At first when I looked at this website I simply assumed it was a joke, and a funny one at that. But as I investigated further I started to wonder whether or not it was actually the real deal. In disbelief I wondered to myself if there are really people in the world with taste this bad?
Any child who is made to wear these hideous pajamas is surely going to grow up with some serious problems, or at the very least a really screwed up taste.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that the site is indeed the real deal, and that it has enjoyed much coverage over the past week or so both on and offline, even getting mentioned on NPR.
There is no information on just how many orders for armor have been taken but according to the site the companies desire is “to grow into a well-known Christian Organization whose main goal is to reach as many children as possible by providing the Word of God, offering top quality products and excellent customer service along with offering parents the means and support to help their children grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.”
Apparently Armor Of God PJ’s were “inspired by a mother reading Ephesians 6:10-18 every night to her daughter to give her a safe and secure feeling in the dark. As they read the scriptures, they put on each spiritual and powerful piece of the Armor of God to keep them safe and peaceful while they slept.”
Now that scene in itself is probably common enough among the God fearing folk of the world, but for Florida mom, Peggy Wakefield, this sparked what she might argue was the ‘divine inspiration’ that brought the world ‘Armor of God’ pajamas.
“God gave me the idea how wonderful it would be if all children could have the opportunity to put on a pair of pajamas that symbolized the Armor of God for the same purpose that with their belief in Jesus and His protection they will feel safe and secure during the night as they sleep. As they dress in the mornings, they should replace them with the spiritual Armor of God to protect them in their daily activities.” Says Peggy.
For around $50 the pajama set will transform a normal looking child into something that resembles a cross between a crazed England soccer fan and a White Knight of the Klu Klux Klan.
The pajama set includes a top with breastplate of righteousness and belt of truth hem, pajama pants with wings of peace to cover feet, a helmet of salvation, a shield of faith pillow, and a sword of the spirit, and an activity coloring book. You even get a free copy of the New Testament with every order of PJ’s!
It might be a crazy idea and a celebration of off the wall taste, but the really scary thing is that there may well be enough people out there who think this is a great idea to make the Armor of God a success.
—
Wrote the following comment on Aug 28, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Thank you for your restraint…I think…
Wrote the following comment on Aug 28, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Lol at the Armor pj’s…
Wrote the following comment on Aug 28, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Hmmm…undoubtedly the root cause for the next generation of dysfunctional adolescents.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 28, 2006 at 3:00 pm
“For around $50 the pajama set will transform a normal looking child into something that resembles a cross between a crazed England soccer fan and a member of the White Knights of the Klu Klux Klan.” Ha! Yes, but they are amazingly comfy. I mean… they look amazingly comfy. How would I know how they feel? I mean, they don’t even come in adult sizes… Not that I checked.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 28, 2006 at 4:00 pm
What next? Jesus on the cross underoos?
Wrote the following comment on Aug 28, 2006 at 4:41 pm
ugly pajamas – I agree with you on that point – but something like that might truly comfort a child who is afraid of the dark and of going to sleep at night. I wonder how many people will end up buying them.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 28, 2006 at 4:44 pm
To any child afraid of the dark I say just do a Reece and give’em a gun. :-)
Wrote the following comment on Aug 28, 2006 at 9:08 pm
I chose to put a night-lite in my children’s bedroom when they were afraid of the dark…I do not believe I would ever have considered buying those P.J.’s – they are quite unattractive.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 28, 2006 at 11:45 pm
$50 huh? why does that not surprise me?
Wrote the following comment on Aug 29, 2006 at 3:24 am
Not mentioning that is a bit much$ for some freakin’ PJ’s.
Why don’t they make them and send them out to the poor kids. Naaahhh.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 29, 2006 at 3:30 am
So if kids ones cost $50 then I can’t imagine how expensive the adult ones would be. Naked has never been so cost effective!
Wrote the following comment on Aug 29, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I had no problem with your first comment, but I just deleted that whole “conversation”, because I didn’t want more people getting hung up on it. But it didn’t offend me, if that’s what you’re wondering.
The second comment I deleted, not because I didn’t think the armor pj’s funny (lol), but because you didn’t capitalize the first letter of God’s name. You are free to write whatever you like on your own blog, and censor whatever you like. I’m a Christian, and I think God’s name should be treated with respect, at least by Christians. Since I’m responsible for my own blog, I’ll delete comments that don’t come up to par in that respect.
I hope you understand that my deleting of your comments was in no way an attempt to make you feel unwelcome. Please, say whatever you like. If I don’t want it there, I’ll delete it. You can do the same with your blog. It goes both ways. ;-)
~Rachel
Wrote the following comment on Aug 29, 2006 at 7:11 pm
So Rachel, did you delete others in that conversation then? I can only assume you did.
The reason for deleting the second comment is really very anal I think. But quite aside that I think it was not exactly very cool to delete it without warning or explanation of allowance for me to correct the tiny grammatical error to meet your high standards.
I have to be honest and say that that whole reason seems just like an awkward explanation to cover up the fact that you didn’t want the comments on there because you weren’t entirely comfortable with the ‘cat among the pigeons.’ It stinks to high heaven of uptight christian behavior that is sadly all too common with people who spend a lot of time ‘avoiding the appearance of evil’ and making sure they look the part.
Like I said on your blog I was disappointed, but sadly I can’t say I am all that surprised. Christians expend a lot of energy being pedantic over details that have almost no baring or relevance in the bigger picture.
I don’t think you’ll be seeing much more of me on your blog Rachel. It’s no great loss to you of course, but if your sentiments were well meaning your actions concealed that.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 29, 2006 at 10:16 pm
woah, woah, woah! Sorry to barge in here like this, seeing as how we don’t know each other, but I really feel that I have to speak in behalf of Rachel for a second. The reference to swinging that you made is exactly the reference I (unfortunately) first thought of when I read her post. I didn’t think it was a huge deal that you said what you did, but I did post a comment thanking you for not going any further with it than you did. No reason to, after all. As far as her deleting a comment because you didn’t capitalize “God,” that’s her business. As she told you, quite amiably, actually, it offends her when people don’t capitalize the name of her Savior. She believes (as do I) that her God is the only true God, and if you were so tolerant and accepting as your sort claim to be, you’d comply with her preference, out of courtesy, whether or not you think our God is the only true one. Would I have deleted the comment? Probably not. But it’s her prerogative to do so on HER blog. And I think YOU are the one being pedantic by starting a paragraphs-long argument on BOTH blogs over it.
I’m just about as Orthodox Christian as they come, and I find it quite easy to get along with people who aren’t Christians, as long as they are rational. Fortunately for both of us, I think, you aren’t fitting that bill. I’ll be happy not to read anything further from you on Rachel’s blog.
Have a nice day!
Wrote the following comment on Aug 29, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Very well said Simon.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:49 am
I Agree.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:45 am
Annie thanks for the comment. lets not get anything confused here though. First off I am not wishing to make a drama out of this, as you rightly point out Rachel is free to delete any comments as she sees fit. But my annoyance is more really down to the fact that she deleted my comment without warning, notice, explanation or opportunity to address her preference. You seem to be under the impression that I was aware that Rachel preferred the use of capitals when referring to God or Jesus when in actual fact I didn’t know that and had I done I would have made every effort to make sure I didn’t make that mistake.
In referring to Jesus, Allah, or any person either living of dead, God or mortal, I would usually capitalize the name. I don’t remember not capitalizing the word God on comment I made on her blog, but if I did then this was merely an oversight, NOT a deliberate show of disrespect.
What ticked me off is that for Rachel to delete that post for my mistake really seems of petty and somewhat small minded. Yes, bad grammar is a little annoying to me to, but is it really worth deleting a comment over? If I had a grammatically pedantic attitude then your comment would be deleted for starting the whole comment without a capital! Though I think unarguably a better reason for deleting your comment would be because of your name calling and overall confrontational attitude which seems entirely uncalled for.
As admirable as it is that you have come to the support of your friend Annie, you’ve really only stuck your nose into a situation you didn’t have straight in the first place. What your comment does reveal however, is the uglier side of Christian culture that would really rather not have anything to do with the world outside strict social and moral boundaries.
Your final line “I’ll be happy not to read anything further from you on Rachel’s blog” is merely your polite Christian way of saying “Fuck off and don’t come back you asshole.” In response to that, I will promise you that you I’ll always extended you a warm welcome here and your comments will never be deleted no matter how rude you choose to be.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 1:46 pm
wow! i hardly capitalize anything. i’m a christian and it doesn’t bother me not to capitalize god. amazing people.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:29 pm
big “G” little “g” whatever. 12 years of catholic school and i could care less. it is these same so called christians that will flip you off because you cut them off pulling out of the church parking lot on sunday morning, lol!
agree, agree, agree with you simon. (oops, sorry didn’t capitalize your damn, please don’t delete my comemnt, lol)
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 3:04 pm
It’s better than dressing the kids with suicide belts.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Well this is just ridiculously blown out of proportion. EVERYONE screws up their spelling and their gramar (or is it grammar?) on Zanga.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 4:12 pm
You know, dare I say this, but I think part of the reason this has happened is because we’re talking about fairly young inexperienced Christians here. Rachel and Annie are both ‘college kids’ attending a conservative Christian college, thus lending them susceptible to rather over the top oddball behavior. Also, given they are both Patrick Henry College students it’s also not entirely unreasonable for us to assume they were both home-schooled and therefore they are possibly a little more sheltered than most folk their age.
Oddly enough this affair rather illustrates a point I made in the post I wrote about Patrick Henry College in which I felt that having been home schooled in religious environments the students might be “inexperienced kids who were collectively about as much fun as a wet Thursday afternoon.”
A lack of life experience mixed with a heavy dose of religion is bound to lead to idiotic bouts of behavior sometimes. With a little more life under her belt I’m quite sure Rachel won’t be nearly as anal about big or little G’s next time… let’s hope so anyway.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Dear me, I’m confused. The quotation you used, “Sorry to keep clogging your blog with comments…” or something like that, wasn’t me. So I guess I should just disregard what followed, since it didn’t apply to me, but I will address it anyway. I have in no way become rude and/or cynical to people outside of my “college group of friends.” First of all, seeing as how I’m still a freshman and only really know about 15-20 people on campus, I can’t see how I can really have a college group of friends.
Second, all of my closest friends remain firmly outside of PHC’s sphere of influence, as a great deal of them are not even Christians, much less Orthodox evangelical Christians. I have close friends from all political creeds, religious creeds, even sexual orientations, and so I cannot see how I as a rule am rude and cynical towards those not attending and/or affiliated with PHC. I would go so far as to say that I am neither rude nor cynical… at all. In fact, cynicism is one of my biggest pet peeves. I can’t stand so-called “jaded” and “sophisticated” people who suck all the fun things out of life. This doesn’t apply necessarily to you or to this situation at all, but merely serves to illustrate my character. I do, however, have a short temper when it comes to people who firstly say rude things to friends of mine and who secondly continue to beat the dead horse after the conversation ends. I have said it, and I will say it again: Rachel was being neither pedantic nor “anal” when she deleted your comment in which you didn’t capitalize God. She also has NO OBLIGATION to somehow “inform” you that she deleted your comment. In fact, I think it would be MORE childish of her to come back onto your blog and say, “By the way, Simon, I deleted your comment because you didn’t capitalize God. That offends me. You ought to know better than to… etc. etc. etc.” She tried to do it discreetly and without much offense to anyone involved.
I won’t delete your comment because I have no reason to.
Please keep visiting my blog; you will find (I hope) a refreshing stream of non-cynicism and certainly non-rudeness. Perhaps I was a bit too hasty in judging your character, and for that I apologize. However, both of us should take care in the manner in which we say things, for they can be easily misconstrued.
Good day, sir.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:02 pm
My name is Simon, it’s not very difficult to learn that Annie. perhaps if you slowed down your eager freshman pace of life and took time to investigate and consider things a little more, you would have seen that at the top of the page and on my Xanga too.
The quote was from your friend Rachel who has come here and commented on a number of occasions.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Good evening, Mr. Jones…
(Whether Simon Jones is your real and actual name in life, I don’t really know, so I shall assume the responsibility that…it isn’t your name. So I will call you Anonymous.)
This morning while browsing through my personal list of Xangas, I came across your comment on helena17’s Xanga site. Being the inquisitive fellow I am, the desire to investigate these accusations you brought forth overcame my opposition of doing so. You say she called your blog “intolerant, pedantic and irrational,” and from reading over this Annie’s comment, I can only see one of the three words: padantic. And another thing. She did not call your blog “intolerant, pedantic and irrational.” In fact, I see nowhere in her comment a reference to your blog, except for maybe you “starting…paragraph-long arguments on BOTH blogs,” which, of course, includes your own blog. So, your accusations in this particular section are therefore null and void.
That’ll be all for now…
‘Night.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Sorry, Simon. I am a little busy at some points.
By the way, I wasn’t homeschooled. No significance, I’m sure, but just fyi ;) I am not sheltered, and have committed sins I’m sure some of my classmates would scream in horror upon hearing. I also do not in ANY WAY have a lack of “life experience,” and nor do most homeschoolers. Homeschoolers have had family who aren’t Christians addicted to drugs and alcohol, as I have had and still do have. Homeschoolers have had family who ARE Christians turn their back on God and pursue destructive behavior. Like I said, and will further ennumerate here (not to give myself any brownie points, but merely to refute your (common freshman) assumption that all Christians are sheltered bigots), my best guy friend is openly, non-celibate gay. My aunt has AIDS, went on a church retreat for people with AIDS, had extramarital sex with a man who also had AIDS ON that retreat, and conceived and bore a child. My father is a truck driver, and my family is poor. We’re not some perfect, sheltered, never-done-anything-wrong, “lack of life experience” group of people.
And, just for your readers who have left comments in response to this whole ordeal… using a medium like the Internet gives one no excuse to butcher the English language. If you want to appear (whether you are or not) intelligent, use proper English and grammar when speaking to someone, regardless of the medium you are using.
Talk to you later, I’m sure, Simon.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:31 pm
man, that chick sure has a lot to say. good lord annie, give it a rest. you’re only fueling the fire.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:50 pm
lol, Cara… Simon leaves plenty of comments on my blog too ;)
Wrote the following comment on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:27 am
I delete comments when a last name is referenced, because there are no last names on my blog.
I guess everybody has their own rules.
I think too much has been said on this already. I can’t believe how much some people can argue . . .
Wrote the following comment on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:44 am
Gaffer, your comment made me laugh. Why on earth would Simon Jones be a made up name LOL!!! Anyway, Gaf (can I call you Gaf?) you need to read harder. The ‘accusations’ were not at all null and void. All three things were mentioned in relation to me, you just need to find them.
I tell you what, all you life experienced PHC students need to slow down and take a little time to read things thoroughly before you wade in calling comments “null and void” and making sweeping judgements.
As for Annies comments about grammer. I just want everyone to know that you are all more than welcome to write however you please. It’s no secret I don’t much like txt spk, but no ones going to mark your comments like a paper so feel free to write howevr you wish and don’t be afraid of fking up your spelling. :-)
I’m done arguing with these oh-so-life-experienced teenagers now.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 31, 2006 at 2:57 am
*sighs* I could continue certain aspects of this argument, but you would just accuse me of being “rash,” or, as you put it, “inexperienced.” So I’ll focus on one part. How’s that? :-)
You changed your argument.
Your comment on Annie’s site: “Anyway, just wanted to stop by and thank you for calling intolerant, pedantic and irrational my blog.” That is a direct reference to your blog, not you. Now you say, “All three things were mentioned in relation to me. . .,” so your sidestepping your previous allegations and are now focusing on an indirect correlation.
We’re talking about your blog, not you personally. :-P
And I don’t mind you calling me Gaf. :-D
Wrote the following comment on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:29 am
And in that sentance I think it’s very clear that there is a missing ‘me’. Another fine example of a gramatical oversight. You only have to say the sentance outloud to figure out that much. Now please, I don’t have the time or inclination to carry on this whole gramatical bollocks for another day.
I wonder, did any of the PHC folk who came rushing here in defense of one another actually stop to read the bloody post?! LOL!!
Wrote the following comment on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:29 pm
You’re hopeless.
Wrote the following comment on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Sticks and stones…
Wrote the following comment on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:59 pm
ahahahahahhaha…amn if i wasnt in a library right now id be laughing outloud…really really loud…this is hilarious. simon when is ur birthday cause im gonna order u a pair pf these pjs;)
Wrote the following comment on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I think I’ll look great in them too! :-)
Wrote the following comment on Sep 1, 2006 at 4:32 pm
I SOOO want to get in on this, but I’m just going to turn around and walk away….Simon…I think we should all buy a pair of those and mail them to the PHC administrators to protect them from these folks.
Just a joke, Annie, Gaf. et al…..
Wrote the following comment on Sep 2, 2006 at 3:30 am
Simon, just remember we’re not all like this. I was quite as easily riled when I was younger and a newer Christian. They have good intentions . . . they’re just not being shown through their arguments at this point. Some Christians would rather “slay in the Spirit” than share the love of Christ, but if you look up “slaying (or slain) in the Spirit” in the Bible, you won’t find it . . .
To the college kids: Just love, people. Just love. Trying to argue and judge someone who may have different views on Christianity than you do (however slight the difference) will NOT show the love we’re supposed to have as Christians, and really doesn’t bode well for the appearance of your intelligence. Read Ephesians, Chapter 4.
Simon: You know I love you, man. They’re kids. Cut ’em just a little slack. ;-)
Oh, and I have those PJs . . . in blue. HA!
Wrote the following comment on Sep 2, 2006 at 7:25 am
first of all..im pretty sure god doesnt care if his name is capitalized or not. i used to be weird about that too, but i realized that humans care about that kind of stuff cause we have pride issues. god doesnt have these issues, so why should he care? he is who he is regardless of whether i capitalize the g or call him chuckles.
and second of all, stuff like this gives me a headache…thats why i choose to not be around ppl like this. its exhausting and its embarassing.
theyll wise up one day and maybe youll be around to show them a good time. hahaahha kidding. but yeah, this is lame.
Wrote the following comment on Sep 9, 2006 at 4:54 pm
I have just come across this website through your website which I arrived at googling “spiritual abuse” and came up with something you did on Wirral CC. A good few years ago I spent a year there on placement from theological college. I can understand why you left it was far from a positive experience for me. Glad to have found your blog.