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"? 

"we are all connected"

Do you often hear the idea that "we are all connected." I noticed this year as I binged on Hallmark Christmas movies how often this notion was mentioned. I also have noticed that "self help" bloggers find this theme attractive to their audience. You probably know me well enough by now that frequent use of a phrase gets me to pondering.


The best way to ponder is by what I call "walking the brain." This involves asking and answering four questions that dominate the four quadrants of the brain.

           WHAT?     WHY?     WHO?     HOW? 

WHAT does it mean we are all connected? It certainly is not a reference to our physical condition since we definitely have freedom of movement separate from each other. So, it must be referring to connecting that which makes us who we are absent our physical condition. That leaves the idea that somehow each of us are connected to all others by our soul.

What connects our soul one to another?

Do we all have the same goal or vision for life?
         I don't think so
Do we all have the same personality and needs?
         There's no evidence of this
Do we naturally have empathy with what each other is feeling and experiencing?
          If so, we would not be forever disappointed at how much we are misunderstood
Does social identity connect us with some and divide us with others?
          Finding our self concept in one group works against being connected to all groups
Is there a universal code of justice that binds us together?
          Maybe that is more a moral obligation to justify ourselves than selfless love

Human psychology (the study of the soul) does not support the idea that our soul's are connected. Mankind has not lived throughout history as if "we are all connected." Let's keep searching.

WHY do we think "we are all connected"?

There is a possibility that the message "we are all connected" is more about marketing. It is quite appealing to attach a movie or a blog or a book to the idea of "connectedness." This makes us feel inclusive. It's not a surprise, however, that deep down in the human condition, people are quite lonely. Some cultures emphasize "rugged individualism" and some value the group that we belong to. One culture leads to blame and the other to shame. Neither is hardly evidence of a positive effect of "connectedness." Regardless of the culture, experts who deal with the soul find that in spite of how busy we are or how many people we have in our life, people still find that their soul feels alone.

So, maybe we aren't really connected to each other. Maybe there is some built in deep longing that we want to be. Possibly, we need to think we are "connected" so we can eliminate the feeling we aren't.

There are some WHO questions, too. WHO would be responsible for connecting everyone? WHO has the power? Not me, do you? WHO does this message appeal to?

Everyone, that's what makes it a good marketing tool.

Is this idea of "connectedness to all" only an empty marketing ploy or is it actually real? Let's keep pondering.

HOW do we reach a point where our soul is connected to others? The typical approach to marketing is the "power of positive thinking." "I think, therefore I am" is a prevailing and popular philosophy. You believe this? Certainly, our thoughts have some power over our feelings, but do they have the power to actually connect our soul with all others?

We can seek intimacy with others through personal vulnerability and trust. When we make this connection, we say "we know each other" in a way that is not only in our heads. It's primarily a heart knowledge and does reduce or eliminate loneliness. When we are fortunate to have such deep trusting relationships, we get a glimpse of what it means to be connected to another. This is hard work and risky and occurs for each of us with only a few other people, if ever. Having this idea of "connection" with all of human kind is just not possible. Thus, having one or a few intimate relationships enriches our soul but does not satisfy the claim "we are all connected."

This intimacy that some find in one or a few other people offers a hint at the opportunity for being connected to others. BUT, its not what is advertised. There must be a power beyond ourselves to make this happen.

The only option for this power that I have ever heard of is what the King of this universe does in us and for us. The Apostle Paul uses the body as a metaphor for what God does for all who know Him (this is the intimate heart type of knowledge). Not only does this connect our soul to Him, but in doing so it connects our soul to all souls who are connected to Him.

The really GOOD NEWS is He does all the work. He chooses us. He pursues us. He pays the whole price and provides all the power. It is a lasting connection. It can't be stolen from us and it will never rust out. AND, best of all, this body has many parts, ALL CONNECTED to one another.

So, when you find the world is marketing the idea "we are all connected," make sure the marketing effort is sponsored by the One who has the product. Otherwise, you are relying on illusion, just another advertisement gone astray.

That's what I get when I ponder "WE ARE ALL CONNECTED" ....

"pondered in her heart"

"but Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart"



 After all the commotion around the original Christmas event, Mary "pondered in her heart." I'm sure you have heard this verse many times, but have you stopped to ponder it? Wouldn't Christmas be a great time to ponder Mary's pondering in her heart? What is so profound about this that you and I can learn from Mary's Christmas?

Actually, this verse provides a fantastic lesson in psychology. I know, now you likely think I've really lost it. Stay with me because this moment for Mary stands in stark contrast with all of what human history wants you to know about thinking (pondering) and feeling (heart). 

Each of us are subjected to the tension between philosophy and religion. Likely you are not aware of these influences on you, but they are strong and pervasive. You don't have to study either to be dominated by them. With running the risk of oversimplifying, let me summarize this tension and its power over your personal psychology (thoughts, feelings and choices).

Classical Greek philosophy burst onto the scene around 600 BC. Prior to this time people looked to sages and prophets to tell them how to think and feel. The Greek philosophers are credited with introducing the personal delight and responsibility for rational inquiry and discovery. The contemplative life emerged as the pathway to virtue and the "perfect life." While philosophy enlightened theology, it also threatened institutional control over what people thought and felt. The tension between philosophy and religion was the inherent confrontation between the need for inquiry (freedom of thought) and the need for dogma (controlling thought). Throughout history, this confrontation grew violent as religion became politicized (wars of Islam, Catholics, Protestants, Holocaust, etc.). Orthodoxy ("the right opinion") is necessary for power bases to stop debate and control people's thoughts and feelings.

Here's the basic conflict. Classical Greek philosophy emphasized that inquiry must be applied to sensory perception. The assumption is that we can only rationalize (judge as true) that which we can experience through the senses. However, institutions cannot control subjective conclusions about truth. They introduced absolute truth in doctrines of orthodoxy to remove feelings from thought. In a sense, both approaches intend to reject the notion of sentimentalism and put the power of determining truth solely into the cognitive processes of humans. Philosophy depends on powers of the individual and religion relies on powers of the institution. Both approaches recognize the limitation and futility of being "only human." You've heard this, haven't you, "I'm only human"? Maybe you have even said this yourself. Yet, it is the way of the world in philosophy and religion.

Mary presents an alternative. We could call Mary a picture of Christmas psychology. Mary was not relying on what she observed in the physical world. Her soul was invaded by the eternal presence of God Himself. Her soul (psyche) was dominated by an amazing integration of thought (pondering) and affection (heart). No philosophy based on physical senses informed her judgments. No orthodoxy controlled her thoughts and feelings.

Mary's soul, the seat of her thoughts, feelings and choices, was not subject to philosophy not religion. She was under the influence of eternal conditions. God chose her. God empowered her. God informed her. Her thoughts (pondering) and her emotions (heart) were both subject to Him. May wan't left alone to be "only human." When God gave her Jesus, she became "really human." This is what happened on the first Christmas, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

This is what Mary pondered in her heart. Her thoughts not constrained by her physical senses nor institutional dogma. Her affections (emotions) were very active and totally integrated with her thoughts. The world does not understand Mary's psychology. Maybe this is why Christmas has become more of a seasonal celebration of the senses than rejoicing over God's invasion of the human soul. Maybe this is why the circumstances of life establish our thoughts and mood.

So, when you trust your physical senses for what is true and are afraid to honor your affections, remember Mary did not do either that first Christmas.

Don't be hesitant to ponder in your heart what God has revealed to you beyond your physical senses this Christmas.

Sounds pretty good until ....

I was recently revisiting some lectures on Aristotle and am always amazed at how good his philosophies sound at first glance. Now, don't stop reading because you think classical Greek is boring, too sophisticated or irrelevant. When you stop and hear what Aristotle says about "the good life," you may find you have a lot in common. You likely will see he simply can say well what a lot of us think. After all, he is likely the most influential thinker of the last 2500 years.

Let me see if I can give a brief, but thorough, recap of Aristotle's view of the human life. Then, I will offer an alternative point of view you may or may not feel as comfortable with. You should find this quite insightful.

1.  What makes something "living" are certain powers. The power of nutrition (feeding oneself), the power of procreation (reproducing one's self), the power of locomotion (relocating one's self), and the power of the senses (perceiving for one's self).
2.  What separates the human from all other animal and plant life is the addition of intellect (the power to reason for one's self).
3.  The end of all intellect is knowledge and to know something is to know its cause.
4.   There are four types of cause
       material (from what does it come)
       model (what form does it take)
       making (the act of creating)
       maker (the purpose of the designer or creator or the "final cause")
     the famous statement about cause, "if the art of ship building were in the wood, we       would have ships by nature"
5.  humans are artistic objects of a self defining, self creating nature
6.  why would anyone wish to live a virtuous life?  the end game of the human life is         the pursuit of happiness. humans can only pursue the goal, they can never attain it.
7.  happiness is only available from a virtuous life
8.  purpose and enjoyment (intrinsic motives only) are the highest form of bliss
9.  man's sense of purpose is not self serving (hedonistic or narcissistic), but directly         connected to his/her "street address" (an identity of residence)
10.  the law, universal principles of justice found in human nature, inclines us to                harmony with our surroundings, not threatens us with punishment.

Of course this is only a snapshot of Aristotle, but it is the foundation of his view of life. It actually sounds pretty good. It has stood the test of time. Some believe it forms the foundation of Islam, Catholicism, and the US Declaration of Independence.

So, why did Jesus take dead aim at Aristotle when He proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven?
Jesus contrasts key Aristotelian points about the law and attaining the perfect life. Jesus gives a different picture of intrinsic motivation of the Kingdom dweller, and what puts the soul in a blissful state.


But mainly Jesus presents us with the idea of knowing the Creator rather than seeking the cause of outcomes through our own intellect.

Aristotle makes some good points about the notion of power. The bottom line lies in our assumption of who has the power. Is the power that makes us human found in our own sensory perception, or is it in the hands of a Sovereign God, who chose us to be with Him? The Bible claims God gave us the resurrection power of Jesus, which comes only through an unobservable evidence He provides to us called faith.

The question for each of us is, "who do we trust to explain the human life?" Two cases for the source of power. Each sound pretty good. So, whose power should we ultimately rely on?

Aristotle makes a lot of sense, but God makes a lot of sense, too. In the end, its not what we know, or what makes sense, but who we trust. Trust is grounded in the bias we rely on.

There are ONLY TWO, and we cannot trust both.

When the problem is in here, not out there

Josh McDowell is a legendary figure in speaking to parents and teens about making choices on what is right or wrong. My son spent a year with him in his early 20's and was profoundly affected in a positive way. As a pacesetter in the current Christian worldview movement, the culture is identified as the main culprit. In his most recent message, McDowell focuses his audience to the latest cultural influence on how teens make choices: it's no longer what I know to be right, or think is right, but what I feel is right that matters.

Here are some points he makes from his recent book, "Set Free to Choose Right":

1. "It's moral relativism that sets the human conscience adrift."
2. no doubt we feel a "formidable competition from our pervasive culture."
3. kids feel as long as no one else is hurt, I can choose what I feel is right.
4. "In today's culture, much of our moral concerns for our teens center on sexuality."
5. "Teenagers emotions develop far ahead of rational thinking."
5. "Confronting and understanding these issues will lay the solid foundation from which we can set our kids free to choose right."

Yet at the same time, McDowell notes that beginning with the fall of Adam and Eve, the human condition desires to be the arbitrator of right and wrong. He points to Paul's focus on sexual immorality pervasive in the culture of the early church. In fact Biblical accounts of dysfunctional choices (such as David and Bathsheba) and recent observations of moral conflict in adults of all ages suggests something more than recent shifts in culture and child development stages that put teens at moral risk.

Certainly the developmental facets of a person's brain until adulthood have implications for learning. Yet, the idea that emotional dominance over cognitive activity is associated with teen developmental factors and cultural degradation discounts what is within all persons warring against moral choices.  While Josh's work to raise awareness of these is helpful, it does not put anyone in the best position to "confront and understand the issues" related to how teens make choices (or anyone for that matter). 

What is often mistaken for emotion is basically deep seated biases or core assumptions that sit squarely in the heart of each person, young or old. We seem to explain these influences on our choices by how we feel because the effect of core assumptions on our thinking operates below an awareness that we are actually "doing thinking." It seems as if it must be our emotions, but in fact it is much more stable and substantive than a feeling. As a side note here, psychology has not been able to actually separate affect (feeling) from cognition (thinking).

Core assumptions are endearing beliefs (that's the feeling part) that we never question but trust (the thinking part) to "prove" everything else, The core assumption that leads to moral relativism, is actually an absolute. It is a universal obsession with justice. Sages of antiquity, Greek philosophers, and contemporary psychologists all recognize the basic influence of justice on humans' idea of virtue.

Judging whether an action is fair or rightfully deserved is what sits front and center in all emotion and thought. Without much awareness, this obsession has affected moral choices from the beginning of time and for all ages. If you don't think teens have developed this fully, just reflect on what is the most common response of teens to their parents, "Mom/dad, that's not fair."

The human condition does not make moral judgments about an action itself, but rather the fairness of the action. 

In summary, here is my thesis.

Everyone actually agrees in a moral absolute. It's that the absolute everyone accepts as true virtue is justice. The varying cultural influences across time and place affect how people perceive what is just. Its judgments people make about what is fair from their own perspective that is relative.

This is a big and complex topic when understanding "moral choices" and is not a criticism of Josh or other worldview leaders. While legends like Josh McDowell have a lot of things correct in their research and writings, this is a piece critical to fully understanding moral absolutes that I find is missing. Moreover, the absolute obsession for justice and the relative effects of culture is what confuses Christians of all ages and creates doubts about the worldview message of moral absolutes. I think and feel it should get some attention.

I'll just let you ponder this. You might begin to see what is going on way down deep in the human condition. I feel it's a bit unfair to blame what is outside us (culture) when there is plenty blame to go around with what is in us (human nature) .......