"we hold these truths to be self-evident"

If truths are "self-evident", why is there so much confusion in our society over rights, justice and happiness over 200 years after the Declaration of Independence was written? If truths are "self-evident", how can truth be absolute given every self operates with a different perspective or set of biases, so to speak? How can any truth be self evident to many people who trust something different? What does "self-evident" mean, and why do we base anything of importance on the notion it is "self-evident"?

The founders of our country created a very successful form of governance as a rejection of the power held by monarchies in Europe. The source of ideas for our country comes from Greek philosophies of Socrates and Aristotle. Universal laws of democracy and virtue order lives of society. BUT, the problem of knowing truth has never been solved by humans.


It is a mistake to assume that the idea of inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is God's gift (endowment) to the world. This is not what Jesus said. What kind of country would we be if the Declaration of Independence said, "we hold these truths to be Bible precepts"? This takes away the "self evident" idea. Maybe the preamble would read like this:

One thing would be that the focus of folks in the US would not be on our rights in this world. We would not look to our circumstances for our well being. Justice would not be the preeminent concern. We would not be transactional with each other thinking our "fair share" matters. A heart of grace would be our barometer and guide, not virtuous behavior.

God desires that we view our selves as aliens and sojourners in this world, here for a moment to reflect the light of Jesus bestowed on us to glorify His Father. Biblical precepts exhort us to a transformed life that walks by faith, unseen evidence God reveals to us, not a life in this world that is influenced by experiences of our physical senses.

The USA is a wonderful country. One that is founded to allow everyone to flourish in a finite world according to their efforts and abilities. This is great for the human condition (for a while), but it is not the eternal realm of the Heavenlies God has made available to us NOW as we find our identity in Jesus.

What does this mean for you?  That's where pondering comes in .....

"then sings my soul"

"How Great Thou Art" is one of the most sung songs in recent history. It makes people feel so good down deep inside. Even those reluctant to raise hands in praise will find their hands go up. Singing this song, especially the chorus, seems to make all our troubles go away. Yet, how often do we ponder the song? What do we think we are really saying when we sing?

This popular chorus starts with a astounding statement, "then sings my soul." Interesting claim. How does a soul, which is non-physical, produce a song that is experienced through the physical sense of sound? Generally, when I ask such pondering questions, most people go, "I don't know and don't really care." Fair enough. Your life won't stop in its tracks if you don't explore what you are really singing. BUT, your life could be enriched beyond a feel-good song if you found life's treasures in the song you sing.

The soul is essentially your "self." It is who you really are, the center of thought, emotion, and will. When your soul sings, it is your deepest expression. This may be why the Bible references the soul over 100 times in the New Testament. In this song that ministers to so many in such a deep way, what is the soul expressing? Obviously, the soul is absorbing the greatness of God. But, what about God does the soul consider to be "Great"?

I have found there are basically two possibilities. The soul is relishing in God's greatness based on the basic bias of the soul. The natural bias is for the soul to identify with the body and outcomes in this physical world. In this case the stress, anxiety, frustration and pain of the human condition trouble the soul. Finding hope in a day when I am free from the bondage of the body is a therapy that transforms me.  "How great Thou art" is the soul's recognition God is in control and one day after I die I will be in Heaven and have no more pain. That's one way to approach our anxiety.

Another possibility is a bias where the soul identifies with the Spirit. Here the soul relishes in a reality where it is no longer subject to physical senses for satisfaction, motivation and acceptance, even while still in the body. The freedom comes as the soul is transformed and becomes a "new creation," or as Jesus says, "born again" of the Spirit. While the body is still subject to futility of this world, the soul experiences not one of suffering but blessings found in a passionate relationship with Jesus. God is "Great" because He has willfully and generously invited me into His Kingdom. His provisions and privileges of Grace transcend the human condition as it relates to my soul.

This may be what Paul means when he calls upon God's people to walk according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh. Understanding this difference may make all the difference in how the soul is nourished when it sings, "How Great Thou Art." This is a complete change of bias, not just thinking. This is what is called walking not by sight but by faith.

A song worth pondering in addition to singing....

the "narrow gate"

We are told in the summary of the Sermon on the Mount, "for narrow is the gate that leads to life and few will find it." This is quite familiar to Christians and provides for sound theology. BUT, in what ways does this truth infiltrate and influence lives of Christians in our culture today? In what ways do we try to widen the gate or maybe even go around it?


Here is what I have learned as my life's work these days focuses on how flawed human nature wars against the life that God desires for us. It is built into our very human nature to avoid the exercises and diets necessary to slim down for the narrow gate of the Kingdom. It's not natural and quite uncomfortable to shed excess baggage we carry around that feeds a soul comfortable with "walking according to the flesh."

This is true not only of us pedestrian Christians but of those who lead us, those who head Christian universities, churches, and ministries. As I have been a part of marketing b4Worldview to such institutions, what have I found that suggests this may be the case?

While most legitimate Christians and their leaders can readily profess sound theology about the Gospel of Grace and a life lived under God's sovereign love, virtue ethics seems to be the end game of Christianity that manifests itself to those "looking in." Maybe this is the way it is because many Christians and their leaders also emphasize right behavior and that the Gospel is a palliative remedy to human pain in their teaching, prayer and worship activities. Foremost, Christians are led to change the culture to an ethic they view as Biblical. Yet, in doing so they are no different than the rest of humanity, seeking a better way not a new way. Many young people brought up in these contexts abandon what they are taught only to seek an alternative virtue ethics.

Why are Christian leaders so protective of their message of virtue ethics and reluctant to explore ways to help their flock "be transformed by the renewing of their minds"? Why is "good" more about fitting into a prescription of what a person does to positively affect others rather than the intrinsic quality within them that comes only from intimacy with Christ? Why is purpose about what we can produce and not about faithfulness in our pursuit? Why is God's favor a righteousness of exchange with the Father rather than receiving a generous, willful action from the Father?

Here is a perspective I have found by working with Christians and their leaders for the past several years. The "market" for Christian products and services responds more to an Aristotelian view of life's goal where happiness is a personal pursuit and production of virtues such as justice, courage, kindness and such. This ideal is universal in the human condition and has BROAD appeal to people. Why? Because Aristotle captured the essence of human nature, the idea built-in each of us that humans have the power to produce the right life, and what we experience via physical senses is what determines reality. BUT, wasn't this the error of Adam and Eve? Isn't Aristotle's philosophy about the natural power within each person just an excellent account of our fallen nature? Might this be what makes an appeal attractive to many people, or a BROAD gate?

NARROW is the market comprised of those who are motivated to receive and reflect te light of God and trust only the power provided by the One they have a passionate love affair with, Jesus. This is a pure form of trust, not a trust underwritten by "our own understanding," not a trust dependent on outcomes but trust based on a relationship.

So, I have found that Christians and their leaders generally know the truth in their head, but worldly success depends on attracting customers with a market appeal which is BROAD and not one that is NARROW.

Might this be what Jesus wants us to know as He sums up His profound message to us?

Something worth pondering ......

The cultural con of diversity

Here you have two people, diverse in many ways. We can observe some differences. One is male and one is female. One can walk somewhat unaided. One uses a walker.

Some differences we cannot observe. They likely have different personalities, experiences, tastes in food and clothes. They probably are a married couple, but maybe not. Maybe neighbors or siblings? We don't know.


What we do know is they are working together to plant flowers. This is collaboration to accomplish a common goal. There is some coordination here. That helps collaboration. But how does appreciating each other's diversity contribute to their success?

That's the question diversity advocates really never ask. What makes diverse people collaborate? Is it shared experience? Is it a focus on valuing each other's differences? That's a possibility.

When two people demand their differences are what really matters, what generally happens? I suggest that collaboration anchored in diversity requires each participant to be aware of what they are giving up (sacrificing) to accommodate the other. This requires a sense of conditional love or respect based on social exchange. In other words, I give to the other in ways that results in reciprocal responses. The other person honors my giving by giving back in some sort of balanced way. This can be fulfilling and successful in many ways, as long as the joint efforts are fair.

Two people can be collaborating on a mutual goal, but there are limits to what each participant is willing to do based on justice.

There is another model for collaboration based on the idea of unity. You might say, "unity is accomplished in the above model of collaboration, isn't it?" I would say "NO." On what basis would I say mutual sacrifice based on diverse members committing to a common goal is NOT unity?

I go to model given to us in the Trinity. Throughout the Bible we read "the Father and the Son and the Spirit are one." We are called to be one with them. There is diversity, but in unity the diversity is not the point or focus of collaboration. Needs of the participants are not the issue. It's about like-mindedness. It's thinking EXACTLY the same way and a singleness of will. It's the same heartbeat, the same passion. It's not diverse parts considering what they are giving up for the others. In this model of unity, diversity dissipates, not intensifies.

The model in Scripture is the body. Yes, there is diversity in the parts. Arms are not like legs, which are not like ears. This is important. However, each part views everything through the lens of the head (Jesus). Each part never says to the other, "remember to value diversity - each of you that are different should consider me just as important as you. I will give myself (sacrifice) to the body, but I deserve to benefit somehow."

Total alignment of the soul of each member to the mind of Christ is what makes the body of Christ (the church) function in perfect collaboration for the glory of God.

That's a model of collaboration foreign to a culture that values the diversity, not the unity. There is no authoritative influence when honoring what is different is the point. This is a con perpetuated on the world fueled by a human nature that can only think that way, "by nature we are children of wrath."

"be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

This is probably worth pondering......

"beyond a shadow of a doubt"

Maybe with the exception of the Manson murders, OJ Simpson's trial may be the most famous judicial spectacle of my lifetime. I am not a lawyer, but the thing I remember most was that there was a criminal trial and a civil trial. In the criminal trial, the truth of murder had to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. When this failed to produce justice for the victims' family, they filed suit in civil court, where only a burden of probability of truth was required. 

This is an interesting example of how mankind gains the knowledge of what is true. This is called "epistemology." Rene Descartes, who many call the modern father of philosophy, explained finding truth this way (paraphrased): remain skeptical of what you think is true until you have removed all doubt and you are certain there is no more uncertainty. This sounds to me a bit like, "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Descartes was a foundationalist versus a particularist. Now, don't check out on me here, this is not that complicated. All this means is that Descarte (foundationlist) believed you must peel away all the details that may obscure truth until you hit the bottom or root of something that you can trust to be true. This is much like scrapping away all the sand and debris that obscures solid ground until you hit pit gravel to trust with certainty you can lay the foundation for your house. This is opposed to those who believe there are no core principles, so they collect pieces of evidence until they have concluded there is a sufficient likelihood something is true (particularist). For something with significant consequences, like a murder trial, our legal system has decided we should be more foundationalist than particulaist. We must get to the core truth, "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Descartes' ideas for finding truth have broad appeal and acceptance. It seems to work relatively well in finding truth in the physical world, but science can still be fraught with the limitations of particularists. So much so that any serious scientists knows that collecting details of evidence only demonstrates likelihood something is true under certain conditions, and nothing can actually be proved with 100% certainty.

Finding truth becomes much more problematic in dealing with the invisible, moralistic world. Many people are functioning particularists because they do not take the time or have the rational power to exhaust all doubt. So many become comfortable with their doubt. It's not practical to do otherwise.

However, some believe they are capable and willing to explore truth until they are certain of no more uncertainty. Eventually they find they are only fooling themselves and no one else. Even Aristotle, considered the most supreme philosopher, admitted that man can never be 100% sure using sensory perception and rational power to know what is true. Current behavioral economist Nassim Taleb calls this "epistemic arrogance," a condition that puts a person at great risk.

This is actually where faith comes in. Everybody has faith, but it seems to have been relegated to only religious circles. The truth is, everyone ultimately runs out of particulars and their faith becomes their foundation. Faith is the basic bias any person trusts while failing to remove visible uncertainty. A person's faith is the soul's sense of certainty there is no more uncertainty. Faith is our core trust in something. We have no more questions of "why?"

So, while much, if not all, of man's debate centers around what is true, maybe we should ponder more the question, "who or what do we trust?" Eliz Warren recently said, "my faith animates all that I do." This is true about faith, but not just for her, for everyone. What or who we trust deeply within our soul drives all that we are and do. Faith for each person is their "beyond a shadow of a doubt." 

It may be too scary to deeply ponder who/what you trust ....

"It doesn't really matter what I do"

Have you ever felt this way? You are told to set goals, try hard, make a difference, serve others - but at some point you question if what you do really matters. Life goes on, the people you try to help don't get better or maybe don't even listen. You feel in your heart you are serving others, doing good in this world  - but at some point you wonder if what you do really matters. I don't know about you, but this is one way my soul can throw its own pity party.




Of course there are times when it seems what we do is making a big difference. People tell us we are important in various ways. We seek feedback to signify to ourselves that we matter. You must admit that even when you say and believe that you are giving of yourself for nothing in return, that nothing doesn't include the notion that you still need to know - if what you do really matters.

When I was younger and working, it was built-in that my job mattered in some way. As a minimum, I was being paid by an employer for my work. Charitable giving and volunteer service was rewarding. I was always getting newsletters and hearing stories of how my giving was helping others. As a parent it mattered what I did to "produce perfect kids." Now, blogging and writing books is what I do. This is mainly a one way street. I throw my thoughts "out there" with very little idea of whether my words matter. Its easy for my mind and emotions to discover that what I do doesn't really matter anymore.

Its in times I throw my own little pity party that God reminds me that what I am writing and blogging does matter. It matters to Him. Its in my own pity party that God reminds me my main message to others is from my time with Him. What I generally write is what He has taught me - there are only TWO biases in the way we see life.

When I feel "it doesn't really matter what I do," I am trusting my human nature's idea that outcomes from what I do are what is important. Human psychology calls this Social Exchange. The Apostle Paul called this "walking according to the flesh." No matter how much I am serving others, I am in it for me. God has a better way. He desires that all my thoughts and feelings should flow from my intimacy with His Son Jesus. He chose me and acted on my behalf so that my soul is eternally fortunate (blessed) regardless of what I've done or is going on around me in this world. All I am supposed to do is reflect His glory by faithfully playing out what he calls on me to do. I do not need to ever question if it really matters as an outcome. This is His provision of grace. This is called "walking in the Spirit." Glory goes back to where it belongs.

How do I know? The Bible tells me so. 

You may have never thought about your life in this way. You may disagree with this in some way. Usually, all I ask of you is to ponder what I say. Today, I can't really even do that - that would be an expected outcome. What I do only matters because I faithfully give you what God has put in me, not because it will produce some great outcome. What God does with this in you is His business.

When I blog from my time with Jesus, there is a party but it never involves self pity.

Beware of the 'fair trap'

As a parent of teens, the statement I heard the most is, “dad, that’s not fair.” Throughout the ages sages will tell you, the greatest obsession of humans is fairness. At first you may assume this is no problem. Of course, being fair is important. True, but the problem is there is no answer to what is fair. It’s mankind’s greatest concern, and it has no answer. 

The need for situations and people to be fair is a trap and can take away your oxygen. Let me briefly explain. There are three ways to judge something as fair. Each is different from the others and each is subjective. Are you beginning to get the picture. Sometimes something is fair when people get what they deserve. This is called equity and is based on reciprocity. The criminal justice system and many reward systems in companies see fairness this way. Sometimes something is fair when everyone gets the same. This is called equality. Entitlement programs think things are fair when everyone gets the same. After all, "all men are created equal." Still others think something is fair when everyone gets what they need. Charities hand out goods and services based on what someone needs, not deserves and certainly mothers with children get more than single men because their needs are greater.

The problem is that what someone deserves, and giving everyone the same, or giving according to need are all totally different ways to be fair. Not only are there three totally different ways to be fair, each way may vary based on individuals’ views of what is fair. We can take this even further, psychologists have found that its not as much what the distribution of goods and services are that determines their fairness, but how (the process) was handled. There is a whole other criteria called procedural justice by which people judge something to be fair.

If you require life to be fair, you will likely be disappointed most of the time until you become quite cynical about the world’s ability to be fair to you. This is paralyzing and leaves you feeling lifeless, that life never works right for you. See, right is what’s fair and what’s fair is an illusion. Stuck in place, life’s not fair so why try.

For you to break out and not succumb to the “fair trap,” you must release the built-in need for life to be fair. This is not easy. It goes against everything inside you. What is the remedy? An attitude of gratitude, a sense of grace. Cultivate the ability to see all the blessings of life that have been freely given to you totally independent of what you deserve. Each person has gifts given to them just because they are born. You did nothing to get them. You even did nothing to deserve being born and the provision of your childhood. The air you breath every day, the abundance of food creation provides, the unconditional love of family and friends, and much more are the overwhelming gifts of life that is not fair. Being thankful that life is not fair instead of demanding life to be fair brings life.

I think that is worth pondering .....

Is "being normal" the goal?

Recently a mother of young children, all of which I love dearly, posted this on face book - "I just want to say publicly that being gay is normal, and my children are being instructed as such." It seemed by the rest of her post that she was pushing back on the evangelical community she grew up in to declare that she did not want that community to influence her children to see homosexuality and all of its extensions (such as marriage) as wrong.

To her, being gay is as normal as breathing. It's just built-in to the way some people are made.

It may surprise you that my response has nothing to do my opinion of her view on homosexuality. I was especially taken back by her celebration of "normal". She cannot mean normal is that everybody sees it the same way. It was clear in her post many disagree with her and thus this would not be "normal" for everybody. The context seemed to mean that homosexuality is natural for some people and therefore it should be seen by everyone as OK.

So, I am assuming she means that whatever is "natural" should not be met with any challenge as to its acceptability. This would mean then that when a 2 year bites a playmate for stealing their toy, its OK. It is certainly "natural" for some toddlers. I guess its also OK for an 8 year old to not admit they broke mother's vase when they did. It is quite "natural" for a child to lie when they do something wrong. What about an 18 year old male whose hormones "naturally" rage to a point they see women as sexual objects. I guess that is OK since it is quite natural for many teen boys. I guess its OK too when a 30 year female employee seduces her boss in order to get ahead in her career. It's quite "natural" for many women to go that route.

Lori Loughlin claims she did nothing wrong in the college admissions scandal. "Any parent would have done the same thing if they were in that position." In other words, her actions were "only normal" for a mom who loved her children and wanted the best for them. Should I go on?

If many behaviors are questionable by some as to their appropriateness, but occur "naturally" in people, how do we know when "natural" (normal) is OK or not? Who decides what is normal? This becomes especially problematic if the parent wishes their children to be raised as a Christian. It may surprise you again that I have no interest or way to "list" behaviors that Christians should deem as OK, including being gay. I have another point about raising Christian kids. It is this:

Being "normal" is THE problem. If "normal" is what's natural, then everything "normal" is outside of God's desire for us because our nature is flawed. Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount that its  natural for humans to pursue and produce good behavior (virtue and ethics) so they can be seen by whoever cares as OK. Its not natural to desire a relationship with Christ above all else. Nothing about the human condition naturally "seeks first the Kingdom of Heaven." Everything about human nature trusts its own power to know what is right or wrong. Everything in human nature wants self to be glorified. This was the serpent's invitation to Eve - to trust herself to know good and evil.

I agree with this young mother there are issues with how the evangelical church has addressed the Christian response to cultural questions. In fact, Christian leaders obsession with culture most often ignores the issue with nature. I would encourage this young mother (and any other that desires eternal life) to ponder what it means to be abnormal, to be something completely different than what their human nature demands of them. To see that being a "new creation" is to not "be enticed by our own desires." I would want those desiring God to have the soul's goal of knowing Jesus in a profound and intimate way. Christians should "naturally" be motivated to receive and reflect the treasure put into their earthen vessel, not of their own power but of God's. "Walking in the Spirit" is normal living in the privilege and provisions of the Heavenlies.

In the human condition being normal is trusting ourselves for the well being of our soul. My problem is not with homosexuality or any other idea of life that is seen as "being normal." My view of the problem occurs when "being normal" from the world' perspective is the goal. 

Why capitalism has a "black eye"

Recently South Street Partners bought the Cliffs Communities. One of the first items of business was to buyout the Cliffs Members who had loaned the Clubs $60 M during the financial crisis to keep the communities afloat.

The new owners had several options:
1) do nothing,
2) make as small of an offer as possible to "satisfy the note holders"
3) see this buyout as an opportunity to demonstrate they are an ethical group of business men who will be fair to those they do business with, especially their clients at this high end golfing and retirement community.

They sent out an offer, which appears to be option 2, asking for "indications of interest." I took the opportunity to reply with a perspective that this offer was an opportunity for them to build trust with their clients, and they came up short. I chose to blog this as an example of how businesses should view their actions in ways beyond just immediate financial considerations that benefit them. This memo to them will likely be ignored. I have no illusion it will matter, and that's why capitalism is being questioned by regular people (especially the millennial) who fall prey to "big business."

Here is the content of my memo:

In your recent solicitation to the note holders, you say you are asking for “indications of interest.” While I can show my level of interest by checking a box, I feel I should also provide a more thorough perspective that I, as a note holder, have regarding your offer. I was a business executive for over 20 years (12 years as an executive committee VP with Coca Cola Consolidated in Charlotte). I have taught Business Strategy to college students, preparing them to be ethical professionals. So, my perspective is not uninformed.

Generally, note holders' interest will be driven by emotion and principle, since none of the options you provided is a significant nor reasonable financial choice. For instance, I am disappointed in the way you structured the payout. Depending on whether I assume 3% or 5% avg annual cost of money, your payout options are anywhere from 30% to 50% below the present value of the current payout agreement.

This means you are willing to make a deal with current clients in which the benefits accrue quite asymmetrically to you. Many, including me, will see this as an unethical action on your part, which basically says you are planting the seeds of mistrust with your clients of the Cliffs Communities.

I understand you have the leverage to “squeeze out” of the note holders a significantly discounted payout. You should also understand that ethics is when the person with power does NOT take undue advantage of others for selfish benefit. Ethics is about the principles of fairness. The payout option you are offering is well below the present value of the current deal, which was suboptimal from the start. The note holders are the committed members who “stood up” in difficult times for the sake of the community.

I will not hesitate to share this with others when asked about my view of your deal. You own your character reputation by choices you make. For one of the first major actions as owners, you will not be endearing yourself to members.

You may accomplish your financial goals, but you will lose in the hearts of your clients.

"kill the fatoosh"

I am sitting in a Mediterranean Cafe on Sat night before my grand daughter's final dance performance at the NC School for the Arts. My son orders a dish from the menu and then emphatically says to the waitress without hesitation, "kill the fatoosh."


For some reason this caught my attention as an interesting statement. First, I thought, "my son is starting a new job in NY city Monday and he is practicing his "NY Mafiaism." Then I thought of all the times he had said, "I don't eat salad," and this a new and more direct way to order food.

This statement soon became something the family could banter around the table and have fun with my son. Later, as I continued to sound the phrase, "kill the fatoosh" in my head, I began to think about the ways people quickly cut off experiences in their life.

This can be positive or negative. For instance, we can develop patterns of thought over time that automatically reject some types of experience and never ponder what we may be missing. Do we all directly cancel opportunities out of tradition or habits we form over the years that never get questioned? Should we give others the permission to challenge us on these areas in our life that might bring us benefit we fail to see? Now, fatoosh is only a type of salad, but it may represent types of people or experiences God puts in our life and we shut Him down too quickly.

The opposite may also be true. Spiritual discipline involves "shutting down" habits or appetites that should be sent packing. Habits of gossip or judgmentalism or envy are really good targets for "kill the fatoosh."

Discerning the differences in what we quickly and directly forego can have a big impact on living the life we desire to live. What and how we order our meals may not have eternal bearing on our lives, but pondering the "fatoosh" in our lives that we instinctively "kill" is not a trivial matter.

"unswerved from our deliberate purpose"

It's a really nice idea that any of us can be "unswerved" from anything that challenges where and what we want to be. Maybe you are watching a good movie and you don't want anything to bother you and take your attention away. Maybe you are enjoying time with a friend and hope that you can continue enjoying each uninterrupted.

Remaining in a place or state of mind that you deliberately (intentionally) want to be in is highly desirable. We don't use the word "unswerved" very often, but we sure appreciate the idea.

Christians think about being "unswerved" more than maybe they are aware. The term is usually translated patience or perseverance. The idea of persevering in times of difficulty is an idea many hold onto as a virtue. Christians use scripture like Romans 5: 2-5 and James 1: 3-4 to be encouraged during times of trial or tests. Affliction is viewed as positive when we attach some transcendental benefit to suffering. Perseverance leads to hope, assurance everything is going to be alright.

Yet, often human nature attaches a "grin and bear it" meaning to "unswerved." That's a natural association of patience or endurance in times of difficult circumstances. When Christians view perseverance this way, they have a virtue that is no different than non-Christians. In this case the distinction Christians make between their patience and that of non believers if that they have a better hope. That's true, but that's missing the main distinction in their witness and in their own life.

The notion of "unswerved" used in the Bible (a version of hupomoné ) deals with simply holding fast to the purpose we have intentionally oriented our life around. It means, "don't be distracted by what you see going on around and to you." Don't lose sight of what matters. This is far from a "grin and bear it" mindset that waits for relief. It is a way to remain in the joy of our purpose, like the companionship of a good friend. Turning off the cell phone and staring into the eyes of our beloved at an intimate dinner is Biblical perseverance. Hupomoné reminds us that our circumstances are like a wind storm, blowing temporarily to take us off our game.     

God's idea of perseverance and patience is associated with rejoicing in the very midst of our circumstances, not because something beneficial is coming later, but because we are now in the presence of a loving and generous God.

For example, I recently read a famous football player just found out he may have throat cancer. His dad died of throat cancer at 51 and this former NFL star is now in his early 50's. He admitted he had lived in fear of throat cancer most of his life. He is a Christian, and he said his faith will help him deal with his fear. In other words he sees faith more as a temporary crutch and persevering as "just getting through the tough times."

The passage in Luke 12 came to my mind, "do not fear little flock for your Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom."  Notice, Jesus didn't say "deal with your fear." Instead He said, "DO NOT FEAR." Jesus' idea of being "unswerved" by cancer was to rejoice right now in his relationship with Jesus and his life in the Kingdom. The cancer is a passing wind storm (a distraction) in which he shouldn't have fear in the first place. DO NOT FEAR, not deal with ("grin and bear it") your fear.

Also, notice the fear came from his experience with the futility of his earthly father. His dad was defeated by cancer and could not provide further for him (abandonment). His Heavenly Father is very different. God is able to provide all his soul could ever need and more, forever.

This is why Jesus can say, DO NOT FEAR. We can view perseverance as being "unswerved from our deliberate purpose," not a "grin and bear it" tolerance of pain.

Pondering the difference is an "out of this world" experience ....

knowing the unknown

Since the beginning of time, there is no question more asked and still offers much confusion than, "how can we know what we don't know?"

Recently, a famed behavioral economist, Nassim Taleb, challenged the business world on how their ideas around this question are misguided. The author of "The Black Swan" argues well that success is best obtained when managing the unknown.


For example, he points to the massive destruction of events like Katrina, the financial crisis and 9/11 attack as indications that the most significant outcomes in recent times came out of nowhere. In everyday life we see that when we hire someone or take a new job ourselves, its what we find out about the other 6 months or a year later that matters more than all of the knowledge gathered during the hiring process.

Let's take a closer look at what it means to "know the unknown." I contend we can be misguided and maybe don't even agree on what this means. For instance, the English language just has one word for "know." The 1828 Webster says to know is "to perceive with certainty or to understand clearly." Implied in this is "seeing is believing". So the cultural norm for knowing requires physical evidence.

The ancient Greeks had two words (I have blogged on this several times). One word meant knowing through the physical senses (eido), which aligns more with prevalent thinking. The other was knowing in some way other than through physical senses (gnosis). Since this second way does not fit current thinking about "to know," we find other words to capture what the Greeks called knowing without observable evidence. Some call this way of knowing intuition or conscience or "gut feel." Yet, people refer to this type of knowing with some level of puzzlement when they wonder how they can know if he/she loves them. People say, "I know my spouse" when they are speaking of clarity they have that didn't come though physical evidence, but through an intimacy in relationship with them.

So, there are several ways to think about "knowing the unknown."

First, we can ask, "how do we have certainty about what we observe by gaining more clarity from new observations we have certainty with?" Both views of "to know" deal with observable evidence. This is primarily what we believe science accomplishes.

Second, we can ask, "how do we have certainty about what we cannot observe by getting new observations we can have certainty with?" Here, the idea is getting a certainty about unobservable truth by using rational processes to gain certainty from what we can observe. This is an attempt to verify faith through science. Typically, we see this approach by Christians and non-Christians to "prove" something about the unseen human soul, such as virtue and personality, and God, such as His existence.

The third way to ask this question is, "how do we have certainty about what we see from certainty about what we cannot see?" This is actually the question answered by the Bible. Christians understand "knowing" by trusting revelation from God to clearly understand what they experience in the physical world. Human nature influences us to view type two question about "knowing," Humans naturally want to believe something about the invisible from inferences made from the visible.

The fourth possibility is, "how do we have clarity and certainty about what we cannot see from clearly understanding what we cannot see?" This is the ultimate point of the Bible. Humans adopted into God's family involves an assurance of an invisible act on God's part to bring us into a relationship experienced only through faith. 

The problem arises when the non-Christian thought leaders are asking the first and second type questions about "knowing" when the Bible is applying the third and fourth type of questions about "knowing." Even worst, and too prevalent, is when Christians rely on their flawed human nature and apply questions like one and two above to defend their faith and the Bible instead of questions like type four.

One more point about "knowing the unknown" that contributes to the confusion. When Taleb discusses this issue of "knowing," he is dealing with predicting the future. In other words, the unknown is only unobservable because it hadn't happened yet. This is the only purpose of science, to provide the likelihood B occurs given A depending on C. Science cannot prove the certainty of the future, only the likelihood. We also cannot confuse the "unknowing" (uncertainty) of the future with the "unknowing" of the invisible.

Science has no role in gaining knowledge about what already exists and cannot be seen. For instance, science can analyze data and provide a reasonable explanation of "what is?" Yet, science cannot be used at all to answer "why?" Science cannot determine the heart, or motive. Science can explain WHAT choices people made through observing their behavior, but cannot explain WHY. Science, in no way, can provide certainty about God and the Kingdom of Heaven.

Only revelation allows any human to "know the unknown" God and His gracious, Sovereign rule.

So, when you hear someone use the term "know," you now can ask which of the ways they are viewing "to know"? Maybe after you ponder the multiple ways of knowing, you can ask that they ponder them too.......

 
        

If diversity is the answer, what is the question?

Valuing diversity is unmistakably one of the dominant themes of our times. I was asked recently why I had not blogged on this topic before. I thought I had, but found I had not. This request was not challenging the moral value of respecting people's differences, but rather wondering why it is so popular to see it as the solution to every problem. There is a frustration by thoughtful people that diversity is almost always, without question, viewed as THE ANSWER to every question. 

So, I was asked to ponder, "is it really?"

Diversity is one of the topics that I taught in management classes at the university level. Its an important topic, not because valuing diversity is viewed as "politically correct," but because the way groups of people handle differences in their members affects their effectiveness. This is what people who study diversity want to find out, "does diversity make teams and broader organizations more effective?" In what way does diversity alone make things better? I think this is what many decent, thoughtful ponderers want to know. When diversity is thrown around everywhere as THE ANSWER, should we not better understand the question to which it is the answer?

When I began my lecture on diversity, I would ask each student to look around them at all the other students, then list ways in which the class was diverse (students were different). Invariably the students would list, sex, race, age, looks, height, weight, hair color, hair styles, etc. No one noticed diversity of personality, ability, experience, values, biases, experiences, and such. Are these differences unimportant? No, they are just UNNOTICED. In fact, if I put together a team to accomplish a task, these unnoticed differences would matter more in the team's effectiveness than what the students' listed as their sense of diversity. 

At least, that is what the research on diversity has found. The first list is called "observable diversity." The second list is called "unobservable diversity." In summary, research has found that in the initial moments people are asked to work together, observable diversity is not helpful. In fact, observable differences create emotional barriers to cooperation and collaboration because of social categorization and social attraction (stereotyping). Yet at the same time, unobservable diversity helps tasks that involve information processing, such as decision-making, because diverse views create more options to choose from.

Given sufficient time and relationship building opportunities, the emotional conflicts attributed to observable diversity are mitigated and the team becomes more effective when unobservable diversity is high. Thus, when the question is asked, "does a diverse team perform better than a more homogeneous team?", the answer is best understood by the diversity we do not obviously see. Given time and greater inter dependency in tasks, teams where individuals are different in ways we do not see is preferred.

Whereas, observable diversity gets all of the headlines and attention by social fairness minded people, visible differences in people are not what makes groups of people more effective. In reality, the diversity the culture values can be harmful, not helpful to higher performance.

If diversity is the answer and success is the question, look beyond what is politically correct about diversity and value the diversity that really matters!

That's how I ponder diversity and encourage others to do so too ....

Is this freedom?

Here's a recent face book post. Most people respond with a "thumbs up" like or maybe even a "wow." What about you?

Stop a minute and ponder what this really says. This quote really means that your "real self" is in some kind of bondage to how others see you.

This phenomenon is explained in human psychology as the need for legitimacy. It explains why people feel they must "wear a mask" of some kind to portray what they think others should see that makes them feel OK.

When I pressed the one who posted this quote with the question, "what keeps people from 'being yourself' all the time?" she replied,
"Nobody is. But, ultimately, that’s the goal. The ego gap is a source of rampant unhappiness." 

Wait, I am now confused. Here is a quote that feels warm and fuzzy to almost everyone, at least on the surface, yet it is what causes us to be unhappy. Do you see the irony here?

Young people are seemingly infatuated with the idea of "integrity." Yet, integrity occurs when our public self and our private self are integrated or one in the same. So again, without much thought a young person would LIKE this post because its warm and fuzzy but it represents the very source of unhappiness and lack of integrity.

ay yi yi

What's even more interesting, the very Gospel many young people find irrelevant in their life is the solution to this problem. The freedom of the Gospel is that no one who receives Jesus as their life has to seek legitimacy from those around them in any way. Freedom in Christ is the ONLY opportunity for a joyful and peaceful soul that never has to pretend to be something they are not to win approval of others.

"but we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not ourselves"

Now that is GOOD NEWS everyone should ponder  .....

What if your idea of righteousness is wrong?

I really hesitated to write this blog because it is typical for readers to think I am being judgmental. I am not. The Greek's have several ideas of judging. One is simply a examination according to some standard, another is to determine error and thirdly to condemn (punish) when one is found guilty. I try to practice the former. It is not my place to determine anyone's error. Yet, I am troubled by the way our human nature can rob us of the proper idea of righteousness because of any error in understanding. In doing so, there are several consequences. I'll discuss these at the end. But first, let me share with you what we know about fundamental human nature from the study of psychology. This is where the head fake begins.

One of the core influences on the human condition is the desire to be LEGITIMATE. Legitimacy is conformity to expectations of others so we feel OK. Each person chooses which constituency determines this for them. Regardless of the source of the acceptance, some standard is used as the basis for being OK. These norms are often referred to as morality. In early childhood your family sets the moral code. As you mature your peers establish "rules" as the factors that determine whether you are OK or not. For most people when the family is loving and supportive, the family remains a source of acceptance. However, your family's standards can be challenged when you identify more with friends, employers and even gangs who fulfill the role of determining if you are OK. Often, just being different can make you not OK.

Throughout history, religion provided divine guidelines that some people have associated with right behavior. Righteousness then becomes the proxy for legitimacy. You become aware that God has rules for what is acceptable. If you become a religious person, then your need for legitimacy is your conformity to religious morality. Many Christians believe this conformity is their righteousness. This view makes it difficult to differ Christians from non Christians, who also seek legitimacy often appearing to have the same virtue, just from some other source. The moral code may vary, but seeking legitimacy is common to everyone. People may differ in what set of standards establishes their legitimacy, but the need for legitimacy is fundamentally satisfied in the same way - CONFORMITY. Often Christians claim their standard is "a better way" by pushing forth the notion that their view is the only truth. This argument typically falls on death ears. People generally feel its up to them to decide which standard they wish to pursue. Thus, non Christians see no distinction in Christianity when it comes to virtuous living, or being OK.

The pursuit of legitimacy within a Christian context may look and feel like righteousness, but it is not. It is just a religious form of the pursuit of legitimacy, a pursuit that resides in everyone's human nature.  

So, what then is righteousness? Why the confusion? If we look at the current meaning of righteousness from Webster, we get, "acting in accord with divine or moral law." In this case we would be hard pressed to see righteousness as anything different than legitimacy in a religious setting. So, this may explain why so many Christians see righteousness as their form of religious legitimacy.

If we go back 200 years, we find that righteousness meant "conformity of heart to divine law." This is a little different as we see righteousness is about motive, not behavior. However, it is still a conformity we must execute to be made acceptable. It is still a form of the human need to seek legitimacy.  Let's go way back to when the word righteousness was used by Jesus. What did it mean then?

The classical Greek word is dikaiosynē. 

Here we see a subtle, but profound twist. Righteousness still relates to the notion of Divine acceptance, but the focus is shifted. The original use of the word is really about the judge. Righteousness is "judicial approval." It's about the judge's will, not our actions. If our righteousness is not about our actions, then it is not about our conformity, and it is not associated with our desire for legitimacy. My righteousness is God's action as the judge on my behalf. My righteousness is not anything about my pursuit of legitimacy. It's about the nature of the judge and His Sovereign desire and provision for my acceptance.

Wait, you say, that does not feel right. Surely my righteousness is based on my conformity. Surely my need for conformity is critical to my acceptance. It's only natural that this be!

That is right. It is natural. The need to solve our legitimacy problem by our actions is built-in to our human nature. 

BUT wait, isn't our human nature what got knocked off kilter at the fall?

Yup, and that's my point.

Is it possible that one's notion of righteousness is just a natural need for legitimacy wrapped in religious garb?

Maybe we need to see righteousness is about the judge, not the judged!


Oh, btw, the Greek word for justice is the same as for righteousness. Jesus only views justice through the role of the judge. For Christians to think Jesus' calls us to do justice, He is not referring to our natural instincts to be the judge of right and wrong. Rather, God calls us to act from the righteousness of Christ, which is the basis of His approval of us.

Back to the consequences of a natural view of righteousness vs. God's view.
1.   the world sees no real difference between their way to satisfy their need for legitimacy and those of a Christian.
2.   the Christian, who is saved but sees their righteousness through the lens of human nature, lives beneath the privileges they inherit in Christ Jesus.   

That is what I wish that you ponder .....  

What do they REALLY think?

Much of my work in b4Worldview centers around exploring what students say they think and what they actually think. These are called "explicit beliefs" and "implicit assumptions." Churches and other ministries want to train students to "think correctly," but they almost always are only getting to the students explicit beliefs. One thing b4Worldview does is engage the student in ways that "get to" their implicit assumptions. In doing so, we can capture both what they say they think and what they REALLY think.

Here is an example. Students are taught that Jesus wants us to love our enemies and pray for those who reject us. He also says it is easy to love those who love us but what about loving those who don’t. After all, God loved us while we were yet sinners. When asked what they believe about loving our enemies, they will generally answer that we should (explicit belief). Then, on facebook somebody posts, “so many people love you so don’t focus on the people who don’t.”  Christians “like” this post a lot and comment about how encouraging it is to them to read this (implicit assumption). So what do the students’ REALLY believe.

To be effective at such student engagements, we measure both their explicit beliefs and implicit assumptions. This can be confusing for leaders whose mission is training young Christians. Here is a brief description of how to measure each.

 When measuring explicit beliefs, provide a specific context that orients the respondent to “think correctly” before answering. Implicit assumptions occur when there is no context other than normal everyday life and the respondent must navigate ambiguity as to what is the best way to “think correctly.” The answer the respondent gives provides the context that the respondent is most likely to provide him/herself absent some authority oversight.

 When implicit assumptions, which naturally bias the respondent, are not aligned with their explicit beliefs, then the respondent will struggle to appropriate their explicit beliefs.  The respondent’s explicit beliefs will be limited in how effective they can influence the individual’s thoughts, feelings, or choices in normal everyday settings. Moreover, any implicit assumptions that are not consistent with an explicit belief will restrict the understanding the respondent has of that belief. Thus, while it appears the respondent is “thinking correctly” to those in authority, he/she is actually not doing so deep down in their soul.

Maybe, just maybe, the issue of misaligned explicit beliefs and implicit assumptions occur more often than in young Christians. It's possible this is pervasive in Christians of any age. 

Maybe, just maybe, this is what pastors are trying to get at when they encourage the congregation to be Christian 7 days a week, not just on Sunday.

That's one thing I ponder .... 

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"?