Bias and Prejudice

It has occurred to me that there exists a great injustice to the cause of faith in relativist circles. A circular line of reasoning that is, while seemingly logical, astoundingly dishonest:

The good post modern thinker will strive, whenever a stereotype is issued in their hearing, to argue that such claims are falsehoods by the simple virtue that they cannot be truthful in every instance. 

For example, one might firmly claim: "Clearly anyone who smokes pot is an irresponsible degenerate."

To which, the smug, and aware-enough-to-be-wary, intellectual would counter with a fine example of upstanding politicians who once partook of the finer herb, or they might take the course of empathy. Mentioning the cancer patient who prefers this medicinal application over more damaging options available to manage their pain and suffering.

How can you argue with that? They are, in an exact sense, right. Your stereotype is just that.

I must insist though that they are, in a greater sense, frauds. Here's why:

First, let us clarify some terms. A stereotype will be understood to be a popularly accepted generalization about some person or thing. The act of stereotyping will be understood to be applying a generalization to a particular individual. Finally a prejudice is a prior assumption not founded on wide exposure, or rationale, but based upon anecdotal experience with an individual part of a wider party, group, culture, etc. 

Essentially we have an expansion or compression of some claim.

A Stereotype will generally compress the greater trend and apply it to the individual. 

     trend in the group---------applies------------> individual

A Prejudice will expand an individual bias/experience and apply it to a group with which the individual is affiliated

     behavior of individual----------applies---------> absolute about a group

The initial example would be in this sense a stereotype. It is potentially backed by the viable repetition of some action by many members of the group. This is statistically reasonable. If you observe the same action in multiple cases, you tend to anticipate the next case to fall within the same trend. You have outliers, which your humble friend uses to undermine the gross generalization, but nonetheless, there are observable facts associated with many stereotypes, which can be reliably anticipated amongst a majority of members of the group to which the action/behavior is attributed.

A stereotype gets a bad name when one of three things happen. 

1. It is confused with a prejudice, which is the wrong way to go about assuming things, in any case. 
2. Or if the balance of observed instances is in fact not reflecting the greater majority of members in that group.
3. Finally, the stereotype may be used to form a bias against an individual who is then pre-judged by the stereotype, despite being innocent of the general action themselves

Your friend, in their (laughably) 'humble' opinion will only really go after you for the third point. But let us  flip the perspective a bit and see if they desire the same privilege of educating you on your 'bent'

Say for example you claim that there is an absolute God who offers salvation though His Son Jesus Christ, and that with this promise of salvation comes a certain moral perspective on the world that objects to certain actions of your friend.

A common way of beating around the bush with their reply is for your friend to take your individual claim, apply it to the general group of Christendom, then break the group down into their favorite anecdote of hypocrisy, brutality, etc. 

So we have 

individual (you)----stating a generalization about -----------
          -->group(faith)----which is broken down into ------------
                       --->an individual case(bad egg of the faith)--------
   ----to form a prejudice about --------> people with your claim (i.e. you)

In this way they want to object to your claim by applying some prejudiced stereotype  as a justification for them dismissing your statement.(see what was done there? They muddy the waters like a frog trying to escape.) 

Now this line of argument has noble roots. In an effort to avoid prejudice, the good post-modern thinker will strive to point out the good examples in the midst of some negative generalization as well as the bad examples in some overly positive generalization. This allows them to have a balanced view of the world. Therefore it is not surprising that in the face of an individual claim (that is made also by others), they are quick to point out the worst cases to undermine yet another generalization. 

And this is where we flies get stuck in honey. Christendom makes a general claim. Imperfect humans grasp it and follow imperfectly. Yet the happy condition of the good post-modern thinker is that to them: everything is a generalization; and they focus on the individual story or example. Until the individual validates a generalization that is so absolute, so unyielding that it no longer is a perspective, it claims that it is TRUTH. Then they desperately use point three above, to prejudice themselves against truth, in the most unflattering aerobatics of thought you will ever see.

One of the finer barbs of relativism is that it liberates a person so greatly from general trends, that everything becomes a distinct perspective. It is a discourteous slight of hand to then use those perspectives to turn about and make some prejudiced generalization about the group which in spite of itself! offers the greatest TRUTH. That is the cause of many a post-modern objection to Christ, the notion of truth is inexorably bound to absolutes, and absolutes are relevant for every perspective. That is a hard pill to swallow for the good post-modern thinker, and it is why we must as followers of Christ strive to align ourselves with His claims daily. 

So I close with this thought: In spite of the tricks of the frauds we are called to reach in the world, the best case for faith is still by our own example as living and breathing Christians. So I ask you reader: in what ways are you stumbling? With that in mind, how might you be the cause of a prejudice against the great grace of God? May we all pray that we grow in His grace moment by moment. We are not perfect but we can curtail the prejudice, and alongside the Holy Spirit, play a part in turning post-modern frauds, into forever followers of Christ. 

Tall Tales

Beginning. Middle. End.

Such is Life.

Have you ever given much thought to the role of story in your life? Not necessarily a story, but the existence of story. That is, I don't mean to focus on the Grimm tales of childhood, rather what I mean is have you ever felt yourself playing the role in your own existence? 

Once there was a King, who was at war for a long time. After many years and many battles, many marches and many more retreats, the enemies of the King were at the gates of the capital. It was then that the king's most valued counselor came to him bearing a black crown. 

"Place this on thy head, most high king, and begone from this world, to wreck mischief and misery on thine enemies..."

With but one glance from the balcony of his highest tower, a glance devoid of victory, the king turned to his servant and took the crown. It touched but one lock of his hair and he disappeared. 

Time stood still. Flashing flames along the moats of the besieged city froze like drifts of snow, men in the blood of battle were but statues of marble. The King found himself in a maelstrom of locusts, he could not breathe. Then there was light.

The crown proved a violent servant from that day forward. First placing the king unrecognized amongst his enemy's generals in peace at a hunting party. Next leaving him at the crib of his greatest adversary's newborn son. He had revenge. 

But then just when the hope for victory had rewritten time itself, the crown no longer carried the king so far. The swirl of blackness left him stranded on roads or in fields of countries he knew not. Sometimes he found himself on the doorstep of inns where the halls rolled with tongues he did not recognize. 

It was then that serendipity led him to the real power of this device. One black night, abandoned beneath the stars, the king lay down upon his cloak to sleep; and hanging his belt and his crown upon a branch over his head the king fell dead to the strange world surrounding him....

We start our lives filled with vain imaginings. But how vain were they, really? We prey upon stories as children for they fuel in us the vanities of idealism: The prince is good that overcomes, the princess purity that divines the true heart from the false. We prey upon them as adults to escape the hard 'facts of life' that have imprisoned us with the measure of our value. I contend that we idolize stories for something greater than the face value of their entertainment. We idolize stories because we all exist in one ourselves. We each have a hopeful beginning, a delusional middle and an end. The nature of story is the very nature of our existence. So we strive to find meaning, motive, heart, and more, in the fiction of things that we never believe will happen. We are all carrying crowns, trying to reverse our own tale.

Stories and belief. That is the pure sum of human existence.  

How does it end? Maybe I'll share it someday, heaped with the sentimental symbolism, I'll mean to tell it for application in our own lives, not just simple emotion wrought from empathy. 

Marvelous Modesty...

I have a laziness about me that I have suffered under since childhood. It begins with waking up (or forgoing such sorry strains) and clings to me like a shadow the rest of the day. One case of this vice which causes me to mention it at all is my propensity to knowingly stop short of fully researching information before discussing, endorsing, or in some way affiliating with it. 

Thus what began here: THE SPARK

And should have ended here: THE SOURCE

Ended here: THE COMMENTARY

Which fortunately brought me to this: THE END

So reader, what I am trying to teach you is that only when you find the source, can you rest at the end of your investigation. Simple enough of a rule. Fortunately I have the good sense to restrain my enthusiasm for these hot-button sparks until I have overcome my laziness. You may rest assured that as a rule, I strive to stay silent. All good fools do. 

That said. silence does this commentary, nor the topic no justice. So. Pull up another window of the commentary mentioned above and we'll lay to rest the better part of this writer's nearsightedness in order:

First the perspective is flawed:

"The better message is this: wear what you want, like, and feel comfortable in, not for its effect on other people, but so that you can be happy and free as you go about doing many good things in the world.  And stop judging other people for what they wear as they go about living their lives, because it’s none of your business and it’s not about you."

The Author of this statement would have us believe that they are but a simple independent party, beholden only to the desire  to pursue their own dreams and ambitions. And so long as they are able to do this, they won't hurt a soul, and everyone will be happy. Yet whilst holding all the trappings of westernized individualism. Her stance is unrealistic. First of all she accuses others of judging, exhorting them to stop. But her subject matter revolves around reaction, not judgment. They are in fact separate but related entities. I can stop myself from punching my sister when she startles me. I cannot stop myself from being startled. Secondly, her complete selfishness in wearing what she wants relies upon it being a victim-less decision. It isn't. I'm sure she would like to think that human beings being visual creatures (interestingly the subject of our source) can all look the other way and not judge. But the reality is that they will look and will react. I can't assure you on the judgment issue. 

You see the author want's to detach herself from the obligation of social living, by condemning other people who will interact with her, and they often will simply because it IS a social environment. Her ideals work well in the lonely swimming pool of an abandoned town. But they are impractical anywhere else. If anything concerns me it is her complete disregard for the impact she has on others. Yes it's all well and good at fending off the guilt trips of the 'modest' police. But at their heart they are very anti-community and horribly antagonistic. 

Ultimately, the speaker is promoting her own swimwear line, and her suits and promotional materials seem quite lovely.  I applaud her good business sense and style, but I disagree strongly with her methods of self-promotion.  Rey's speech is very problematic, for several reasons.  First, she's misrepresenting the Princeton study she relies on for most of her argument.  Most social science research is easy to misinterpret to serve one’s own ends, and this study is no exception.

We'll address these two in concert:

I'm not sure what saddens me more. That this fact of salesmanship is the underpinning of much of her objection, or that it required a saleswoman to make this subject noticed again. A few observations of my own: Ms. Rey's success, if she has any, is an indication that the market has a need that she is meeting. Ms. Rey's willingness to exercise her values in her product is not a vice it is a virtue. Ms. Rey's ability to be a social impetus in her business is what your 'free-market' theory is all about. Yes it would appear that the one time capitalism actually is less than corrosive, pushing the virtues that every red-blooded newspaper economist insists it will "if only the market desires it" You immediately get the moralists complaining that the change is somehow 'tainted' by its affiliation in business! No wonder your world remains unchanged. You can't expand your views of ministry beyond what people mail-in or throw in the plate!

You can go to the source of this post if you desire for part two. What I found interesting was just how long-winded researchers can be. It must be a trapping of over-verbose letter writing from the Victorian era. I can see no other reason to waste so much time on an introduction, unless you are trying to impress the writer of your grants...

"The study in question, presented by Dr. Susan Fiske at Princeton, was conducted using a sample of 21 male Princeton undergraduates (note that in this type of research, an acceptable sample size is 30+, and that the more data points you have, the more reliable your findings).  These men were asked to fill out surveys that gauged if they harbored "benevolent sexism" (i.e. women should be protected by men, women should not work outside the home) or "hostile sexism" (i.e. women are incompetent and inferior to men, women are trying to take away the rights of men, etc.).  They were then shown brief flashes of pictures of fully clothed and swimsuit-clad men and women, and their brains were scanned for activity.  Note that all the swimsuit-clad women were wearing bikinis.  The researchers did not use pictures of women in "various states" of undress, or with "varying amounts" of clothes, as some articles have suggested, and there were no one-piece swimsuits to compare--there were only two conditions: fully clothed and in a bikini.  Please also note that the images of women wearing bikinis did not have heads."

If indeed this is the study: "look at me" and I believe it is. Then the study was a coupling of two. The first was a survey of sexism followed by rating of photos this was taken online (see, if you read the source that is a summary of several paragraphs, clearly I'd do Princeton a service writing their reports). The second was another survey of sexism followed by an FMRI of the brain while face and body images were shown. The survey for both was rating them on hostile or benevolent sexism. Interestingly both should have the feminist dander up. HS basically thinks women are all Potiphar's wife or worse, and BS would have every man confused between their wives and daughters. Just goes to show that anyone caught cataloging the human element is privy to an abundance of outliers and little better than that. The Author seems to think that 30 is a magic number because it somehow mitigates small grouping conflicts. While I think a "more is better" argument can readily be made for this, given the subject material, 21 males in the the FMRI is a sound test count. I have a secret for you reader, we're more alike in this stuff than not, regardless of our age and our backgrounds. 

Moving on: What our dear commentator is too hurried to discount in fact holds the single detail that is novel to the audience. 

"This is hardly an earth-shattering finding--that men who are generally horrible to women, when presented with headless images from a swimsuit catalog, do not see the models as people, and have parts of their brains light up that are associated with "things you manipulate with your hands" (which should tell you what these college boys are doing with their free computer time, not make you reevaluate your choice of swimwear)."  

So here is a new consideration: The correlation between men with Hostile Sexism and a propensity for discounting the humanity of women can just as easily imply that HS is a symptom of exposure to women in sexualized clothing, rather than an instigator of the reaction. 

Here is what the commentator reads:

 HS => Men => bikini => objectify women

Here is what the study says

HS = Men =>  bikini => objectify women

Now bear with me: 

If bikini is a stimulus and HS is a correlation. rather than an instigator Then isn't it likely that the stimuli could be a creator of HS, rather than HS necessarily being present before the stimuli?

So what we really have is the argument:

bikini = HS 

The reasoning is this: the outcome of the formula is the same. So we can set that as a concrete concern. The reason I can make the correlation between bikini and HS is because those were the stimuli and the personality factor that the study relied on. the existence of BS in the study (benevolent sexism, remember?) is how we know that men cannot be independently blamed for objectifying women. (e.g. benevolent sexism proves that "not all men objectify women" )  you must keep bikini or HS. Bikini must remain because it is the stimuli and removing HS would ignore the correlation denoted by BS, forcing us to call the study a wash, or to blame men for being objective naturally. Ergo we can consider the relationship of HS and bikini to be linked. 

If they are linked strongly enough then bikini and HS can be interchanged. Which in the nature of sexual desire makes perfect sense. Anyone who is exposed to images that are construed as expecting certain behaviors from the observer will see in themselves a draw to reconcile the two by participation. We see this simply in the form of the office candy jar... the candy is there for a reason, you should eat it, few people can ignore it without determination to do so. Yet, the real harm of sex driven advertising isn't that women in bikini's are bad, it is that the variety of women in bikinis impress  the following into the male mindset:

1) The sexual reaction is prompted by a variety of women, undermining healthy composure within the realm of monogamy.

2) The messages associated with these images undervalue relationship and prey upon the existence of arousal with which the man reacts.

Basically they are designed to elevate sex, above relationship. And so down go the man's thoughts who goes to a pool or a beach.

I see a scantily clothed woman and what the author would have me do is to squelch all sexual response in that instance. I can do that no more easily than I can be stop being startled by my sister. How do I come close? I put myself in her father's shoes.. or, I look away. I see a lot of sky at the water park, it's easier.You see, that sort of approach to temptation is in fact what makes a man a BS rather than an HS. Realizing reactions and what we as men can do to correct/control them is a trait of BS. HS is in fact un-tethered sexuality, which when it runs its course, is just as selfish and unconcerned with our social communities as women who would rather remain ignorant to the fact that men see sex as a constant objective. (please read the study: p. 543, Participants)

Moving on:

"I also take issue with the speaker’s highly selective overview of the history of women’s swimwear.  She skips over the Romans, who bathed nude and are depicted in murals wearing clothing very similar to a bikini.  She skips over the many cultures in which topless and nude bathing are seen as perfectly respectable and natural. "

One must have a poor idea of time-lines to suggest that Ms. Rey skipped over a society which was not even included in the span of her synopsis. Considering the subject audience to which she was speaking, including the Romans: a hedonistic pagan culture would seem a rabbit trail worth avoiding. But I have no such issue with tangents, and will gladly embark on this one. The reason the Romans are to be omitted is because it was just this sort of immodest culture that developed a cultist society where priestesses were 'holy' prostitutes. Take a look at Corinth after the turn of the century and explain to me in what way is this complete indifference to the human relationship any better than your "wolf!" of draconian modesty? In fact early Christians, the bedrock of our modest notions, were hard pressed on all sides, trapped in a society with very opposing ideas of sexuality, nudity and holiness. On this count, the author undermines her own agenda:

"I think, however, that this presentation swings too far in the other direction, and I am disappointed with its message, especially when I see it in the context of a rising emphasis on modesty that also devalues women, though more insidiously.  Though it is indeed objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing fewer clothes and showing off her body so as to turn on the boys around her, it is also objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing more clothes and covering up her body so as to keep the thoughts of the boys around her pure. " 

Indeed would not Roman hedonism (and bathing) be an untenable platform for moderation in dress? Now, as for the 'cultural' worldview. Lets all agree that despite growing notions of globalization, there is a distinct disregard for decent dress that has become inherent in Western Culture (that would be the subject audience of Ms. Rey's presentation) If you would like to use the child's complaint of "so and so gets to!" to justify your sensibilities of dress, then go ahead. However what Ms. Rey's presentation did a very good job of was explaining how a single style was once rejected and then adopted by a modest society full of typically Caucasian conservatives. Her history proved her point remarkably well: I get to see much more of a show than my great-grandfather did. As for the rest of the world's cultures, while neither here nor there in relation to this topic, they are certainly evidence that healthy respectability is not directly reliant upon dress. C.S. Lewis was even kind enough to point this out in sweeping confidence in Mere Christianity. So rest well reader, the natives are not hell-bound because they are topless, any more than I am for my arrogance, Lord willing.

 The one punch in this whole commentary follows:

"Pioneer women would find capri pants scandalous.  That doesn’t mean we need to compare bare ankles to stripping.  Your great-great grandmother would find your one-piece swimsuit inappropriate, while you label it perfectly modest.  But we live in different times and cultures, and there are no absolute rules for determining what is “modest” across all time and space.  (As proof, I would note that the speaker, believer in modesty, is dressed in a perfectly lovely outfit, one that would nevertheless get me labeled “immodest” and kicked out of class at BYU—for showing my shoulder.  So if you’re about to argue that “the world changes, but the Lord’s standards of modesty never change,” you may want to re-think your argument.  And your spokesperson.)"

Finally the author strikes a blow. By showing the dangers of extremism, she tricks you into thinking that complaining of exposure not only makes you no worse than the conservative ideals of yesteryear, but also would force you to cover your shoulders AND your ankles. Sly move on her part, however not necessarily to the point. It's a good thing I haven't suggested that I know the Lord's standard. 

"Here's the truth: Men are people, their bodies made in the image of a divine Father.  Women are people, their bodies made in the image of a divine Mother.  Our bodies are beautiful and God-given, not shameful.  They connect us to the earth and to each other.  They allow us to relate to each other in enjoyable ways.  They are also not the only way we relate to each other.  Men and women are capable of relating to each other as human beings, no matter what they're wearing.  This is part of being an adult.  We are capable of dealing with our sexual desires, which are normal and healthy and good, without shaming ourselves or those with whom we come in contact.  Fetishizing normal female body parts--be they breasts, navels, shoulders, knees, or (gasp!) ankles—and insisting they be covered because we cannot control ourselves—does real harm to both women and men.(1)"

And the follow up to that last statement is in fact the beginning of my point. I'll spare you the theological flaws of the first three sentences. But allow me to draw out the dichotomy of the original sentiment put forth: " I do what I want so long as I don't hurt anyone" to the above paragraph, which essentially says: "humans live in relationship with one another and should deal with desires to keep relationship healthy." You must admit that constraining oneself to be in healthy relationship is in fact an admittance that you can not in fact do what you want, which leaves us with a double standard for men and women. But moving on... in all honesty this point is valid. It's contrary to the former premise, and the author would put all of the burden of desire on men alone. But her heart is in the right place. Dare I say: my heart is in the right place too? You see, relationship is a two way street. It's a popular argument in our culture today to suggest that individuals can remain independent and in relationship. But to purport this foolishness is to value the individual over the relationship, and ultimately to live with our friends, our lover, our parents and our offspring in  a shallowness that will never be as full as God intended. So I beg of you reader, if you've made it this far, let me propose an agreement rather than a settlement, a treaty of promise, rather than an answer to the question of navels and modesty:

1) I as a man will exercise my will in treating all women with the respect they deserve, I know and am aware that I am made differently, both in strengths and struggles, and I will not condemn them in our differences, rather I will lift them up and give them honor in whatever capacity of relationship God places us in.

2) Women, I entreat you, to never burden yourselves with guilt and condemnation for your dress, but rather to seek understanding and empathy with regards to men. I have no right to require change, you're not in my family.  But I can beg of you consideration for your community not just your selves when you choose what you wear. 

As with all things conviction and godliness are through grace from God above. Arguing down any woman for her dress is a hard way to start relationship. But condemning Ms. Rey simply because she suggests the obvious, that men react  to more skin rather than less, in ways unsuitable for human society and general relationship, is a tasteless endeavor. Especially when your arguments have as many holes in them as you'd clam to find in her own. 

Socrates' Tree and Tragedy

I seem to recall something I'd heard awhile back, and now that I recall it, in the foggy shadows of my mind, I cannot for the life of me confirm the veracity of the thing I surely do recall!  In any case, bear with me reader, I'll recount and truths or half truths we'll run with it, it is a trivial observation regardless.

The thing I recall:

Socrates is walking with... well those who walked with him, taking mental notes to recount later on scrolls and the like. In any case the topic of idealism comes up, as a case for divinity, the argument from Socrates going something like this:

Close your eyes. Imagine the perfect tree.

Open your eyes. Has any tree met your imagination's ideal of the perfect tree?

The answer to the rhetorical question is of course "no". Such trees as real ones fall short of the mark in some way, shape or form. That is the nature of natural imperfection, a flaw exists somewhere, a discrepancy from the ideal. (Now I should add that this is all based upon a premise, and that premise would go something like this:           THE DIVINE = PERFECT             Simple enough eh?) So in the search for perfection, we can imagine, but we cannot naturally obtain. Nonetheless, dear Socrates demands we reach beyond the superfluous lack of evidence to something more profound. His conclusion from this little experiment is simple: our imagination of the perfect object implies something rather profound. Socrates would state (as I recall it) that imagining the tree proves two things, it's existence  and the potential for divinity  Not divinity in the natural sense of our current existence but rather the evidence that we can grasp at it, and this is key: as a characteristic of our own divine nature.

Those of you with Christian learning (I won't offend you or myself in assuming you also have belief, this digression is simply a mental exercise) Perhaps have made a connection, harking back to... or forward rather... to the Apostle Paul: II Cor. 4:18. "Ah ha!" You say, this must be a similar concept. Indeed I would purport it is. You see, the Eternal = Divine = Perfect. Paul continues with this into several further points but the above equations are only further verified. (As a note, this is a lazy exercise, so spare me concerns on the deeper inquiries surrounding the infinite and the like and keep your eyes fixed on the tree.

C.S. Lewis proffers a similar ideal in his argument for morality and a divine imperative. It's contained in the early chapters of Mere-Christianity but I can't recall exactly where, besides you should read the whole thing. It is an engaging encounter with good ideas but you need not agree with everything Lewis says. First of all he's no longer hear to condescend if you do, and secondly he was British, they're only right 99% of the time.

And finally, my own postulation: Read Matt. 18:23-35. Good? Now read Hamlet.

I for one am particularly fond of Tragedy. Perhaps one of the most stimulating aspects of such an affinity is this: Seeing the point of no return. The moment when the hero's plans, or the subject's schemes are turned onto their course of disaster. That final letter that did not make it (but what if it had?) the moment of indignation rather than grace (but what if forgiven?!) That peak of ecstasy before the battle turns (But what if the enemy line folded??) You see, the terrible, the disenchanting, the often macabre... they demand something of the audience! Especially in the second telling, the replay, the next reading. Knowing demise, all the more we reflect and strive to imagine the alternatives. The special set of circumstances that would make such stories, tales of success, of escape or of ecstasy. Anything but tragedy!

See were I with Socrates, I'd take him to a tragedy. I'd point at a bleeding heroine draped upon the heavy vase before the veneer of a throne room and say "here too is a tree, old chap". Tragedy evokes something in me, a baser nature, a desire to right the wrongness of the play and all too often of reality. It is a inherent quality of the healthy human, to desire goodness in all one's stories. (Affinity for otherwise is unedifying (and potentially unsound) and saying this by no means implies that man is not inherently evil... and that is a premise I will digress on another day)

But rightness is never perfect. Ask anyone in full candid conversation, and you will never find it. For the natural world defies our base hope for a good ending. It forces us to throw in with the tree: our base desire for deity, and now our tendency to replay a plot in our minds to get a happy ending. Socrates and tragedies have more in common than a cup of poison (I seem to recall that's how he died). They appeal to our core, a gut that demands something greater than the rotting brick of this earth; that hasn't sprouted a perfect tree since Eden  or a happy ending since the death of God's son on a tree, meant he'd rise from the grave.

Just a thought...

(If you can recount the actual article from which I pulled this reminiscence of a discourse, I would be obliged)

Delivering the harder Truths...

How does one stand against sin... and still prove they love a sinner?

When my father would punish us we knew first what we had done wrong... and also what our punishment would be.

Often it was a spanking, a firm hand smacking us on our behinds, sharp and stinging, we heard one phrase most often:

"This hurts me more than it hurts you."

No, my Dad wasn't speaking of his calloused hand's suffering upon our denim covered bottoms. He was speaking his heart. It pained him, in his love of us, to punish us. 

My parents knew right from wrong far better than my siblings and I. So the punishment was just: it was adequate to answer for the transgression. That is to say we had it coming. Still my Dad took no pleasure in delivering the penalty.

As followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, we do not possess the hand which smites every ungodly act and its perpetrator. We do however hold in our hearts proof of the inescapable verdict. 

So then Brothers and Sisters. When you feel the burden of the sentence you carry. The one you've been freed of through the unwarranted suffering of the absolute Sacrifice... When you see that the unsaved demand you admit to believing the truth of God's word, that all have sinned, that many acts of the flesh, of the world and in the Devil are damning; furthermore that this belief implies they too are doomed... Remember this image:

My father crying.

He'd administered the punishment, holding me in his arms with tears of compassion, as I clung to the torso of the one man I  had but a moment before feared more than death itself. 

If we could but convey the same love for those to whom we are called to deliver the truth to! If our hearts broke not only for falleness in friends, strangers, enemies and relatives, but moreso for the pain that calling 'broken' what is broken causes us! How might this change the reactions the cracked vessels which wander this blue marble to our righteousness! If our demeanor and sincere reaction to such a task be made clear to those that stumble, perhaps they might understand the love of our Savior in our broken-heartedness! God I pray so, I hope that I might have the heart of my Dad as he punished me when I am addressing the unsaved. And I praise God that we were only given truth to be truth, not as a sword but as a constant reminder of a kingdom that is coming, and is already here in the hearts which know Jesus!

This is how we might deliver harder truths; and by God's grace not be misunderstood as bigots and righteous do-gooders. This love distinguishes wrong from wrongdoer, without pushing aside the need for grace; it is the persuasion of those that love the lost, and only under compulsion of a greater love can we utter anything contrary to the ways of the lost.

Be compelled I beg you, but show your true heart also! So that your Heavenly Father's judgement may be made manifest in all it's holy justice, working upon the hearts of the fallen, compelling them to repentance,  that more souls may be named in the book of life, and called also to spread His love for humanity in His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ!

Freed of the Evangelical?

Drum/Clap/Drum/Clap/Drum/Clap/one,two.one,two.one,two
Pick..p'ck a p'ck,Pick..p'ck a p'ck,Pick..p'ck a p'ck,

"Well its nobody's fault but mine...

If I should die, my soul be lost. It's nobody's fault but mine

I got a bible in my home...

If I should die, my soul be lost. It's nobody's fault but mine

My mother taught me how to read...

She told me If I should die, my soul be lost. It's nobody's fault but mine

Ohhh my Lord, Oh my Lord!

My sister taught me how to pray...

She told me If I should die, my soul be lost... it's nobody's fault but mine

Nobody's fault but mine...

If I should die, my soul be lost. It's nobody's fault but mine

If I should die in my sleep, and I get left behind. My soul be lost... it's nobody's fault but mine."

                                   Nobody's fault -The Dixie Hummingbirds

In all the candid clarity supplied by a gospel harmony grown in Baptist Churches... This gem of truth landed in my ear whilst driving, listening, meditating on my own salvation.

My own salvation. How dear it is to me, to know that no force of hell, no scheme of the devil, no vice in the world of men will remove my call to priestly ordinance, or shame me out of my savior's loving gaze! (1 Peter 2:9, Hebrews 7:25) 

My thoughts then turned to the years before this truth was manifested in my life. My knowledge of the Most High was incomplete. Having yet to surrender, I sat and observed... and I see it now vividly: 

Sitting at the bar with peers, watching them laugh and love as best they could, jesting luridly and calling out to one another some witticism or other that might draw the satisfaction of a hoot or holler. What a bland taste it left too! There was nothing but death at that table. Meanwhile, all I could think about was what I knew and they did not. Whilst I would not yet act on it, I saw the depravity, and felt, in my core, the reality which can draw a soul to a savior. The unabashed sin was thriving and I could see how a mighty God might wince in disgust, that our meager race would run away from Him... And for what?! A few drinks and laughs. Tender romantic efforts to fill the loneliness of our divine nature. Or worse yet, a laughing disregard that any trapping of divinity might afford some valid peace in a world of turmoil we mocked up as one of tranquility. We were the fools of Shakespeare, but we thought the play was just a play, when the real tragedy was our own fallen world. 

And then I sighed, the dichotomy fills me with apprehension. It was one thing when I knew what I knew and did not swear fealty, when I was not born again I had no right, nor any cause to relate to my fellows the travesty of their brokenness. But now? 

There are many of my faith that cast doubts on the proper course of action here. I will leave them unnamed but I will not bestow such a mercy on the lies they spit out as vipers in our midst.

1) The act of the evangelical is a gifting for some, not for all

2) 'Living' my faith is sufficient witness of our Savior

AND the lies with which they poison their own thought-life

3) I simply must wait for the opportunity to share Christ

4) There are circles of society in my life which pose too great a risk to my relationships within them to risk being outspoken in my faith

5) Any attempt to share the good news is better left to prayer and intercession, acting may only push them away.

All of the above are lies only because of the absolute conclusions we may draw from them. They don't encourage us to proclaim good news, rather they inspire us to keep a good secret! That my dear reader, is where my apprehension lies, why at one time I could keep a good secret that I did not yet accept as truth myself, and why later, my heart would fill with guilt at my own apathy as I drove...

Which brings us back to the emerald lyrics above: We have the source of such knowledge ( the bible). Furthermore, we have been taught the skills by which to comprehend and exercise this knowledge by those who already know (sisters and mothers). Never forgetting that with these means to eternal life the responsibility now lays with us as to obtaining our salvation (It's nobody's fault but mine)!   What then will we say about the teachers? Were they not a great deal necessary in leading us onto the roadway to righteousness? Would we likely be standing in faith today were it not for hands drawing us forward unto the dawn of a new life in Christ? Hardly! We give glory unto the Father for sending those that instructed us! I do not here intend to disenfranchise the Spirit that did the saving, any more than the hearty evangelicals just mentioned would claim credit for our salvation. No, we give ALL glory to God for the son that drew us near, and I acknowledge that should God design to save a man, he need not use other men to do it. Nonetheless, we have a purpose to fill as we march into our inheritance. It is my great fear that this purpose is altogether overlooked when we rush past this pillar of the faith to get into the temple of the almighty. If we are to build in our communities of faith, we cannot ignore this structural element anymore than the cornerstone that guides the construction.

But we all to often do just this. We have not made the Gospel our own proclamation! I do not call you to go to street corners and take a sign, I do not expect you to call a work meeting and set the story straight. I call you to look at the world as though you have something to inform it of, rather than just as a waiting room before eternity! 

We all have the news to proclaim, the realms of our impact differ, the fact we must make an impact as a testament to our salvation is imperative! Setting good examples does nothing but prove goodness if Christ is not proclaimed all the while! Opportunity is just as often found when it is sought, not when it is waited for idly! Let us end these excuses and in prayer seek out those who so cannot see the dire straights of their existence

So then, will I let my fellow man, lost in the darkness, live free of the evangelical in me? God help me, I say NO!

On Potter, Twilight, and the rest of the lot...

It is sadly apparent that Lewis and his creative tall tales have been taken as an open license to endorse any canon that has the remotest semblance to THE redemptive retelling of Christ. What we produce is a slew of coffeehouse college-age theologians with nothing better to do than to attempt to justify their wanting library of literature as valuable in the eyes of faith, DESPITE it's atrociously glaring deficiencies and contradictions to explicit doctrine.

SO, when your soft-hearted child is endorsing things that are contrary to ideal faith, you can thank people who prefer good story telling over wisdom's scrutiny. You can see where your deficiency of caution has opened the flood-gates of near blasphemy; because we are so desperate for entertainment, we'll make room for it in the meeting halls of our churches and cathedrals, then stare quizzically out the doorways wondering why we seem just so similar to those strolling happily by. 

In sum, what you put in, is what you get out. At least acknowledge the contrary aspects of what you watch and read, instead of salving the burn left by personal entertainment choices that make obvious the tragedy of spiritual dichotomy in your life. The sad part is, many of us are so dulled by popular culture, we don't even see the contradictions, and so, all I have just written is of little or no consequence to you.

(In an effort to add the context you've lacked in the former paragraphs, I'll add the following:

We're using Harry Potter to explain Christian Doctrine, but the law of affiliation demands that Potter and his canon be at least somewhat justified in any contradictions to Biblical models. All this to say, the use of witchcraft and wizardry,  the fantastic intertwining of the powers for good and evil, and the impossible righteousness of one group of men over another: all these things must be justified before we throw them into the Christian thought-life as examples of godliness. It can't be done, so we should throw it out. Instead, we elevate Potter to the level of a Christ figure, we glorify sorcery as make-believe fun, which if you think that, you may as well explain away the Holy Spirit.

I don't intend to demand all Rowling's good writing be burned, I am not in the business of book burning, though there are a good number that should be burned. What I am disturbed by is the lazy theologians of our age using ungodly tools to explain Christian Doctrine, with not a caveat to be found that even begins to acknowledge dichotomy exists between the world of magic and the spiritual reality of our faith. At least adding a mention here and there pointing out discrepancies would be encouraging. ANY  Proof that someone has done some critical thinking about the mess of these horribly wanting examples would be of some comfort. If you find these tales so worth your time to be placed in your biblical message, at least draw a line in the sand as to where the stories match redemption and where they part ways.)

By this point, having come out and named names, you're probably all in a huff over my belligerent ignorance. How dare I suggest that your opinion is unthoughtful and your use of these models in your theological thought-life very near heretical? But I beg you, dear reader, give me the benefit of the doubt! Please consider our savage and fleshly nature before you run off in a mental tiff. Think on where God stands and where the content of these tales stand. I don't want you to reject a 'good read' outright, but I think the Spirit in you might be pleased that you can discern between things of darkness and things of light as you read.

I'll leave you with this final thought: John 1:5, "The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it." Tell me then, in a world where forces for good and evil both cast spells with whimsical wands, wielding powers drawn from the same source... which is light and which is darkness? Potter too, can whisper the wicked words avada kedavra. The whole premise of fantastical novels is that magic is neutral. But we know that light and dark, good and evil, must be distinct from one another. "Truly, God doesn't practice wickedness and the Almighty doesn't pervert Justice" (Job 34:12) Light and darkness only coexist easily in Eastern worldviews. Such a premise is ill suited to a Christian one. To argue otherwise is to bite off more than you can chew.