"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) .......

JUST taking a wrecking ball to peace

I know, we are in the holiday season of "peace on earth." I know that every reasonable person you would ask would say they want peace more than anything. But, this is not really true. Psychologist, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, and philosophers have found that the human condition obsesses with justice. You might say, "well, aren't they the same?" No, what I would want you to ponder is that an obsession with justice is like taking a wrecking ball to peace.

How can that be? How can justice destroy peace? Let's take a closer look.

Peace or "shalom" is not just an absence of conflict, but the presence of all that is good. So, isn't justice a virtue? Is it's presence not good? Let's ponder justice a bit more and see.

Justice is merely reciprocity. It is the actions that restore equilibrium. Justice is "an eye for an eye" and "you reap what you sow." The problem is what is just for one person is often an offense to another. I can do whatever to you I want if I deem you deserve it. Acts of justice are rampant in marriages often leading to divorce. "You have not treated me fairly so I can leave." We find enacting justice leading to broken relationships between parents and their children. Discipline is too often a punishment for wrong doing, not instructional. We see justice in organizations when people are fired, in public discourse when injustice needs to be protested and of course in the criminal JUSTICE system.

Are you beginning to see that when humans enact justice they create havoc for someone and division between people? Is this "creating all that is good" for everyone?

You are probably thinking, "God sees justice as a good thing, doesn't He?" Yes, in fact it is in His nature to be just. He also frowns on humans taking over that role in His name. This is really Adam and Eve's fault. We inherited this obsession from them. They were persuaded by the serpent that they could decide what was right and what was wrong. If man's obsession with justice is a flaw inherited from the fall, how can it create shalom?

The Jews were continually in chaos and separation from God because "everyone continued to do what was right in their own eyes." Jesus said, "you have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say ..." in contrasting what the Kingdom of Heaven is like.

Humans have a natural bent to justice. This is not something that appears in Kingdom dwellers only. The desire for justice is a built in bias in everyone. That's actually the problem, not the solution. Jesus did not come to judge, but to save us. From what? Judging? Jesus did not come to bring peace to this world (His words, not mind). He came to make a way for us to be reconciled back to the God of shalom. The futility of peace in this world through our efforts JUST points us to a Kingdom of shalom that is not our making.

We have everything good in our relationships when we are not standing on our rights, demanding what we deserve and seeing justice through our own eyes. This would transform the Middle East, reconcile our political parties in the US, restore marriages, and make us all great parents, but for our need for justice.

We say we want an "attitude of gratitude," so what is in our way. You should at least ponder a little bit that to have this attitude and a heart of thanksgiving, you may need to "JUST take a wrecking ball to justice." Unmerited favor (grace) produces shalom, not justice. This idea about justice and peace will sound strange to you until it doesn't. Jesus knew this when He said, "He who ears to hear let them hear."         

The oppressed and the oppressor

Yesterday I had the opportunity to walk from Bethlehem into Jerusalem. The issue with the walk was not that it was a long walk from the hotel in Bethlehem to Jerusalem. It was fairly short. The issue was the imposition of a military checkpoint at the border. Yes, Bethlehem is a suburb of Jerusalem, but there is a massive checkpoint involving turnstiles, several hundred yards of walking across neutral land, metal detectors, and passport control. We went at around 9:30 am and it took us about 30 minutes. For the 20,000 Palestinians who live in Bethlehem and work in Jerusalem, they would have to leave home around 5am to get to work by 8am. Everyone had to go through this one checkpoint walking. None could drive to work. This is only one of many constraints and demands Israel places on Palestinians who live and work amongst each other.

It is difficult to comprehend how oppressed these Palestinians feel by the Israeli government. They long for peace and freedom. Their crime, they are Palestinians who no longer have the right to live where they do. From their perspective the Palestinians have a clear reason to feel they are treated unjustly.




We were picked up on the other side of the checkpoint and driven by bus to the Holocaust museum. Two hours of pictures, films and articles about the oppression on the Jews by the Nazis. It was overwhelming to see the atrocities and injustice dealt the Jews. Millions killed in horrible ways. 20% were children. Their crime, they were Jews who no longer had a right to live where they do.

Today, we went to the West Wall of the Temple grounds in Old Jerusalem. It was a vibrant place with visitors coming from all over the world to pay respects. A bar-mitzvah was being celebrated with all of the traditional pomp and pageantry.

An interesting note our guide shared about the wall. Until 1967 it was called "the wailing wall." Israel was steep in lamenting loss of its land. It had lived in various forms of oppression for centuries. In 1967 the name was changed to "the West Wall." No longer must the Israeli Jews "wail." They had been given back control of Jerusalem.

Israeli Jews are no longer oppressed, but in the eyes of the Palestinians in the West Bank, they are the oppressors. How is it that a people so oppressed for such a long time can act as oppressors? What is it about the human condition that accommodates inflicting injustice on another person? What can break the cycles of people justifying oppressing others? It can't be that the oppressor was once oppressed.

This blog is not about the political conflict and complexity in Israel. Nor is it judgmental of the Jews. However, seeing this first hand raised profound questions about the psychological state of perpetrators and victims of oppression and injustice. One member of our travel group provided a keen insight. To what degree does an oppressor experience destructive influences on their soul? We easily understand the negative feelings of the oppressed, but maybe not as much when it comes to the oppressor.

Here are my thoughts. People can be oppressed and experience injustice in collective ways, such as nation state conflicts, and in a personal way, such losing a job because the boss doesn't like them. A sense of injustice can create a sense of victimization. This brings feelings of frustration, despair, and hate, among others. On the other hand, those who oppress and treat others unjustly are subject to an arrogance of superiority, some kind of sense they are right to do what they do. They generally operate in fear and anger as motives to justify their actions.

In either case the soul is in bondage to destructive forces. Nobody wins. Often the people feel this and wish to resolve the situation in a way that both can live in peace. However, it is in the political leaders interest to help perpetuate the victimization of the oppressed and the pride of the oppressor. There is lack of political will to solve the problems separating the two sides.

It is the Christians in Israel and Palestine who seek relationships across differences to build a collaborative framework for both to live together in harmony.

A question I am left with as I look specifically at Israel and Palestine and more broadly across history and into the future, is there a futility in thinking humans can break cycles of injustice and oppression without Christ dominating the souls of the leaders of both the oppressed and the oppressor? Can grace and forgiveness, which is necessary to bring peace out of injustice, flow from a fallen human nature?

The implications to this question are pervasive, and each of us can only answer it in our own soul.       

resident alien

As I have passed through sites where Jesus was showing and teaching the Kingdom, a key message apparent to me is that we are resident aliens in this world. Certainly for a time, I am passing through.

However, in the big picture, I am a citizen of God's invisible and eternal Kingdom with all of the privileges and provisions of the Heavenlies. Sure, I have a Kingdom purpose while I am here, mainly pointing to and showing others His Kingdom. Life on this earth is not my identity. It is not who I am. It is not my "end game."



This is what Jesus taught His disciples in the Sermon on the Mount, focused their attention on in Caesarea Philippi, and brought to life with the Samaritan women at Jacob's well.

Contrast this with the time spent in Bethlehem with a mature, serious (not ultra Orthodox) Jew and an Palestinian Islamic Imam. While there are particulars to each gentleman, at the core of their message is their human identity as a Jew or as a Muslim. Their identity is not in a political, economic, military or even religious  context, but rather the cultural framework for living their lives.

For the Jew meaning and purpose is the connection he has with the land of Israel, the land God gave to them thousands of years ago. This identity that links his life to a land is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, political power bases exploit the peoples' obsessions with this identity, but Jewish identity attached to a specific land is fundamental.

The Imam spoke succinctly about the virtuous life God requires of people. Identity for Muslims is sourced in the practices and traditions of justice, charity and prayer. The journey to gain God's favor defines who they are and their purpose in life. Over the years factions have taken Islam into war between themselves and others based on power and historical views of land.

Psychologists call these attachments of Jews and Muslims their social identity. It is the way a human self-identifies with his/her tribe. A person's social identity is established through culture from the beginning of one's life until they die or become a Kingdom dweller. It is not unique to Israel and the Palestinians. I saw it growing up in Ala in the 50's and 60's related to the Confederacy. This is why the business of finding your heritage is flourishing and the book "Roots" was so widely read.

I sum it up this way - a person will always be in bondage (psychologically) to "an identity of residence" until liberated by Jesus to be a resident alien in this world and a citizen of the King.

I have pondered this over the recent years but never is it more apparent than when you walk the historical path of Jesus and see the chaos and upheaval of a world that rejects His invitation to a new identity.

Competing Kingdoms

Throughout history Israel has been a land of obsession for various people groups. Today, in an area the size of New Jersey, there are Arabs and Jews who comprise a myriad of religions and languages. each wants to take the land for their own Kingdom. Such a small part of the world seems to dictate much of man's battles and search for peace.

This is a picture of Caesarea Philippi. This town is now in ruins and has had many occupiers and names across history. It only has this name for a short time around the time of Jesus. It was a seminal point of pagan worship for the Romans. It is in the very northeast of Israel, on the main road called "the way of the sea" on route to Damascus. It was 25 miles north of Capernaum as the crow flies. totally out of the way from where Jesus called His disciples. Yet, this is where He takes them after his initial instructions about the Kingdom.

Imagine Jesus and His disciples viewing this Arab/Roman sacred pagan place and asking His disciples, "who do you say I am?" The correct answer based on Jewish history and prophecy would have been, "you are the anointed One of Israel." But, this was not Peter's answer.

Peter said, "you are the Son of the living God." Jesus replied "correct." But Jesus said more. He explained to His disciples that Peter could never have known this through human processes of logic and reasoning. The only way peter could know is that God told him. This idea Peter had was through revelation, not observation.

Jesus then something even more amazing. he said that it is on this revelation that God will build His church. But more, "the gates of hell will not prevail." They were looking at what the world claimed to be a fortress of Hell that was a force unequal in all the world. Then He said, "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom." 

Jesus speaks of a Kingdom that is not part of the fight for this land. Israel represents man's quest for a kingdom that man can govern and call its own. Jesus brings to us a competing Kingdom. One that is not subject to man's pursuit, but one that is the provision and privilege of God Himself.

Man s knocking himself out competing for the land of Israel. All the while God provides his eternal Kingdom. This was the message of Jesus. The competing Kingdom and He gave the keys to His disciples at Caesarea Philippi.

This was my day's pondering. Maybe you can think about the Kingdom Jesus ushered in when all the world is focusing on the land of Israel.

who chose whom

Our first day of touring Israel set the stage for viewing Jesus' ministry and what it means to be in His Kingdom. Our leader, a Jewish Christian, took us to Bethsaida, Korazim, and Capernaum. These places are on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee and form the basis of Jesus' start as He was driven out of Nazareth (southwest of the Sea).

Here's a little background. In the first century AD all Jewish children (boys and girls) were educated until about age 12. At this point the girls prepared to become wives later and the boys took on the trade of their father.

Most boys aspired to become a Rabbi, but it was a long and uncertain journey. Those who had the chance would start hanging with a local Rabbi. The Rabbi would basically ignore the boys interested. The boys must persevere and show a strong interest to be asked to move on. Over many years a boy may become noticed by a Rabbi. Eventually if they impressed enough people and demonstrated they were smart and good enough to be a Rabbi, they could be tapped to train more directly with a Rabbi.

The boys at this point shaped their entire life to be exactly like the Rabbi, who had the power to make them successful. In short, almost every Jewish boy wanted to be a Rabbi, but almost all simply followed the route of their father, ultimately taking on his trade profession.

It was into this culture that Jesus went to common towns, way off the main stream of the Jewish elite  and chose His disciples. "They immediately left their nets and followed Him."

Can you imagine? In their minds this can't happen. They had not been able to achieve this through the processes available to them as Jewish boys. A Rabbi chose them, they did not choose Him. They never convinced anyone of anything. Their excitement and abandonment of their status quo was so AMAZING.

The Kingdom is like this. When we realize God has come to us, in the midst of our status quo and called us unto Himself. What is our response?

Are we obsessed to become just like the Rabbi that has called us?

Probably worth pondering .....

Oh, and one more thing. These 3 towns that were in God's plan to start Jesus' ministry are now in ruins and have been for a long time. They were never restored. They certainly didn't flourish as humans might think they should since God used them in such important ways.

Maybe that is the way the Kingdom works too. I don't know what to do with this, but Jesus cursed the very towns He went to at the perfect time in His life on earth. "Woe to you Bethsaida, woe to you Korazim."

God's ways are not our ways!

Conservatism and Christianity: Isomorphic?

This is a deep and serious issue in the American culture. I have pondered it a lot in many ways. I chose to use the concept of "isomorphic" as a means to blog my thoughts. This helps lighten up the issue a bit and throw everybody off some so quick biases don't block further pondering by folks like you.

First, what is meant by "isomorphic." morph means to transform, to move smoothly from one form to another. iso means simply equal. Thus, two objects are isomorphic if as you move from one to the other, you are in the same place. Two things are isomorphic if they are identical in every way. The term was first used in mathematics to account for two sets, seemingly distinct, that were in fact identical.

My first experience in graduate mathematics was proving what it meant for two sets to be isomorphic. Years later the term had morphed into my studies in psychology. We wanted to know - are concepts such as motivation, self efficacy, personality, etc. isomorphic at the individual and group level? In other words, does motivation for a person mean exactly the same as motivation of a team? If so, we could transfer all the learning we had about individual motivation to team motivation.

Motivation happens to not be isomorphic at the individual and group level, just in case you wanted to know.

We hear often questions like, can a Democrat be a Christian? John Kasich, former Republican candidate for President, claimed he can no longer be a Republican because conservative views on immigration are not Christian. Evangelicals are often assumed to be Republican. Pundits want to know how Christians can support Trump? Yet, we accept all Republicans are not assumed to be evangelicals. This "assumed" isomorphic relationship between political party and religious faith is causing a lot of confusion and unproductive narratives, especially for the millennial and younger.

Here is my point. I am a Christian and I am politically conservative, but these positions are not identical in any way, shape, or form. I did not become (morph into) a conservative because I was a Christian and vice versa. I am a Christian because I trust God has made a way for me, invited me and adopted me to a fellowship with Him forever, including but not limited to my time here in this world. I am politically conservative because I believe the civil system of limited government, free markets, the rule of law, and individual freedom from government interference established by our founding fathers provides the most prosperous and virtuous society known to mankind.

I encourage Christians to willfully and competently live out and explain to others their faith independent of politics. I encourage conservatives to be able to have a convincing reason for trusting the ideas of the Constitution independent of their Christian faith. Evangelicals must be able to discuss positions on economics, taxes, marriage, abortion, civil rights, etc. because the conservative rationale provides the most prosperous and virtuous society. Evangelicals cannot be convincing in the public discourse when they mix their support for conservatism with their relationship with Christ. There is plenty of reason for conservative policy to be preferred based own its own merit. To confuse the two reduces the effectiveness of each.

Conservative Christians may be shocked to realize that the Constitution and the Bible are NOT ISOMORPHIC. While all truth is God's truth, public discourse on government policy must not be overtly associated with the Bible and public discourse about the Bible must be void of public policy. This does NOT mean Christians should not engage the culture and politics. Each should play out God's call on their life wherever it leads. However, there is plenty of sound logic to support conservatism on its own. Christians should develop public policy skills and arguments independent of their theology.

At least this is worth some pondering  .......

P.S  After some more pondering of my own on this topic, I have concluded that one of the reasons young people who grow up in evangelical families abandon their faith in early adulthood (surveys show nearly half do) is this: the natural process of questioning and even rejecting their conservative political heritage (the influence of idealism and cultural appropriateness) is now viewed as synonymous with challenging their Christian faith. The Christian youth of today have not been trained to know or see the difference. This is the collateral damage done by evangelicals seeing their politics as an outgrowth of their Christian faith and vice versa (isomorphism) . They feel they must support both to support either or reject their faith if they reject their parents politics.

A logic path to finding 'self'

One of the most demanding questions people must answer about themselves is "why am I here?" That is why "The Purpose Driven Life" was such a popular book and course of study. However, even before this, the human condition must answer the question, "who am I?" Obviously we usually know certain facts about ourselves, such as our name, where we were born, who are our parents and ancestors. If this information is lacking, it is likely there is a psychological void that must be filled. Orphans and adopted people seek answers to settle any anguish about their identity. Businesses have sprung up recently to benefit from the human need to know more about their identity from their heritage. Cultural movements that make it normal to change one's sexual identity are growing and being challenged. You might say there is a growing confusion around identity. It is a mainstream topic in the study of human psychology.

At the very heart of how any person answers questions about their identity is the core assumption that biases each person's view of their identity. Here is a diagram that depicts the options a person has concerning their core assumption about their identity.

Let's follow each path and see what we can learn.

First, we must assume the source of our identity. Do WE determine for ourselves who we are or not? If we assume we determine our own identity we must be able to answer questions like, "how can I determine me before there is a me?" and "what role did  play in selecting the sperm and egg that united to make me me?" and "did I get to pick my parents or where and when I was born?" The answer to these are obviously 'no.' So, if I assume I determine my identity, then I must assume it is malleable, or socially constructed. I must assume my identity is formed throughout my life and has nothing to do with my birth.

If I assume my identity does flow from my birth, then I either assume there is a creator behind all this or there is not. If there is not a creator, then the creative force that brought me into existence is random or unidentifiable. While parents participate in my creation, are they the creators? After all, they basically just engaged in procreative sex. Everything about the source of my identity is unknown and forever will be.

If I assume there is a creator, then there must be some identifiable creative source that beckoned me into existence. This creative force acted to determine everything about me at birth that identifies me distinctive from everyone else.

The remaining question is whether this creator was intentional at all about my purpose, a key component of identity. If not, I can then rely on my social setting to help me determine my purpose. I can somewhat morph into what makes the most sense to me because the creative force had no say in and doesn't care how I think, feel, and act.

Alas, if there is a distinct creator of me and this creative force has set within me their purpose for me, then no aspect of my identity is up to me to determine. My biological attributes were determined for me and my soul's reason for being was also. Instead of working on determining my identity, I must work on discovering what the creative force and what was determined about me.

Answering the questions about my identity flows from the assumption or bias I have about identity. This is a psychological problem to solve. The issue of identity becomes theological when I consider where God fits in my assumptions about identity.

Whereas many theologians and pastors wish to start with theology, I think it is a better process to see the psychological logic paths we must understand and then place on that conclusion our view of God, which may be no view.

At least this approach to pondering identity does not require a theology to get started, making the process open to all regardless of religious persuasion ....

Using the exploration of core assumptions is very exciting. You can do a lot of this in my recent book

https://www.amazon.com/b4Worldview-there-are-ONLY-TWO/dp/1719372462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529795241&sr=8-1&keywords=b4worldview%20caldwell

our crux and our crucible

I was sitting here this morning reading social media and listening to the so-called media, and I became increasingly frustrated. This growing incivility with the Supreme Court nomination is a lot of noise that is missing the point. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, the words "crux" and "crucible" came into my mind. I don't know why and from where. I wasn't even sure I knew what these words meant.

So I pulled out my trusty 1828 Webster Dictionary app and did my search. I was amazed at what I found. 


Here's my story about the crux and the crucible.




What we are witnessing in our civil discourse in recent times is a fundamental fight (war) over abortion. The willingness to subvert age old practices of "due process" and to weaponize "shaming" to get one's way must be coming from somewhere. Everyone thinks they are logical and have evidence to support their truth, but all of this screaming "racism" and "sexism" and pointing fingers is just the fruit of bias.

The problem around abortion and its associated public policy is further advanced by an inherent  human flaw. At the core of the human condition is

the unfailing tendency to use reason and observable evidence to support what we already believe while pretending to use reason and observable evidence to determine what we believe.

What we have is a core bias by some that women have absolute control of their body and that their unborn baby can be an unwanted circumstance. In this case, it is only fair (Constitutional right) that the woman can eliminate the unborn child. After all, they deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. On the other hand, others have a core assumption that an unborn child is a person who also has Constitutional rights. They too deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A person either interprets the Constitution through their lens of culture or interpret culture through their lens of the Constitution.

So, you see, anything that threatens one's view and interpretation of the Constitution is central to civil war. Anything that challenges our rights or what we deserve is viewed as worth fighting over.

It has been documented and well researched that since the beginning of time the greatest virtue for all humans is justice. But, justice is impossible to resolve because each person's position is sourced in conflicting biases. A bias is an endearing belief that is never questioned but used to judge everything else.  A 'crux' is anything that puzzles or vexes. Among many issues of justice, abortion is clearly perplexing to our society.

Biases are built features of human nature (our earthly existence).   A 'crucible' is something made of earth that can endure extreme heat without faltering. Well, guess what, human bias is formed out of an earthly existence that can endure the greatest challenges. Human biases are "crucibles."

Where does this leave us? The short answer is futility. This is no surprise. The result of Adam and Eve's desire to determine what is right for themselves and enact justice on others is an inherited nature that guarantees disorder and incivility. 

Practically speaking, we must stop thinking we have a corner on justice and can determine what is right. We must start discussing who or what we are going to trust for our thoughts, feelings and actions. In the case of justice, one either trusts the culture or trusts the founding fathers.

The proper target of trust can take care or both our crux and our crucible. By the way, the issue of trust has even bigger implications than we can imagine.

Don't dismiss this message. At least give it pondering consideration ....

prayer turns heads

There has been so much said and written about prayer, but I realized I haven't ever blogged on this topic. What could I say? What could I add to what has been said? Maybe I can't add much to your knowledge of the subject, but I have pondered prayer. I especially have thought about the effect core assumptions have on how someone thinks, feels and acts regarding prayer.

If you have read earlier blogs and maybe even read my recent book, you would know I see everything through the lens of core assumptions. So, why would my view of prayer be any different?

First, there is the concept of general prayer. This is what people of all religions, and even no religion, do when they are deeply distressed. They cry out to something outside themselves for relief, hoping there is something or someone OUT THERE who can help in their difficult circumstances. The motivation is simply to "cry out" since there is nothing outside themselves that they actually trust can help. This type of prayer is common to all since the beginning of time and likely does not "turn heads." It is not an unusual site.

This general prayer then becomes specific when the prayer is petitioning someone or something OUT THERE that the person praying assumes can help in their difficulty. Both types, general and specific petitions are likely associated with what I have called an "outcome based" orientation. This is human nature. It is natural to make sense of things based on circumstances experienced by one's sensory faculties.

Interestingly, this "outcome based" view of prayer does not escape Christians. I hear way too many sermons and teachings on prayer that are based in the Bible but are heard and understood within the context of desiring God to affect circumstances. I recently heard a good preacher expounding on Elijah's prayers and how God answered him. Implied in everything said about prayer was the circumstantial outcomes associated with praying.

Christians who pray in public may turn heads of a secular society, but are hard pressed to explain why and how God answers prayers when the focus is on the circumstances targeted by the prayers. I heard an old country preacher say one time, "we pray for healing but healing is only a reprieve, we all die sometime." He was not poking fun at or trivializing prayer, he was making a point that prayer is much more or different than getting God to attend to circumstances.

Prayer is not about turning God's head to us, but turning our heads to God. 

Prayer is an abiding relationship with God in which our attention is on the Kingdom in which we live ETERNALLY NOW, not the circumstances that occupy our temporary earthly existence. How God uses circumstances in our life often remains a mystery. Prayer invokes our eyes of faith away from trusting sensory experiences to intimacy with a God that is jealous for our affection. 



This is what glorifies God. When a dying world, left futile in their pointless "crying out," witnesses a child of the King resting completely in the loving arms of the Creator regardless of circumstances, something happens. Their heads are turned, not with a cynical smirk. They just may want to know Him. That's why Christians are here. That's why we have circumstances, both favorable and unfavorable to our human existence.

When we turn our head toward God, we turn our back on our circumstances. This is our way to show the world in whom and what we trust. BTW, isn't that on our coin? Does that seem strange at all? Has our nation turned its back on its basic claim, "In God we trust"? 

Might it be that the core assumption Christians hold dear about "the outcome of things" creates a prayer life that has heads turned toward circumstances?

Receive this blog or not, but at least ponder it .....

Read the scriptures on prayer with the assumption that it is the "source of things" that matters, not "the outcome of things." You can read more about core assumptions and how they affect everything we think, feel or do in my newest book, "b4Worldview: there are ONLY TWO" found on amazon.com     

"her faith is NOW a reality"

I did not want to write this blog, but these words I heard yesterday at the funeral of a Christian will not leave my head. Its like hurricane Florence. These thoughts are slow moving dropping volumes of rain on my soul. When this happens, I can only get relief by writing what is blowing through my head. Thus, this blog is born.

The pastor said these words as a source of HOPE to the family and attendees at a life celebration for a Christian lady who died at age 50 from cancer. It's a nice platitude. I'm sure no one else really latched on to these words, but me. After all, she was known as a person of faith and courage, someone who really stayed true to her faith through much struggle on this earth. I do not doubt this at all. But,

what does this statement the pastor made actually mean? 

Is it an encouragement? Is it even Biblical? Think about these words a minute. What do you think? How do they make you feel?

This is the point. How we understand God's words is what makes us think, feel, and act as we do. Assumptions we have about key words like "faith" and "reality" are what causes us to struggle in life, or not. This statement makes me wonder if the pastor's assumptions are in line with his theology. I have no doubt he is well read and learned about the Bible. BUT, this statement well intended for encouragement is not what God tells us in His word. 

At first glance it may suggest "her faith was not real until her death." That's not an encouragement to me. What do you think?

This probably is not what the pastor meant, but many subconsciously take it that way. AND, if believers actually think this way, what is the testimony to unbelievers. The secular world already has little interest in "faith." Is the GOOD NEWS about some future "reality"? Is this why the Christian life seems irrelevant in the moment to so many?

The assumption in this statement is that "real" must only be what we can directly experience. If we cannot observe something with our senses, then it is not considered "real." Well, faith, by definition, is unobservable evidence. The non-Christian sees faith as foolish and totally irrelevant. While the believer values faith, it seems to many (as referenced in this statement by the pastor) that faith is only "real" once we leave this world. What does this say about the relevance of faith in our life before we die? Is the pastor claiming "death activates faith"? Maybe this is what makes the Christian life not seem much different in this world to non-believers. Maybe this is why hope is viewed as limited to a "reality" beyond our physical life on earth. Maybe this is why there is so much attention by Christians to perseverance, "just hang on til you get to heaven."

Is hope only confidence in how things will be later? Is this the Biblical idea of hope? Is this the Biblical view of "reality?" Does faith have a "reality" before we die?

The answer to these questions flows from assumptions that sit deep within our soul. It is natural for humans to assume that the life we observe and experience with our senses determines our understanding. It is in our human nature to understand our theology through the lens of our circumstances. This makes it natural to miss what the Bible says to us about faith and reality.

For example, we may see prayer as an instrument available to us to get a loving, Sovereign God to act on our behalf, as evidenced in our circumstances. We can be saved, have all the best theology and Bible teaching, but if we assume truths about the Kingdom through our circumstances, then we do not understand faith and reality as God does.

Prayer is an abiding relationship anchored in thanksgiving that takes our focus away from our circumstances as reality to the ever present reality of our life in His Kingdom. Life in this finite realm, one bound by time and space the Bible calls earth, points us to our life NOW that really is an eternal existence in His Kingdom. Faith is a hope (confidence) that our soul (eternal core self) is completely cared for outside our circumstances by a Sovereign King willing and able to do so always, now and forever.

The hold our fallen human nature has on our soul is what makes the Christian life hard. If our natural assumptions are transformed to align with God's view of faith, hope and reality, then life in the Kingdom, even in its physical form on earth, is not so hard.

In other words, "life is hard until it isn't." 

What is normal to you and me is what makes us see life as it is. When it is normal to see ourselves as God sees us, struggles melt away. We don't have to die for our faith to be real.

This message is my passion, the theme of many blogs and especially my new book, "b4Worldview: there are ONLY TWO."

I have pondered this a lot. I think God wishes you to ponder it too......

"what becomes of the broken hearted?"

You may have heard this popular 60's song about the "broken hearted"? (see link below to song) It's a person's search for peace to relieve the pain of "a love that is now deaprted." There is confidence in the search, but no confidence in the ultimate resolution. No wonder this song has timeless popularity. Having your heart broken is as human as breathing.


One of the main reasons many people do not put themselves out there in relationships is to protect against a broken heart. It is a pain that is better avoided (many feel). In Christian circles we hear that God "heals the broken heart." He certainly does. It's comforting to know, and one of the appeals Christians acknowledge about their faith. A "broken heart" seems inevitable and the only options seemingly available are to avoid loving or get an insurance policy to fix it when it occurs. But, is this really the case?

Being the ponderer I am, I have several questions that may affect how you make sense of a "broken heart." At least, probing questions like, "what is a broken heart and how does it get broken?" has helped me find a third option found in a totally different perspective.

The heart is usually considered the seat of our affections. So, I assume a 'broken heart' is when we send our most precious affection out and get nothing back, or even worse, rejection. A 'broken heart' occurs when deep affection is not reciprocated. The failure to get back in proportion to what we send out are usually circumstances, like when the target of our affection moves away or dies or a choice the target of our affection makes to not return their heart to us. Sometimes, our heart is broken when its not even set on another person but to something we treasure about ourselves, like a dream, a job, possessions, our physical features, etc.

It seems then that what matters the most in seeking a life without a 'broken heart' has to do with the target of our most precious affections. The song seems to have an air of futility in it. Is it possible that when the target of our affection can never meet the standard of certainty, the search for a peace from not getting your heart broken is indeed futile?

So, what is the answer the songwriter is seeking but does not find in this song? It must be in either never seeking a target for our heart's most precious affections or seeking a target that never fails to satisfy our yearnings. Those that assume "I just will not seek," may have momentary reprieve from pain, but do not find a lasting peace. The human condition is made to be in intimate relationship. That's where our joy comes from. The songwriter must see this because he doesn't consider it an option.

Then, we must seek and find a relatioship in which our heart's most precious affections are ALWAYS honored. You can look around all you like but I'm not sure this exist outside of the unfailing love of God in Jesus.

Interestingly, if and when Jesus is the source of our most precious affection and intimacy, our heart does not get broken. Oh, wait. Does this put a different spin on "God heals the broken hearted." If our affections are properly placed, then our heart is not ever broken and therefore never needs healing. So, why do Christians find more appeal in "God heals the broken hearted" than in the promises of never having our heart broken in the first place, like when Jesus receives our most precious affections?

Maybe this is what "repent" (change your mind completely) means? Maybe this is the transformtion that comes when we do not conform to this world's system of thinking (the message of this song) but renew our mind to something very different from our natural order of thought?

"What becomes of the broken hearted?" They find new life in Christ. A life that is free to love others without the risk of a 'broken heart.' A life where intimacy is only rewarded and never threatened. But wait, that option wasn't in the song. So, maybe a better perspective is - whether we even have a broekn heart may depend on who or what is holding our heart in their hands.

One final point. You might be thinking, "but Prof, what about grief and sadness?" Difficult emotions are normal in loss, but this is different from a broken heart. If you have had your heart broken, you know the difference.

Just something worth pondering ...... 

here's the song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQywZYoGB1g

What makes hate right?

It seems there are some in our society that need to hate others in our society. The hateful segment is then frowned upon by its opposition and called "a hate group." This then results in protests against the "hate groups" by the opposition who hate the "hate groups." There are even a growing number of behaviors society calls "hate crimes" to make the crime seem worse than if the word "hate" were not included.

The question I have is, "Are actions against hate actually motivated by hate?" Is one part of society deciding another is so distasteful that they need punishing? What is behind this need to punish hate? Is a reciprocating action against hate also hate? Since most people generally want to do what is right, what makes hate seem right?

Why do people see others' hate and miss their own? Why can anyone on either side of an issue justify hating another? Oh, that may be the answer - justification. People who are different and don't agree with me are distasteful and deserve to be hated. That is an equal and balanced position. That is in fact JUSTICE - hating someone distasteful is giving them what they deserve.

One party sees another as so distasteful they deserve contempt. The other side then sees the first party's hatred as so distasteful, they deserve contempt. That's JUSTICE, reciprocity, equilibrium, punitive balance. It is what pure justice produces - a form of revenge.

What some see as the highest virtue of the human condition - justice - may be in fact the cause of the most distasteful human condition - hate. 

Because justice is the greatest concern of humans (accepted position in psychology), any action can be justified if it is deserved.

Actions themselves are not really viewed as right or wrong as long as the action is in balance or what we might say, "is deserved."

Justice makes hate right.

This is a fascinating outcome when justice is man's preeminent concern. There is another option that we could take, but it would require that we "not be conformed to this world but transformed by the renewing of our mind."

You can explore this more in my new book, "b4Worldview: there are ONLY TWO" found at

https://www.amazon.com/b4Worldview-there-are-ONLY-TWO/dp/1719372462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529795241&sr=8-1&keywords=b4worldview%20caldwell

Confronting skepticism: from atheists to doubters

A compelling concern of conservative Christian Americans is confronting skepticism on the political and religious fronts. I have spent much of my latest efforts writing and teaching about how to more effectively engage skeptics with truth as we know it in the founding of our country and in the life designed for us to live.


I consider anyone a skeptic that does not trust the Constitution for our government and the Bible for abundant life. So, this could include those from hard core atheists (Constitutional and Christian) to those who profess to believe but in actuality, DOUBT. Here is what I do.

The first principle is - DON'T debate conclusions. It's not what we determine as truth that is the issue, it's the way we determine truth. This is fundamentally different for the skeptic than for me. I simply say, "I am not going to try to swim better in your pool. I am sure you are smarter and can always deflect my arguments and defend yours. If we are to debate, we must debate the core assumptions or biases from which we build conclusions." The point is, the difference lies in the starting beliefs, not in the final conclusions.

This leads to defining the difference in the core assumptions (biases). Both would want to have the perspective of an authority. The issue is "who is the authority?" The skeptic assumes self is the authority and can determine what is true though the power of reasoning applied to sensory perceptions that uniquely belong to humans. I assume authority is in the source and that truth about something is best obtained by receiving it from the one that originated it. Both involve reasoning, but they are two mutually different starting points. The core assumptions upon which conclusions are based should be the focus of the debate. I will not try to swim better in their pool (perception as the authority). They must agree to swim with me in this other pool (source as the authority). Otherwise, there is no opportunity for resolution.

Example, if you want to know what is true about a building, you can make observations as much as you would like, but you will never know more truth about the building than if the architect "tells" you in some way. This is especially the case for what is true about the purpose of the building. There is no conclusive evidence found for purpose in observing the building.

When it comes to the Constitution, there is no more effective way to know the truth about how our government should work than consulting the founding fathers. Since they are not physically around, you do this by reading what they wrote and what others who lived at that time wrote about them and what historical experts can confirm is the way things really were when the founding fathers wrote it. You do not gain truth about the Constitution by receiving opinions of those who came along much later and apply their own speculation of what the Constitution should have said based on their perception of the way things are now. 

It's the same with the Bible. If you want to know what is true about this world, ask the one who created it. If you want to know how things work, ask Jesus, the God-head authority over heaven and earth. Since we do not interact with these sources through physical senses, we rely on similar ways to receive what they say. However, unlike the founding fathers, we have intimacy with Jesus through the Holy Spirit, who reveals to us the words of Jesus beyond just reading them with our physical senses.

What is interesting, the skeptic has actually received his/her starting point in some way other than sensory perception. They just don't like to admit it or think about it that way. This is sometimes called conscience, or intuition, or gut feel, as well as revelation. Getting the skeptic to examine their starting point (biases) is the only way to effectively engage the skeptic.

If they agree to this form of debate, I ask these questions:
1.  what is your source of the truth?
2.  how did you receive the truth from the source?
3.  what makes your source trustworthy?

This will be challenging for skeptics because they are not always aware of their biases or core assumptions. That is what makes them biases. We all have them but are not clear where we got them. They may think they got them through science or other visible evidence, but they didn't. Maybe they have revelation from a source different from us. Seriously exploring these questions will provide more productive debate. Of course, you should be prepared to answer these for yourself and your biases.

Actually, biases or core assumptions are what we call faith. Faith is not restricted to only religious people or spiritual truths. Faith is the evidence we trust that we got in some way other than through our physical senses. Faith forms the starting point for all reasoning about truth. Everyone operates on faith. The issue is the object of the faith as determined by the questions above.

This truly establishes a new and different paradigm for determining truth. The debate is simply the answer to the primary question in the picture above, "who has the power?"

Every person should be able to clearly articulate the answer to these three questions to be seriously considered a skeptic or a believer.

Try it out, or at least ponder its possibilities..... 

What matters past a few years?

Most people get caught up in the frenzy of the moment and the bigger questions in life get crowded out. Paying attention to the bigger questions in life is what makes a person more strategic. The obvious BIG questions deal with marriage, family, career, health, and finances. Consider that maybe the biggest questions, and therefore the most strategic, deal with more, the condition of your soul?

Let's step back a minute and see what are some good questions that may affect your soul. Follow me on this and you'll see my recommendation.

Way back in 400 BC a fellow named Aristotle presented a way to the "good life." He focused our attention to personal virtues like justice, courage, kindness, and respect. He also said that a satisfied soul (happiness) required harmony with one's community. These sounded so good that his philosophy became the dominant influence for the known world at his time and has lasted even til today. Thomas Jefferson admits Aristotle's influence on The Declaration of Independence.

400 years after Aristotle, Jesus emerges and says, "change your mind completely, you can't trust Aristotle's plan for the good life" (I paraphrased his call for repentance a little). His followers, like Paul, said, "be transformed, renew your mind." I don't know about you, but this begs some questions that I had to answer. I would call these "strategic questions."

1.   Why was Jesus so against Aristotle's plan for virtue and harmony?
2.   What in the mind needed to change? From what to what?
3.   Was this change an imposition or invitation?

These are not theological questions, but the answers will have theological implications. This about the condition of your soul. The answers are strategic because they last forever and affect every choice you make from now til then.

I wrote my latest book to address this. You may think its too deep and complex. First, your soul is deep, deep within your being. Second, new ideas are always difficult until they are not new anymore. then they are simple.

You can find what I had to say in my book entitled "b4Worldview: there are ONLY TWO"

Follow this link

https://www.amazon.com/b4Worldview-there-are-ONLY-TWO/dp/1719372462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531128483&sr=8-1&keywords=b4Worldview+book

are you in "the Aquinas tradition"?

OK, I'm thinking you are thinking about now, "I came to this blog, but i don't know why." What in the world is "the Aquinas tradition"? You may even be wondering, "why would I even care what it is, and what if I am?"

Although Aquinas lived 8 centuries or so ago, it is not uncommon today to hear some reference to Thomas Aquinas. So, when you hear someone say they are in line with or in opposition to Aquinas, what do you think the person is saying? Does it matter? Well, it does to me. Here are a few examples.

This week I am listening to people recount their relationship with Charles Krauthammer, who had just died. One person that particularly got my attention was Judge Andrew Napolitano (now that's two names that are tough to handle for a southern boy). The Judge's most significant recollections were the discussions he had with Charles about Thomas Aquinas. The Judge was steeped in knowledge of Aquinas and an avid supporter. He admired Charles at how conversant he was on Aquinas without a formal education in theology.

Recently I was questioning a leader in the Christian worldview movement about their approach. I basically asked, "Would the recent trends in millennial's leaving the church cause you to question the effectiveness of your strategy?" Instead of responding with some sense of openness and curiosity, he abruptly defended their approach partially by saying it was based in the traditions of Thomas Aquinas.

It just so happened that in research for my book I had run into Martin Luther's disdain for Aquinas, and I had grown to understand why. So, hearing two references recently from important people, who stood firmly in the "Aquinas tradition," got me to thinking. How many people like you influenced by Aquinas in their thinking and never even know it?     

Let me first summarize Aquinas thinking and then tell you why it is problematic.

Thomas Aquinas was a 13th century Catholic philosopher and theologian who was given sainthood for his contribution to Christian thought. One of his most renowned works was his "The Five Ways" to prove the existence of God. The argument was basically an Aristotelian perspective with a final theological leap, the intelligent designer that must exist is called God. The argument was Aristotelian because Aquinas pulled from what he could observe in the physical world as his evidence of universal principles of design order and logical relationships of cause and effect.   

It is not a surprise or accident that Aquinas built his argument on Aristotle. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Thomas is emphatically Aristotelian." The Encyclopedia says a lot about this, but you don't want to read it all, trust me. Here are some selected exerts that I think illustrate the point:

“The expression of the nature of existence of things comes to be in us as a result of our engagement with the sensible world… This is primary in our knowledge…. This epistemological primacy of knowledge of what we grasp by our senses is the basis for the primacy of the sensible in our language.” 

Basically, this means that humans apply their God given intellectual powers to what they experience in this world to determine the things of God. This is very Aristotelian. Aquinas believes God reveals, but revelation occurs through our physical senses viewing His creation.

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus' teachings, especially in the sermon on the mount, and Paul's letters were a direct rebuttal to Aristotle. This case is made in my new book, "b4Worldview: there are ONLY TWO." 

Therefore, it is impossible (without some miracle of the Holy Spirit) to grasp what Jesus is saying about the Kingdom of God if you are in "the Aquinas tradition." You will likely be a very moral person seeking justice for all. You may even be saved, but you will not be a testimony of the Gospel nor will you enjoy the privileges and provisions of grace. You will live in the doubt and futility of knowing God only through your sensory experiences in this world.

Martin Luther's infamous disagreement with Aquinas seemed to suggest Luther disavowed philosophy in favor of theology. What Luther loathed was philosophy as presented by Aristotle. Luther said at the disputation January 11, 1539, "God was not subject to reason and logical conclusions." What is implied in this is that reason is subject to God, not absent in human discourse. 

Luther drew his view from Jesus's teaching. Jesus has a totally different way than Aristotle. Jesus assumes that a human who is in the Kingdom will apply his/her God given intellectual powers to the unseen evidence (faith) of Jesus' life, death and resurrection revealed by God through the Holy Spirit, not physical senses. 

Eventually, you will have to decide if Jesus came to bring the world civil liberty, justice and economic prosperity or did He come to pave a way to the provisions and privileges of the Heavenlies?

Both Aquinas and Jesus agree that humans have been given tremendous powers of reasoning. The departure comes in the form of evidence one trusts for knowing God in an intimate relational way. 

This can be difficult to grasp, until you do. Then it is very GOOD NEWS .....    

it's all in the experience

I have come to realize that the word 'experience' is one of those oft used, but poorly understood terms. Like 'love' and 'trust' and 'good', there are certain words that are very common but lack a common meaning. This can be a main contributor to the problem of communication.

The trend in business now is to focus on the consumer's and customer's EXPERIENCE. We are learning that its not the features of the product a consumer uses that matter, but the experience they receive from using the product.

Similarly, in epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge) there is the role of EXPERIENCE in determining WHAT REALLY IS. It's an important word in many schools of thought. So, take a minute and define EXPERIENCE as you understand its meaning.

......
......

There are a variety of definitions if you look at different sources. The common theme seems to be "knowledge or awareness by participation." However, there is no distinction between the two types of knowledge. So, if we use our understanding of knowledge, we may get a better understanding of experience.

There is knowledge we gain through our physical senses. As we participate, such as drinking coffee or playing sports, we EXPERIENCE sensory stimulation. This is to some degree satisfying to our body or not. We then learn that certain activities result in favorable or unfavorable satisfaction of our physical senses. We can say that 'experience has taught us' blah, blah, blah.

We also have knowledge we gain through non-sensory stimulation. This is the awareness we gain about how participation has satisfied our soul's longings. We go to Starbucks. While we may have an opinion about their coffee, we actually judge our participation in this activity as to the degree we "scratched the itches of our soul." We ask ourselves, "did I satisfy my need for purpose, or freedom, or hope (certainty), or joy, or importance, or acceptance?"  We can say the same about a romantic dinner. Is it how pretty someone looks or how good the food tastes, or is it something we gain through means other than our physical senses that touches our soul?

Different people place different priority on which satisfaction is the most important to them, body or soul. Based on this, people come to different conclusions about participation, about the EXPERIENCES they desire, about truth itself.

This is the human condition. making sense of ourselves and the world around us is ALL IN THE EXPERIENCE.

Becoming a Christian totally blows up this model. It totally reverses the order. EXPERIENCE is no longer the source of understanding truth. Sensory sensations of the body no longer have priority on satisfaction. Through an intimate relationship with Jesus, God reveals through His Spirit non sensory based knowledge to our soul. This knowledge is the truth that tells us how to interpret our EXPERIENCE.

There is a scene in the movie "Paul: an apostle of Christ" where the Christians are being sent into the Roman Circus. Here they will be mauled by animals for the amusement of Nero. Luke reminds them that the physical EXPERIENCE will be momentary pain, BUT that they know they have an eternal place with God. Truth informs the EXPERIENCE for them, not vice versa.

We can no longer say, "it's all in the experience." This is one way we are different from the world. It may be one way we are NOT "ONLY human."

Certainly worth pondering .....

Just the facts! Really?

How often do you hear someone say, "just give me the facts." Maybe you say that sometime, too? This is such a delusion!

There is no such thing as "just the facts." All facts have context and the context determines the meaning of the facts. Facts by themselves have no meaning that anyone can trust.


For instance, recently I saw the media announcing the results of a poll.
47% wanted a democratic congress
41% a republican
12% undecided.

Obviously, the media's liberal bias would want to present FACTS in a way that people would believe that the democrats will take the House if the election was held now.

Is that what these FACTS say? Is the conclusion drawn from these FACTS true? Unless we think about this in greater context, we might be subject to believing that this FACT means this conclusion. If so, we are DELUSIONAL. One definition of delusional means, "based on faulty judgment."

By the way, the point of this blog is not political, but to show how people misuse facts to create faulty judgment in others, who do not pay enough attention to see the fault. The political scene just offers so many great examples.

Let's examine the context for these facts. This is a national poll, but representatives are elected in local districts, 435 of them. It so happens that Democratic districts are dense and homogeneous. Basically, they are the big cities. Republican districts are rural America, more sparse and diverse politically.

Therefore, the % of people who prefer a democrat in Congress is higher in districts that elect democrats than the % of people who prefer republicans are in districts that elect republicans. For sake of this discussion, let's assume on average that the Democrats elected to Congress receive 65% of the votes in their district and the Republicans elected to congress receive 55%.

If the national poll says 47% prefer democrats and 41% prefer republicans, then the Republicans would win the House 255 to 180. For the Democrats to win the house the national poll would need to show 48.5% to 39.5%.

Now I may be off a bit on my assumptions but the FACTS show that when a Democrat wins a seat, they have a higher % of the vote than when a Republican wins (on average). Without this context, a national poll is delusional.

But, then again, most of the American public just go along with the FACTS, as if they are the truth.

Humans are simply long on bias and short on PONDERING ....

I guess it is easier that way!!