Some things are just inappropriate.
- The use of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in the closing ceremony of the supposedly unifying, unified Olympics
This song contains patently offensive lyrics — in the ears of attentive Christians, that is. You may think, “Oh, it’s just a popular song” or “What’s wrong with it? It’s got a message of hope.” Among some nice or at least neutral thoughts, though, two lyric lines spur the hearer toward the blasphemous conception of an eternity in which there is no heaven — no eternal home. I don’t think the use of this song was very unifying or even smart. It was inappropriate at best. But then again, most people — Christians included — aren’t that discerning, and probably neither noticed nor cared much.
- The phrase “rock the vote”
This catch-phrase has been applied, for 20 years, to the effort to get young people (presumably rock music fans) to vote. It seems to me that the event organizers must find the political process more deeply significant than the trivializing phrase “rock the vote” implies. Phrases such as “rock-n-roll,” “we’re rockin’,” “you rock,” “rock the vote,” etc., are so deeply mired in pop culture as to render themselves unworthy of any meaningful process, event, or concept.
Said another way: if I were sitting on the fence between political activity and inactivity, the phrase “rock the vote” certainly would not move me to get involved. The ineffectiveness of the phrase (to my ears) has something to do with my age bracket, I’ll admit. Just as much, though, I perceive an inherent incongruity between the purportedly deep, broadly applicable political enterprise on one hand, and the immaturity of so many rock-related concepts, practices, and celebrities on the other. (Please know, if you’re inclined to write off this whole item, that I like some classic and progressive rock music, stylistically speaking — namely, KANSAS, Styx, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Boston, ELO, and a few more.)
- The title “Reverend” (used to address, or to refer to, a human)
Taking a descriptive word applied only to Deity in scripture and then applying it to a supposed “vicar” — really? One who actually thinks about the title “Reverend” will surely realize what an affront it is to God. (And if one doesn’t think about it . . . well, why tie an epithet to someone if you’re not thinking about it?!) Would that Christians would consider that, if they use the title “Reverend” to refer to a human, 1) they are not on solid ground, 2) they could be found to be blaspheming, and 3) they may simply be pandering to societal scenaria. Calling a human “Reverend” pushes far beyond impropriety.