Please understand that I was the first one who was upset by the bad article

Probably the most dangerous thing in Christianity is the bad article, which is worse than the previous thing, which I don’t remember.

---

The number one rule of an evangelical thought leader is to always post. But the second rule of a thought leader is that you must think for other Christians, so they don’t have to. This is why I rarely stop to investigate the issues and learn what is going on: it takes too much time. I need to immediately weigh in, or else people will ignore my brand, and then I will have to go back to actual ministry.

Anyway, the latest bad article has something to do with dongs going into ladies, and how that is like attending church, or something, which makes sense because if you go to the Greek, there is a word for “member” and churches have members, but also a member is another word for dong, this is called hermeneutics. Also, the article talked about jizz, like maybe how jizz is the same as an offering or whatever, and when you think about it, Onan got in trouble because he dropped his offering on the floor, which is rude because someone could have accidentally stepped on it.

The worst thing about the article was that it talked about the wrong lady privates. This is a rookie mistake: if you talk about private parts, you always want to talk about women’s breasts, because Christian men and women are basically always wound up and repressed about bosoms at all times, and they will click on your article because it feels 60% sinful, which is the right amount. But you can’t talk about the baby making parts, because this feels 80% sinful and that’s just too much, also a lot of Christians are scared of the baby making parts because they aren’t totally sure about what’s going on down there, even though my youth pastor says that’s part of the wonder¹ of the honeymoon.

---

Probably the thing that bothers me so much about the article is the number of people who claim to be more upset about it than me. It is very important to my brand that people know that I am the most upset at the various things. When regular Christians see someone who is upset, they think “oh good, that person is angry; I don’t have to do anything” and then they share your articles without reading them, maybe with a 100 or a fire emoji. And when a different thought leader seems more upset, that person is getting the fire emoji, not me.

Another thing I am doing is connecting the bad article to other things. This way, I seem like I know a lot about two things at once, so there’s literally twice the chance that I might be right about something. Like when I said what if the reason Ravi Zacharias hid his cell phones was because he had CRT in them? Or when I said what if all those balloons and UFOs were coming because of what Matt Chandler put in his DMs? You always have to phrase these things as questions, so even if you are wrong, you can just say I was only asking questions.

Finally, the reason that I have to worry so much about how I look in these situations is because there are followers to be had. A fellow thought leader’s scandal is nothing more than your audition for their followers. I have to make sure that all that guy’s followers see me, and know that I would never write something like he did, unless I did, in which case it would be different. The point is this: Christians have to follow someone, don’t they? If you leave us to our own consciences, that is basically like that other thing that was really bad, which I also don’t remember.

*Weekly-ish articles are free; periodic special articles are behind the paywall. Substack won’t let me set the monthly subscription lower than $5, so I made the yearly subscription $30, which is $2.50 a month, which seems about right. Thanks for reading :)

1. wonder what I’m doing wrong