in Matt 15:22-28. This is a story of a woman who comes for help with her sick daughter. She had enough faith to push, though, even after Christ pointed out he wasn’t sent to her; she got a blessing anyway. Yet the Lord did not have her be baptized either.
In both cases Christ witnessed great faith and desire on the part of the individual, but denied them the chance to be baptized. This chance had to wait until Peter was instructed to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. So our Lord as Savior Jesus Christ is on record in the Holy Scriptures as withholding baptism from people if the time was not right for it to happen.
