The Definition of Manliness

Earlier this month the American Psychological Association (APA) came out denouncing "traditional masculinity" which it defines as "a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence."  This kind of masculinity, the APA has said, is "harmful."  Even more recently, Gillette released an online advertisement that eschews several masculine traits and behaviors, seemingly in line with the APA's definition of "traditional masculinity."  The Gilette ad generated quite a bit of backlash, and there have been at least two very good biblical responses to the content and message of the ad, and I commend them both to you (this one, and this one).

More and more frequently, it seems, our culture is generating new definitions for words and ideas that, heretofore, have been affixed in their meaning and commonly embraced by our society.  The most significant example I can think of has been the redefinition of words like "marriage," and "love," and "man," and "woman."  These words have been redefined within our society in order to accommodate the political and personal persuasions of cultural elites and vocal protestors, and now the same thing is being done to the concept of masculinity.  The understanding of what is (or is not) masculine, and whether or not those traits and characteristics are either harmful or beneficial is only the most recent concept in our society to be judged by cultural elites as wanting, and quickly redefined.

Leaving that discussion aside for a moment, hopefully we can all agree that the definition for "traditional masculinity" generated by the APA is almost laughably absurd.  As Adam Ford has pointed out, who among us is not thankful for the for the risk, achievement, and spirit of adventure that led us to send men to the moon?  And is there anyone among us who is not glad that brave men used violence to overthrow Nazi Germany?  Does not the APA believe that a man's willingness to use violence to overthrow evil represent a good and positive thing, rather than "harmful, traditional masculinity?"  I, for one, was glad that when I was a child, I could count on my dad to "eschew the appearance of weakness" when faced with trials.  Once, when I was eight or nine years old, an intruder attempted to break into my family's house in the middle of the night.  But before he could do so, he was confronted by "traditional masculinity": the physical presence of my dad, placing himself between the intruder and his family, willing to do whatever he had to in order to protect and preserve them.  I thank God for my dad's "traditional masculinity."

Similarly, just a couple of nights ago, around 10:00 PM, my wife called for me to come upstairs.  Our daughter had a bad dream and my wife said she needed a "Dad Hug."  I came upstairs to find my daughter sitting up in bed with a worried and scared look on her face.  I sat down and asked her what was the problem, and she told me about her dream.  She dreamt that there was someone who was breaking into our house with an intention to hurt her.  After hearing about the dream I did my best to calm and encourage her.  I told her that it was just a dream, and dreams aren't real.  But even if there were someone trying to break into our house, it was my job, both as her father and as the "man of the house," to do everything in my power to protect her (and her mother and brother) from anyone who might wish to do her harm, and that, under my protection, she need not fear intruders.  According to the APA's definition, my assurances given to my daughter that I would deal with any threats to her wellbeing exhibit at least three, and perhaps four, characteristics of this "traditional" and "harmful" masculinity.

The APA has answered that, of course they don't mean that all forms of adventure, or achievement, or risk are inherently harmful masculine traits - just the ones that are taken to an extreme.  But what do the "extreme" versions of these traits look like?  And who gets to decide which masculine traits are harmful and which aren't?  And therein lies the problem with redefining words and ideas in order to fit the cultural persuasions of the times: all of these definitions (such as this new definition of traditional masculinity) are utterly subjective, and are only based on the preferences of the elites who are self-appointed to make such definitions.  The APA has appointed themselves the arbiters of the definition of masculinity, and have implied condemnation for all forms of masculinity that don't fall within their approved parameters.

We need better definitions, and I don't mean definitions that fit more in line with my preferences over and against the preferences of our culture or of the APA.  After all, my preferences are just as affected by sin as those of the larger culture.  Rather, we need objective definitions of words and ideas.  Thankfully, we have them.  The Bible shows us what masculinity looks like, and it doesn't change with the times or at the whim of cultural elites.

The Bible tells us what a real man is, what he does, the kind of character he exhibits, how he acts, how he talks, how he treats women, how he relates to his kids, how he works, and so on.  Rather than try to formulate a new definition for masculinity that complies with our day and age, we would be wise to learn, study, and master the definition that God provided millennia ago.

This is not to say that the APA is entirely wrong in its evaluation of "traditional masculinity."  Indeed, many forms of "traditional" (read: cultural) masculinity are abhorrent and should be admonished.  Certainly men should treat women well, measure their actions against potential consequences, admit their weaknesses, be satisfied in an honest day's work, and restrain their propensity towards violence.  But the reason for this is not because I or anyone else happen to think so, but because the Bible has spoken clearly.  These are all traits that the Bible has commanded and commended for millennia.

And we should also be quick to affirm that the Bible teaches that human masculinity is fallen; that is, it has been corrupted by sin, and as such, needs to be redeemed.  The Bible has much to say about "harmful masculinity" and it only takes a brief look through its pages to find a myriad of examples.  There are indeed sinful aspects to fallen masculinity.  But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Rather, let us preach the gospel so that men - and their masculinity - can be redeemed through by the power of the Holy Spirit and be transformed into men that will follow the example of Jesus and lay down their lives for others daily through service and love.

The same is true of femininity.  Our culture has much to say about what femininity is and isn't.  To give weight to such definitions is just as effective as chasing after the wind because the definition will likely change in the near future.  Women, like men, need an objective and eternal standard of womanhood.  We don't need new definitions that are based on a self-appointed elitist's fallen moral preferences.  Instead of listening to cultural definitions of important ideas, Christians should return to their Bibles.  God has already told us what a man should be.  That was enough for Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, and Paul, and it is enough for me and for my son.  Let's not train up our sons to be men of the APA, but men of God according to his word.

Can't We All Just Get Along? Probably Not.

Before I get into the meat of this post, I feel it necessary to make it known that I did not, nor do I now, support Donald Trump for president (although he is the president elect, and I will "support" him in that I will respect him in his office).  I did not vote for Donald Trump.  My "tribe" stands to lose very much from his election to the office of president (which, much to my chagrin, my tribe doesn't seem to understand).  For instance, I am of the opinion that the election of Donald Trump has effectively ended the debate on the sanctity of marriage.  Conservatives have unknowingly abandoned their argument for marriage being between one man and one woman by throwing their support behind a candidate who does not share a like-minded opinion on the sanctity of marriage.  The same is (somewhat) true for the life argument, although, to be fair, it remains to be seen how the newly elected president actually will deal with life issues.  At the very least, we can say that his commitment to pro-life values is very late in coming, and is not entirely robust.

I could go on and on about my problems with Donald Trump, but I'll leave it there for now.  I hope that you can see that I am not a Trump supporter, and that this reality will give you some context to what I'm going to say next.

In the two days since Trump's election to the presidency, there has been much consternation on the left that has manifested itself in the form of protests, riots, and social media outrage.  Others - both conservatives and liberals - have called for unity and to put our support behind the president-elect, and that this is a time for us to see how we can work together toward a better future for our country.

Well, it ain't gonna happen.

Please understand: I don't say this because I don't want it to happen, or because I don't think it should happen.  Indeed, I do want it to and think it should happen.  But the reality is that our society has changed so drastically in the past 10 years, that our collective cultural and social constructs and "enlightened" worldviews won't allow us to make peace with one another.  It's a fascinating (and frightening) time to be alive.  Let me give you just three reasons why I think there will be no peace and unity in our nation for the foreseeable future:

1. Because we now interpret disagreement as hate speech.  Certain issues in our society that used to be matters of opinion in which two disagreeing parties could engage in vigorous debate have been deemed to be the litmus test for bigotry, hatred, racism, etc.  For example, the opinion that illegal aliens should not be allowed in our country is interpreted as having racist motivations.  And nobody wants to reason with a racist, because racism is wrong, right?  Nobody wants to have unity or peace with racists, because racists are filled with hate, right?  In the eyes of some in our country, it would be akin to finding unity with the KKK, which obviously is a type of unity that nobody wants to have.  Another example is opinions about the sanctity of marriage.  Not advocating for gay rights is considered discrimination and bigotry.  Who wants to sit down and work together with a bigot?  No one.  Since one side is convinced that the other is filled with hate-mongers, they have no desire for unity or peace with them.  To do so would be to validate what they see as hatred and bigotry.  As long as people interpret the opinions of others as hatred and bigotry there will be no peace or unity in our country.

2. Because we we buy the narrative perpetuated by the media.  The media loves ratings, and they know that juicy stories are going to garner page views, link clicks, air time, and advertising dollars.  The media doesn't care about the truth so much as the bottom line.  They don't care about what's actually happening, but they're happy to report on fringe stories that are just that: on the fringe, so as to make people angry.  When people are angry, they visit websites and share articles on social media; they watch cable news shows and read magazines.  The media knows this, so they consistently report stories that they know will push people's buttons, and we - people who like to have our buttons pushed - take the bait.  We ingest these fringe stories and we react to them.  The media tells us what is important, and we go along with it like obedient sheep.  As long as we allow the narrative of our society to be perpetuated by the media, there will be no peace or unity in our country.

3. Because social media amplifies the worst about us.  Similar to the way the media spins the narratives in our country, many of us live in the microcosm of social media.  We're never more than a click away from airing our most inflammatory opinions that we haven't thought out, vetted, fact-checked, or even read beyond a headline.  This kind of sharing simply perpetuates the anger and extremism that we all fall into if left unchecked.  Plus, social media is a safe place for us to say inflammatory things - there are no checks and balances.  The worst that can happen is for someone to call us a crazy liberal or conservative.  A very recent and real example is this website that supposedly catalogs instances of racism that have occurred since Donald Trump was elected president two days ago, and allegedly as a result of his election.  Take a look at the examples posted there, and you'll hopefully notice a few things pretty quickly (note: I am not justifying any of the horrible things described on this site): 1) many of these reports are unsubstantiated; they are based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay.  2) considering that reality, it is possible that these alleged instances of racism could be spread by anti-Trump people who want to hurt the image of those who have supported Trump (in other words, they're intentionally causing trouble - something that has been done before the in the recent past).  3) it's also possible (and, in my opinion, likely) that these instances of racism (if substantiated) were perpetrated by fringe minority groups who always have been racist losers and are simply living up to their reputation.  It's unlikely that all of a sudden, once Donald Trump was elected, a vast number of people suddenly began to let their racist strips shine through.  It's more likely that racist losers - who were racist losers long before Donald Trump was even on the political scene - have taken this opportunity to perpetuate their wickedness because they know they'll get the spotlight (see point 2 above).  But people have taken these fringe incidences and have used them as an opportunity to showcase the very worst things about humanity.  And others on social media see them and are (rightly) enraged by them.  But rather than direct their anger toward the fringe minority groups perpetuating evil, they choose to instead direct it at those who merely disagree with them (see point 1 above).  There will not be peace and unity in our country for a long time because social media brings out the worst about us, and we're all too quick to believe it and attribute it to everyone who thinks differently than we do.

We are a long way off from having unity as a country.  We can't even trust one another when we say that we don't hate each other.

Take a Knee

So apparently our country can't stop talking about athletes that are taking a knee or protesting in some way during the national anthem at their various sporting events.  It all began when Colin Kaepernick sat on the bench during the National Anthem about three weeks ago, as a way to protest alleged police brutality and racial injustice.  After a social media firestorm, more players took part by going to one knee during the Anthem.  A further social media firestorm erupted, as backers and detractors began to comment and create memes (I hate memes) either supporting or decrying what some athletes have begun to do on what appears to be a regular basis (some say they plan to go to one knee during the Anthem for the rest of their seasons) before their games during the National Anthem.

My time and attention given to social and political issues on this blog has waned in recent years, and I actually hope to keep it that way for the most part.  But there have been a few thoughts swimming around in my head as I hear about more and more athletes kneeling during the National Anthem, so I'm going to write them down here.

1. First and foremost, this protest is mostly based on lies.  Of his protest, Kaepernick has said, "I'm not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.  To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.  There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."  How noble of Mr. Kaepernick.  The only problem is that there is no evidence that backs up anything he says.  He says that this country "oppresses black people and people of color."  All evidence points to the contrary (including Kaepernick himself, who has aspired and risen to the position of a very wealthy professional footballer).  Furthermore, he says that "There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."  Again, there is no evidence that this statement is true.  In fact, many who have been accused of such things have been exonerated, much to the chagrin of people like Kaepernick.  At the very least, it has yet to be proven that any police officer involved in recent shootings committed murder, so at best Kaepernick and others have significantly jumped the gun.  I realize that facts don't matter to most people nowadays, but they still matter to me.  And if Kaepernick and his ilk have integrity at all, they should consider the facts of what they're actually taking a stand for.  In fact, to accuse people of serious crimes with no proof - and to slander them for the same - is, in itself, a serious injustice.  Colin, you're taking a stand for a lie, and fracturing the very justice that you claim to love and uphold.

2. Many have rightly pointed out that our brave men in uniform who died in service to their country, and who are particularly honored by a rendering of the National Anthem, did so to preserve freedoms such as the freedom to protest by taking a knee during the National Anthem.  I agree entirely.  I am so very grateful for the freedom to take a knee during the National Anthem in protest.  However, those same men also died to preserve my freedom to regard you as an ignorant fool for partaking in such a protest.  Yes, you have the right to protest, and I likewise have the right to call you out on your foolishness.  The knife cuts both ways.

3. The protests started with Colin Kaepernick sitting on the bench while his teammates stood.  It has since morphed into taking a knee on the sidelines in and amongst other standing teammates.  The purpose of this evolution has been to "show that they still had respect for the anthem and military, while still bringing awareness to racial inequality and police brutality."  More likely, this change was brought about by the natural (and appropriate) backlash that occurred from such a show of disrespect, so the protesting athletes had to capitulate to some more tolerable form of protest.  I find this ironic:  A protest occurred and it was met with a negative backlash, so the protesters changed their protest to something that was more culturally palatable (albeit, barely).  Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of the protest?  Isn't the protest supposed to make people uncomfortable?  Mission accomplished.  So why change it?  I understand that it was to still show respect to the flag and military, but I don't buy that.  If you're going to protest, protest.  Don't let "The Man" tell you how to protest, or else it ceases to be the protest you intended.  Be a man and sit on the bench.  Don't take a knee.  Take responsibility for your actions.  If you're going to make a statement, make it.

The Sustainability of Transgender Theory

Many corners of the internet have been abuzz recently after President Obama put forth his "decree" (I'm not sure if that is the proper term, or if it is only being used by some in a pejorative sense, but nevertheless, it seems somewhat appropriate) stating that public schools should allow students who identify as transgender to use the restroom or locker of their choice.  This is yet another cultural shift that we have endured and, even if it is not to last (there are many who believe that this decree is akin to the LGBT movement jumping the shark), this decree is at least a foot in the door for more flawed thinking about gender and sexuality in our culture, which has become perhaps the slipperiest of slippery slopes our culture has ever trod.

There are significant theological implications to this decree, and I've touched on some of them here and there on this site, and many, many others have capably done so as well.  Let me point you to Russell Moore's article, and my associate, Levi Secord's article as good examples of how to think through this issue biblically.

Don't get me wrong: it's incredibly important to address this issue biblically.  But what is just as fascinating to me - and almost as important - is looking at the practicality and sustainability of transgender theory in society.  In Russell Moore's article, linked above, he makes the point that societies can't operate under the assumptions that transgender theory makes - it's just not sustainable.  And the lack of sustainability of transgender theory is not a matter of opinion but of practical observation and basic logic.  I think it's a fair and necessary task for all parties to step back and make an honest appraisal of the logic used to justify advancements made in the LGBT movement to determine if they are culturally sustainable.  And, in my opinion, an honest judgment of the arguments made should lead us to realize that these matters are not sustainable in our society, or in any society, for that matter.

Transgender theory essentially states that a person's feelings override or trump biological reality.  Within the scope of transgender theory, this means that a person's feelings of gender override biological gender, and so biological men who feel like women become women, and vice versa.  But this theory is severely and fatally flawed: our feelings never override biological or scientific fact - even feelings that are strongly and sincerely held.  It doesn't matter how sincerely I believe that I can fly like a bird - if I jump off a ten-story building, I will die.  My feelings do not override scientific reality.  But since the scope of transgender theory is limited to biology, I'll limit my arguments to the reality of that field of science.  If transgender theory is accurate, and feelings do override biological reality, then other scenarios must also be true.  For instance:

According to transgender theory, it must be possible for a person to feel a different race or ethnicity than their biological race or ethnicity, and therefore identify as that race or ethnicity.

According to transgender theory, it must be possible for a person to feel a different age than their biological age, and identify as that different age.  (For instance, using the logic of transgender theory, why can't a 17 year old boy identify as a 21 year old adult and buy a case of beer?)

According to transgender theory, it must be possible for a person to feel a different species than their biological species, and identify as that particular species.

I could go on, but I'll leave it there.  In order for transgender theory to be sustainable, it needs to explain why feelings trump biological reality in regards to gender, but not to race, age, or species.  But transgender theory is capable of no such thing, and is therefore an unsustainable cultural construct in our society.  It simply can't be sustained.

For instance, transgender theory seeks to alleviate the plight of transgendered persons of being forced to use a restroom that accords with their biological sex rather than their gender identification by forcing schools to allow such persons to use the bathroom that most closely aligns with their own gender self-identification.  By forcing transgendered persons to use the bathroom that aligns with their biological sex, transgender theory asserts, transgendered person are discriminated against.  So the desire of transgender theory is to alleviate this perceived discrimination by "guiding" public schools to accommodate transgendered persons in using whichever bathroom or locker room they prefer.  The incredible irony created by this situation, however, is that in attempting to alleviate perceived discrimination against transgendered persons, transgender advocates are enacting real and demonstrable discrimination against the more than 99% of the population that is not transgendered.  Consider, for example, the vast, overwhelming majority of children in schools who have no desire to use the restroom or shower with people of the opposite sex - regardless of their self-identification.  Transgender theorists have no regard for the feelings of those who will be imposed upon (biological boys and girls who naturally identify as boys and girls), and will force them to accommodate transgendered persons at the cost of their own privacy and dignity.  In other words, in an alleged attempt to provide privacy and dignity for transgendered persons, transgender advocates steal the same from literally everyone else.  This is yet another reason that transgender theory is simply not sustainable.

Moreover, the speed at which these changes are taking place is breathtaking - literally.  In a matter of weeks and months our culture is being commanded to utterly reverse a cultural norm that has existed in our country and culture since its inception (in a grander sense, a world-wide cultural norm of segregation of the sexes when it comes to public restroom accommodations has existed for centuries, if not millennia).  Those who are advocating for these sweeping changes based on transgender theory simply cannot be shocked that there is pushback.  Even if transgender theory weren't fatally flawed (which it is), to demand that 300 million people change their centuries-engrained cultural practice on a dime is incomprehensibly shortsighted and ignorant.

To be sure, there are a myriad of other problems with transgender theory - I've only identified a few.  Here's to hoping for more intellectually honest and logically consistent thinking in our society in the coming days, because it's certainly not happening at present.

Let's Keep Christ out of (Cultural) Christmas

There has been an incredible amount of backlash in the last few days about these ridiculous
Starbucks coffee cups: Christians have attacked Starbucks for waging a war on Christmas, secularists have belittled Christians for attacking Starbucks, other Christians have attacked Christians for waging a war on Starbucks, and Christians have attacked the secularists who are attacking the Christians for attacking Starbucks.  It has turned into a convoluted mess, and most people on social media (Christian or otherwise) have ironically become a part of what they have been decrying. 

The whole notion of a “war on Christmas” seems to be a yearly phenomenon, but this year it’s gotten an early start.  Retailers are accused of waging war on Christmas by removing religious or even seasonal images and wording from their packaging and marketing, and people get offended because the words “Merry Christmas” have become politically incorrect.  And so people – many of whom are Christians – become offended and are convinced that there is a war on Christmas.  Well, there is.  And the sooner the culture can “win the war on Christmas” the better, as far as I’m concerned. 

After all, what does the culture’s representation of Christmas have to do with the actual purpose of the Christmas holiday?  Nothing that I can see.  Then why do we want one of the most holy of Christian holidays to be recognized and celebrated by a culture that only uses it as a marketing gimmick?  News flash: the only reason why Starbucks designs its cups the way they do is because they believe it will sell coffee.  The only reason any retailer markets and packages their wares the way they do is because they believe it will lead to sales.  If Starbucks thought they could sell more coffee by using cups that had manger scenes on them, that’s what they would do.  Secular Christmas is about marketing.  And if companies can cash in on your cultural ideas of Christmas, that’s what they’ll do.  

Think I’m exaggerating?  Think about it: two cups of coffee stand before you: one that is plain red with the Starbucks logo; the other is red with a full manger scene, including Mary, Joseph, animals, wise men, angels, and everything else.  Which cup do you reach for?  Why?  Could it be that you choose the manger cup because you identify with it?  If retailers can figure out what drives your purchasing habits, they’ll take advantage of it.  Do we want to participate in the process of Christ being lowered to nothing more than a marketing gimmick? 

And why would we want Christ to be associated with the secular culture’s idea of Christmas?  After all, the culture’s idea of Christmas is replete with themes of materialism and idolatry.  And we want to keep Christ IN the culture’s idea of Christmas?  No thanks.  Take him away from all of that, and good riddance.  And a note to Starbucks and other retailers: if you can strip Jesus out of your marketing and packaging, that would be great.  The culture’s idea of Christmas should be secular, because the culture is full of secularists.  Yes, take Christ out of the culture’s idea of Christmas.  The more we can focus on Christ without being distracted by materialism and idolatry, the better. 

Come, behold the wondrous mystery

In the dawning of the King

He, the theme of heaven’s praises,

Robed in frail humanity

What does that have to do with Starbucks coffee cups?

Influences that Influence our Influences

In yesterday's post I began to talk about the notion that religious instruction is akin to brainwashing.  I began by pointing out that we all see the world based on what we've been told and taught, and by what we have observed.  I then linked to an article which is provocatively titled, "I Want My Kids Brainwashed."  The author recounts accusations she has had from unbelievers that she is brainwashing her children by putting them through religious instruction.  But, as she concludes, it is a good thing that her children a "brainwashed" (a better term would perhaps be "indoctrinated") with the Christian faith, considering all of the other philosophies out there by which to be brainwashed.

This is an important point when it comes to how we see the world and evaluate truth claims: each of us starts with a context - a set of lenses, if you will - and through these lenses we interpret the reality around us.  There is no one on the earth who does not have his or her own set of lenses.  As I said yesterday, we are all "brainwashed" with some sort of framework through which we see the world.

This reality tends to render the accusation that Christians brainwash people as null and void, because even leveling the accusation "Christianity is brainwashing" is, in itself, the result of some sort of contextual brainwashing - particularly the secular kind that believes religion to be brainwashing.  In other words, one cannot make the claim "You have been brainwashed" without having been brainwashed himself or herself.  This is what I was trying to explain in yesterday's post: we cannot examine the process of having been influenced, without being influenced.  

So then, if we are all "brainwashed" to see the world and evaluate truth claims in a certain way, then how can we ever know the truth?  I would argue that such a standard exists in the word of God.

"But," you say, "you've admitted that your analysis of truth claims is inherently biased based on the ways you've been influenced as a child and adult!  How can you be objective when evaluating the truth claims of the Bible?"

I can't.  The best I can do is to know my own biases and presuppositions as well as I can, and to eliminate them as much as possible when I analyze evidence and make conclusions.  I will always have my specific set of lenses that I will look through when I see and observe the world, truth claims, etc.  But the more I know I have those lenses on, the better I can realize when they might be leading me to believe something "just because that's what I've always believed."

Also, through this imperfect process we look for a source of truth upon which to build our lives that is transcendent, trans-cultural, and timeless.  I would argue that the Bible is that source of truth, and blows all other philosophies or worldviews out of the water.  Even our biased interpretations of the Bible are better versions of "brainwashing" than the world has to offer, such as those mentioned in the article linked to above.

In conclusion, I would agree with the article to which I've linked that brainwashing is indeed a good thing.  In fact, you can't even be alive without having been brainwashed to some extent.  The question is not, "Should we brainwash our children?" but rather, "With what philosophy should we brainwash our children?"  There's no escaping it.

That being said, I would obviously reject the notion that we should not engage our brains and critical thinking skills when evaluating truth claims.  We should not believe things just because we've been told them over and over, or just because that's what we've always done or believed.  That would be brainwashing, and that's not profitable for anyone.

Differentiation of Self

It's somewhat common to hear those critical of organized religion level the accusation of brainwashing toward those who practice a faith - particularly Christianity - and particularly when it comes to educating children in the basic tenets of the faith.  In other words, there are some who feel that teaching and propagating the Christian faith is akin to brainwashing - people only believing what they believe because they've been told to believe it often enough that it just becomes a part of their reality, disassociated from any critical or reasonable thought.

One of the main ideas imparted to me during my seminary education was that of differentiation of self: the idea that in order to better understand reality and other people, one must be able to step outside of one's self and see how one has been formed and influenced by culture, family, relationships, religion, etc. Why is this important?  Because there are many things that you and I believe to be right and true, not necessarily because those things are right and true, but simply because that's what we've been taught or have observed our entire lives, and we've never questioned those beliefs.  In other words, we've been brainwashed in some areas of our lives and understanding, albeit unintentionally and without any kind of malicious intent.  It's just a natural product of being linear, cultural beings.  We repeatedly observe the world in a particular way, and we make conclusions about reality based on those observations, and moreover, we assume that our observations and subsequent conclusions are normative, or that they are prescriptive for all people in the world.  In a very real sense, we are all brainwashed.  And the teaching of self-differentiation states that the more we can identify this unintentional brainwashing, the more sensitivity and tolerance we will have toward those who have observed the world in different ways (because of cultural influences) and have come to different conclusions about reality (worldview).

This concept was the foundation of spiritual formation philosophy at Bethel Seminary.  The more we know ourselves in truth and why we think/believe the ways we do, the more we can grow in our knowledge of truth, understand why others envision God in the ways they do, and engage in dialogue with them through which we can all grow spiritually.  I believe there are several good elements of this philosophy, but there are also at least two very significant problems.

The obvious problem with this practice is the propensity for truth claims to be seen as a simple byproduct of cultural persuasion: in other words, you only believe Idea X to be true because it is a product of your culturally/religiously influenced observation of the world.  In this sense, no one can be absolutely sure of any truth claim, because our understanding of truth is suspect due to our heavily influenced way of seeing the world.  Nor can we condemn any ideas as being absolutely  false, since our reasons for doing so can always be called into question, due to our unseen, yet formative, persuasions.  This is one of the basic tenets of postmodernism.

A secondary problem with this practice is that it seems to me to be self-refuting.  Differentiation of self intends for us to do our thinking about life, relationships, truth, and the world with as good a grasp as possible on the propensity for our influences to color our thinking and interpretation of truth claims.  But the problem I see is that the process of self-differentiation is, itself, subject to those same influences.  In other words, if my influences color the way I see and believe truth, then those same influences change my ability to discern those influences.  Yes, I realize it's a bit of a mind bender, and it's also something of an infinite regression.  Put simply, it's akin to the reality that the claim "There is no absolute truth," is a statement of absolute truth.  The two cannot both be right.  In the same way, we can't discern our influences without have that process be influenced by external factors.

So then, we can conclude that everyone examines truth within a social, cultural, societal, religious, ethnic, etc. context, and these factors shape the way we think about truth claims and determine what is true.  In a sense, these influences "brainwash" us into seeing the world in a particular way.  But is that a good thing or a bad thing?  And what about the claim of critics of Christianity that Christians are brainwashed, and that they brainwash their children?  Are they right?

I'll try to tackle these questions in a subsequent post.  I've been thinking about these issues because of some stuff that has come up in my personal life recently, and also because of this article that was just published today on the Gospel Coalition website.  It makes some great points on some of what I've said here, but I want to comment more on it at a later time.

Cool Your Jets, Man Pt. 2

I posted yesterday about how language changes and evolves over time - words that perhaps were offensive at one time no longer are, and vice versa.  And some words that were used frequently fall out of use.  For example, my high school biology teacher told me once that if something was really cool, back in his day they would say that it was "ducky" (my mom confirmed that "ducky" was a common word several years ago).  And if he and his friends saw an attractive girl they would say she was "teal" (I'm guessing as to the spelling of that word).  Now I don't know about you, but I have never heard those words used any time recently.  Those words have fallen out of use.

Similarly, cultures determine what words are acceptable and which aren't.  For instance, once when I was in Jamaica (a mostly English-speaking culture) I learned some of the words they use regularly that have never become commonly used in America.  For example, if a Jamaican thinks something is really cool, he says it is "bashmint" (at least that was the word when I was 17 or so - things may have changed since then).

For the most part, changes in the ways words are used happen organically.  That is, it happens naturally.  There's no Word King that is handing out rules about which words are acceptable and which aren't, or which ones will be used or not used.  At least until now.

A few days ago I read this fascinating article about how the word "homosexual" is falling out of use in major print publications, such as the New York Times and Associated Press outlets, which are very influential and set the standards for other publications.  Turns out that some very influential people have made an unofficial rule that the word "homosexual" is now offensive.  More than that, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has a whole page of words and terms that they have, in their supposed sovereignty, deemed to be offensive when it comes to talking about gay people or homosexuality in general (no offense intended).

Why not use terms like "homosexual," "gay lifestyle," or "sexual preference?"  Because they apparently suggest that homosexuality and the behaviors that accompany it are somehow undesirable or only center around sex, rather than the whole person.  You can read all about the terms they find offensive and why here.  But I'm just not buying it.

As I read the descriptions of why they believe certain terms to be offensive, I find some significant logical holes, filled in with some monumental assumptions about homosexuality in general, and about specific topics within the overarching conversation, such as gay marriage.  In other words, they like the terms they have selected better than the more commonly used ones they find offensive because the cherry-picked terms are more conducive to the promotion of their beliefs and ideals.  So then, rather than let culture determine which words are usable and which are offensive, they're letting their agenda drive the use of language regarding homosexuality, and forcing it on the culture.

The product of this language engineering is to make homosexuality more culturally and socially acceptable.  If people can begin thinking and speaking in terms that are dictated by the movement, they'll begin thinking like the movement.  The old words they used to use that probably carried a more realistic (however blunt) connotation with them no longer influence thinking, and the words that are more palatable to the agenda promoting them drive the society's thinking on the issue.  Words have meanings, and those meanings are important because they help us communicate and comprehend ideas.  The more we can bend the meanings of words to be conducive to our side of the argument, the more we will be able to persuade the public to think the same way we do.  It's a fascinating and effective tactic.

On a related note, a few months ago Thabiti Anyabwile wrote an article called "The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and 'Gay Marriage'" (warning: this article contains very frank talk about homosexuality and anatomy).  In it, he argues that Christians should revert back to a more basic and blunt way of talking about homosexuality.  He suggests that we use terms that bluntly describe anatomy and sexual acts as a way of reminding the culture what homosexuality is really all about.  Pastor Anyabwile has taken more than his share of flack for this article, and somewhat rightly so, I think.  I'm not very easily shocked anymore, and even I was taken a bit aback by how he describes the homosexual lifestyle.

That being said, I think he is on to something: our culture wants to tame the reality of what happens within the homosexual lifestyle (again, no offense intended), and this example of GLAAD trying to decrease the usage of words like "homosexual" is evidence of just that.  The reality is this: words have meanings, and those meanings communicate ideas.  And know this: there are people out there trying to shape our culture by dictating the meaning of words, and there are enormous societal and religious consequences involved.

In my previous post, I argued that Christians should have no part in the process of offensive words becoming inoffensive.  We are to focus on wholesome talk that builds up, not on making filth words so common that they become acceptable.  But in this instance, I think Christians should make a point of using words that have been deemed offensive (at least by GLAAD and many media outlets), because if we choose to use more tame descriptors, the culture will be all the more inclined to embrace a lifestyle that we know is destructive to people, both physically and spiritually.

Cool Your Jets, Man Pt. 1

Words change.  The way we talk changes.  The meanings of words change.  Even within my short 33 years of life words have come into common usage, and gone out of common usage.  Words that were offensive at one time no longer are, and new offensive words have been created.

When I was in third grade, The Simpsons were just beginning to be all the rage amongst my peers, and Bart Simpson Tshirts were the thing to have.  I begged my mom to get me a Bart Simpson Tshirt, even though I had never seen an episode of the show at that time (The Simpsons was not allowed in my home).  For some reason, my mom seemed more open to the idea of wearing a Simpsons Tshirt than allowing me to watch the show, but the only shirt I could find had a slogan that she deemed inappropriate and disrespectful.  What was it?  The shirt had a picture of Bart on it, with a speech bubble that said "Cool your jets, man."  That was it.  Inappropriate and disrespectful.  Nowadays we would scoff at the idea of someone saying "cool your jets" as being disrespectful.

Also back in those days, another word was coming into common usage: sucks.  As in "That sucks," or "It really sucks that winter is lasting so long."  Even in my formative childhood years, the word "sucks" was marginal at best when it came to being allowable in common language.  It was seen as coarse and crude, and to harken back to Bart Simpson, is what made his character somewhat edgy: he said "sucks" without a second thought.  Those days are long gone, however, and it's very common to hear the word "sucks" in everyday speech - even from children.  If I'm being honest, I must confess that this word has become a regular part of my vernacular as well.  I don't consider it to be crass or vulgar, but a regular way of expressing disappointment.  That's the way our culture has used the word, and so - right or wrong - that's what it means.

In more recent times, there's another word that was commonly considered crass and vulgar that has made its way into common parlance: "p*ss."  Why didn't I write the word out in its entirety?  Because I still consider it to be crass and vulgar.  That's a word I don't use, mostly because I just think it's a disgusting word.  The culture disagrees however, and "p*ss" is a commonly used word.  It's quite common to hear someone say that he or she was "p*ssed off" and not even give it a second thought.  But even though the culture has considered this word to be OK for common use, I can't bring myself to say it.  I just don't like it.

Our culture dictates what words are usable and what words aren't.  We determine together what words are off limits, and what words are usable, simply by our willingness to use them in common speech.  There's nothing inherently evil or offensive about words.  After all, they're just a combination of letters that form a word.  Their implied meaning is what we find offensive, and that meaning is attached to the word.  Hence, some words are off limits because they are just too offensive.

You can observe this pattern in movies you see too.  It used to be that the Effenheimer was not allowed in a PG-13 movies, but nowadays you can expect at least one.  The F Bomb is becoming more and more culturally acceptable, and so we allow it more frequently.  Or just turn on the TV.  Things that used to be unheard of in TV dialogue are now common place.  It's not necessarily good or bad - it's just the way it is.  My kids will grow up using words that would have gotten my mouth washed out with soap when I was their age, but they are common to them.  It's just the way it is.

Christians, however, are instructed by the Bible to allow no unwholesome talk to come out of their mouths.  In other words, we take the temperature of the culture, determine what the culture finds to be crude or unacceptable, and make a conscious effort to avoid those words.  I would further argue that we do the same with those words that are on the edge of vulgar - we don't want to use words that might be considered vulgar either.  When in doubt, err on the side of wholesome.

What I think this implies is that Christians are not to be forwarding the cultural acceptance of crass words.  We realize that the acceptance of some words into the common vernacular is a natural process, but we don't want to add to it or speed it along.  The culture is going to do what it is going to do with the meaning and acceptance of certain words.  Christians should be focused on using words to preach and to build up, not words that push the envelope and actually speed up the process of their acceptance and use.

This understanding of how words work and change in culture, and how they become offensive or inoffensive is beginning to play a significant role in the continuing discussion about homosexuality in our society.  Except our culture isn't the one determining what words in this conversation are allowable and which aren't.  Instead, those determinations are being made for us, and we're being force-fed a cultural change when it comes to how we talk by people who are tailoring words to fit their agenda.  It's a sneaky game, and one that appears to be working.

But this post has gotten long enough.  More later.

Yo, Adrian

Warning: Having re-read this post, it's rather sexual in nature.  Readers be aware.

A couple weeks ago, Adrian Peterson, star running back for the local footballers made some public statements on gay marriage.  Peterson said that gay marriage was something he couldn't endorse, but that he holds no animosity toward homosexuals.

Peterson's comments came in the context of being asked by media members to address the release of Chris Kluwe from the Vikings, the punter who was vehemently and disgustingly pro gay (I say disgustingly because Kluwe wrote several pieces that were so lined with filth and vulgarity, and so full of vitriol and hatred toward anyone who dared disagree with him, that I refuse to link to them here).

When Peterson made his comments, there were several reactions in the sports media.  Some did not approve; others said they respected him for sharing his opinion.

And then this week Adrian was asked some follow up questions regarding his previous comments.  Peterson elaborated by saying that he wouldn't have a problem with having an openly gay teammate.  He says he'd still high-five him, pat him on the rear, and go about playing the game.  He did mention, however, that he'd feel uncomfortable showering with a gay teammate.  You can read about all of his comments here.

When Kluwe came out with his over-the-top, hateful comments endorsing the homosexual lifestyle and damning all those who dared disagree, one of my many reactions to his sentiment was that he should just shut up and play football (some people think the Vikings thought this as well, as it is rumored that some of the higher-ups in the organization questioned Kluwe's ability to be so involved in the gay marriage debate and remain focused on his job on the field).  You're a football player.  Just play football.  I had somewhat of the same reaction with Peterson, even though he comes down more on my side of the issue.  He's a football player.  We don't need to know what he thinks about gay marriage in order for him to play football, or for us to enjoy watching him play the game.  Hey pro athletes: just stick to what you know.

But what has intrigued me the most about this latest hubub has been the reaction of the local sports media.  Once in a while, when I'm not listening to Wretched Radio podcasts, I tune into ESPN 1500 on the AM dial and listen to Reusse and Mackey.  Patrick Reusse is the seasoned curmudgeon, while Phil Mackey is the young punk sports reporter.  The two usually play off each other really well, and it can be very entertaining sports radio.

This afternoon they were talking about this situation with Peterson, and Mackey said that his problem with Peterson's statements was that it seemed as though Peterson was trying to go out of his way to assure everyone that he didn't have a problem with gay people, when he actually did.  In short, Mackey was implying that Peterson's comments were a sort of bigotry-light, or like trying to sugar-coat discrimination.

For example, argued Mackey, what if, instead of being gay, a person had a head cold?  It would be odd to say that you would still high-five or pat someone on the rear who had a head cold.  Of course you would!  Why wouldn't you?  Of course you would shower with someone who had a head cold.  To refuse to shower with someone just because they had a head cold would be ridiculous.

Granted, all analogies break down eventually, but Phil's never even makes it out of the gate.  He's equating playing with an openly homosexual player with playing with someone who has a head cold.  The two situations are not even close to analogous.

A more apt analogy would be, perhaps, what it would be like for a man to play a professional sport with a woman.  Would you high-five her?  Sure.  Pat her on the rear end when she makes a good play? Whoa.  Now we've just crossed a boundary, haven't we?  Why would it be inappropriate for a man to slap a woman on the behind after a good play?  Because men are attracted to women and vice versa, and the gluteus maximus is considered to be off limits when it comes to congratulatory slaps between genders, giving a congratulatory tap on the cheeks would definitely be off limits.  A man slapping a woman on the bottom - even in congratulatory fashion - would, by nature, be a sexual act.

But when it comes to a gay man who is attracted to other men, shouldn't the same rules apply?  I would think so.  Personally, I wouldn't slap a gay man on the behind for the same reasons I wouldn't slap a woman on the rear, because it is a sexual act.  This is why straight men slapping other straight men on the butt is not a sexual act - because they are all men and there is no sexual attraction between them.  But with gay men there is a difference.  Although they are also men, their sexual attraction is toward men which would make touching their rear end in any way a sexual act.  In fact, slapping a woman on the rear end could constitute sexual harassment, or even assault.  Would it not be the same for a gay man?

But then we go beyond butt-slapping.  What about showering?  Would a man feel uncomfortable showering with a woman who is not his wife?  Definitely.  Why?  Again, because men and women are attracted to one another, and showering while naked is an intimate act that is not shared between common acquaintances.  So then, if gay men are attracted to men, then wouldn't gay men showering with other men be an act with an underlying sexual nature?  Again, I would think so.  I wouldn't shower with a woman who was not my wife, nor would I shower with a gay man, because both actions would be sexual in nature.

This is not to say that gay men are women, but they share a similarity with women in that they are physically attracted to the male gender.  Having a head cold does not make you attracted to naked men - it simply makes your nose stuffy and runny.

That's a bit different from a head cold, Phil.

What does "Tolerance" Look Like?

This is what tolerance looks like.  If you follow the link you'll find an article written by Shane L. Windmeyer, the gay man who started the brouhaha about Chik-Fil-A being a supposedly anti-gay company that funded discriminatory organizations.  In the article, Windmeyer talks about the experience of having Dan Cathy reach out to him during the scandal so they could talk to one another and understand each other's position more thoroughly.  Windmeyer accepted the invitation, and the two became fast friends.  So much so, that Windmeyer was Cathy's guest at the Peach Bowl in Atlanta earlier this month.

Windmeyer is very complimentary of Cathy, explaining how, although they disagreed, each was heard and understood by the other, while still maintaining their views.  Their minds were not changed, but they were able to come to a mutual understanding of one another which led to some real progress in the relationship between the two groups, and hopefully, between the two agendas in the larger sphere.  It's a great story of what can be accomplished between two opposing points of view if they simply respect one another and engage in thoughtful, meaningful dialogue with each other.

What's even more interesting about this article, though, is that I think it flies in the face of everything the tolerance crowd stands for.  As I've said before on this blog (here, here, here, and here), typically those who cry for tolerance actually want nothing of the sort.  In reality, they just want those who disagree with them to either shut up, or abandon their values altogether and join them.  As you can probably tell, this is not tolerance.  It's bullying.

Tolerance is not possible unless people disagree.  After all, if we didn't disagree with one another, what would there be to tolerate?  You would agree with me and I would agree with you.  We wouldn't have to tolerate one another because we'd be on the same side.  So the modern mindset that defines tolerance as an acceptance of something that goes against my beliefs and values is absolutely backwards.  It's not tolerance at all - it's forced agreement.

Tolerance only exists in circumstances where people differ.  It's an acceptance of the reality that people see the world differently than you do, and being OK with that.  It doesn't mean you stop talking, nor does it mean you abandon your convictions.  It goes even further when different people sit down for their mutual edification through a dialogue of the issues that are disagreed upon.  When we can engage in civil discourse with people whom we have significant disagreements, tolerance is in full force.

When you look at tolerance like this, it doesn't seem to be such a hot topic as many in the culture make it out to be.  That's because when they cry tolerance, they want their political or social enemies to either shut up or adopt their own beliefs.  That's not tolerance at all.  In fact, that's the definition of intolerance.  How ironic: those who label others as being intolerant are actually guilty of the very thing they claim to hate.

Can a Christian practice tolerance?  Absolutely.  Not only can a Christian practice tolerance, but a Christian should practice tolerance.  This does not mean that we give up our beliefs or worldview, mind you. In fact, if you have to compromise your beliefs you're not practicing tolerance - you're giving in.  The real question is, can a Christian practice tolerance and still call the world to repentance and the truth of scripture?  Again, I would say absolutely.  We don't stop loving people with whom we disagree just because we call them to repentance - in fact, we call them to repentance and the truth of scripture out of a spirit of love and concern.  And even if the world doesn't respond to our call, we continue to listen, try to understand, and find new ways of effectively preaching the truth to all who would hear it.

Dan Cathy showed us a remarkable way that Christians can practice tolerance (engaging those with whom we disagree) while still standing up for biblical truth.  Kudos to him.  And Kudos to Shane Windmeyer for practicing tolerance as well.

Have a Beer with Jesus?

I was listening to the Wretched Podcast today, and they did one of their entertaining and provocative "Iron Criticizing Iron" segments.  The topic for this installment was whether or not the song "Beer with Jesus" gets a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

This segment on Wretched consists of Todd, Tony, usually David (the Chocolate Knox), and sometimes either Joey or Joel, talking about the theology of an issue.  Sometimes, as is the case in this instance, they'll talk about a pop culture issue, and determine whether or not it's theologically sound, something Christians should participate in, etc.

Like I said, this time they analyzed the song "Beer with Jesus," and talked among themselves about whether the song was profitable (in a spiritual way) or not.  Here's the song, and you can read the lyrics here.



If you read the lyrics or listen to the song, you'll find that 95% of the lyrics are good and sound.  The singer talks about asking Jesus some good questions, admits he's a sinner, and expresses a desire to grow in holiness.  Nothing wrong with that.  The crux of the song is the fact that he's having "a beer with Jesus."  Is Jesus someone with whom one could have a beer?

Before we get into what the guys on the show thought about the song, and what I think about the song, I think we need to affirm that drinking alcohol is not a sinful activity.  Alcohol is a morally neutral substance.  It is neither right nor wrong, bad nor good.  It can be used sinfully, and it can be used rightly (more on that in a minute).  A biblical case against alcohol as a substance cannot be soundly made, at least in my opinion.  But certainly when it comes to the misuse of alcohol, the Bible is full of all kinds of warnings and wisdom that we should take heed of.  All that to say that I don't think the song can be tossed out simply because it connects Jesus to beer.  Now onto Wretched's analysis.

One of the guys immediately gave the idea of having a beer with Jesus a thumbs down.  Again, not because of the beer, necessarily, but because he believed Jesus to be too high and holy to have any kind of beverage with.  That is, is Jesus really a buddy that I could have a beer with, or is he a high and holy God who sits at the right hand of the Father, the one to whom angels bow and cry, "Holy, holy, holy!"?

I think this is a good thought.  The resurrected Lord is certainly the Lord of holiness and transcendence.  He is higher than we can ever imagine.  He demands the respect and worship of all peoples, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.  That doesn't sound like a drinking buddy to me.  On the other hand, however, there are ample scriptures that affirm Jesus' nearness.  That is, although he is indeed high and transcendent, he is also meek and lowly - able to come down to the lowest depth to rescue lost sinners.  After all, Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners, and he called those who follow him his "friends."  No doubt he shared some wine with them and answered their questions.  Would he not do the same for me?  I think he would.  One of my favorite hymns is "No, Not One!" which states, "No friend like him is so high and holy; and yet no friend is so meek and lowly."  I think this is a good description, and presents the real dichotomy we face when thinking about how we relate to Jesus and vice versa.

Tony, the resident Lutheran on Wretched, gave the song a thumbs up.  He said the singer was asking genuine questions, was open and honest and humble, and that since beer is not inherently sinful, that Jesus would indeed have such a conversation and enjoy a beer with someone.

While I don't particularly find anything wrong with having a beer, and I think I can be persuaded from scripture that Jesus would come down to my level to "have a beer with me," I think I ultimately have to give the song a thumbs down.  The reason for this is the role that alcohol has come to play in our society.  As I said earlier, I don't think alcohol is inherently sinful in and of itself, but it must be recognized that the vast majority of alcohol use in our society is sinful.  That is, people in our country mostly abuse alcohol, or use it as an escape.  In fact, you could probably safely assert that alcohol has an overwhelmingly negative reputation in our society.  This is why I, although I don't think drinking is sinful, pretty much stay away from alcohol altogether.  I might imbibe once in a while, but my regular pattern of life is to leave it aside.

But why not partake if it's not sinful?  My reasoning is this: because of all the damage that alcohol has done to our society, and because of all the relationships it has played a part in ruining, and because of all the people in our society who continue to struggle with addiction to alcohol, I have chosen to not endorse it as a regular part of life.  Can you drink and not sin?  Of course!  But I would caution anyone who drinks to do so carefully.  Everything we do speaks to those around us.  I, for one, don't want to send a message that I either approve of or am indifferent to the massive detrimental effect alcohol has had on our society.  In my opinion, drinking alcohol can communicate that message, and that's something I don't want to be a part of.

That being said, I think I would not rule out the idea of Jesus having a beer with an unrepentant sinner who is under conviction and seeking truth.  In that case, alcohol might be a part of that person's context (maybe even sinfully), and so having a beer with Jesus might work.  But even then, if beer was a main part of a person's sinfulness and rebellion, would Jesus condescend to the level of participating with someone in something that is a sin issue for them?  I should think not.

This is why I ultimately give the idea of having "a beer with Jesus" a thumbs down.  In our context, I can't see Jesus having a beer simply because of all the damage beer has been responsible for.  In other contexts, however, where the damage of alcohol is less pervasive, and where the responsible use of it is more culturally acceptable, I think it would make sense.  That is, the idea of Jesus having a glass of wine with a French person singing is probably more acceptable than the idea of him having a beer with an American.  Why?  Because our cultures view alcohol differently.

Look at the lyrics again.  If you replaced "have a beer" with "take a walk" throughout the song, I'd have no problem with it, although the context of the song certainly wouldn't make sense (not too many jukeboxes out on nature paths).  But the concepts are the same: a humble sinner inquiring of the Lord.

Let's just leave the beer out of it.

Plausible Arguments

This past Sunday (and this coming Sunday, Lord willing) I had the opportunity to fill the pulpit at Riverview.  My text was Colossians 2.1-8, in which Paul warns the Colossians against believing the various false teachings that were circulating in their religious culture.  Paul tells the Colossians that he is struggling for the sake of their doctrinal and practical purity as a church, and he says that he's struggling so that "no one may delude you with plausible arguments" (verse 4).

In the Colossian religious culture there were various false teachers who, more or less, subscribed to traditional Christian ideas and theology.  They just added minor differences or made a twist here and there to add some different teaching that added a little spin to what the Colossians already believed.  The problem is that just a little twist to the doctrine of salvation can lead to heresy quite quickly, and it appears that this is something like what was happening in Colossae: minor twists to core doctrines that were leading the Colossians astray.

The difficult thing about "plausible arguments" is that they are often couched in very reasonable and rational terms.  Or they might be delivered in ways that appeal to emotions so as to persuade the hearer because his or her heart strings are being tugged at.  Furthermore, it's possible that people were arguing very sincerely for their particular slant on orthodox theology, and it's always difficult to argue against someone who sincerely believes what they believe.

But none of the aforementioned ways of arguing for a particular point are objective means of determining truth.  Arguments can seem logical, but be completely fallacious; appealing to emotion is also fallacious.  Just because something tugs on my heart strings doesn't make it true.  Nor does sincerity determine truth.  Someone can sincerely believe what they believe and still be very wrong (such as sincerely believing that 2 + 2 =5).

We can probably appreciate Paul's warning against being deluded by "plausible arguments" after having watched the three presidential and one vice presidential debates.  Each man has an agenda that he spins with every word that comes out of his mouth.  There are plenty of half-truths and distorted facts that serve to support each candidate's position.  Candidates also try to persuade voters by tugging at their heart strings and by conveying to voters the fact that they sincerely believe the thoughts and ideas that they are espousing.  In order to balance out the half-truths espoused by the candidates, the media has seen fit to take upon themselves the position of "fact-checker," although I question even the fact-checkers' ability to determine truth.  They are likewise arguing from an interpretation of the "facts."

Probably the most prominent issue in which I have personally heard people attempting to delude others with "plausible arguments" is in the debate surrounding the gay marriage amendment.  But before I explain further, let me say that I don't believe that people intend to delude, or to espouse "plausible arguments" when they present their case, whatever it may be.  That is, I believe that people actually think what they say, and they truly believe their arguments are based on truth and fact.  I don't think people realize the ways in which they are persuaded by emotion and fallacious logic.  I've covered this before on this blog.  To be sure, this is a problem that everyone has - we all have reasons for believing and thinking the way we do, and some of those we have arrived at objectively, and some are more inherent and based on the ways we have been raised, and our particular worldview.  The challenge, then, is to be able to realize these influences to make our thinking as objective as possible.

When it comes to homosexuality and the same-sex marriage discussion, it is my opinion that both sides appeal to emotion when making their points, and that appeals to emotion are the foundation of why people think the ways they do on this issue.  This is not a good place to argue from for either side.

Case in point: a Facebook friend of mine from high school posted the below this past Sunday (I've removed all names and photos).

As you can see, the post generated quite a stir, producing a total of 39 "likes" and 120 comments as of 10:00 AM this morning.

This is an argument based on emotion, even though the Poster claims that it is not his opinion, but is instead a "fact."  The person who wrote this is appealing to emotion by labeling all those who would support the marriage amendment as being discriminatory.  Whether or not this is true is, at this time, irrelevant.  The fact is, the foundation for his argument an attempt to shame people into believing what he believers.  He doesn't realize it but he is, to put it in biblical language, attempting to delude others with his plausible argument.  Furthermore he even admits that this is an issue that he feels strongly about, furthering his motivation to propagate his ideas.  In order for this to be a legitimate argument, he needs to show how voting against same sex marriage is indeed discrimination, and that said discrimination is an inherently bad thing, of which he accomplishes neither - not in the post itself nor in the 120 comments that follow (trust me, I read through all of them).  My purpose in examining this post is not to either agree or disagree with the sentiment expressed therein, but to show how this is not a good way to argue a position or promote an intellectually honest pursuit of truth.

So then what should Christians do?  Paul's focus in Colossians 2 is on finding truth in Christ, and not in man-made arguments that always come from some personal agenda or set of influences (including my own).  The only objective means of discovering truth is the word of God, and this is where Christians should look to find truth.  In other words, "What does the Bible say?"

Certainly my Facebook friend and several in the comment thread would fire back that my interpretation of the Bible is likewise influenced by my own agenda and influences, to which I would answer, "Absolutely, yes."  To deny this reality would be intellectually dishonest, and would be to turn a blind eye on my own propensity to argue from emotion, to use fallacious logic, and to hold on to wrong beliefs because of my sincerity in believing them.  I fully admit that I am not an objective standard of truth.

But the word of God claims to be an objective standard of truth, and it either is or it isn't.  And even if my interpretation of it is flawed and influenced by my own sinfulness, at least I have something objective to fall back on.  This means, however, that we need to be aware of our tendency to delude others with plausible arguments even when we argue from the Bible.

I think one of Paul's main messages in this text from Colossians 2 is this: don't be confused or persuaded by emotion or fallacious logic, or just because someone believes something sincerely.  Instead, as yourself this question: What does the Bible say?  If we are looking for truth, and especially in light of our own propensity to twist facts to suit our own preferences, at least we are starting in the right place when we go to scripture.  And the more we realize and know about our own tendency to twist things to fit our own agenda, the more we can fight that tendency in ourselves as we search for truth.

Thinking About Bullying

This video has gone viral, and several of my Facebook friends were posting it in their feed as recently as last night, all with positive comments for the woman in the video.  It got me and The Mrs. thinking about the topic of bullying last night.

The focus on bullying as a social behavior is a more recent trend.  Certainly bullying is not new, nor has it just recently come into existence or into the general knowledge of the public.  Bullying has been around as long as there have been people on earth, and everyone has known about it.  In recent years, however, the topic of bullying has garnered more and more attention in the public realm.  We hear about it on the news, and there are even movies and documentaries being made on the subject.  I think it's safe to say that the level of attention bullying has been given in schools and even in the public square has increased dramatically since I was a kid.  While I was taught to respect others and their differences when I was in elementary school, kids nowadays are going through all kinds of education on bullying and its sometimes devastating results.  Why the shift?  Why has bullying become such a prominent and public issue?

First I think we need to know what a bully is.  The online Merriam Webster's dictionary defines a bully as "A blustering, browbeating person; especially one habitually cruel to those who are weaker."  By this definition, everyone in the United States of America either is, or at least has been, a bully.

Think about it: did you ever make fun of kids when you were a kid?  I certainly did.  I was even "habitually cruel" to some kids.  Maybe you're even a bully now.  Ever experience road rage?  Ever yell at a driver for doing something you think is stupid and then retaining that anger for a while?  Is there a co-worker of yours that is nerdy and weird, and you and other co-workers talk about him or her behind their back?  Do your kids ever irritate you so much that you are irrationally angry with them and give them a punishment they don't really deserve?  If you've answered yes to any of these questions, then you, my friend, are a bully.

But if the definition of a bully is so broad as to encompass all people in the country, and if we all either have been or currently are bullies by definition, then why is there such an intense focus on bullying at the present time?  It can only be that the type of bullying that is being brought into focus through the news media and in schools is something different than what I've just described above.

In one sense, bullying has become an issue that has been brought to the forefront for the simple reason that the way people (children and teenagers in particular) respond to bullying has changed drastically.  Rather than crying, being a loner, or enlisting the help of friends or adults to take a stand against a bully, kids nowadays respond to bullying with measures of their own violence, cutting, or even by taking their own lives.

Furthermore, the things that kids are bullied for nowadays are different from even when I was child (which I like to think wasn't that long ago).  When I was in third grade, I was made fun of quite a bit for wearing a Super Man belt.  I told my dad what had happened, and he told me kids were making fun of my belt because they were jealous of it.  That explanation worked for me at the time, and I wore my Super Man belt with pride.  In my later elementary years I was teased more for my size.  I was larger than most other kids (horizontally and vertically) and they pointed it out to me quite a bit (although not too much, as size does have its advantages!).  And let it be known that I did my own share of teasing as a kid, even on into my teenage years, and the objects of my scorn were those who were different, dirty, weird, or undesirable in some way.  Nowadays kids can not only be bullied for the same things I was bullied for, but also for sexual orientation, weight, race, etc.  The stakes seem to have been raised, and kids (and adults, for that matter) are responding differently.

But while this may be true, and I do agree that bullying is a serious issue worth addressing, there are also some elements of the current conversation around bullying that I think need to be thought out, spoken about, and taught more.

1. Bullying can be a two-way street.  It's perhaps not surprising (at least not to me) that those who are victims of bullying can also become bullies themselves by the way they respond to bullying, and often times their bullying is directed toward those bullies who bullied them (wow, there's a lot of bullies in that sentence).  That is, while I believe it is right and good to stand against bullying, I think we need to have a careful and measured answer for how to respond to bullying.  The proper response to a bully is not to disparage him or her publicly, or to return the bullies actions or words in kind.  I even wonder if the newscaster in the video linked to at the beginning of this post was crossing the line by addressing the issue publicly on television.  Obviously she was using the occasion as a spring-board to launch into a speech about how bullying is serious and detrimental, but at what cost?  Did she become what she was speaking against by calling out the man who bullied her in front of thousands?  Or was it really wise for her husband to post the letter on the man's Facebook page?  I'm not saying she did become a bully by doing these things, but I think it's something worth thinking about.  I just wonder if it wouldn't have been a more effective stand against bullying if she had simply deleted the email as soon as she received it.  If we are teaching kids (or adults) to respond to bullies with scorn, disdain, and general hatred, we are doing a disservice to our children, and are, in fact, teaching them to be bullies.  What we need is a good dose of Matthew 5.21-22 and 38-42 taught to our kids, but let's not hold our collective breath.  If nothing else, I think there needs to be some careful thought about how we respond to bullying.

2. The negative impact of bullying is directly related to the victim's propensity to be bullied.  In other words, bullies only have as much power as is given to them by their victims.  When my dad told me that other kids made fun of my Super Man belt because they were jealous of it, I couldn't have cared less about their derogatory comments toward me and my belt.  I refused to let them bother me about it.  Now, it would be too simplistic to say that we can cure bullying by instructing kids to not take offense at the words and actions of those who wish to do them harm.  There are some bullies that will be relentless in their bullying, even if no acknowledgement is given by the victim.  But I think this is an important point to consider in the conversation: bullies are only as powerful as we allow them be.

3. We need more thorough definitions of terms.  In one sense, the anti-bullying campaigns are somewhat unsettling to me - not because I endorse bullying, but because I'm not really sure what bullying is.  As homosexuality and other issues become more culturally acceptable and mainstream it will become increasingly unpopular to oppose them.  As schools and other public forums increasingly embrace a "tolerance" mindset that prohibits any dissension from pro-gay norm for example, will my children be labeled as bullies if they speak out about their belief that homosexuality is wrong (see point number one above)?  In a world where Christian organizations are openly labeled as hate groups for being "anti-gay," is it really a stretch to think that my kids will some day be labeled as bullies for supporting the biblical view of marriage?  Again, something to think about before we jump on the anti-bullying bandwagon.  In a lot of ways, the anti-bullying message sounds a lot like the tolerance nonsense we hear in media and in culture.  This is why we need a better definition of terms before we go about branding people with the bully label.  Who is a bully?  And what must one do to be a bully?  Physically harm someone?  Verbally or emotionally harm someone?  Disagree with someone?

It should be noted that in order for me to watch the video that I linked to at the beginning of this post, the website the video is hosted on popped up a window on my screen that had a survey question on it.  The site wouldn't let me watch the video without looking at the question.  It said this: "I support equality for all.  I believe everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation."  Below the statement there are two options to choose from: either "Agree" or "Disagree."  That's the most loaded question I've ever heard.  I, for one, absolutely agree that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.  But I do not agree that "treated equally" means allowing homosexuals to marry.  So I can either agree with the statement or disagree and be labeled a bigot (bully?).  Take your pick. I just hope the current conversation about bullying doesn't go the way of the tolerance insanity that we're currently dealing with in our culture.

So how should we think about and respond to bullying?  I'm certainly not saying I have all the answers, but I am saying it's something we should keep thinking about, as it is a topic that has far-reaching implications - both for me as a person and also as a parent.

How do We Determine What Should be Legal or Illegal?

In the mail today I received a sermon manuscript from John Piper.  It is a manuscript of a sermon that he delivered on June 16, 2012 on the topic of homosexual marriage.  Also included was a letter of response to the Star Tribune after they reported that Piper refused to direct his congregation on the issue of gay marriage.  You can read Piper's response to the Star here.

In fact, if you take the time to listen to/watch/read Piper's sermon, it's very clear what his stance is, and what the stance of the Bible is.  It makes one wonder how the Star Tribune could have goofed it up so badly.  The sermon is an excellent, biblical defense of why marriage is only between one man and one woman.  I highly commend it to you.

What interested me the most about the sermon, however, were Piper's comments about how we as a society determine the legality of things.  This is an issue that was recently raised on this very blog by a commentor to this post.  The commentor says:

My question to you is, why should our law for the country need to be based upon the word of God when our country does not have a national religion and many of its citizens do not believe in God?  I am a devout Christian, but many in America are not.  Why do you believe it is fair or permissible to have American laws which affect everyone based upon your particular religious beliefs?

In essence, the commentor asks, "Why should laws be based on your (the Bible's) morality?  It's a fair question, and one that I think has a logical answer.  I responded thusly:

The reality is that all of our laws are based on some form of morality.  The only question is who's morality we base our laws upon.  Most of our laws are based on Christian principles.  So we can't say that we don't or shouldn't base our laws on religion, because all laws are based on religion.  Again, the question is, upon which religion's standards should we base our laws?

What I am trying to communicate in this answer is that all laws have a moral foundation.  That is, we always base our laws on some model of morality.  The question comes down to which system of morality we keep in view when making our laws.  So to argue that Christians shouldn't legislate morality is not a good one, because all laws essentially legislate morality.

This is an idea Piper expounds upon in his sermon, although he does it more wordily and sounding much smarter than I do.  He makes the point that "Deciding which actions will be made legal or illegal through civil law is a moral activity aiming at the public good and informed by the worldview of each participant."  What follows is him expounding on this statement.

How should Christian citizens decide which of their views they should seek to put into law?  Which moral convictions should Christians seek to pass as legal requirements?  Christians believe it is immoral to covet and to steal.  But we seek to pass laws against but we seek to pass laws against stealing, not against coveting.  One of the principles at work here seems to be: the line connecting coveting with damage to the public good is not clear enough.  No doubt there is such a connection.  God can see it and the public good would, we believe, be greatly enhanced if covetousness were overcome.  But finite humans can't see it clearly enough to regular coveting with laws and penalties.  This is why we have to leave hundreds of immoral acts for Jesus to sort out when he comes.

Laws exist to preserve and enhance the public good.  Which means that all laws are based on some conception of what is good for us.  Which means that all legislation and all voting is a moral activity. It is based on choices about what is good for the public.  And those choices are always informed by a worldview.  And in that worldview - whether conscious or not - there are views of ultimate reality that determine what a person thinks the public good is.  

Which means that all legislation is the legislation of morality.  Someone's view of what is good - what is moral - wins the minds of the majority and carries the day.  The question is: which actions hurt the common good or enhance the common good so much that the one should be prohibited by law and the other should be required by law?  

So how do we determine what should be legal or illegal in our society?  We vote in ways that represent our morality, motivated by our worldview.  In this sense, all laws are religious laws - Christian or otherwise.