Three Reasons I Don’t Give One Rip About The Royal Wedding

In three days (April 29th) the much-anticipated public union of Prince William and Kate Middleton will be a reality. The media frenzy has been exponentially heightening as the date approaches. I for one will be thankful when this uneventful news is no longer thrown up in my grill every TV commercial and checkout lane.

Here are the top three reasons I don’t give one rip about the royal wedding:

I’m an American

This is not a hyper nationalistic faux patriotic observation.* Rather it’s an observation of simple apathy. The whole royal family sham is nothing more than a  worn out national tradition that props up a figurehead with a nice title. I mean the King or Queen of England hasn’t had any real political clout since the Boston Tea Party. Not surprisingly, the wedding guest list is filled with other wannabe dignitaries with meaningless titles (Queen of Denmark? Constantine of Greece?).

I admit, maybe I don’t have a cultural grid to understand such a pompous national affair; but on the other hand I’m not sure I want to understand it. All I know is that American culture consumes excessive Hollywood celebrity weddings like they are boiled peanuts; and I have a hard time treating this royal wedding like any more than a temporary celeb affair.

Why should anyone on the correct side of the Atlantic give two Euros of interest to this?

It’s a colossal waste of money

The British government is going to spend 48 million of taxpayer’s dime for this wedding spectacle. 48 million. At a time when the world economy is about to collapse under the weight of its own debt do the Brits really have that much spare change lying around for these overly extravagant festivities? Does every wedding guest really need choices between seared goat throat or sautéed eel eggs (or whatever nasty English cuisine they’ll be serving)?

Some estimates forecast the federal mandated “day off” for the wedding will cost the British economy almost 10 billion dollars in lost productivity. More Brits are opting for a convenient “week off” instead to celebrate Easter and the wedding of the millennium. The chief of Britain’s Federation of Small Businesses says, “There is a real risk we are turning into France when we just put down tools for weeks at a time.”

Wow. Is Britain ready to stoop to the level of France for what amounts to a glorified dog and pony show?

I always hear about all the money owed to the US because we have loaned massive amounts of American cash to every Tom, Dick and Honduran country out there. Well, maybe it’s time to stick our empty hands into the gold mine of the British economy;

Dem bloody blokes got mad pounds to spare!

I’m a dude

Sorry, I just don’t care what color Elton John chooses to paint his nails for the royal service. Or that the cost of the flower arrangement alone could feed a starving village in Ethiopia for a year.  Or that the train of the bride’s dress could fill the grand heavenly temple of Isaiah 6.

I’d rather be eating wings. Or throwing a ball around. Or receiving a swift roundhouse kick to the throat by Steven Seagal.

I have no reason to care about a wedding unless it is my own. Or unless they are serving Golden Corrall at the reception AND I AM INVITED. My wife was great in dissecting the details of our wedding day, and thankfully all I had to do was show up in a tux.

There is one positive thread that can be pulled from all this. Prince William seems to be unknowingly spreading awareness of a malady that hits very close to home for me. 1 out every 3 dashing young men fall to the tragic disease of male pattern baldness. I am one of them. So is Prince William. The King-in-waiting is bringing bald(ing) back with a beautiful vengeance! More power to him in this heart-rending endeavor.

But alas, for the sake of America, economics and manhood I reject this whole royal wedding fiasco. The “brotherhood of the receding hairline” is not enough to change my mind.

Am I being too hard on the royal couple? Or am I missing many more legitimate reasons to not care?

Bryan Daniels

*Go America!

A Small Public Apology (Kind Of) To Joel Osteen

A slight commendation may be due for Joel Osteen. Seriously.

After being consistently pummeled by conservative evangelicals everywhere, Joel has recently assembled a few basic baby steps towards pastor cred.

Maybe a small, I did not say total, but small apology is due from us. In conservative Christendom, we (and when I say “we” I mean “I”) are quick to jump on anyone without the same exact precise theological and social convictions as us. Some of it is warranted: Joel does frequently proclaim the (un)gospel of self-esteem. He does usually replace sin and repentance with quaint stories and pop psychology. In the past, even on primetime television, he has been ambiguous about essential theological convictions (the Larry King interview comes to mind).

How can you not love that perfectly bleached smile?

But, with no fear of reprimand from heresy hunters, I attest here that Joel Osteen for once got it right…in an interview…on primetime television no less.

Here’s a brief transcript of Joel’s statement on a recent segment of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight. When asked bluntly by Morgan about whether homosexuality was a sin this is what America’s pastor said:

“Yes, I’ve always believed, Piers, the Scripture shows that homosexuality it’s a sin,” he said. He added: “But you know, I’m not one of those that are out there to bash homosexuals and tell them that they’re terrible people and all of that. I mean, there are other sins in the Bible, too. I think sometimes the church — and I don’t mean this critically — but we focus on one issue or two issues, and there’s plenty of other ones. So, I don’t believe homosexuality is God’s best for a person’s life. I mean, sin means to miss the mark.”

The reason for this brief kudos is not necessarily that Joel is talking somewhat frankly about the specific sinfulness of homosexuality, but rather that Osteen has added the word “sin” into his public vocab repertoire at all. Sin is not a word Osteen has been known to use liberally, or ever. 

As Albert Mohler points out in his article “The Osteen Moment”, just four years ago Joel was much more vague and timid in his response to the same exact “homosexual” question. Let’s hope this counts for theological progress in Osteen’s path towards biblical Orthodoxy. 

Now I know his response wasn’t exactly an epic Martin Luther-esque type stance before the Diet of Worms: “Here I stand! I can do no other! God help me…”

A passing mention of Romans 3:23 may have done some good here. And he waffled a bit when Morgan asked specifically about Elton John’s homosexuality. I admit, Joel didn’t exactly look comfortable doing it, and there wasn’t a clear presentation of the gospel by him (again, baby steps), but Osteen took a stand where we (I) would have expected him to drop to the fetal position with empty positive platitudes.

Instead of lambasting him, let’s point to the positive (in classic Osteen fashion): Joel Osteen just spoke the unforgivable in Hollywood values and committed blasphemy against the god of political correctness. Given his platform and following, he likely knew his position would accumulate a hailstorm of hatred from “tolerant” liberal ideologues everywhere. Joel Osteen said what the Bible says: Homosexuality is a “sin.” No more atrocious than the litany of heterosexual sins, but nonetheless a sin that Jesus Christ calls us out of (1 Cor 6 :9-11).

Let’s hope continued baby steps lead him in the right direction: towards a bold proclamation of the biblical gospel where Jesus is the only cure for the wrath of a holy God and the sins of wicked man.

We’re (I’m) rooting for you, Joel.

Bryan Daniels

%d bloggers like this: