when fake becomes real

There has been quite a bit of concern by many who hold traditional values that the culture has been deteriorating for some time. There is considerable lament especially over sexual identity. It seems to many with conservative beliefs that there is an assault by progressives on what has been held sacred by traditions over thousands of years. It appears that we live in a time of confusion when false ideas about what is true is winning out in public opinion. Many think that what is fake has become real to most people and that culture is the culprit.

For example, I recently heard a pastor reflect the thoughts of many when he said, "we are in a unique moment where the culture is totally destroying how we view gender." There is some evidence that the prevailing narrative today regarding sex and gender is different than it was even 150 years ago. In the 1960's there was a movement called the "gender theories" where the idea of sex and gender began to be differentiated from each other. Sex pertained to biological distinctions and gender was assumed to be the socially constructed characteristics associated with having masculine or feminine tendencies regardless of sex. I experienced this distinction between gender and sex as I published research in the field of organizational psychology. It was standard accepted practice that sex meant biological male or female and that gender measured more passive, nurturing behavioral tendencies (feminine) vs. more aggressive, hunter type tendencies (masculine). These tendencies existed in every human but at varied intensities.     

This view of sex and gender varied from the 1828 Webster Dictionary which defined gender as "a difference in words to express distinction of sex." Therefore, culture had redefined gender by the 1960's so that a female could seem masculine and vice versa. This possibility ultimately evolved to where now if a female "feels" masculine, then it seems sensible and acceptable that they can or should become male. Of course, this requires surgery to exchange sexual organs to match one's perceived gender. This is where the confusion has really started because now sex is no longer binary, but rather somewhere on a continuum between male and female. But more importantly, sex is now determined by self-will. What is accepted is "I want what I want when I want it" regarding sexual identity. Wait, this last and key point is not new and is not culturally induced.

My intent in this blog is not to debate cultural influences on sexual identity. In fact, quite the contrary, my point is that while culture has changed and does change across time, it is not the culprit to the "destruction" of traditional values around sex and gender. It is true that cultural change destroys previous cultures and that gender confusion has been in the cross hairs of current cultural demolition. While the current culture of gender confusion may be different than past centuries, it is flaws in the human condition that enable any culture to deceive, insuring humans are not the proper source of any cultural solution.

Three thousand years ago the leader of the Jewish nation, David, cried out to God, "the wicked walk on every side, when the vilest (cheap and excessive) of men are exalted." Two thousand years ago Paul of Tarsus cried out, "for I know that in me (my human nature) no good thing dwells ... I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present in me." Paul recognized that only Jesus could deliver him from this condition. Moreover, Paul was not seeking deliverance from the culture, but from his nature.

If we live in such a unique time (as the pastor suggested), how can we find encouragement from the Bible, which is accounting for people in different cultures that seemed "unique" to them during their time? Why is it that Christian leaders target the culture almost exclusively avoiding the problem of nature? Don't blame the culture when fake becomes real!

I believe that pointing to our culture as the culprit of value destruction is a head fake of Satan. If God's people are to be ineffective in this world, they can focus on the wrong root cause of society's deprivation. Without transformation from a human nature to a Kingdom nature, any of us, regardless of whether we are saved or not, will be driven by the little voice inside that says, "I want what I want when I want it" and will find that all we claim to be real is really fake.

Maybe that is why Jesus started His ministry with the words "repent and believe." This is a call to completely change how we think and then trust that new mind. It is futile to try and change the world around us with rational processes that work the same as humans naturally think. It's like working hard to swim better than others, but all along finding that you are in the wrong pool.

Swimming in the right pool looks more like being a full moon. A transformed life involves being salt and light (reflecting the Son) to the empty hearts of deceived people rather than judges of their "practices of evil."  Offering a real alternative to the fake world requires them seeing in you what is eternal.

what is your "theory of person-hood"?

There has been much debate throughout history over the rights of those in society that cannot fully speak for themselves. At the heart of disagreement is the question of person-hood. When should a living being have the rights of being a person? You might at first glance assume that any human that is breathing is a person. BUT, this has not really been the case throughout history.



Take for instance the heated debate over abortion. There is the tension between right to life of an unborn child and the right of a mother to choose what happens within her own body. Science has become so advanced that even the most ardent abortion rights advocates agree that life begins at conception. This means that abortion assumes it is right for the mother to kill or make life extinct for the yet to be born baby. How can it be right to kill or deny life?

In order to reconcile this tension between two ethics, you have to define human life as something separate from the human as a person. In other words, killing only applies if the human life is deemed a person. You might be wondering, what is the difference? How can a human have life and not be a person? Well, it depends on your "theory of person-hood."

Abortion rights advocates believe that human life assumes a biological existence, but human life is only a person when there is an ethical existence. In other words, unless a human life has the capacity and competency to direct their life to the good of society, it is only biologically human and not morally human. Therefore, if good decisions can only be answered by someone acting on behalf of the human, then the human is not a person. In this theory of person-hood, abortion is not killing because the unborn child is not a person. The same idea of person-hood can be made for the severe handicap, humans with mental disorders, cultural shame killing, ethnic cleansing, capital punishment and those deep into dementia. In a sense, constraining or eliminating those who are not persons when they represent some sort of menace to others is a form of justice.

You may think is "progressive thinking." It is not. Throughout human history the moral imperative to treat children, women, the handicap, slaves, old people, minorities, and such has been justified by this "theory of person-hood." In each case society deems that when human life has no ethical value or worth, then that life is not a person, and no longer subject to rights of self-determination. If the human is not a person, then they are more like property and must have someone making decisions on their behalf. Those choices have included controlling and even taking away their life (biological existence).

It was into a world such as this that Jesus entered. As you may expect, He turned traditional thinking upside down. When He was asked, "who is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven?", He pointed to children as the answer. Jesus was making a statement to what value meant in God's economy. For the King of the universe to value humans that have no status and make no contribution to the world didn't make sense. How could human life be a person ONLY because they have a father who values them? This doesn't seem to fair to those who heard Jesus. How could humans not viewed with status be persons ONLY because they bring joy to the father? What is it about a father who never wills that their child perish?

From God's perspective, person-hood is not occupational (based on accomplishing tasks), but is relational. God's ethic is that all human life is sacred or of Divine importance. Human nature has for centuries assumed person-hood was outcome based, focusing on what human life pursues and produces. Kingdom nature assumes person-hood is source based, focusing on what human life receives and reflects.

To have God's "theory of person-hood", we must repent (change our thinking completely). A view of human person-hood that starts with the father's love for the human and not what the human life must do to be a person is not natural, but is life changing......

"well, that's just your opinion"

One thing that ticks me off is when someone says to me, "well, that's just your opinion." I am not always sure what they mean, but it feels to me like they are saying that I am the one who created this thought or idea. BUT, most of the time I am explaining or providing a thought or idea that is grounded in the findings of "experts" across time, not something I casually came up with on my own. I have pondered in depth what others that have gone before me found. I have put their ideas to test and found it worthy of sharing. I take the ideas I share seriously and the notion it is "just my opinion" seems dismissive. 

This blog is not my opinion of opinions, but a thorough examination of what many people rarely ponder, but often say and trust.

If we look at the current use of the word "opinion," we can see why people use it in this dismissive way. After all, everyone can have an "opinion" without any need to have any facts or knowledge. So, why should my opinion be superior to anybody else's opinion? We are all created equal.

An opinion piece in the news is not the news but just what someone thinks about the news. If you search "opinion,"  you find Wikipedia says "a view about something not based on fact or knowledge." So, the culture has propagated the common response most people give me, especially when they disagree with my view. "Well, that's just your opinion." It seems to put us all on the same playing field regardless of knowledge or facts.

Interesting that 250 years ago when the English language was first put into a dictionary in the USA, the word "opinion" meant "a statement or judgment supported by a degree of evidence that it is probable." This may suggest that there has been a slow erosion of the need for thoughtful support for us to have an "opinion." It seems that the idea of "opinion" has become simply personal preference based on no evidence acquired from outside our own bias as a resource of knowledge.

Certainly there is room for personal preference. In decorating we may prefer blue over red or shiny over dull. Often in the field of science there is contradictory evidence offered producing opposing conclusions. We can prefer to believe one conclusion over another. This is the case with creation vs evolution, climate change, the beginning of human life and other politically charged areas where there are opposing sets of evidence. One's opinion may be the side of an argument one chooses in competing scientific conclusions where both provide some evidence. Contrary to popular belief, science proves nothing, so there is plenty of room for "opinions" based on evidence.

In both of these cases, I am quick to concede that my view is my own and more a result of preference. However, when I base my view on authoritative sources, it offends me when others equate my statement with personal preference. Such is the case with the meaning of words. When I find that the classical Greek word used in scripture is what it is and means what it means based on the scholarly background of classical Greek language, then my view is not my opinion in today's understanding of "opinion." When I take the position on topics like motivation, personality and emotion, I am standing right in the middle of years of scholars and experts who have defined what these mean. When I quote the US Constitution verbatim to explain "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion," then it is not my personal preference but a view based on an authority outside of myself.

So, when you say to someone, "well, that is just your opinion," have you pondered what your opinion of "opinion" is? Are you so influenced by the culture that you gravitate to the norm without thinking?Are you jaded to the possibility of authoritative views outside of how you feel?  Can you accept an idea that challenges your status quo thinking without being threatened of feeling judged?

Maybe this would be a New Year's resolution that you haven't considered yet? There may be nothing more worthwhile in advancing discourse with others than clarity of understanding on your view of "opinions"?