Sunday, February 28, 2010

#125-Hot Sticks

Perhaps I'm not the best person to write about this particular Apostolic phenomenon because I was never an avid user of them, but Stuff Apostolics Like could not be complete without at least a mention of hot sticks.

Don't act like you don't know what they are. Conair is the brand du jour and they come in sets of pink and purple. And let's keep it real. Apostolic girls LURVE them some hot sticks. At least they did when I was present during the 2 hours most of my camp friends needed to get ready before night service. At least 2 sets were a must to tame the glory manes. I was even pressured into letting Polly or whoever put a few sticks in my hair a time or two, and I must say, my tendril game was tight those nights.

Hot sticks and me
I have a little confession to make about hot sticks, though. Simply put, I don't have hot stick-esque hair. And at that time, during my camp days, foolish as it may sound, hot sticks became an emblem of everything I was not. Hot sticks was that disappointing reminder that no one asked me to the pizza party that year or swapped badges with me. Hot sticks was that girl who got up there and tore up the solo of that JCM song the choir sang that night. Hot sticks represented that Pentecostaliciousness I would never be able to attain. Hot sticks let me know that I was different, a welcomed, but never-quite-at-home addition to the gaggle of skirt-wearing girls I was proud to be a part of.

Eventually, I learned the ways of the curling iron. I've never been the same since.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

#124-Thinking Satan Was The Minister of Music in Heaven

Note: Here's another one of those "informative blog posts"

We’ve already covered the topic of describing youthful hypocrisy as praying through on Sunday only to curse and listen to rap music by Tuesday. While we all have heard this sermon, I think that there is usually something stated in this sermon that we could cover too.
We’ve all heard it. We believe it because of who said it. But we have absolutely no idea how to explain it or where it came from. I’m talking about the belief that “Satan was the minister of music/choir director in Heaven”.
After this statement we’re usually bombarded with 15 to 20 minutes of explanation of Satan’s exact role, as the choir leader, in charge of the Heavenly host of voices in their rendition of Order My Steps or maybe Kirk Franklin’s ‘Hosanna’. Following this we usually get another speech regarding the fact that the reason satan uses music to draw us away is because he used to be in charge of it, or perhaps that music is IN him (we’ll address this later). Also included in this is the declaration that those involved in a music ministry are more susceptible to satan’s attacks for the same reason previously stated. A lot of detail is given regarding satan’s very specific role as the music leader in heaven. This made me very curious recently so I thought I’d do a little digging.

Exegesis (Careful Study of Scripture)
Where does this concept come from?
The closest we get is a passage in Ezekiel 28 in which the King of Tyre is discussed, somewhat allegorically, using poetic imagery, as an exalted figure over taken by pride and greed to the point where he was cast down before all men.
Alright, now bear with me…breathe for a second….
We’ll make it through this….
The verses in question are Ezekiel 28:11-19 (Go and read them)…More particularly, verses 11-15:

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
The idea goes that in the description above, there is no way an actual king could be described. This “king of tyre” was allegedly around during Eden (v. 13). And it is also described as a Cherub aka an angel (v. 14). Therefore we must conclude that the “king of tyre” described is actually….some other angel that fell (that’s in verses 16-19).
What perfect being do we know that fell?
Could it beeee…


This all makes too much sense. Not only was Satan around during Eden, but we know he used be an angel that fell. And now that we know Satan is being talked about, we can use the verses to find even more information about Satan…And here in verse 13, we see Satan described as containing musical instruments (tabrets and pipes). So that means Satan invented music? Which means Satan was the minister of music in heaven. Which means the reason musicians fall so much in churches is because they are doing the role that Satan was doing in heaven.

Except, if the above is true, we have become God over scripture, and have decided to make jumps and conclusions in scripture that scripture never asks us to make. We must let scripture evaluate our lives as best we know how, and not us be evaluators over scripture. To conclude that the King of Tyre is Satan is pure silliness.
The fact is, we need to begin to understand how to read scripture in context. To make doctrine out of a few verses ripped from it’s surrounding context is laughable. The fact is, much of Ezekiel is allegorical.
This means that for Ezekiel to give the reader a proper emotional response of what he is talking about, he will use hyperbole and metaphor to convey the descriptions of who/what he is addressing. Which of the following descriptions brings the reader to a better understanding of the Israelite’s defiling God’s holiness:
  • a) The Israelite’s defiled the bread they ate.
  • b) The Israelite’s sin is comparable to Ezekiel eating bread cooked with Cow poop (Ezekiel 4:13- 15)…
Obviously, eating food mixed with poop grosses you out more and thus you kind of get a better sense of how God perceived the Israelite’s sin.

Ezekiel 31:18 has Ezekiel comparing the neighboring kings to the trees of Eden. This is an analogy. It’s not that the Kings were around in the time of Eden.

So with that said, Ezekiel 28:11-19 is best understood as a way for Ezekiel to describe the King of Tyre’s situation and how they will fall one day. So, Ezekiel is saying, “King, you and your people have it real good. You could have fit right in with the perfection of Eden. You were beautiful. But one day, you will fall miserably because of your haughtiness.”

The story even has a context…the King of Tyre one time sent timber to help with the construction of the Temple (I Chronicles 14:1)…The dude who built all the wooden things within the temple was actually from Tyre. (II Chronicles 2:14). He even built the giant wooden CHERUB that surrounded the Ark of the covenant. (II Chronicles 3:11). Thus he calls the King of Tyre a Cherub. Naturally, God blessed the people of Tyre with their help of the temple. But the blessings became a curse and thus Tyre grew haughty in pride. It is here that Ezekiel prophesies the fall of Tyre, which did in fact come true in the 4th century B.C. when Alexander the Great destroyed the entire city.

So reader, we may like to make mystical the story of Satan and make far reaching conclusions about his occupation in heaven, but before we jump to such conclusions, let’s study the scripture out a little further in a bigger context and see if there is a more practical reasoning in scripture outside of the idea that Satan was somehow the choir director in heaven who would carefully instruct the angelic choirs into breathtaking renditions of “Waymaker.”

Conclusion/"Get your act together"
Now you may or may not agree that Ezekiel 28 was talking about satan, but that’s beside the point. Even if it was… Even if every word of it were undoubtedly about satan and this is irrefutable, how, just HOW do we make the jump from the idea that he had a tambourine and a kazoo to he was the ‘choir director’ and ‘minister of music’ in Heaven? The inference is almost laughable.

Try this: erase all prior knowledge and assumption about the bible. You have no knowledge. It is simply a dusty history book you’ve picked up from the library. You begin to read it as a story, beginning in Genesis. By the time you get halfway through this satan fellow has been mentioned three times, and very ambiguously those three times, convincing David to perform a census, asking God if he can tempt Job, and Zechariah sees him standing next to God and being rebuked. At this point he’s a mysterious character, you’ve picked up that he’s got a bad reputation and he tempts people to do things they shouldn’t do.

Yet somehow, though not having much biblical history or credible biographical information, we’ve come to think we know who satan is and exactly what he did before his fall, what he looked like, what his ministry was, what he said to God, what got him kicked out of Heaven, what his credit rating was, who he dated in high school, and his mothers maiden name.

But where did this info come from if not the bible? Dante Alighieri penned Divine Comedy sometime in the 1300’s, and then 300 years later John Milton wrote Paradise Lost. Both stories attempt to expand upon the little information given in the bible regarding the fall of satan and then the fall of man, and as well the framework of hell. Each are incredibly long and difficult to understand, hence the reason we don’t realize how much of our belief’s come from them (we don’t read).
Excluding Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 (whole other future post), we know very little about satan’s origins, but what’s happened is we’ve filled in the blanks from literature and exaggerations of small pieces of info. We don’t realize this because we don’t read, so we’re left accepting bad information on the basis that it sounds plausible.

Before I get too far into a tangent I’ll cut it off here. I’ll leave you with this:
Read. Please, please read. When someone who’s been charged with standing in front of a large group of people stands up and makes unchecked statements and passes them off as “from God” we’re in trouble. Misconceptions about satan have been perpetuated for hundreds of years because we’ve passed the days of looking things up to verify their authenticity, and simply regurgitated the bile spewed forth from pulpits on the basis that it must be true because of who said it.
Is it a big deal to think that satan was the music minister in Heaven? Maybe not. But what it does do is validate the statements made by people who don’t study. It gives a false perception of the enemy we face. Satan is very real and must be taken seriously but part of taking him seriously is understanding who he is, what he does and why he does it. It’s understanding that he’s not the boogeyman in your stereo; he’s far more tactical than that.

(Credit goes to Joel for doing the Ezekiel 28 research and scholarly review)

Sunday, February 21, 2010

#123-Beginning a Message with the Amount of Times a Word is Mentioned in the Bible

I dedicate this post to all those who will pass the mantle of word-counting down to our future generations.

I've never preached a message in my life, (well, I did "talk" during a youth service once, and it was at the pulpit and contained scriptures . . . does that count? Is preaching only preaching if you yell and if it's during Big Church? Or did that event just retroactively un-exist since I'm supposed to be "silent" and ask my nonexistent husband at home?) so this is just my imagined rendering of the preacherly thought process.

Preacher (in his mind)
I've gotta come up with something good. Something that will bust the altar area wide open with the weight of convicted souls. I want those altar tissues used up, son! What's a good topic? Hmmm . . . "The Love of God"? Nah, too mamby pamby. Oh, I know! "The Omnipotence, Omniscience and Infallibility of the 'Man of God.'" Rats, that was preached last Sunday. Hmm . . . gotta think of something good. What about a one word title? "Faith"? Overrated. "Consecration"? Yeah . . . that sounds like an altar filler. Let me hit up Blue Letter Bible and see how many times it's mentioned. "Mentioned 9 times in 9 verses in the KJV." That's not enough! I've got to be able to start my message off with a more impressive word count than that. Let's see here . . . what about "Sacrifice"? "Mentioned 218 times in 205 verses in the KJV." Bingo! (He begins to write.) People in this world want things instantly. Like microwave popcorn, 2 minutes and it's done! But some things in this life require waiting, tarrying, fighting, walking through the snow to school like they used to do in the good old days, and backbone. There's a simple word to describe what this world today is missing. It's mentioned 218 times in 205 verses in the Word of God. Sacrifice!

Out of the preacher's mind and back to me
And there you have it, ladies and gents, inst-a-matic message intro a la holy word count. Another word count tactic gainfully employed is to compare the instances of one word as opposed to another word. Words become football teams, and whichever word has the most occurrences is declared the winner and therefore more important and special than the losing word. You can create your own fantasy football league of words and start plugging them into Blue Letter Bible.

Word count stats can give you that non-scriptural support you need to put you at ease:

Holy = 611, Grace = 170. God's grace isn't enough, you've got to be hoollaaay!

King = 2540, New = 150. The King James Version is better than any new translations, bless God!

Fat = 130, Thin = 9. Being overweight is biblical! Can I get an Amen?

But sometimes things can get problematic if the word count results go against conventional wisdom. For example:

Beard = 16, Shave = 14. Uh, oh . . . paging The Platform committee . . .

Talk = 24, Yell = 1. But, but, how will I able to deliver the Word? Lord have mercy!

World = 288, Church = 80. I rebuke you word count, in JAY-sus name!

So, if you're going to employ word count for homiletic proof, make sure you pick your words carefully.

Friday, February 19, 2010

#122-Baby Dedications....

Alright I am going to let my bias be known right out of the gate:

I don't like babies.

They are ugly. And are entirely dependent on other human beings for survival. I can't stand clinginess or neediness, and babies are always both. Plus they are ugly....And they make loud noises in the House of God when the Man of God is preaching....If I were to act like a baby does during church, I would get banished. But babies get to say whatever they want wherever they want without fear of consequences or a fear of God.

Plus they puke yogurt right on you.

Conclusion: If babies ever argued for a right to vote I would be adamantly opposed....

That said, there is one thing I hate more than babies.....

And that thing is BABY DEDICATIONS!

A ceremony where we honor and adore, the very things I despise: Post-embryos.

But it's not the fact that baby dedications deal with babies that makes me hate them as much as I do....

It's the meaning of the whole thing...

Here's a history (with absolutely no research so this is subject to being completely wrong):

In Judaism Jews  were to circumcise their newborns on the eighth day of their birth. Abraham got a circumcision. Moses got one. Jesus even got one (the bible talks about it in Luke)...This circumcision was basically a symbolic gesture of Jews to dedicate the Jewish males to God. This was their baby dedication.

Fast forward to past history....
Catholicism saw baptism as the new circumcision.....(less painful!)

And so in a similar pattern, Catholics would baptize (dedicate) the post-embroyos on the eighth day of their life (or at least very on in their life)...But here, in the Catholic mindset, baby dedications served a very crucial part of the Christian experience. Baptism was a way God could dispense grace in the converts life (since God's love was so strong, it did not matter whether one chose to be baptized or not on their own will, it just mattered that one was baptized in Christ). 

So then we get to the armenians (that's who we are) who argued that salvation was a choice (whereas the Calvinists did not.) And with this choice of salvation, one was to be baptized on their own will when they they could accept all the implications of baptism (see Romans 6). This meant that babies could no longer be baptized (since they were too young and ugly to be able to grasp what was going on).

This is all fine. No more baby circumcisions like the Jews. No more baby baptisms like the Catholics and Calvinists. And this would surely mean the best part: NO MORE BABY DEDICATIONS!


Except I am being sarcastic in that "hip hip hooray" because the fact is baby dedications are alive and well in Apostolics churches when quite frankly they have no spiritual implications whatsoever....

You may say to me, "that's not the case Joel...the pastor prays over the baby and the parents, and the baby is Dedicated to the Lord."

But then we are right back to where the Catholics and calvinists are are saying that God's grace precedes our free will, and thus before a baby can even choose to dedicate it's life to God (through repentance, baptism, etc...), your pastor and God himself have already chosen for the baby that it's life will be dedicated to the Lord? That's not free will. That's stupidity.

So maybe, if there is a place for God in the ceremonies, it may be in the prayer over the parents...this is entirely possible since they are choosing to be there and to have their lives as parents dedicated to Him....

But now we must ask...why in the world does this have to be done in front of the whole church? Why do we have to dress the ugly babies in pageantry that even a girl in her wedding would be embarrassed to wear? Why the whole spectacle of the thing?

Of course the obvious answer is "BECAUSE I WANT TO SHOW MY BABY OFF TO THE WORLD and I want the church to suffer through several minutes (in my church, it's more around a half hour) of boredom just so my family can get some attention!" 

Because the truth is we could be doing the baby dedications in a private room after church where the pastor says "this is where I imitate an old Catholic rite of passage for parents and children alike and pretend it has some spiritual implications but the reality is nothing within the ceremony itself means anything of importance.....Oh, and your baby is really ugly.

But we don't....

We just keep on pretending like it means something...

And it's wasting my time...

Monday, February 15, 2010

#121-The "Poof"

 (note: I have tried refraining from doing this post because I thought it was my opinion alone that hated these things, but after upwards of 3 e-mails in recent months (most recently Stephany Mirelez) , I have realized I am not alone in hatred of the trend of the Poof)

Although this was before my time,  I have had several conversations with females from the 80's and early 90's  who looked at pictures of their hairstyle from back then at the pictures would look something like this:


And inevitably the response from the daughter of the 80's/early 90's is "WHAT IN THE WORLD WERE WE THINKING?" They then recall how they were so positive they were being stylish and trendy at the time. But what once was a style is now considered vomit in the next generation....

And ladies and gentlemen, there is a pandemic in Apostolic circles right now that is being counted as righteousness in apostolic circles. It's called the hair poof :
(Note that as I perused my facebook friend's photo section, almost everyone of them had a photo of themselves with a "poof" similar to that above...but i didn't want to lose friendship over this post so I posted pictures of non-apostolic girls).....

And mark my words...5 years from now (hopefully 3 months from now), you females will be looking at pictures of yourselves with this bumps from hell and be wondering "WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS I THINKING?"

I have heard rumors that in the 70's apostolic women would put oatmeal boxes in their head and wrap their hair around the boxes to create the necessary trendy effect of a poof the size of Mt. Everest....I would have thought we would have learned from these mistakes of our past....

But thanks so such convenient tools as the bump-its:
Anyone can put these mysterious balls of hair aka the poof on their head....

And we are not satisfied with these hair tumors in the back of our head like most, but rather it is much more trendy to put the poof in the front of the hairdo.....


For the first few months after these hair tumors came out, I was convinced there was something going on inside these poofs....

Like were females trying to hide a tennis ball or football inside their head just in case they found themselves wanting to take part in a spontaneous game of tennis and/or football?

Perhaps these females were hiding contraband in their hair or devil's paint (make-up) in their head...for surely where is the last place someone would look for sin than within one's glory?

but no...the answer was not that anything useful was going on in these storage facilities....

Rather quite the opposite...The poofs are generally as empty internally as the souls of the "poof-perpetrators" themselves...

Here's a hint lady, if your hair trend models after either Snookie or a bunch of polygamists, you probably need to stop:

(pictured above left: Snookie...pictured above Right: polygamists)

Seriously, the quicker this trend of "the Poof dies" the quicker I can get onto writing a post about leggings....

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

#120-Comparing our worship in church to the amount we cheer for our favorite Sports Team

DISCLAIMER: This is one of those more "preachy" posts....take it however you want...It does have a point to it...But I have just been wrestling with it for the past few days (I have been on vacation where you have too much time to think about things that don't really matter)...

While not typical of every service, a common preaching point that is sure to arouse crowd participation within the congregation is the classic "sports vs. God" battle wherein the preacher walks up to the pulpit and after encouraging worship for a few seconds and perusing the response....the preacher chimes in loudly something to the effect of:

  "If 'they can cheer for a bunch of guys in tights fighting over a pigskin you ought to be able to give God the praise that he deserves."

This usually results in a slightly more raucous response from the crowd wherein those who don't watch sports worship louder to demonstrate that the worship for sports will not compare to their worship for God, and also a slightly guilty response from sports fans who feel the point posited by the preacher is a valid one...."Why do the sports fans in church care more for football more than their participation in church?" Maybe they just love sports more than they love God.... 

But on recommendation of the preacher, a quick shout of an amen and a jump and a clap will cure such idolatry...

This preaching point is usually heightened on Super Bowl Sunday wherein an opening to the sermon somehow ties into the amount of money the Super Bowl generates and the massive audience it draws in....

On the surface, the preacher speaks deep truths that get all sports fans to question their commitment to God...."Who is our God? If we judge by worship in applause and excitement, many of us would say by such a definition sports is our God..."

But this argument is quite similar to the comparison of "Who is more religious and more dedicated to their God...The Muslim or the Christian?" Here it is noted that the Muslim bows and prays towards Mecca thrice daily no matter where they are...If such a point is brought up, the person bringing up the point will ask "Why can't Christians be as dedicated in worship and prayer in consideration that they are worshiping the ONE TRUE GOD?"

And we sit there and contemplate and feel horrible about our lack of dedication to the Lord.....

But the point is if we are judging our Christianity by comparing the volume of our worship or the amount of times we habitually pray in a day to those of sports fans or the Muslims, we are entirely missing the point.... While dedication is a good thing, we are not to glory in our worship, nor by the amount of time we spend in prayer....

Galatians 6:12 says that we may glory in the cross alone...It is by the cross alone we are to evaluate our lives....

If we stop short and choose to measure our lives by elements that can be measured by the human eye such as the volume of our worship and the times we pray in a day, we have cheapened the cross and our salvation to something that can be earned by human might....YUCK

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

#119-Wayne Francis (Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah!)

To those not familiar with the legend of Wayne Francis....Wayne Francis is the number 1 guy you want preaching apostolic youth conferences and revivals. His sermons are very carefully constructed, demand emotional response, and most importantly inspire hope into thousands of young people that through a very exciting service/altar call, things will change. Perhaps most intriguingly, his sermonizing have some sociological similarities to that of a well-organized late 19th-century Vaudeville show. Further he just completed a 4 year term as Secretary of Promotion for the UPC General Youth Division. 

Before Wayne Francis, the entire UPC was like watching television when it was black & white. It was still remarkable then, but you never realized what you were missing until color television was introduced. Wayne Francis made the entire UPC in color. And once television went to color, you never wanted to go back to black & white outside of nostalgic purposes. 

The Footloose Conspiracy

Hopefully you have seen Footloose the 1984 epic starring Kevin Bacon in his most daring role to date...Because it will better inform this section of the post...

But anyways to best understand the connection...let's look at Wikipedia's article for Footloose:

Footloose is a 1984 American film that tells the story of Ren McCormack (Kevin Bacon), a teenager who was raised in Chicago. McCormack moves to a small town where the local government has banned dancing and rock music. Ren and his classmates want to have a seniorprom with music and dancing. They must figure out a way to get around the law and Reverend Shaw Moore who blames rock music's influence for the death of his first child.
The movie was loosely based on events that took place within a relatively small and conservative, rural-based Christian denomination known as the UPCI. Except Kevin Bacon was actually Wayne Francis….And the senior prom was actually youth congress 2007 (and continued into his now infamous 2009 sermon). And when Footloose referenced “rock music,” the movie was actually alluding to NAYC 2007 when having blue jeans on the platform was allowed. And by dancing, well… we are still referring to dancing...and Wayne Francis can D-A-N-C-E:

But seriously is there no better narrative for us to realize the life of Wayne Francis is fully embodied in the roll of Keven Bacon in footloose?  Kevin Bacon is the new kid in school who brings with him the zaniness, courage, and attitude of some strange land that the small-town culture had previously never imagined. But yet within Bacon's character, there is a kind of innocence where you know Bacon is not being rebellious to be rebellious, but if he appears to be rebellious it is only because he is being true to himself and that spirit within. The same can be said of Wayne (except replace the rebelliousness of Bacon with the trendsettingness of Wayne).  Wayne came marching into to a relatively flavorless denomination, and breathed personality into it. Sure some people did/do not like it, but even his sharpest critics have to admit there is some zest to his personality that makes him impossible to hate....and again, all reservations against Wayne will be lost once Wayne-O gets dancing, you can't deny it's hypnotizing influence (just watch the first 9 seconds)...

But Wayne's influence goes beyond bringing some flavor to the younger generation of apostolics....

Bro. Francis has got style....

 Three things to know about Bro. Francis' fashion sense:

His style can be best described as a little bit speakeasy, a little swagger, a little Franklin Pierce, a little poppycock and a whole lot of ravishing matching goodness...

He doesn't look to Hollywood to find out about fashion, rather Hollywood looks to Wayne Francis to find out about fashion.

Wayne has single handedly kept bow-tie companies in business...Not necessarily him single handedly, but because of the influence of his style which has spawned hundreds of "Mini-Waynes" who act and dress just like him (complete with bow-tie)...

The  "Mini-Wayne" dress alike phenomenon was at it's height at Youth Congress 2009...However, it had been around for some time previous, evidenced by the hip-hop star: Lil' Wayne who took his name after the "Mini-Wayne" spectacle....

(Pictured: Lil' Wayne)

The Myth
I cannot understate the influence Wayne Francis has had on young people in apostolic circles in recent years. In one sense you could call him "legendary" (relatively)...but even then, there are many UPC "legends" of old who have gained notoriety simply because of their infamous sermons at national conferences. Each of us has a dozen or so preachers/evangelists we could quickly put in the legendary status. Yet, I would say  there is a UPC folklore that allows for another level above that of UPC legend, and they would be that of mythological status. Lee Stoneking is one of these...David Bernard is another...Paul Mooney a third.  I am not sure I would put anyone else up there (perhaps an Anthony Mangun or Kenneth Haney)....

A few years ago, Matt Maddix showed the eagerness of young people to thrust a voice from their own to the rank of "myth" status, but his presence has somewhat faded amongst the UPC for reasons that cannot be pinpointed (though he is definitely of legendary status)....

So Wayne Francis was Matt Maddix 2.0....and he has exceeded expectations. I posit to you the reader, that Wayne Francis, deserves the "myth" status akin with the names mentioned above. Please note that this ranks system is not to be defined by spirituality or souls saved (for who are we to measure that?), but rather by sheer popularity and the force that popularity draws....For proof of the "Wayne as myth" categorization, please see exhibit A in the following video....The applause you are about to hear is for Wayne Francis last youth congress as a kind of "going away" appreciation applause in regards to his departure from the General Youth Division.

How many men in the UPC do you think could garner that kind of applause?

So....without further adieu.......

YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH! (listen for it within the first 4 seconds after the clip starts)