making sense of miracles

Christmas is a time we seem to think of miracles, supernatural events that bless our lives. Obviously, throughout the ages all types of people have pointed to the Virgin Birth of Christ as miraculous, certainly at a level bigger than the US hockey team's win over Russia in 1980. While the notion of miracle is commonly used, it is not universally understood in the same way. Is someone's healing from a bonafide deadly disease the same as getting the job from a call out of the blue you never knew existed. What makes something a miracle?

Is a miracle the same as magic? Some see magic as supernatural activity we cannot explain. Most people, however, see magic more as an illusion. Magicians develop skills to trick us in ways we cannot imagine or observe. While both seem supernatural and consists of outcomes we don't expect or cannot explain, a miracle must be something more.

The 1828 Webster English dictionary says that a miracle is an "appropriate wonder." I find that interesting. Something about a miracle makes it appropriate and something makes it a wonder. So, a miracle fits our thinking in some ways but doesn't in others. There is no further help in Webster's so we must fill in the blanks ourselves.

Here's a thought. Suppose the outcome of some event "makes sense" as appropriate in that it creates fortune or benefit that meets someone's needs. However, we have 'wonder' because there is no explainable cause and effect for why the outcome happened as it did. Many believe that our natural mind must understand outcomes of events through lenses of cause and effect. Therefore, if we cannot see this linkage in an outcome, we "wonder".

We may all come closer to agreeing with what makes something a miracle than the question,
              "why do miracles occur?" 
The purpose of miracles will depend on various core assumptions a person has about reality. If you do not believe that anything beyond the natural world exists, then miracles cannot be the design of any super natural being or power. In this case, miracles must be random occurrences with no purpose. Maybe destiny explains the miracle for you. This is typical of humanists.

If you believe in the supernatural, then there can be two different assumptions about why a miracle happens.

If you assume that reality exists primarily or only in the material world, then you may believe that miracles are the way that the super natural rewards you (purpose of miracle), especially if you show allegiance to the super natural power or being (like God or gods). This involves an assumption that things happen from "cause and effect". However, the link between cause and effect is that your actions cause the invisible power of the super natural to produce outcomes in your favor (the miracle). Thus, while there is no obvious cause and effect within the material world (making the outcome a wonder), there is an ultimate cause and effect between the material and abstract worlds. This is typical of religion.

However, you may assume that reality exits only in the invisible world. This means that events which occur in the material world exists only to point to or represent something in the eternal world. If this is your assumption, what might be the purpose of miracles? Maybe miracles occur so the super natural can choose to reveal some truth about reality, which exists in the invisible world, to people in the material world. Miracles may be necessary to show truth that is different than what the natural mind may assume? One possible purpose of miracles may be to show to the material world that the super natural operates with a sovereign will, not cause and effect. Since the natural mind only understands outcomes via cause and effect, the super natural needs to demonstrate a reality that humans cannot grasp on their own. THIS IS CHRISTIANITY and the super natural with a generous, kind, loving, and just Sovereign will is God.

Maybe this is why Jesus did all of those miracles when He came to the material world - to show us that God, our Father, "chose gladly to give us His Kingdom."

A WONDER to PONDER .....  

"I can't beat it" - a Christmas message?

This week I saw one of the most depressing movies I have seen in a while - "Manchester by the Sea." I thought, "why would anyone want to see this at Christmas?" The main character has a significant misfortune in an otherwise dysfunctional life. By his carelessness his house burns killing his 3 kids. His wife survives and turns against him in her pain. This is a terrible event causing him much guilt and anger. His brother dies prematurely from heart failure. This seems to be a metaphor for the main character, who dies in a way by shutting down his heart. The movie ends with the main character going through the motions of life, letting no one in. He finally confesses, "I can't beat it!"

The writer seems to want to communicate a cynical view of life - that we cannot really overcome the emotional toll of pain in life. All of the other characters try to force themselves to live on. They function, but without real purpose, hope and joy. They use each other to get their needs met, but they carry their own sense of despair at some level. Everyone is subject to random events that destroy ife. The writer even tosses in a little Christianity as an element of the futility.

Its interesting that Hollywood usually likes to show some hope in life through self "boot strapping." The power of positive thinking is sometimes a solution to hopelessness. Sometimes its through doing something nice for others. These stories seem to make the audience feel better. BUT, for some reason the writer and producers of "Manchester by the Sea" wanted the message at Christmas to be despair, emphasizing the futility of life.

I left feeling empty at first. Then I thought, this is the Christmas message. they just didn't finish the story. No one "can beat it." We are hopeless, no chance for joy. Random evil wins. Bullies win.

THEN CAME THE BABY!!

Merry Christmas ......

With Gifts we Celebrate

Soon you will gather with family and friends to share gifts. Maybe you already have opened one, that's always a focus before Christmas - "let's open one now, the rest later." Gifts around the tree is the defining picture for most people who gather for Christmas to celebrate together. It is a joyous time for many, but it can be a stressful time for some. Family relations are sometimes strained. There's always the remembering of those who have died and are no longer with us. Some are far away and cannot join in with the rest. BUT, with gifts we celebrate!!



Celebration makes us feel good. Celebration fills our body with emotion. All kinds of emotion. BUT, what is everyone celebrating? We tell the children, "Christmas is about giving!" So are we celebrating GIVING? 

GIVING is a good thing. We all should want to give. There are many stories around Christmas of how much sacrifice some people make to give a gift to someone they love. There are stories of how a focus on giving has interrupted the business of life and taken the attention off of one's self-centeredness. We see and hear stories of people who have had their joy in life restored because they helped someone else in a difficult time. Christmas gifts around the tree certainly turn our attention toward giving, BUT is that what we are celebrating with our gifts at Christmas.

I think not. The Christmas story from John has always been my favorite.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." 

Yes, God gave to us a gift we can and should celebrate. BUT, a gift is not complete without it being received. While God gave Himself to us, freely and as a gift, gifts must be received. We must take hold and behold the gift for it to be ours.  

We hold inside ourselves so much anger, guilt, hopelessness, cynicism, disappointment, and pride. Ironically, often these feelings are what motivate our own giving. That's nothing to celebrate, its our bondage. BUT, beholding inside ourselves "the only begotten of the Father," that's something to celebrate.

Let's take a moment this Christmas and celebrate the gifts we receive. Let's make a point to the children (and the adults for that matter) that the joy in the gift someone has for us comes as we receive it. Receiving makes us vulnerable, we are not in control. Grace places us in disequilibrium, where the balance of power is with the giver. We feel we don't deserve the gift, and we don't. Christmas is a time to celebrate "I don't deserve it" by freely receiving the gift freely given. Take hold of His gift, no hesitation. What we receive and behold in the gift of Grace is the truth that sets us free.

Christmas is our celebration that "unto us a child is born" - given to us is all the privileges and provisions of the Heavenlies. Christmas is a celebration of joyfully receiving THE GIFT freely given.

After all, we have nothing to give until we have received His. Something to ponder ....

Confluence of Infuence

There is an amazing maze of forces that come together to influence how you think, feel, and act. 

You are born with a human nature that consists of many common, but also unique qualities that bias your perception and interpretation of yourself and the world around you. In the Western world it is likely you studied Bible stories as a child that eventually fed your doctrine. As a young adult you began to have these beliefs challenged by arts, sciences, philosophy and your values and norms were shaped by your culture. As you age further you gain a greater sense of history and where you fit in the total scheme of eternity.

How does anyone successfully navigate the confluence of influence?

You yearn for an abundant and virtuous life, often settling for morsels that bring temporary relief and happiness. BUT, even when things are going well, you can't escape anxiety, fear, and despair. You feel loved at times, BUT then wonder if it will last, "forever"? You are left with the nagging question, "what is the answer?" or even "is there an answer?" You have dabbled with religion, maybe even jumped in head first. You may have found religion interesting, but impotent against this confluence of influence. You may have then searched philosophy, which is fun and interesting but quite futile at providing answers.

You have been told all your life to be positive, that's maybe the answer. "Don't lose hope!" BUT, eventually the "power of positive thinking" loses its power. You persevere. You work hard, BUT life is not fair in the end. People disappoint you. Your health fails you. Bullies seem to win. AND you wonder, maybe even ponder.

Is it possible that there is something underneath this confluence? Is it possible that what comes b4 your beliefs about life matters? Should you explore your b4worldview with all the passion you have?

I am convinced that the core assumptions of Jesus is what He is explaining in His public time in this world. When He says, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like this ....", shouldn't we pay attention. Maybe, just maybe, its the privileges and provisions of this Kingdom that is our answer.

That is worth pondering and that is what we do with you for 12 hours in www.b4worldview.com

core assumptions B4 theology

Often its the order of two objects that make the two objects work best. We know that the horse should go B4 the cart, but we have a saying, "you have the cart B4 the horse." We mean, "you have the objects out of order" and it doesn't work very well that way. Such can be the case with core assumptions and theology.




Core assumptions are closely held beliefs that we do not question that we use to develop all other beliefs. Theology happens to be a set of beliefs we have about God. So which should go B4 the other?

Maybe an example might help. Let's look at some core assumptions relative to a familiar passage from Scripture often used as seminal for people's theology (seminal means foundational or formative).

Look at Matt 25: 42-46

"For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Lets see how one's theology flows differently based on three different core assumptions. That is, in what way does theology depend on core assumptions? BTW, the several stories Jesus tells in Matt 25 are within the context of describing what the Kingdom of Heaven is like, not what we must do to get there. Its more of a quality control manual than a prescription for salvation.

There are at least 2 different theologies on the Christian life one can gain from this scripture (both are prevalent).
1. The Christian life is one of responsibility to show acts of mercy to the less fortunate in this world to reduce or eliminate physical needs of poverty and hunger.

2. The Christian life is to thankfully show mercy to the less fortunate in this world to point to the unmerited spiritual provisions and privileges God shows us in His Kingdom.

There are several dichotomous core assumptions that go with one or the other of these theologies on the Christian life. Each Christian has a core assumption about reality, satisfaction and justification.

First, you can view that reality refers to the material world or to the invisible world. When you assume that what happens in the natural world is real, then the outcome of alleviating poverty and hunger becomes the purpose of your actions. Your theology aligns with (1) above.

When you believe that things in the material world exists, but are not real, you view reality as eternal and existing in the super natural world. In this case the purpose of actions taken in the visible world simply point to what is real in the invisible world. In this view, your theology would align with (2) above.

There are several references in the NT that support the second theological position. These theological conclusions would be based on core assumption that what is real is eternal and invisible and what is temporal and visible exists, but is not real. Jesus says that eternal life (real life) is an intimate relationship with God. Paul says our body is a temporary dwelling place (tabernacle) for our eternal soul. Jesus asks us what good is it if we gain the whole world (physical benefit which is not real) and lose our soul (an eternal reality with Him)? The letter to the Hebrews are explaining to the Jews that the priest and sacrifices that they thought were real were not. They did exist but for the purpose of pointing to the real priest and the real sacrifice, Jesus. How you view reality in terms of what is going on in a visible, temporary state versus an invisible, eternal state is a critical core assumption from which your theology flows. 

Another core assumption deals with how you get satisfied. If you have an exchange based view, then you will assume that what you receive from God expects something from you. In this case you need to act like Jesus in order to receive His benefits of the Kingdom. Showing mercy by meeting the needs of the less fortunate is seen as justice, a duty or obligation to give to others because you have received so much. If your core assumption is that your satisfaction is bestowed on you by the unmerited grace of God, then your actions flow from thanksgiving and not justice or duty.

Finally, there are two different core assumptions about justification. One is that we are OK or made right when our actions meet some moral standard or code of conduct. Coupled with the core assumption of exchange, your motive for meeting the needs of the less fortunate becomes an expectation to please God. However, your core assumption on justification may be that you are made OK or right by relying on faith in the redemptive work of the Cross. There is nothing you have to do in the visible world to be right eternally with God. He doesn't want you to be concerned about yourself, but show mercy to others in tangible ways. God desires that in faith you take His mercy to others in the physical world out of thanksgiving for what He has done for you in your spiritual poverty. In doing so, you are faithful to model His Kingdom and point others to the provisions of His redemptive work, which is eternal.

The differences in core assumptions on reality, satisfaction and justification produce a theology 1 or a theology 2. Those with theology 1 tend to advance a Social Gospel. Those with theology 2 advance a Gospel of grace. The theologies are different, but only because core assumptions are different and core assumptions come B4 theology.

Your b4worldview is our business too @ www.b4worldview.com

What's all the whining about?

I guess everyone has noticed all the whining by students and teachers around the country at the outcome of the Presidential election. Its been hard not to. We've witnessed what many call "real fear and hopelessness." I, for one , would never doubt that anyone's feelings are real.

Can you imagine the Founding Fathers sitting down in their comfy chair, looking at this whining with chin in hand, patting their foot in disgust and thinking, "we fought and died for this?" Our nation has been a beacon of freedom and generosity for hundreds of years.

We have fought to eliminate oppression all over the world.

I suspect many of us are likewise looking out the corner of our eyes or even down our nose at such ungrateful disdain expressed for the privileges and provisions of living in the best nation ever created. It can be difficult for many of us to grasp "why the pity party?"

Before we get too prideful that we are not like those students and teachers, think about some of your own pity parties. Think about what you whine about. Why so? What is it that makes you feel afraid or hopeless like these young people who think their world has come to an end because HRC didn't get elected? Isn't that the source of our whining? Things are not like we want them to be and we feel badly about the situation.

Is it possible God is reacting to our whining kinda like our Founding Fathers might react to the "crying babies" following an election? Can you picture God with His chin in His hand and patting His foot thinking, "Duh, why are you living beneath the privileges and provisions of My Kingdom?" I picture Him like this all the time. What is your answer? Why are you whining at life's situations?

PAUSE - THINK - DEEPLY

My guess is your answer is "well, I am only human." Interesting statement. Probably been claimed by whiners many gazillion times. What do you think God's response is?

I sent my Son Jesus to suffer and die and HE rose from the dead to remove the word ONLY .....

God has given us many reminders, here are a couple ....

"In Christ we are a new creation, all things have passed, BEHOLD all things have become new"

"I came that you may have joy and have it abundantly"

"Fear not, little flock, your Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom."

delusion of inclusion

"Inclusion" is definitely the current PC trend that creates a lot of debate. It is the mantra of the political left and the target of attacks of the political right. Each accusing the other of vile virtue. Generations look at each other in dismay. People are feeling threatened and afraid, angry, and hopeless.

The problem seems to be that "inclusion" engenders confusion and this ambiguity fosters delusion.

If "inclusion" means that we should be welcoming of others different from us, then the right and the left both agree on and advocate inclusion. Most fair minded people see hospitality and extending open arms to people who do not look or even think like they do as a good thing. While an openness to observable diversity may not be a natural response of humans according to sociological research, civilized societies see virtue and benefit in embracing diversity.

The rub seems to come in when we apply "inclusion" to society's exercise of rights, who has what right to do what? The left applies the notion of "inclusion" to individual rights and this creates situations that offend people on the political right. For example, if we include the rights of customers to be served even if the shop keeper does not wish to serve them, the left sees this as "inclusion" and the right sees this as a violation of the rights of the shop keeper. Consideration of the rights of the shop keeper are NOT considered "inclusion".Thus, the rights of both can not be "included" at the same time. The same occurs with "including" the rights of women to abort their child for any reason, which excludes the rights of the unborn child. Granting illegal immigrants the right to work in the US, violates the rights of citizens to those jobs. Allowing males who think they are females to visit locker rooms of girls who have a right to privacy from having to shower with males viloates one group by including the wishes of another. And on and on and on ....

When we are dealing with some aspects of "inclusion", such as rights, we find that including one party excludes another and vice versa. Thus, "inclusion" is only an illusion because it is impossible to be "inclusive." We can shout at each other all we want. We can cycle through one political party after the next, but we will not resolve "inclusion." Yes, we must have mechanisms to resolve the conflict of rights, but making "inclusion" a virtue of society where it is impossible is just plain insanity. Our founding fathers found a way to protect rights of citizens from government's over reach, but how we deal with each other's self-serving desires that infringe on others requires way more than laws.

Where are the grown ups when we need them?    

same message, different mind

A popular author and blogger used this quote from MLK to make a point he feels is vital to living well. In his blog he chose to draw attention to the Golden Rule as a frame of reference for this quote and his point

His blog went as follows"


"why do we think that if we do to others

what we dislike them doing to us,

things will get better?.

hatred begets hatred which creates disconnection.

disconnection is what makes us suffer.

love begets love which creates connection

connection is what brings us happiness."

This feels really good. There is nothing most people would disagree with. BUT, here is the problem. He starts with a carnal core assumption so the Golden Rule does not become an agent of Grace, but an agent of reciprocity.

When our mind is anchored in social exchange, everything is viewed as "we do this, we get that." Notice the blogger has place the Golden Rule in the context of what we should do if we desire "what brings us happiness." When our mind is anchored in Grace, which is the Kingdom mind and the context for the Golden Rule, there is no expectation of exchange. We start with the idea that our needs are already satisfied. God has acted on our behalf. He has bestowed on us unmerited favor. We have no reciprocal action required. Justice has been satisfied. Our actions to be light in a dark world, to bring love, not hate, to the world is not motivated by achieving our satisfaction. Satisfaction is a priori to action, not resulting from it.

In the carnal core assumption, satisfaction follows our action. In the Kingdom core assumption satisfaction precedes our action. You may think that this difference is just academic. I would contend the difference in core assumptions and the quality of life associated with each is OUT OF THIS WORLD .....

making sense of "uncommon sense"

How often have you heard people say, "just use good common sense"? Maybe that's what you use when faced with decisions. "Common sense" is so common that you may not have thought much about what you mean when you say, "I prefer to rely on common sense."

Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet in 1776 outlining the reasons the Colonies should seek independence from England. It laid out persuasive arguments for why Protestant values were best served by presenting a distinctly different American identity. It is the best selling American title even today.

Wikipedia explains that "common sense" is now used to mean anything with shared value and acceptance among most people without the need for debate. The origin of the phrase in both the Greek and Latin generally relate to natural instincts, such as how animals instinctively respond to stimuli in ways that work best for them.

It is easy to make the linkage between "common sense" and culture and "common sense" and nature, since both are strong influences on sense-making that produce legitimate, instinctive responses.

So, what would "uncommon sense" be? We really don't have a wiki pedia explanation of this term. Most people would wonder why anyone might desire "uncommon sense." How could there ever be an advantage to go against conventional wisdom? Well, here's an idea.

Culture and human nature produce legitimate thoughts, feelings and actions, but not necessarily the best. In fact culture and nature are filled with flawed instincts of blind conformity and self-serving bias. "Common sense" may lead to failure and destruction when individuals act naturally and normally to manipulate their surroundings for their own benefit.

So, what if "uncommon sense" has a better way to determine truth, a better view of reality, a better way to get our needs met, and a better way to know we are OK? Would that make "uncommon sense" 'mo' better", a better way to make decisions? What must we know b4 we can have that kind of sense?  Consider that's a journey worth taking .....

why relative truth feels so natural

 Most people can generally agree with some absolute truths about the physical world, such as the law of gravity. But, there are truths about the physical world that we can't all agree on, such as the origin of the world, climate change, when life begins, and others.

Generally, if truth about the physical world has moral implications, society begins to take sides. The debate is easily settled if we can agree truth is relative. The virtue of tolerance is just the other side of the relativism coin.

It seems only Christians put up a fight that truth is absolute. God has established order and laws of the physical and spiritual realms, and that is that. Just read His word and you have the truth.

This argument falls on deaf ears. The world does not buy in to this absolute truth thing. In fact, it is sneaky easy for Christians to be sucked into this position on truth too. Of course, many mainstream Christians need to be culturally relevant and will not fight the non Christian world on this. There are even evangelicals, while always stating the theological position of absolute truth, find they practice relativism in ways they can't explain.

The issue is that relativism flows from our human nature. Relativism is not what someone chooses to believe but is preferred and considered vitruous because relativism fits the carnal mind. Relativism is an outcome belief of core assumptions of the natural mind.

What makes relativism flow from human nature? There are at least 3 reasons.

First, the carnal core assumption about how truth is determined is as follows: the truth about an object is determined by the observer of the object. That is the basis of science. We collect observations and apply scientific inquiry to the data, drawing conclusions about the object. There are a couple of problems with this. Two people cannot make the exact same observations for several reasons. Perception is limited. Judgments are biased. If truth is determined by an observer, then each observer can justify its conclusions. The debate is who has the best process, but all scientific inquiry is biased and limited. Science can only determine probabilistic cause and effect relationships. It is futile at determining absolute truth. Thus truth must be relative.

Second, one of the main biases of the human condition is confirmation bias. This influence controls where and what data we collect. It is human nature to first have a conclusion as to what is true and then gather evidence needed to support that predetermined conclusion. Because each of us knows deep down our version of the truth is biased, we cannot stand firm on our conclusion with any confidence and ultimately find it virtuous to accept others' conclusions as just as valid as ours. Thus truth must be relative.

Thirdly, all human relationships are maintained via social exchange. Social exchange is the norm of reciprocity - we give to get and when we receive we are obligated to return the favor. You might ask, "how does this support relativism?" Let me ask, "why is consensual sex deemed right?" "Why does the means justify the end?" The virtue of social exchange is justice. If both parties in an exchange receive what they expect or want, then the exchange is fair and if the exchange is fair, then it doesn't matter what the actions individually are. If both parties mutually agree to have sex, then the principles of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman are not necessary to determine if the actions are right. If they are right, based on social exchange, then the actions are true. Since there are many ways to make an exchange fair, truth must be relative to the nature of the exchange.

All of these reasons that relativism feels right is deep ingrained in human nature. A person's core assumptions are attached to or flow from a person's identity. If absolute truth is to feel right, not just endorsed through theological rigor, we must have a new identity. Only when we are transformed by the renewing of our mind do we take on the mind of Christ. Until then, Christians, no matter how committed to their beliefs, they are controlled by their core assumptions. Christians will find that while they endorse absolute truth, they embrace relativism.

This is the mission and work of b4Worldview .... Give it a try!!

"I shall not want .."

Several thousand years ago a song writer wrote these lyrics. While this song (Psalm 23) is not available on iTunes, it's words are familiar to many, even one of the most memorized songs of all times. Of course we recognize it as a song of praise by David to God for His provision and protection. Have you ever wondered if everyone understands the words in the same way as David.

First, there are people who do not believe in God or believe that if there is a God, He either does not care, is not involved, or is not capable of this claim. They would think, isn't this obvious since we rarely get everything we want. We get sick and don't get well. We work hard and someone else gets the promotion. We love someone deeply and they leave us. So this must be a false claim. Anyone who believes it must need to feel like things will eventually go well. After all, we are told to be positive - a little hope, even when things seem hopeless, is always soothing.

Then there are those who believe in God and believe God loves them and wants the best for them, but they believe satisfaction is found in their circumstances. So when they hear, "I shall not want", they feel God is on their side and He will tilt the game of life in their favor. BUT then, our experience does not always line up with what we sing in this song. While those with this view may not abandon God, they can easily feel God has abandoned them. They may even feel they are not good enough for God to keep His promise to them, so they won;t get what they want.

But David's view of God is neither of these two. He knows in His heart (gnosis knowledge) that God is Sovereign, all powerful and loves him dearly. There is never a question of whether God can and will act on his behalf. The difference is that David understands that worldly provision is just temporary and is not how his soul is ultimately satisfied. David follows this claim in the song with, "He restores my soul." This suggests that everything the soul wants comes to him by God's willful acts of love.

In this song David is sharing he recognizes that everything we want is perfectly known by God and given to us without fail. This view of these lyrics requires a different core assumption on how our soul is satisfied than the first two views above. It is interesting that two people can view the same event and have two totally different experiences, depending on their core assumptions.

This is the goal of b4Wolrdview, to fully explore the 2 different core assumptions, or patterns of thought, that ultimately lead to how we view experiences. Have you noticed how people's fondness for singing songs with great energy reflect their view of life? BUT does every view lead to an abundant and virtuous life? Shouldn't we all get the right core assumptions so we can have the best view?

We think so ..... @ www.b4worldview.com
   

What keeps you up at night?

Most decent people in our world today take seriously the physical threats to our children and grandchildren. Abuse, terror, bullying, sex trafficking, abduction, and so forth are so prevalent in our world today. I have a friend who was so passionate about this that she became a prosecutor just to put away the "bad guys" who threatened our children.

There's another type of threat that we often think about, and that is what our children are being taught in school. This type of threat poses different kinds of risks to our children, the risk that their mind is polluted and contaminated in ways that deceive them and steal their joy.

I recently learned that a prominent education course on "The Theory of Knowledge" teaches that knowledge comes in 8 ways: language, sense perception, emotion, reason, imagination, faith, intuition and memory. These look reasonable and the students learn them because the teacher requires it. BUT, do these line up with Kingdom principles of knowledge? What happened to "revelation"? "conscience"? Is emotion a way to know or a response to knowing? Regardless of how benign a threat like this course appears to be, if its wrong, then the kids are at risk.

Many parents and students may not know whether this is true or not. So how do kids and their parents KNOW the truth about KNOWING? Does it matter? Is there an alternative available for parents and kids to find out?

This is what keeps us up at night @  http://www.b4worldview.com/

 

"created in His image"

While it is becoming more offensive to openly bring God into public discourse, our culture finds more stealth ways to rob our joy. I often hear people use "we are created in God's image" for personal gain, whether Christian or not. Our culture likes to reinforce the virtue of "tolerance" by saying every person is "like God" and so we must be kind, respectful, and acceptance of them regardless .... blah, blah blah !! AND, we just go along as if this is true.

Well, it must be true. If you were to Google "image of God" you might get something like this from Wikipedia:

"The Image of God is a concept and theological doctrine in Judaism, Christianity, and Sufi Islam, which asserts that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. Philosophers and theologians have debated the exact meaning of the phrase for millennia. In Christian thought, the Image of God is intimately linked to the idea of Original Sin. The Image that was present in Adam at creation was partially lost with the Fall of Man, and that through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, humans can be reunited with God. Christian writers have stated that despite the Image of God being partially lost, each person fundamentally has value regardless of class, race, gender or disability. Regardless of the exact meaning of being made in the Image of God, the concept is a foundational doctrine of Christianity and Judaism."

Wikipedia is a great place to go to see what our culture has done to the original intent of a word. Notice the idea of "and likeness" is the only additional meaning given to "image". Notice the reference to the idea of image to support the virtue of diversity - "each person fundamentally has value". Both of these "expanded" explanations of "image" feel pretty good, except they are not right. To apply what God is really saying to us would not be very PC, it would make us accept an intolerant religious judgment. We would have to see our self as God designed us, not what we think we should be. So its better when we just go along to get along with what our culture has "bullied" us into believing. Then, what God really wants us to know about ourselves is not allowed in our "selfies."

Here is what God said, "we are created in His "eikon" (image). This word means representative or manifestation. We were created as representatives of God. Our purpose is to represent Him. We get sidetracked by what the culture wants us to think. We represent Him and manifest Him not when we behave a certain way, treat each other ethically or "justly", but rather when we trust Him, when we are agents of reconciliation, not to the world but to Him. We represent Him when we embrace our Spiritual identity, when we worship the Creator, not the creature. We represent Him when we "walk by faith, not by sight." We represent Him when we receive from Him the Grace He has bestowed on us. When we seek our well being from other people and our circumstances, we represent the "worthless and elemental principles of this word."  God says we were NOT created to represent the world's system, but to manifest Him to all peoples of the world.

We must learn to rebut the deceptive use of God's word for the carnal purposes of man.

We must be confident and bold with how God uses His image to transforms culture when culture desires to transform His image.

Wudn't it be GREAT?

There are a lot of things in the world each of us wish could be different, BETTER. We are in the midst of the most unusual and unattractive political campaign in modern times. Wudn't it be GREAT if we had better candidates.

For me, I wish we would quit shouting over each other and have a better political narrative. How we "talk about" what we believe matters. Wudn't it be GREAT if political campaigns discussed core assumptions instead of attacking each other personally and occasionally judging each other's conclusions on policy.

You may be asking, "what do you mean by core assumptions?" These are closely held beliefs and patterns of thinking that people never question, but use to draw conclusions about everything else - from suitability of a candidate to which policy is best. "Which core assumptions should be debated?", you may now ask.

Good question.

As far as our country goes, we should decide on which institutions meet the needs of society the best - government or free markets? We should decide if we should view the changing culture through the lens of a Constitution that is a stable, absolute view of law or whether Constitutional law should adapt to changing culture? There are others but this would be a good start. If we cannot agree on these core assumptions, we never will agree on people to govern us. We will never resolve issues on marriage, abortion,capital punishment, guns, sexual identity and such. The paths determined by differing core core assumptions should be on the ballot, not personalities.

BUT, there is even a more profound diversity of core assumptions that every person should be able to articulate and decide intentionally what they believe. However, human nature as it is, generally influences people to take the easy and safe way. So, most people just conform to prevailing cultural positions that make them feel legitimate and argue conclusions that they really haven't thought about much.

For example, whether you are a Christian or not a Christian, you should be able to adequately discuss
1) the 2 types of "knowledge"
2) the 2 different ways "truth" can be determined
3) the 3 different forms of life and what makes life "good"?
4) the 3 different ways to view the "law"
5) the 2 different ways humans can be accepted
6) the 2 different ways to view "reality"
7) the 2 kinds of evidence we "trust"
8) the 2 types and 3 forms of identity - finding "self"
9) the 3 approaches to power

Where you come down on each of these is not my point at this time, BUT wouldn't it be GREAT if every millennial and their parents, their professors, their governmental authorities, their friends, their mentors, and so on were competent in explaining these competing core assumptions. I envision a time when much of what we debate is focused on the differences in these 9 areas of core assumption. Debating topics like "how do we know God exists?", "are people naturally good?", "why is there evil?" and "is Jesus the only way to God?" are futile if we start from differing core assumptions. For instance, what does "know" mean? "exist"? "good"? "way"?

Usually when I make a point, many people say, "yes, I agree, but HOW?"

I am not a "how" person by nature, BUT I have spent over a year scripting an online learning experience where anyone who stays with it for 10 - 12 hours will come away with a competency to discuss these assumptions.

I envision hearing people of all ages and stages talking about these core assumptions as easily and eagerly as they talk about politics, sports, music, and each other.

Wudn't THAT be GREAT!!! ... 

What to do "when it sounds so right"?

There are so many posts on social media these days of platitudes that really make us feel good. For some reason we feel virtuous if we embrace a quote from someone that everyone would agree on and admire. Here is an example of a blog from an author of a book, The Mosaic, a call to more virtuous living through inter-connectedness:

HONOR SACREDNESS

See yourself. Notice how you are. What triggers you? See what you see,and then see what you don't see. How do you show up? How does money and power affect you? 



Powerful men sometimes try to abuse woman, 
Powerful woman sometimes try to abuse men. 

I know it. It happened to me, and I am strong. I stood up to it. Be the one who stands up for what brings honor and dignity to the world. Be the one who acts in sacredness. What is happening now is a sign for us to honor more and more the sacredness of all life. to honor each other,  to honor the truth,  to honor the sacred connection between us.


Our young people read this and go, "yeah." Business leaders read this and go, "I like that." Many Christians read this and say, "I am all for sacred, he must be a Godly man." Here's my concern, this author makes these statements from core assumptions we never even notice. AND, until we draw conclusions from something someone writes or says, we need to examine what lies beneath the statement. Too often platitudes expressed, and that can include Scripture verses, is like a cup of hot tea, or warm milk, or even a refreshing beverage. It makes us feel good, but how it makes us think, feel, and act can be quite off base from what we think we believe.

If we are not clear about our own core assumptions, then platitudes can reinforce patterns of thought that do not fit with what we think we believe. So what should you do when you read or hear such "right sounding" platitudes?

1. Look for key words - in this statement they might be, "honor", "sacred", "to the world," "see", and "truth."
2. Make sure you have a clear idea of what your core assumptions of these words are and that they fit what you believe.
3. See if you can draw from the context of statement the core assumptions of the author.
4. Accept the platitude as an encouragement or reject the author's point as subtle deception.

From other writings and discussions I have had with this author, he sees the material world as reality and man as the center of it. The notion of "honor sacredness" is what we should hold in esteem to make us justified as a "good person." He believes that we become more virtuous and more purposeful as we connect with the world around us. This connectedness allows us "to see what we previously could not see", such as opportunities to be kind, helpful, opportunistic, etc.

All of this is secular humanism that is at enmity with being a child of God. His core assumptin is that the "Mosiac" belongs to the world, BUT, the Kingdom assumption is that the "The Mosaic" belongs to God. Our connection is first with Him though His act of Grace, not though our being strong. For the author, "to honor truth" is admirable, but what is his assumption of truth? The Kingdom assumption is that truth is revealed to us by Jesus and it is impossible for humans to determine on their own, through improving their observations and seeing more of what they haven't seen. The core assumption of the author is that humans are the creator, the determinant of truth.

While we certainly become more virtuous as we honor what is sacred and connect with truth and others, it is only through God's Sovereign grace in our lives that we "move and have our being." While most people feel like minded on the surface with this platitude, there is an eternal difference in what it means based on our core assumptions of knowledge, truth and faith.

Learning to grasp the vital difference in carnal and Kingdom core assumptions is our challenge and the mission of b4Worldview ......  

cart b4 horse

Christian apologetics have developed narratives on the Kingdom ever since the crucifixion. "Does God exist?" is likely the most often debated topic with atheists. The minds of Christians and non Christians have sharpened with great precision across the years. Oh, who has won?
Doesn't seem like either since there are many on both sides still sharpening their apologetic weapons.

Anyone think there's an issue with this? I am sure I am not the only one that has stepped back and asked what's wrong with this picture?

When I began looking at this from a different angle, the first thought occurred to me that maybe it's the wrong question. After all, that's what a good mathematician should do. Once I asked this, it came to me that each side of the argument does not understand "to know something exist" in the same way. Looking at this purely objectively, they are not in the same debate. It seems to me that both have put the cart b4 the horse. Maybe there should be an equally energetic debate on what does "know" and "exist" mean?

This is the mission of b4Worldview. Christians cannot debate non Christians on worldviews if they start with the same core assumptions. Christians can easily be confused when their theology seems contradictory to deeply held presuppositions they may not even know they have.

b4 we humans can adequately agree on a view of God, we should agree on God's view of us humans.

But since non Christians do not believe there is a God and therefore there is no view, the only assumptions that define the debate stage are "worthless and elementary principles of this world."

We must have a way to debate core assumptions without having to start with agreement on God. If we can't, we will always debate important ideas by putting the cart b4 the horse. Oh wait, that's why we all need a b4Worldview course. Or at least that's my assumption ....

The best swimmer or the right pool?

Below is a blog posted by a well known author and professional coach who has helped many people become more successful through getting more in touch with who they are. He and I are alike in many ways. He sees himself as a disruptor as I do. Based on his other blogs his context is humanism. He has written a book called MOSAIC to help you see what you don;t see and do what seems impossible.



Read this and form your thoughts about it. How does it make you feel? Is it good advice? etc. I have posted my response below.


WHO WERE YOU BEFORE YOU TOLD YOURSELF WHO YOU ARE?

what would life be like if you were to drop all the stories you have told yourself and if you were only to remember one thing. . . .who you are.

there would be no more searching, no more trying, no more effort, no more struggle, no more search for meaning. what if everything was already there. in conversation with my friend, Luke Iorio he shared with me his idea for writing a book on this beautiful concept.

in the MOSIAC, i only wish that you would be able to meet the TrashMan, for he is the one who removes everything that no longer belongs. who would you be if everything that no longer belonged were gone?

this is the MOSAIC. connect to what is, let go of everything that is not.


My response ....
Now here is a disruptive thought - I was discussing a similar idea as this blog with a friend today. He used the analogy of becoming a great swimmer. He mentioned that I would need others to help me know the correct stroke and still others to help me get rid of bad habits and destructive thoughts like fear. I was tracking well with the idea of becoming all I was meant to be as a swimmer and then he said, what if you are in the wrong pool? What if there exists a different but even better pool where greatness as a swimmer depended on a whole different set of qualities than what I thought was right in this pool? What if ....

Although much of his personality and logic is very similar to mine, his view of the right pool is different than mine because we have different core assumptions. This is the purpose of b4Worldview. To get people in the right pool rather than helping them swim better in the wrong pool.

This is what changing the narrative means!!     (isn't pondering wonderful :-)

Maybe my English teacher had it right

I think all of us have been frustrated at some point in time by trying to understand what someone else has written, especially interpreting a poem in school. Let’s look in on Susie’s experience with this at college as she shares her frustration over the phone with her mom.

- Phone rings    -




Mom: Hello
Susie: Hi Mom
Mom: Oh hi Susie, I’m so glad you called. Everything OK?
Susie: Yeah, everything’s good. Well, almost everything.

Mom: What’s wrong?
Susie: I’m kinda struggling in English literature this semester.
Mom: Really? I thought you liked literature?
Susie: Oh, I do, Mom. It’s just this professor, he makes poetry so frustrating.

Mom: Oh, poetry, I always had trouble understanding what a poem meant. They always seemed so abstract and interpretations so arbitrary.
Susie: Yeah, that’s my problem, too. He gives us these poems and asks us to interpret what we think the poet’s theme is. I feel like I have a good logical explanation and he says, nope, that’s not what the poet is trying to tell us. But, he doesn’t explain why my view isn’t true.

Mom: I remember being frustrated at that too. My professor would emphasize that the truth of the poem is what the poet has chosen to mean by what he or she writes. It really didn’t matter how good of an argument I could give for why it could mean something else.
Susie: Yes, I am not sure why literature is different from my other courses.

Mom: What do you mean?
Susie: Well, in economics we develop rational arguments for what is true. The right answer seems to depend on how well we can make a logical defense for what we believe. The same thing holds for Philosophy. In all of my subjects, but literature experts have developed competing arguments for what is true about something. AND, as long as we have a good explanation for what we believe to be true, we can claim to be right too.

Mom: Yeah, I agree, it seems that when we call something science, truth about an object is determined by inferences we can make about the object by collecting data. But, in other areas of knowledge, truth is determined by what the person who originated the object says is true.
Susie: Having different ways to determine truth is so confusing. With science truth seems relative and depends on the validity of arguments people can make about the object. In science, how much knowledge about an object we can gather is what is important.  But then, with literature, truth seems to be absolute and depends on what the author says is true. In this case, how smart we are or how much data we gather isn’t the issue. Its all about getting to know what the author says that is important. I guess truth is just “different strokes for different folks.” (a little laugh)

Mom:  Yes, Susie, I see why you are a bit frustrated. It seems that the best thing to do is just accept how science and literature differ with regards to truth and kind of “go along to get along”, as they say. Makes life easier that way.
Susie: I guess it is easier, but two ways to find truth is a bit unsettling for a young person like me who wants to be able to find truth so I can live the best life possible.

Mom: Yeah, I can see that. (thoughtful hesitation) This conversation reminds me of something I learned in a course called b4Worldview. One of the major points of this course was the discussion of the two different core assumptions about truth. It was so interesting at the time, but I had let the point about truth kind of slip into the background. Maybe it can help you sort this out.
Susie: That would be nice mom, what did it say about truth?

Mom: Let’s see if I can get this straight. I know it talked a lot about relative and absolute truth, kind of like we did. Then it said something so profound that relates to what we were discussing.
Susie: Yeah, what was that?
Mom: The speaker said that there are two basic beliefs about truth that people hold dear. In fact, these beliefs are called core assumptions, which means they are beliefs a person has that they never question, but use to make sense of everything else.
Susie: Core assumptions? cool idea. What were the two core assumptions about truth?

 Mom: They were like what we were talking about. One core assumption is that truth about an object is determined by what an observer can conclude about the object. This is like science. The other core assumption is that the truth about an object is determined by what the originator of the object says about it. This is like poems or stories, its more about the author.
Susie: That’s interesting. This seems like it suggests that if a person has the first core assumption, then they would see truth as relative, there can be many views of truth. If they have the second core assumption, then truth is absolute and there is only one view of what is true.

Mom: Yes, that seems right. The b4Worldview course didn’t use literature as the example of the second core assumption, but author’s are originators of objects in literature. The course emphasized architects of buildings as the source of truth about the buildings. Although you can observe a building and infer qualities about the building, the truth is best and maybe only known by asking the architect, especially if there are qualities of the building that cannot be observed.
Susie: Objects have qualities we cannot observe?
Mom: Oh, yes, things like the purpose of the building.
Susie: Wow, mom, I never thought of truth that way. Everybody seems to think science is the best way to know what is true, BUT I can see this second core assumption about truth is powerful. The idea that truth is what the originator says is not very common at my university.

Mom: No, I agree, in fact most people hold tight to the first core assumption about truth and because its a core assumption, they never really question that they trust what they and other observers say about an object more than they trust what the originator says.
Susie: I can see that, mom. How do we know which core assumption is best?

Mom: That’s what was interesting about b4Worldview. The speaker emphasized that core assumptions are beliefs we do not prove. BUT, here is what stuck with me. The instructor told us that the original meaning of the word “truth” was “the disclosure of actual qualities of an object.” It was very transforming for me to see that truth is really about disclosure.
Susie: That sounds like core assumption two. For some quality of an object to be disclosed, it is probably not observed.

Mom: Yeah, that’s what was so life changing for me, because I was so used to trusting science for truth and not the author of the story, or architect of the building or the originator of the object.
Susie: So, instead of being frustrated by how my professor pushes me to see truth about a poem by seeing what is revealed to me by the poet, I should thank him for pushing me toward core assumption two about truth?

Mom: Yeah, Susie, this has been a really good chat and an important life lesson .... Seen any good movies lately?

What does it take?

Some years ago I had the following discussion with a friend. The names have been changed to protect the innocent and the discussion has been expanded to illustrate what a student will learn about knowledge, truth and faith in the b4Worldview course.


Me: Joe, how are you and Susie coming along in your relationship?
Joe: Oh, I think we are doing really good.
Me: Well, you know you are not getting any younger and you have been dating for 5 years. Are you thinking about marriage.
Joe: Of course, we both think about it a lot, but are afraid to talk about it too much.

Me: Afraid? How so?
Joe: I think Susie is afraid if she talks too much about it I’ll think she is pushing me. I am afraid because I can’t get really sure if its the right thing to do. If I talk about it too much, it'll put too much pressure on me because she’ll think I am moving in that direction. So, it is kind of the white elephant in the room if you know what I mean.
Me: Yeah, I can understand why each of you are hesitant for different reasons. Can I ask you a question?
Joe: Sure, go ahead.

Me: What information do you need that you do not have that if you had, you could decide?
Joe: (hesitates and is a little perplexed) That’s a good question. I don’t really know that I need to know more.
Me: Do you know you really love her?
Joe: yes

Me: do you know she really loves you?
Joe: as much as a man can know that this.
Me: Guess what your issue is?
Joe: Fear? (laughingly)
Me: Well, you can look at it that way, but there is a better way to understand what is going on.
Joe: Really? What? Tell me please.

Me: The first question I asked you was about what do you not know. I was talking about head knowledge, which is the typical idea of knowledge. The ancient Greeks actually had a word for head knowledge. Did you KNOW that?
Joe: Why do I feel you are about to tell me? (smiling)
Me: yeah, you KNOW me too well. (smiling back) The word for head knowledge is “eido”. It basically means knowledge we have that we get through our physical senses. You recognize you don’t need any more facts, so to speak. That’s normally what we mean when we say we need to know more or not. Its about acquiring facts. But there is another form of knowledge, that is really important but we don’t understand as well.
Joe: yeah, what’s that called?

Me: This other form of knowledge the ancient Greeks called “gnosis.” We sometimes call it heart knowledge. Its more mysterious because it doesn’t come to us through our physical senses.
Joe: Yeah, I’ve heard of heart knowledge, but I have never thought about it much and certainly never heard anyone explain it to me. How do we get heart knowledge or this thing called “gnosis”?
Me: Good question. It is not understood well. You are right about that. Some people call it intuition, some call it conscience. Some people even believe that gnosis is knowledge that is revealed to us somehow. This means we receive knowledge from something outside our self rather than gain it through our own efforts.
Joe: I can see that. Everyone knows they know things that they didn’t get through normal means.

Me: Actually, what we know we know, but we got through gnosis knowledge, is called faith.
Joe: Faith? I thought that was just a term Christians use. You mean everyone has faith?
Me: That’s right, Joe. Faith is simply evidence about something we gain through gnosis knowledge. Can you describe your faith in Susie’s love for you?
Joe: Well, good question. I certainly observe her actions towards me. She encourages me and does things for me. I know what she looks like, how she smells. I see her personality and like it. I guess all of that is head knowledge. You call that “eido”, right?

Me: Yes, Joe, you got that down pat. BUT, what do you know in your heart?
Joe: My heart tells me I don’t want to be without her. My heart tells me she would love me no matter what I did. I have thought and probably said sometime that I have faith in Susie. I guess I have acknowledged my faith in Susie and trust all of this evidence I have about our love for each other, but I never have thought of it as faith.

Me: That’s what I mean. It is amazing how many ways we trust faith in knowledge we cannot observe that influences how we think, feel and act. Yet, most people believe they are very logical – that they trust science or only what they can prove by what they observe.
Joe: That is so right. I was only thinking about my eido knowledge when I was thinking about marrying Susie. When I only included head knowledge, I was apathetic – I just wouldn’t act because its hard to trust just head knowledge.

Me: That’s right Joe. That’s a good principle to remember – eido knowledge without gnosis knowledge leaves us impotent to act. The opposite can be a problem too.
Joe: Oh yeah, what’s that?
Me: If I only have gnosis but I do not have eido that supports my gnosis, I may just be acting on emotion and that can be risky.
Joe: That’s kind of a “love at first sight” thinking that rushes people to the altar, only to have their marriage fall apart later.

Me: That’s right Joe. We need to back up our heart knowledge with head knowledge. Having both fit each other really gives us something we can trust enough to act on.
Joe: I see my problem. When I put my gnosis knowledge up with my edio knowledge, I can trust my action to marry Susie.

Note: Before the week was out, Joe asked Susie to marry him and she said yes. Susie forever thanks me for my discussion with Joe :-)

Dad and daughter at dinner

Susie is home from college at Fall break. Mom and dad like it when the family can all have dinner together. After all, eating together is a great time for fellowship and discussing life’s issues. Let’s drop in at dinner time and listen to Susie and her dad as they catch up on what’s been happening since they were last together.



Dad: Well, Susie, how is everything going at college?
Susie: Good.
Dad: Good.
(a little period of awkward silence follows as usual)

Dad: You learning anything interesting?
Susie: Classes are good. I like my professors.
Dad: Good, getting along with all your friends?
Susie: Yeah, that’s good.  (little silence) I wish you’d quit embarrassing me with your facebook posts though.

Dad: Oh, I’m sorry. (a little silence) What did I say that was so bad?
Susie: You get on this immigration kick of yours. My friends think you are so intolerant.
Dad: My immigration kick? (hesitation) All I say is that people who come into our country should obey the immigration laws.
Susie: You always said that the Golden Rule is a major principle we should live by. Doesn’t that mean people who have a hard time in their country deserve a better life and we should share what we have so they can be happy? Isn’t the Golden rule all about being fair. After all, wouldn’t we want others to help us and share with us if we were in need?

Dad: Yeah, I suppose I have taught you about the value of treating others as you would want them to treat you. But, it just doesn’t seem fair to those immigrants who follow the law that many others can get the same benefits and not follow the law. What’s wrong with that?
Susie: Yeah, I can understand your point but my sociology professor really emphasizes how people who have a lot should share what they have with people who don't. Being a tolerant society is really what matters. Everyone deserves a good life and to have what they need to be happy regardless of their background, what they look like and where they are from.

Dad: I agree this fairness thing is complicated. But I always thought that fair is about “getting what we deserve”. Doesn't this mean we must earn or work for what we get, not that we just deserve it because we exist. If someone wants more, shouldn't they work for it and follow the rules. Isn’t your professor’s idea of tolerance using the wrong idea of the word “deserve”?
Susie: Well, he’s the professor. He’s smart. Sharing what we have with those in need feels right to me. (hesitation) If the Golden Rule is right and being tolerant feels right, then that must be what the Golden Rule means. I don’t see a problem with that logic. Oh, btw, you also complain all the time about taxes and how you pay too much. You make a lot of money and if you really believed in the Golden Rule, you’d be happy to pay your fair share.

Dad pauses for a bit, knowing this doesn’t sound right to him but he doesn't want to argue with his daughter. He needs to find a way to make this discussion personal to Susie. Its very hard to compete with the credibility Susie gives to her professors. After a few moments he says this:

Dad: Speaking of your professors, how are you doing in school?
Susie: Oh, I’m doing great. I am on track to maintain my 4.0 GPA. But its not easy.
Dad: No, I’m sure its not. College is tough. Grades don’t come easy, even when you are smart.
Susie: yeah, I study all the time, never have time to go out and party like many of my friends.  I don’t even have time for a boyfriend and don't really have many college friends because I spend all my time studying. I am taking more difficult courses, too.

Dad: yeah, I am so proud of you. How is your friend Mary doing?
Susie: Oh, Mary is hardly getting by. She is barely pulling a 2.0 GPA, and she takes easy classes and never studies.

Dad: That’s interesting.
Susie: and oh yeah, Mary is very popular on campus. College for her is a blast. She goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over.
Dad: So Mary does college very different than you and gets very different results, right?
Susie: Yeah, she sure does. She doesn’t follow the rules and what we were told as freshman about how to succeed in college and she is suffering the consequences. I am not sure if she will be able to stay in school and graduate.

Dad: (after letting what Susie said soak in a minute, he says): Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to Mary? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and you both can graduate.
Susie: (a little bothered by that suggestion says) That wouldn't be fair!  I worked really hard for my grades. I do without some things I would want to do, and Mary has done little or nothing, to succeed. She played while I worked really hard!

Dad: Susie, don’t be so intolerant of Mary. Remember, her dad died when she was young. Her family has not had as many privileges you have had. She has a much tougher life. Doesn’t she deserve to graduate just like you? What would your sociology professor tell you to do? (smiling)

Susie looks perplexed
Dad: anyone for dessert?

How we view what’s fair, what people deserve, guiding principles like the Golden Rule ultimately determines our worldview on many issues in life. However, our worldviews flow from core assumptions deep within us that we never even question or discuss. People of all ages, but especially those in the formative early adult years, are subject to many voices, competing for the ideas that shape how they think, feel, and act. Isn’t it time to explore those core assumptions in a thoughtful and rigorous way so that what comes b4Worldview can lead to a more abundant and virtuous life? 

Mom, college is great!

Susie came home this summer after her first year in college. Living on her own, so to speak, left her with so much to share. Susie and her mom have a good relationship so she couldn’t wait to catch mom up on how much she had learned and grown in her first year away from home.



Let’s drop in on their conversation and see what it’s like to see this moment through the eyes of a rising college sophomore.

Susie: Mom, I have so much to tell you. College is so cool.
Mom: Great Susie, I can’t wait to hear. Did you learn a lot?
Susie: Yes, mom. I feel like I learned more in this one year than all of high school.
Mom: That’s great, Susie. That’s why we pay all those big bucks (smile and little giggle). Your dad and I are so excited about what you’ll learn and how that will help you with a career. You know it takes a lot of money to make it in this world these days. So a good career is very important.

Susie: Yes, Mom, I know. My professors are so smart. They are helping me so much. I feel good about where I am heading.
Mom: Well, that’s a good sound to a mother’s ears. Tell me the most helpful thing your professors taught you.
Susie: I have this one professor. He is so cool – and smart. He knows everything about life.
Mom: Really? What does he teach?

Susie: He is my Philosophy professor.
Mom: Philosophy? I thought you were focused on Pre Med. Shouldn’t a science be your favorite course?
 Susie: Yeah, I do want to be a doctor, but more importantly, I really want to find myself. My Professor of Philosophy convinced me that finding who I really am is the most important thing I will ever do.
Mom: Really? That’s interesting. Are you lost? (smile and giggle)
Susie: No, mom, I’m not lost.

Mom: Then why do you need to find yourself?
Susie: Oh mom, that is just an expression that young people use to focus on exploring their soul, to find out who we are and what makes us tick. I really need to know my purpose, why I was made like I am – maybe I am not supposed to be a doctor?

Mom: Yikes, that’s scary - I don’t think finding yourself will pay your bills when you graduate.
Susie: I know mom, but my Philosophy professor feels I need to open up. Consider my possibilities. See many points of view. He says it is not good to see things one way. He says I need to be inclusive.
Mom: “Inclusive” What does that mean?
Susie: Oh mom, you and dad are so old fashion. You are stuck in tradition and religion. You raised me well but I can’t just accept what you believe just because you believe it. I need to find out for myself. That’s kinda what finding myself means. It seems that’s what college is really about. My professor doesn’t believe there is only one truth about life. And he is not the only one. It seems most all of my professors and many of my friends feel this way, too.

Mom: Oh, so what dad and I believe is not good enough anymore?
Susie: It’s not that. I am sure you sincerely believe what you believe. But I don’t know why I should believe it. In fact, I don’t know why I believe what I believe. Everyone is encouraging me to think for myself, to try different ideas about what is true. After all, isn’t truth just what we think about something. If any one person had a corner on truth, then they would be intolerant of others and that’s the worst thing anyone can be – intolerant. Everybody knows that.

Mom: I don’t know Susie. I agree that sometimes I am not sure why I believe what I do. It just seems right based on how your dad and I were raised. I just think it’s better if you stay with your beliefs and focus on being a doctor.
Susie: Mom, that may have been good enough for you and dad, but it isn’t good enough for me. I need to find myself, be true to myself or I will just live an unhappy life. Mom, if you were truthful, you are not exactly happy now yourself, are you?

Mom: Can you tell? Life is hard. All the dreams I had have kind of fallen to the wayside. I try to put on a good front for you and your brothers, but most of the time I am just going through the motion – trying to get from one day to the next. BUT, I want more for you. I thought if you got a good education and had a great career like being a doctor, you would be happy when you grow up.
Susie: Well, mom, me and my friends look at your generation and think there must be more to life. Our professors tell us there is no reality beyond our inner self. Knowing ourself is way more important than knowing how to do a job and is way more important than thinking religion is the answer.

Mom: Well, I can’t help you there. I once learned a very important lesson

“Without the context of a bigger stage, being true to ‘self’ is a flattering allegiance to bias and voices of deception.”

Susie: That’s interesting. What do you mean by “bigger stage”? and what is bias and deception?
Mom: I don’t know for sure, but I studied the human condition once and what struck me was that we are part of a bigger story. It’s really the story in which we belong that matters more than being an independent self.
Susie: You believe we are a character in a story? Are we just a puppet that someone is pulling the strings?
Mom: No, that’s not what that means. It means that there is an author of life, who created each of us for a purpose, kinda like a role in a story. It’s a good story, but has episodes of tragedy. I learned that we must see ourselves within this story more than finding our self as an independent actor without a story.

Susie: I like that idea. I find it frustrating to just focus on myself. I’d like to know the story I am in, that sounds exciting.
Mom: I also learned that we have a human nature that can affect how we see and understand things. These are like flaws – so even if we were searching for our self, we could never see our self properly. There are self centered biases that force us to focus on the wrong issues.
Susie: Like what?
Mom: I heard that our nature forces us to get what we need by trying to earn it by what we do.
Susie: Yeah, duh, what’s wrong with that? Sounds pretty normal to me.

Mom: That’s my point, this is our nature. The problem is that this yearning to exchange our actions for what we can get in return is what creates anxiety, despair, frustration and many other emotions. And even when we have moments where things work well and we are happy, we fear that we will soon lose what we have. It seems by definition that we can never gain hope, joy and freedom if exchange is the way we operate.
Susie: Yeah, I can see that already in my short life. I think that’s why we have so many teen suicides.
Mom: yeah, and divorces and cheating and depression. Even worse, we feel in bondage to those who do something for us because we feel obligated to do something in return. This can make us feel guilty.

Susie: Yeah, I don’t like feeling obligated. So I try to give more than receive so I can stay free of obligation. Lots of people say giving is a good thing, but I think most people give to get something in return. I feel more in control when I am giving versus when I receive.
Mom: Think about it, why doesn’t your Philosophy professor and your friends ever talk about these things? Maybe understanding the flaws of human nature and the absence of our place in the big story would be better than “finding our self”.

Susie: Mom, you are so smart. College just doesn’t seem to think that way. I don’t feel prepared to defend against the things my professors and friends throw at me. I never really felt good about what they were saying, but I didn’t know how to defend what I believe, even when I knew deep down their arguments were shallow and futile.
Mom; We tried to raise you well, to know what is right and what is wrong, but we never really knew what we believed deep enough to give you the tools. I hope some time, somewhere there will be an opportunity for you to discover core truths about life.
Susie: Me too, mom. It doesn’t feel good to know that I should think one way but I am tugged another. There must be something that can help?

Mom: yeah, Susie, as a mom I think I would pay anything for a book or a course or something that would transform how you think so deeply that hurricanes could not shake your beliefs and that these beliefs would lead you to joy, purpose, freedom, hope, love and a sense of where you belong in this great big story called life.

**********

There's a lot more to this story and there are millions just like it. Young people easily swayed by the culture and their friends. Parents who want the best for their kids, raised them as best as they could, but feel defenseless in the world's attacks on their kids.

b4Worldview is a transformational learning experience designed for parents and millennial children to develop and own core beliefs that serve them well through the onslaught of principles and ideas that are futile in living the abundant and virtuous life.    

Obama's exit interview

President Obama will soon be leaving the job he has held for almost 8 years. Often when someone leaves their job, it is helpful for the employer to do an “exit interview.” Since I am a citizen of the USA, I am technically one of his many bosses. If you were to have an opportunity to interview him on the way out, what would you ask?




If you were a supporter you would be kind, respectful and favorable in your questions. If you were not a supporter, you should be respectful and kind, but you may ask tougher questions, like explain sanctuary cities, IRS abuse, bigger government, and so forth.

I have a totally different idea than either of these. I do not wish to agree or debate his public policy. I have a much bigger and serious line of questioning for Obama.

Here is a shot at what that interview might look like:

Me: “Mr. Obama, you are shortly going to be an ex-President, so as a citizen of the USA, I would like to ask you a few questions. Is that OK?”
Obama: “Of course, I will answer whatever is on your mind.”
Me: “OK, let’s get started. You have made social justice a centerpiece of your presidency. You have said “enacting social justice is the primary role of the Supreme Court.” I don’t know for sure, but I think you use some form of this phrase in every speech, maybe even every conversation that is not conducted on the golf course. Can I ask you about this topic?”
Obama: “Oh yes, it is my favorite thing to talk about.”
Me: “Is there anything you think is more important than justice?”
Obama: “maybe my family.”
Me: “of course, I mean social value.”
Obama: “I can’t think of anything more important.”

Me: “That’s what I thought. So, what does ‘justice’ mean?”
Obama: “well, I think it means being fair.”
Me: “what does ‘being fair’ mean?”
Obama: “oh, you know, doing the right thing for everybody concerned.”
Me: “How do we know what is right for everybody?”
Obama: “oh, you know, being fair. Ugh, I can’t use the word to define a word can I?”
Me: “not exactly. But there’s a bigger issue than a circular argument for the meaning of justice.”

Obama: “Really, how can there ever be anything wrong with justice?”
Me: “Well, let’s assume it means fair.”
Obama: “OK, I am with you so far.”
Me: “The problem with ‘fair’ is that there are at least three ways to be fair.”
Obama: “Really? I have never heard that. What are the three?”
Me: “There is equity, or getting what you deserve. There is need, giving people according to their deficit. Then there is equality, giving everyone the same.

Obama: “I like all of them, when I say justice I mean all of those ways to be fair.”
Me: “OK, but they contradict each other. Only one can apply in a situation.”
Obama: “what do you mean?”
Me: “If you want to give according to people’s need, then everyone would not get the same since everyone doesn’t have the same need.”
Obama: “oh!”
Me: “If you give people what they deserve, then everyone would not necessarily get what they need and everyone would certainly not get the same. Why do you live in the White House and many others live in a ghetto? If justice meant equality, you would not have different housing than others.”
Obama: “oh, I see the issue.”

Me: “guess what!”
Obama: “what?”
Me: “Justice means only one of the 3 types of fairness.”
Obama: “Really, which one?”
Me: “Getting what you deserve.”
Obama: “Oh, but I like them all.”

Me: “of course you do, all three are attractive to everybody. But you cannot be fair. Its impossible, because when you apply one type you violate the other 2.”
Obama: “wow, that is crazy. I think we need to be fair and you say its impossible.”
Me: “yeah, and when you support sanctuary cities in the name of justice, you are wrong.”
Obama: “I don’t understand. It feels right. I am being nice to people who are in need. How can it be wrong?”
Me: “It may feel right, but justice means getting what you deserve, which is application of law. It’s actually injustice when you apply the law in ways it is not intended. You are not giving some people, those who came here illegally, what they deserve. So you are not being just.”
Obama: “But it seems the Christian thing to do. So maybe social justice is doing for people what Jesus would do. I value doing good things for people, isn’t that what Jesus would do?” 

Me: “Oh, so your focus on social justice comes from your religious faith.”
Obama: “yes, that’s it. Social justice is about doing good like Jesus taught us.”
Me: “Why are you a Christian?”
Obama: “oh my, I probably would never had been elected if I was not. (laughingly)”
Me: “That’s probably true, but its not a reason to be a Christian. You just think its better than all the other religions?”
Obama: “Well, I can’t say it’s better because that would be discriminating. I value tolerance, too.”
Me: “So you just kind of picked Christianity to be your religion, but in the end it doesn’t really matter? You could be just as happy if you were Muslim or Hindu. After all, they value social justice and doing good too.”
Obama: “I guess so. We’re all trying to get to the same place, aren’t we?”

Me: “It’s an interesting question. Do we value social justice first and then pick a religion that agrees, or do we accept a faith we trust is true and then see what it says to us about justice?”
Obama: “Wouldn’t I get to the same place of seeing justice as the most important thing.”
Me: “next to tolerance?”
Obama: Oh, yeah, if I give someone what they deserve, which is justice, I cannot accept whatever they do without punishment. Wow, now I am really confused.”

Me: “Don’t be too hard on yourself, what if I told you that many Republicans, evangelical Christians, right wing nuts, and conservative pastors see social justice just like you. They think it is the major theme of Christianity the same way you got there. But they are wrong too.”


Obama: “Really? We agree on the priority of justice as a Christian and we are on totally different ends of the policy debate and we are both wrong?”
Me: “That’s right.”

Obama: “I am pretty confused now. I don’t think I want to discuss this anymore. It is upsetting me.”
Me: “Ok, one last thought. If you think Christians are supposed to do what Jesus taught and in fact what he did, guess what?”
Obama: “What?”
Me: “he suffered and died on the cross so we don’t have to be concerned about justice.”
Obama: “What? He is known across the world as a 'do-gooder.' Doing the right thing for people. He’s the King of fair.”
Me: “That’s the way many think. But, when we are obsessed with justice we are in fact denying Jesus, not following him.”
Obama: “Now you really are crazy. I think this interview is over.”

Me: “It can be if you wish. But if you are serious about being a Christian, then you first must see it is very different from all other religious faiths. The good news, btw, that is where we get the term “The Gospel”, is that while God is just, that’s not what He wants from us.”
Obama: “Wait, I don’t like that, I like justice. I have based all of my policies and in fact all of my life on being fair, I mean valuing social justice. Doing good is why everyone likes me.”
Me: “Then you are just acting according to your human nature, not your faith in Christ. Being fair is not what makes you good.”
Obama: “My human nature? Isn't that a good thing?”
Me: “No, that's a myth. It is our flesh or human nature that influences us to seek justice. We want things to be fair because then we can earn favor on our own by being good. But a Christian has been transformed by the Cross. It is then Grace, the opposite of justice that drives our passions. It is how we make unmerited favor operative in our lives that is the outcome of our faith in Christ. Only then are we really different from the world, who are all about justice.How can the redeemed soul and the unredeemed soul have the same priority?”
Obama: “I don’t know if I buy that. I need to ponder that a while.”

Me: "If that isn't enough, here is one concluding thought. Justice is the strict, objective  application of rewards and punishment according to the law. You actually don't seem to be as sold on justice as you think you are. It seems you have confused justice with tolerance (meaning relative truth). BTW, Jesus did not invade the world and indeed our lives to make us better at either."
Obama: “Ugh"

Interview ended!!

I suspect we all need to ponder that. We probably all need to ponder the revolutionary power of transforming Grace. This is the mission of b4Worldview. Before you can develop the Christian worldview on any topic, you must have Kingdom core assumptions that are anchored in Grace, not reward and punishment systems of justice. You must see knowledge,truth, and faith different from what is normal to your human nature. Otherwise, you lose the battle before you start……