Imperfection Does Not Mean Unentitlement
Reading various Christian blogs that are commenting on this story about the house that never was., I’ve noticed something that many of them are commenting upon to the point of losing focus of the story at hand:
The woman involved has went from being a mother of three children to now being the mother of four children since the ‘dream house’ was never made into a reality.
Just because sin has happened to where the ‘winner’ of this contest had sinful premarital sex resulting in an additional child (I agree that somebody needs to sit down with this woman and teach her about Jesus and explain to her that pre-marital sex is wrong) and the fact that she has gone from a churchgoer to not attending church now does not disqualify nor does it enhance her right to the ‘dream house’. It seems that many people are concentrating on the fact of the new child being born for some reason must now disqualify the winner from getting what was entitled to them.
It reminds me of a very popular pentecostal tactic that is always used by the exposed in an attempt to negate the bad publicity. Expose the exposer. In this deal, by exposing the exposer, this somehow ‘negates’ the wrongful deed that was done. Also, it is designed to where by exposing the exposer, it makes the exposer look vindictive and make the case appear less ‘truthful’ than it really is.
If the contest truly called out for the winner to get the dream house, then the winner should be entitled to and receive the house.
« Anti-Christ of the week ending 6-2-07 | Home | Anti-Christ of the week ending 5-26-07 »
Comments
Well, what do you expect? It was Paula White…:(
But Church Without Walls got a lot of free publicity (and probably a lot more “donations” and “contributions”)…