Posted on

Testify to What?

Why Love Isn’t Love

L-R: Michael Passons, Melissa Greene, Ty Herndon

I absolutely love this song. Their performance is incredible. I have no problem with anyone, including gay people singing Christian music. This article is in response to a specific statement made by one of the singers of this song.

Spending my first 15 adult years in the music business in Nashville, I encountered many things I thought I’d never see. Of those remains to be the number of Christian music artists that were closeted homosexual. Keep in mind, to those of us in the industry, it wasn’t that closeted. On 16th and 17th Avenue in Nashville, they wore their identity without apology. But the instant they stepped beyond that sanctuary, they slipped into a disguise, pretending to be someone they weren’t.

Realities of the Music Industry

The reasons are clear. If the rest of the world, especially the Christian music listeners, were to learn of their favorite singer’s homosexuality, they would stop listening. This affects the financial bottom line. As a result, there was an unwritten code that artists were to keep their homosexuality on the down-low and everyone made money. If their homosexuality were to become common knowledge, sales would go down, managers would get less, publishers would get less, the artists would get less, there would be no tour. It’s financial ruin.

There has typically been the same unwritten code in country music. So when Ty Herndon was discovered by law enforcement committing a homosexual act in public, his label did their best to cover it up, minimize, and even alter the narrative surrounding the events. This couldn’t get out. But for different, yet similar, reasons. Those buying records were conservative, God-fearing, country boys and girls who did not want their favorite singer to be gay. Again, the fairness of this can be debated.

You could make the argument as to whether this is fair or not. For Christian singers, they adhere to what the Bible says. For country music, the clientele buys the records. If they don’t buy, you don’t have a job. In both cases, it was mostly economic.

New Take On an Old Song

Insert the new single by Ty Herndon, Michael Passons, and Melissa Greene. The song, “Testify to Love”, is a cover from the Chrisitan group Avalon, of whom Michael was a member of at one time. Michael left the group in 2003, citing other opportunities. Then in 2020, Passons came out as gay, recanting that leaving the group was involuntary due to his sexual orientation.

When the song comes out (no pun intended), it quickly becomes a hit. The initial reason is clear, they are amazing vocalists. Quickly, this begins to stir the airwaves, claiming this is “the first hit by an openly gay Christian artist.” For this reason, they received criticism.

Melissa Greene and Michael Passons took another step. Their claim was that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people.” This is the statement that got my attention.

Christian Beliefs

Before we can continue, we have to clarify certain things. For the sake of this conversation, it must be noted that the Christian tradition believes that people are to be loved, but sins are not. And that homosexuality is considered a sin (missing the mark, not God’s design). Christians believe that love isn’t love, God is love. You can debate that on another day. Today it’s about the statement made by Greene and Passons.

Exploitation vs. Good Business

By their statement, they are saying that there were/are many gay people in Christian music and that it was exploitative to demand they keep this knowledge a secret. There are a few problems with this thought.

First, if they are going to go by the Bible, they should not be engaged in a homosexual relationship. They have abandoned that reality. Now, they choose to sing in the Christian music industry. It’s worth nothing that many in Nashville believe some people enter the Christian music industry because they can’t get signed in Country or Pop. Essentially, that’s unfair. However, there have been many cases where that was the clear truth.

Therefore, they should know that if they don’t abide by the rules of the industry, they will not have a job. This is no different than the Dixie Chicks debacle. In 2003, The lead singer, Natalie Maines, said she was “ashamed that the President of the United States was from Texas.” Outrage ensued. People were literally burning their records, t-shirts, and pictures. Their tour sales suffered greatly. They virtually tanked, dissolved, and were ostracized by the entire industry. But why? Because their clientele were the ones buying the records and going to the shows. And their clientele didn’t want to hear disrespectful things about their president. It’s free market capitalism 101.

This is why the statement by Greene and Passons that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people”, hasn’t landed well. If it were to get out that a Christian singer was gay, that group would no longer have a career.

The other problem is this remake has usurped the meaning, slapped a concept creep on it, and decided they know what’s best, rather than the God they so lovingly sing about knowing what’s best.

True Meaning Behind the Song

If the song is to champion the idea that God loves gay people and you should too, then I’m totally on board with this. The message Jesus taught wasn’t a heterosexual or homosexual message, it was a God message. “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35). In that context, I will testify to love too. Because in testifying to love, I’m testifying to God.

If they are attempting to make the claim that God is perfectly accepting and happy that they are engaged in homosexual relationships, this would be directly against what God has said, and those in the industry knew that, thus the request for secrecy. In that context, I would ask, what is love? If God is love, then the literal translation of the song is, “I will testify to God.” And if we’re doing that, we are asking for grace, mercy, and forgiveness for missing the mark, and noting that homosexuality would be considered missing the mark.

There was no exploitation. There was a business model. And in order to have a career in Christian music, that model needed to be followed. One would either need to find a different path, or “deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). But expecting an entire industry to bow to your ill-informed opinion of what the text of the Bible says about homosexuality isn’t reasonable.

There will be a follow up about homosexuals in the church, and it will not be easy to read if you’re a Christian. I’m taking the gloves off for that one. For now…

Stay Classy GP (God’s People)!

Grainger

Posted on

Just a Spell Too Far

Pastor or Fighter? Yes

Pastor Tony Spell

Should a pastor be throwing hands? What do we expect of him? Is he allowed to be human? How far is too far? All questions I searched to answer.

When I was a kid, I remember grandfathers and uncles saying, “That dog was gone for a spell.” As a young child, I had no idea what they meant by that. After a while, I learned. A “spell” meant a significant amount of time. So, by that logic, I’ve been writing for a spell.

Recently, my social media feed was inundated with a pastor named Tony Spell who gave a young man a beatdown. I mean, he laid hands on him. As the story goes, the young man repeatedly antagonized the pastor by stating, according to Spell, when Spell leaves his house, the young man is going to rape his wife and children. After many occurrences of this nature, the pastor had enough. He approached the young man to address the situation verbally when the young man took a swing at Spell. The pastor promptly defended himself by swinging back. If that were the end of the story, there would be no article written.

As it turns out, the pastor, after engaging the young provocateur, beat the young man to the ground. Once on the ground, the young man curled up into the fetal position to protect his head from the beatdown he was receiving. From this point, the pastor continued to lay his hands on him, several times.

As you can imagine, this made national headlines. But for the wrong reasons. The repeated issues were:

  • Was the pastor using self-defense?
  • Should a pastor be fighting at all?
  • Did he go too far in the fight?
  • Was he being prideful and arrogant?

Self-Defense

First, was he entitled to defend himself? Absolutely. Was he justified in defending the honor of his family and sending the message that words have consequences? I believe so. The fact that this pastor gave this big-mouthed kid a beating he’ll likely never forget didn’t bother me at all. Chances are, that kid has never been told “no.” He’s never been smacked in the back of the head with a flip-flop, and it shows. This kid clearly hasn’t learned the reality of consequences. It’s likely his father shielded him from consequences, thinking that was right path in fatherhood. Most know, this is far from the truth. If they don’t learn consequences at home, they will learn them in a much harsher fashion out in the real world.

Meekness

While he had his infractions here, and his character needs addressing, from a biblical standpoint, there are those that simply don’t like the idea of a pastor swinging at all. I take issue with this. First, this pastor is no Jesus. To expect him to be is quite unreasonable. He is a human with a family. He defended he and his family. He let the social media fame go to his head. But he is still a human being. He has every right, within both the law and biblical precedent to defend himself and mitigate any future altercations by sending a clear message.

At the end of the day, this pastor is allowed to defend himself. But make no mistake, meekness is strength under control. It’s the power to choose restraint, when necessary. There’s nothing weak about being meek. They merely rhyme. That’s the end of their commonality.

Too Far?

The young man was in submission. He was in the fetal position. This is universally recognized as a position of surrender. Beyond this point, the pastor continued to pummel the young man. This leaves the arena of “coming in with a whip”, as many chose to cite from the Bible concerning Jesus clearing the temple. This traveled into the arena of taking out his unresolved cumulative anger on the young man in front of him. This left righteous anger and dove headfirst into the sin of anger. They are not the same. There simply was nothing constructive about continuing the batter the young man after he’d been defeated, other than to release some bottled-up emotion. Did the pastor take it too far? I believe he did.

Pride Before Fall

Following this event, the father of this young man called the police to protest the pastor mowing the yard of the church at 4AM. The officer informed the angry neighbor that no one has the right to tell a man when he can mow his yard. The officer also stated that the cars driving by were louder than the mower. It was clear this was personal. This had very little to do with a mower or the time of morning. This was war.

The officer went to the pastor and stated that he was simply responding to a noise complaint. When the officer asked for his name, his response was, “Everyone in the world knows my name. What do you need?” This is reminiscent of Zsa Zsa Gabor slapping a police officer after being pulled over in 1989, or Reese Witherspoon telling an officer in 2013, “Don’t you know who I am? Well, you’re about to find out who I am.” The problem here is, this pastor is not Reese Witherspoon, and even if he was, the arrogance was off-putting when Witherspoon said it, and comical when the pastor said it. Again, he crossed into the realm of arrogance. And pride always comes before a fall.

There are some who are dissecting and eviscerating his theology. And from what little I’ve read, his theology lacks biblical evidence. But to me, this isn’t about theology, it’s about a pastor being a man. Yes, the book of James (Chapter 3, verse 1) says that leaders will be held to a higher standard, but the bar many pastors are asked to meet is quite literally heavenly-high and unreasonable.

Conclusion

He’s a man. He defended himself. However, his unmanaged rage and arrogance need addressing if he plans to truly successfully shepherd God’s local flock. He simply took it a Spell too far. And for that, he has God to answer to. Yet make no mistake, pastors are absolutely within their biblical and legal right to lay hands on someone in defense. Some of these pastors are country boys. So you may not want to let your ego write a check your body can’t cash.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

9/12/2001

The Day Tribalism Didn’t Exist

This is an excerpt from my first book, “America’s Greatest Threat: America.” I’ve updated it to fit more appropriately into today’s zeitgeist.

I grew up an LSU fan and a New Orleans Saints fan. They were my teams. Even when the Saints were bad, they were my team. I pulled for them when they were bad, terrible, when players got in trouble. It didn’t matter. I pulled for them every Sunday.

When they were wearing bags on their heads, I was pulling for them. Unfortunately, we’ve decided as a nation to join a fan club of one of two teams, Donkey or Elephant, and love them no matter what…except they truly do not care about you, only your vote. And it’s not a football game, it’s life.

Let’s play our own game. I’ll give you four quotes. Then I’ll give you four political leaders. You match them up without using any help, such as google or AI. Then see if you’re correct. You will see the answers at the end, so don’t cheat. Give it your best shot. Think about what you think each leader has said and guess accordingly.

  • A. “Freedom is secured every day by our men and women in uniform. We must build a future worthy of their sacrifice.”
  • B. “No dream is too big; no challenge is too great. Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach.”
  • C. “Facts are stupid things.”
  • D. “I’ve now been in 57 states, one left to go.”
  1. President Obama
  2. President Reagan
  3. Nancy Pelosi
  4. President Trump

Read on to see how you did.

Over time, our society has grown into this dark, blinded place where we accept anything and everything that is delivered by our “team”, regardless of factual efficacy. We just accept it. We gravitate towards the emotion of anger and betrayal long before the emotion of love and understanding. Here’s a smoother and more compelling rewrite:

We’ve somehow forgotten that we’re Americans first. Too often, we lose sight of the basic decency and goodwill that exists in most of our fellow citizens.

Part of the problem is that the media is built to highlight the extremes, because conflict, outrage, and division make headlines. Ordinary people treating each other with respect, helping their neighbors, or having thoughtful civil discussion simply isn’t considered newsworthy. As a result, we’re constantly shown the exceptions instead of the rule, and it distorts how we see one another.

The story of the catholic schoolboys and the Native American is a perfect example. The first story that hits is that the boys are taunting and antagonizing the Indian gentleman, Nathan Stanard-also known as Phillips (I choose to call him by the name he used to enlist into the military). Everyone on the elephant team says, “He did nothing wrong!” Everyone on the donkey team says, “Punch that smirk off his face!”

One story, from one camera and one very unreliable news source comes out. No one knows the facts yet, but their team is under attack. Then the facts come out. Turns out, Mr. Stanard was first attempting to get between the Black Hebrew Israelites and the boys. He then began walking towards the kids and began beating the drum in the face of one of the boys. When that particular boy wouldn’t move out of the way of Mr. Stanard, the incident took form. We now know that there were no ill words spoken by any of the boys. None spoken by Mr. Stanard either. Only the foul language and hate-filled words by the BHI, who appeared nowhere in the first version of the story. We also now know that Mr. Stanard was NOT a Vietnam War veteran as was originally claimed.

So now with all the facts, we should be able to properly assess what went right and what went wrong. But there are two huge problems.

  1. The first problem is that we ran to judgment in the first place without researching facts. That’s the biggest problem we face as a nation. Delivering opinions soaked in vitriol without even knowing what the facts are. Someone attacked our team so we must defend. We’ve subscribed to the notion that our team is right, regardless of the facts. That’s a GINORMOUS problem!
  2. The second problem could be viewed as worse. After the facts come out, we either ignore them or we’re so angry from what we first believed that we continue to spew hate towards “the other team” anyway. Facts are just that. Facts. They don’t have emotions tied to them. We cannot simply ignore the facts in order to justify our feelings about something.

This is a problem on BOTH sides. Neither is better than the other. As a self-proclaimed Republicratitarian (yes that’s a combination of 3 political parties), I’m urging you towards a revolution. One that requires you to be honest with the facts. If you are typically conservative, then don’t give Trump or Fox News a pass when they report stupid ideology just because they represent your team. Don’t give conservative leaders and commentaries a free pass when they are wrong. If they are wrong, then they should be called wrong. If you are typically liberal, then call the liberal leaders out when they are wrong. Don’t give Maxine Waters a free pass when she’s clearly inciting violence.

My request is that we stop blindly following a team and start looking at our fellow Americans as Americans and not just on a team. Start calling foolish rhetoric foolish, regardless of which team it came from.

One thing I’ve learned about all of this over time is that, if we really step back and look, we all want the same thing. We simply have different fundamental ideas of how to get there. Some think the government is the answer, some don’t. Some think all religions should be allowed. Some think none should be allowed. Some believe more laws are the answer to certain problems, some don’t. But what we all want is usually fundamentally the same. A thriving, peaceful country where people take care of each other and flourish in a healthy economy. No one would argue that. But we seem to argue how to get there as if someone slapped our child in the face. It’s just policies. Some work. Some don’t. It’s ok to disagree.

Civilly agreeing to disagree… It’s possible to get back to that, but it’s going to take work… starting with the man in the mirror. What would that look like?

Remember the day after 9/11? Remember how there were no Republicans, Democrats, LGBTQ, Pretty people, ugly people, rich people, poor people…NONE of that existed on 9/11. We were defined by one thing that day. We were ALL AMERICANS. Nothing more and definitely nothing less.

On 9/12/01, the entire country came together. People were hugging strangers at random. There were virtually no fights on subways. Random acts of kindness were rampant that day. Churches that Sunday were overfilled everywhere. No one cared who won in football. The only thing that mattered was that we were Americans and that we were not going to let this tear us down as a nation. We were going to stand together no matter which team you were on. We were Americans and Americans don’t back down.

I’m fully convinced that if you knew how little your team leaders thought about your actual well-being, you’d be less inclined to just follow what they say and defend them without facts.

Leave your current team and go home, look at your family and choose to protect and love the only team that matters. Now, let’s see how you did…

  • A. 3
  • B. 4
  • C. 2
  • D. 1

How did your team do?

Two of those leaders are known as eloquent speakers (Obama and Reagan) and two are known for bizarre rhetoric (Pelosi and Trump). You just never know.

As we celebrate our Nation’s 250th anniversary of cessation from Great Britain, let’s try to remember that we are Americans. Let everything else fall where it may.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Nuclear Family: The Standard We Stopped Defending

Culture Says It Doesn’t Matter. Science Says It Does

In Tennessee, the Governor declared June “Tennessee Nuclear Family Month.” Immediately, the boo-birds came out. To an extent, I understand why. The nuclear family appears to be dissipating before our eyes.

More and more people every year do not raise their children in such environments. Therefore, when you raise the question of what is the ideal way to raise children, the answer is usually, “The way I’m doing it right now!”

Moreover…

–But why am I hearing that it is a good idea?

–What’s so great about it?

–Are you saying I’m inferior if I didn’t grow up this way or raise my children in this family system?

As controversial of a question it is to consider the nuclear family ideal, the only real question should be an empirical one.

First, this is not meant to hurt anyone, make anyone feel inferior, or suggest that families and children can’t recover from being raised in a disrupted family home structure. My own children were not raised in a nuclear family. Therefore, that is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article has two missions:

  1. To set the standard by which we should all aspire.
  2. Debunk the idea that the nuclear family is no better than the other family systems

Research

  • One major study concluded that children not living with both biological parents fared worse than others across domains such as psychological well-being, education, health, and carrying into adult outcomes like employment longevity and family formation.1
  • Researchers at Ohio State University conducted research that was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.2 In this study, they looked at six different family formations. They found that academically, non-disrupted stepparent homes performed better than non-disrupted single parent homes. They also found that non-disrupted two biological parent homes outperformed all disrupted household types in every category.2

Therefore, it is statistically proven that the best possible environment for a child to be raised is in a non-disrupted two-biological parent home. This is the goal to attain. The standard to measure society against. And yet another study came to the same conclusion:

  • In another study, they showed measurements of higher emotional and behavior problems as well as chronic disease and overall physical issues among those in single parent homes as compared to two-parent homes.3
  • Another study discovered that the only scientifically proven conclusion that has been reached on raising children is that children who are raised by their two biological parents are given the best possible opportunity to achieve the healthiest developmental outcomes.4

This does not state a guarantee of sorts, just that they have the highest chance for the healthiest developmental outcomes. They also concluded that there is zero evidence supporting the claim that there is no difference in the developmental outcomes of children from same-sex parents or two biological parents.

Children from nuclear families show higher academic achievement compared to single-parent homes and blended families. Again, my children grew up in a blended family.

Anderson J. (2014)

  • Anderson (2014) found that children in nuclear families are less likely to develop behavioral problems and mental health issues compared to disrupted family structures.
  • This same study showed a decreased rate of ADHD diagnosis in children from nuclear homes, after controlling for income and education.
  • They’re also less likely to be in poor health.5

One group, after looking across 39 studies, found children from nuclear families had superior outcomes in emotional well-being, psychological well-being, behavioral outcomes, parent-child relationships, physical health, academic performance, and cognitive ability.6

Conclusion

Economic resources matter. Community conditions matter. Parenting quality matters. But family structure matters as well because it sets the course for outcomes in various domains.

None of this should be interpreted as condemnation of single parents or divorced families. Many are making extraordinary sacrifices under difficult circumstances. Rather, the evidence points toward a practical conclusion. Whenever possible, children benefit from stable family environments that preserve strong relationships with two biological parents.

In a culture that is driven by ideology, rewards immorality, and celebrates dysfunction to the tune of “Misery Loves Company”, this empirical insight paints a clear picture that evidence matters when it comes to our children. And the evidence says children are better off in a non-disrupted two-biological parent home than any alternative available.

This won’t fit the cultural narrative, some won’t like the conclusion, and many will begin to dissuade the findings here with tactics explained with precision in Thomas Sowell’s book, “The Vision of the Anointed.” But the facts point in one direction. And so should we.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

1 Härkönen, J., Bernardi, F., & Boertien, D. (2017). Family Dynamics and Child Outcomes: An Overview of Research and Open Questions. European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie, 33(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9424-6

2 Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2011). Effects of Family Structure Type and Stability on Children’s Academic Performance Trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(3), 541-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00825.x

3 Rattay, P., von der Lippe, E., Lampert, T., & KiGGS Study Group. (2014). Health of children and adolescents in single-parent, step-, and nuclear families: results of the KiGGS study: first follow-up (KiGGS Wave 1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 57(7), 860-868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-014-1988-2

4 Finn, T. (2013). Social Science and Same-Sex Parenting. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 13(3), 437-444. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201313325

5 Anderson J. (2014). The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce. The Linacre quarterly, 81(4), 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1179/0024363914Z.00000000087

6 Vowels, L. M., Comolli, C. L., Bernardi, L., Chacón-Mendoza, D., & Darwiche, J. (2023). Systematic review and theoretical comparison of children’s outcomes in post-separation living arrangements. Plos One, 18(6), e0288112. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288112

Posted on

Tennessee’s Education Paradox

Spending vs. Educational Outcomes

My wife is a teacher at a public school as one of her many careers. I get a firsthand account of the state of public school education in Tennessee. So, when this article came out, I dove in. And I heard the same, tired song.

Tennessee’s Rank in Public School Spending

The newest rage in Tennessee is that the state registered lowest in the country in public school spending. This predictably outraged various groups of uninformed, rage-baiters into the playbook manual of feelings of over facts:

  • Feel angry
  • Call it out
  • See evidence-based refutation
  • Name-call and scream louder

Rather than look to see why, or if this is even something to be concerned about, how bad it is, they just came out swinging. I dug into it a little. Questions I had were:

  1. Where did Tennessee rank in educational outcomes?
  2. Does spending correlate to educational outcomes?

Educational Outcomes

What I found- Tennessee is slightly above national average

Tennessee ranks:

  • 25th in combined proficiency
  • 24th in 4th grade reading
  • 21st in 8th grade reading
  • 13th in 4th grade math
  • 20th in 8th grade math
  • One of the fastest improving states in the country.

So let me get this straight. Tennessee ranks lowest in public school spending but above the national average in educational outcomes? This alone indicates a lack of causation between spending and educational outcomes.

By the Numbers

But don’t take my word for it. Let’s actually look at numbers.

Spending

1980: $2300 per student ($9,000 in today’s dollars)

2023: $16,500 per student (National average is now $18,000. Some states exceed $20,000)

Right away, you would expect to see educational output almost double over this same time period. Unfortunately, this isn’t supported by the data.

Educational Outcomes

1980:

NAEP Testing age 13- reading 258, math 266

SAT testing age 13- verbal 421, math 466

2023:

NAEP Testing age 13- reading 256, math 263

SAT testing age 13- verbal 520, math 508

Here’s a graph of what that looks like:

Spending Per Student vs. Educational Outcomes from 1980-2023

This data is controlling for population changes (SES, racial makeup, neighborhood disparity).

The evidence is clear. Spending has no correlation to educational outcomes. By any reasonable logic, we should expect to see an increase in educational outcomes. There is none. So if money doesn’t matter to educational outcomes, what does?

The Monopoly

Competition. The government has no incentive to produce better outcomes because there is no one to compete with. The other two alternatives to public schools are private schools and home schools. Currently, the average cost per student in Tennessee for a private school education is $13,000 per year. The average cost per student in Tennessee for a homeschool education is $2,000 per year. This means that the public school system is the ONLY FREE education offered in Tennessee. This is the literal definition of a monopoly.

Websters Dictionary: Monopoly- An exclusive privilege to carry on a business or service granted by the government. The market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

Everyone knows that competition drives costs down and quality up. Until government schools have competition, there is no incentive to be more proficient, increase educational outcomes, and reduce teacher inefficiency. You can just keep rolling along with arbitrary teacher tenure, protection for ill-behaved children, and lack of control over violence in schools.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but what I know is spending more money on schools is not the answer, and creating competition is at least one answer.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Moral Relativism: The Tyranny We Call Kindness

When Everything is Allowed, Nothing Works

James Orr and Freya India

In Case You Missed It:

I recently watched a podcast where James Orr discussed with Freya India the idea that therapy, and therapy culture, replaced morality. While I believe the current, overall culture of therapy is the location of toxicity in human behavior, which leads me to agree with their take, true therapy or counseling should operate from sound, objective realities, objective truths, and objective morality. The therapeutic endeavor itself isn’t the problem, it’s the improper application of it. When therapy abandons objective anchors, it stops being therapeutic and becomes permissive. It doesn’t heal, it pathologizes. Having said that, the conversation struck a nerve in the realm of moral relativism.

Moral relativism didn’t arrive like a catastrophe, it showed up like a shrug. Do whatever works for you. It’s your truth (which doesn’t exist). We’ve torn down shared moral boundaries and replaced them with personal preference, as if a society can survive on nothing but individual feelings. The psychological fallout is obvious. Confusion, anxiety, lack of direction, and a culture that can no longer tolerate discomfort without calling it trauma. It is the literal breeding ground for the epidemic of apathy we see in Gen Z.

Freya India said it bluntly,

“When everyone makes up their own morality, we end up in separate worlds.”

That’s exactly what this moment feels like. The inability to grip agreed upon values. How did we get there? By wanting the outcomes of moral discipline without the discipline itself. We want the fruits of sacrifice without the sacrifice. We want maturity without constraint. We bought the idea that anything which constrains destroys. The result is a generation that celebrates its authenticity but collapses under the slightest internal pressure.

This is what moral relativism produces. When everyone defines right and wrong according to personal preference, emotional comfort replaces morality. The fear of hurting someone’s feelings now outweighs the obligation to speak truth. People stay silent, not because they’ve thought deeply, but because they’re terrified of being called judgmental. Once emotional safety becomes the highest value, every other value gets downgraded. Responsibility looks oppressive. Boundaries look abusive. Expectations look cruel. Freya said,

“We have forgotten the word morals and replaced it with boundaries.”

Limitations as Liberation

Jordan Peterson, for years, has been saying that we’re being taught that all boundaries are tyranny. But a world with no boundaries isn’t free, it’s chaotic. Everyone understands this at the fundamental level. A child without boundaries becomes anxious. A marriage without boundaries falls apart. A society without boundaries dissolves into factions. And yet, somehow, we’ve convinced ourselves that moral boundaries are uniquely dangerous, while pretending the psychological fallout doesn’t exist.

Jonathan Haidt’s research shows how this plays out. When “safetyism”, or harm avoidance, becomes the highest moral priority, the definition of harm expands until anything can count. Expectations hurt. Standards hurt. Disagreement hurts. This inflated sense of fragility is exactly what we see now. We have a population that is both hyper-sensitive and chronically distressed. A terrible psychological combination. People can’t tolerate discomfort, and they can’t find stability. They’re told to look to the self for their moral compass, but the self is what got them here.

The symptoms are real. The rise in anxiety, the inability to commit, the paralysis around decision making, the hostility toward accountability. When nothing is objectively right or wrong, people don’t become liberated, they become overwhelmed. Every choice becomes existential because there’s no stable framework to lean on.

Freya went on to acknowledge something powerful. Society loves celebrating the milestone of marriage. 25 years. 50 years. But hates acknowledging what built it. Sacrifice, grit, restraint, discipline. Those things require boundaries, and boundaries are incompatible with relativism. If my values and your values are all that exist, then no one is allowed to say that any set of behaviors is necessary for a stable relationship. So we glorify the outcome and denounce the process. It’s delusional and dishonest.

Here’s the harsh truth. Boundaries don’t suffocate us, they stabilize us. They give us a structure to push against so we can grow. They keep our impulses in check so we don’t destroy ourselves. They give meaning to our commitments, weight to our promises, and direction to our choices. Remove them, and you don’t get freedom, you get fog.

The Results

And fog is exactly what we’re living in. A society that treats morality as personal preference will inevitably wonder why they feel so detached. Why kids are anxious. Why adults feel lost. Why relationships crumble. Why communities can’t agree on anything. Why we’re constantly offended yet never fulfilled.

We don’t have a cultural crisis of compassion, we have a crisis of clarity. People are starving for direction while being told that direction itself is oppressive. They’re collapsing under the weight of freedom because freedom without structure is psychologically unbearable. It’s too much choice without any grounding.

Our Next Move

We need to stop pretending that moral relativism is harmless. It’s not. It’s a psychological toxin. It produces confused individuals and fragmented communities. It destroys resilience. It undermines accountability. It dissolves meaning. It rewards fragility and punishes strength.

We need to reclaim objective standards. Not because we want control, but because humans cannot function without them. Children need boundaries. Adults need responsibility. Communities need shared expectations. Society needs a common moral starting point, or it will tear itself apart.

This doesn’t mean returning to some rigid, nostalgic fantasy. It means recognizing the psychological truth that people thrive under clear structure and crumble under limitless freedom. Our greatest liberties are found inside boundaries, not outside them.

We can keep pretending relativism works, or we can face reality. One path leads to stability, resilience, and meaning. The other leads exactly where we are now. Resentful, anxious, and foggy.

It’s time to choose.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

Curiosity, Conversation, and the Quiet Collapse of a Divided Society

In Case You Missed Recent Articles

The recent “No Kings” protests garnered less attention than previous rallies. While it seems to be dying out, it still got my attention. I spoke with people who attended them, read write-ups on the protests, and watched various clips covering the day’s events. I was curious as to what exactly they were protesting. The results were baffling.

Some of the main points included:

  • Executive orders
  • Removing illegal aliens
  • Ignoring the constitution

I couldn’t help but think, where were these outcries when Biden was in office? These are some of the same things the other side were upset about when Biden was in office. I thought, why are they mad now, but not back then? And why are conservatives not mad now, but were back then?

Executive Orders

It is fair to say Trump has issued the most EOs in recent history. As of this writing, here are the EO numbers to date:

  • Trump – 220 in his first term and 255 so far
  • Biden issued 150
  • Obama issued 276.

All three president’s numbers warrant a tyranny label. For reference, James Madison issued 1 in eight years. One.

Deportations

Where were the “No Kings” rallies during the Obama administration? As of this writing, here are the deportation numbers by president:

  • Trump: approximately 1 million
  • Biden: approximately 1.5 million
  • Obama: approximately 3 million (Garnering the nickname Deporter-in-Chief)

Where was the deportation outrage among liberals from 2008-2024? There should have either been outrage this entire time, or no outrage now. And where are the conservatives now that were outraged during the terms of Obama and Biden?

When asked which constitutional amendment, provision, clause Trump is ignoring, the only answer I got was “All of them!” They simply could not answer it. They had no defense of their own. The binary approach is what is disingenuous. It’s not that they disagree with tyranny, it’s that their team isn’t in office.

There is a current issue with this on the other side. Conservatives are no better. Why aren’t more conservatives speaking out against the number of EOs? I understand the need for them, but the abuse is rampant and every president uses them like tyrannical building blocks. They have no place in a republic.

For the record, I haven’t seen much in the way of ignoring the U.S. Constitution on the part of Obama or Trump. Biden, however, trampled on it, particularly through Covid.

A Call to Action

So why are we only hearing about the president on the “other side?” (Reminder, you don’t have a side. They don’t care about you. And the sooner you realize this, the better off your mental health will be).

We must find a way to bridge this divide. The reality that we cannot see or understand those on the “other side” is quietly dissolving the moral and social fabric upon which our society depends.

Homophily is common. This is the tendency to interact with those similar to ourselves more often than those considered different. You see this every day. Think about who you’re drawn to.

  • Frequents the same establishments
  • Enjoys the same hobbies
  • Has a similar intellect
  • Similar familial situation
  • Political and religious worldview

What Research Says

Individuals tend to underestimate the extent to which dialogue with those holding opposing views can refine their thinking and enhance their understanding of complex issues. Multiple research studies suggest that individuals may underestimate their level of agreement with a piece of communication from across the political aisle.

  • People expect that listening to opposing views will be unpleasant (Dorison et al., 2019). This was found to be a forecasting error. Their assumption stood directly in their way, subsequently affecting information consumption.
  • They expect that others who do not share their views will respond negatively to them (Wald et al., 2024). They found that people underestimate the degree of common ground that would emerge in conversation and from failing to appreciate the power of social forces in conversation that create social connection.
  • People are afraid they will not feel heard by others during a conversation (Teeny & Petty, 2022). Feeling, in advance, that they will not be heard, they are significantly more reluctant to enter into conversation with anyone with opposing views.
  • Brand new research showed that each participant underestimated levels of depolarization after having a conversation with them about various topics: Dogs vs cats, cancel culture, Biden’s performance as president (Kardas et al., 2026). All had the same outcome. Another finding within this study was that if one was told that it’s been shown that polarization reduces after conversations with others with different viewpoints, their own polarization reduced, without the conversation ever having taken place. Just the idea that someone else may have a different view and that previous experiments showed most depolarized after discussions caused a solid shift in their own polarization. Each participant found unexpected areas of agreement when discussing issues typically viewed as polarized.
  • Todd Kashdan proposed that curiosity itself was a driving factor behind reluctance towards political conversation. His team found that people incorrectly assumed others would be closed-minded towards cross-aisle conversations. Yet when they discovered that their political in-group displayed more humility and open-mindedness than originally anticipated, their curiosity increased, leading to more fruitful and willing conversations across the aisle (Kashdan et al., 2025).

Tribalism Must Go

Moral of the story? You’re probably wrong. And so am I. And that’s ok. Let’s change. Tribalism is a cancer. It does no one any good. It becomes evident that we have misjudged the depth of our own intellectual flexibility, as well as that of others, underestimating our shared capacity to adapt, to remain curious, and to reshape our thinking in response to new evidence. I’ve been as guilty as anyone. I get caught up in, “They’re not going to listen to anything I have to say anyway, I’m not going to waste my time.”

Sometimes this is rooted in a quiet but powerful presumption that we already possess the truth, and that the task of the other is merely to recognize it and follow. In such a posture, curiosity is not only diminished but also displaced, though it may be the most essential element of all.

Such curiosity led me to here. Years ago, I decided to learn. Really learn. And the more I learned, the more I understood the premise behind Socrates’ claim, “I am the wisest among you because I know nothing.” He found that the more he learned, the more he realized how much was out there to learn. And he possessed a small, minute fraction of the information available. For me, this led to openness and curiosity. Which led to anti-tribalism.

As stated in my first book, America’s Great Threat: America, America won’t fall from the outside. It will collapse from within, foremost among the causes is a rigid, binary way of thinking that divides people and discourages curiosity.

End Tribalism!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Dorison, C. A., Minson, J. A., & Rogers, T. (2019). Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition, 188, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.010

Kardas, M., Nordgren, L., & Rucker, D. (2026). Unnecessarily divided: Civil conversations reduce attitude polarization more than people expect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000469

Kashdan, T. B., McKnight, P. E., Kelso, K., Craig, L., & Gross, M. (2025). Enhancing curiosity with a wise intervention to improve political conversations and relationships. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 40272–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-24021-8

Teeny, J. D., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Attributions of emotion and reduced attitude openness prevent people from engaging others with opposing views. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104373

Wald, K. A., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2024). Misplaced divides? Discussing political disagreement with strangers can be unexpectedly positive. Psychol Sci, 35(5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241230005

Posted on

The Diary of Existing Beliefs

Skepticism, Faith, and the Fear of Being Wrong

Wes Huff and Steven Bartlett

I watched the new Wes Huff interview on Steven Bartlett’s Diary of a CEO. Steven is one of my favorite podcasts to watch. He has the best guests and is genuinely curious. This one, however, had a bit of predetermined readiness for a duel. Steven was welcoming as always and asked questions in good faith, but he could not tolerate the way Wes was answering them. So he cut Wes off many times shortly into Wes’ reply.

This showed me he was looking for predetermined outcomes to the questions he was asking and when it didn’t go as planned, he shifted, as if to refocus the conversation on his own skepticism. Wes masterfully put every question to rest with facts and his overall interpretation of the events in question.

Let’s take a few of Steven’s objections for examples of what I’m referring to.

The Great Leap Backwards

The greatest leap was an early one. Steven comes out swinging concerning the time when the gospels were written. John was written approximately 40 years after Jesus’ death. Steven attempts to make the case that this would be hard to remember. If this is the standard, we must throw out almost every text written in the ancient world as fact.

Throw out all of the Roman Empire. All Greek philosophers. Socrates? Gone. His pupil Plato? Gone. Plato’s pupil Aristotle? Gone. Aristotle’s pupil Alexander the Great? Gone. The earliest manuscripts we have of anything being written about Alexander the Great was approximately 250 years after his death. But we hang on every word of it as the undeniable truth.

It would all have to go. But we would never do that. Why? Because we only want to throw out what challenges us.

Both or Neither

Then Steven suggests that there can’t be a God with all of the evil in the world. Here, Wes delicately handles this objection (much more diplomatically than I would have—realizing this interview was a setup for a duel) by illuminating the often agreed upon philosophy that if we acknowledge there is Evil, then we must agree there is Good. And also agree they have origins and authors. Again, he was trying to prove something false only to feed directly into its philosophical objectivity.

The Unmoved Mover

Steven then gets into the evolutionary debate. They both quickly agree on adaptation. But the idea of a transition from chimpanzee to human has yet to be remotely adequately explained. Beyond this, Steven kept referring to existing realities and variations of the existing realities while dodging the origin argument the entire time.

At one point, Wes begins to say that there must have been a beginning and Steven interrupts, again, to shift into his creative brain making sense of the world outside of the need for a God. Wes even alludes to Aristotle’s claim that while moving things are moved by other movers, it could not have begun by a mover. It had to have begun by an eternal, unmoved mover. There has to have been an origin story. But Steven kept dodging it.

The Holy Vending Machine

Lastly, Steven travels into the arena of prayer. He says what many say, “I have prayed for meaningful things that never came true. If there is a God, why would he not answer that prayer? And if He doesn’t answer prayer, then how great of a God could He possibly be?”

This is assuming…

  1. We have asked according to God’s will,
  2. We already know what God’s will is ahead of time,
  3. We somehow have an idea of what should happen regardless of how limited we are in our thinking.

God is not the Holy vending machine in the sky. “A4 – new job!” And prayer isn’t solely asking for things, although at times, it involves that.

The Lord’s Prayer

Allow me to briefly break down the Lord’s Prayer as an example:

  • Our Father who is in Heaven: This lays out that he is revealed to us as a father (paternal authority) and where he currently is. So when we pray, we know exactly to whom we are praying.
  • Holy is your name: This indicates that when we pray, we are speaking to a perfect God.
  • Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven: Here we see the idea that when we pray, we are to ask for what He wants, not what we want. We are also to ask God to bring what is in heaven here to earth. Eternal rewards in the afterlife are not enough.
  • Give us this day our daily bread: When we do ask, we should ask for what we need, not necessarily what we want.
  • Forgive us, as we have forgiven others: This one’s tough. If we haven’t forgiven others very well, we are saying, don’t forgive us either. The opposite is equally true.

It ends with recognition that He is the creator and ruler of all. None of that is easy, nothing suggests indulging the self, and all of it challenge us to aim towards and ineffable telos.

Conclusion

Steven wanted to be right. This is new for him. He usually wants to learn. So why was this different? I think the answer is simple. Christianity calls us towards a better way than the easy path in front of us; the easy path of rejecting notions of delayed gratification. Never mind that delayed gratification is a predictor of economic success. Christianity also rejects the self and requires us to acknowledge the intrinsic deficiencies we all possess. This is often too much for our current self-driven society to handle. Personally, I’m glad I grew up before they invented self-esteem.

Thankfully, Steven eventually gets to a place where he concedes that Wes really is a good guy, knows what he’s talking about, and genuinely means well. It ended better than it started. Maybe next time Steven goes in ready for a fight, he will pick someone less informed so he can win.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Don’t Throw the Message Out With the Mess-Ups

Logic Dies When Identity Speaks

Kid Rock & Bad Bunny

Do your best to read this with an open mind and an attempt to discover something new.

The Super Bowl halftime show was talked about more than the game. This has been the norm for the last few years. But this year, because of the strong political divide, there were two halftime shows. One for “each side.” This phrase alone is incredibly stupid to say. What’s a side? You have no side. They don’t care about you. And the fact that they’ve duped you into thinking you have a side that resembles any form of allegiance to you is stupefying.

So in come the predictable and tired political slogans and hateful rhetoric aimed at the “other side.”

“All Spanish! Yay diversity!”

“All Spanish?, we speak English!”

“It’s goIng to be sexy and lit!”

“It’s going to be vulgar!”

“Only thing more powerful than hate is love.”

“How many women does he love? His first song suggests too many!”

The next predictability were those praising the other halftime show. It was terrible. Lee Brice was ok. The others were very subpar. Until it got to Dr. Phil’s redneck cousin. Kid Rock was amazing. And I’m not a Kid Rock fan. Overall, it wasn’t a great show. But good luck telling that to MAGA.

“This was the best. Screw Bad Bunny!”

“I ain’t watching no Spanish show. ‘Merca!”

But the not so predictable part was when many turned on against Kid Rock for singing about Jesus.

The angle was that he, at one time, was a womanizer, and maybe even pedophile. There’s no evidence for the latter. But he was definitely the former. And wild. And crazy. And redneck. But like all people, we change. He did too, apparently. This takes me to my main point.

Tribalism Enters Center Stage

In one show, you have a man who is clearly currently a total womanizer who blatantly disrespects women and does an entire show about how every woman wants him and he does what he wants to them and leaves. But his most notable message was “The only thing more powerful than hate is love.”

On the other show, you have a character who has also ruffled some feathers, past and present, who ends up with a message saying “You can give your life to Jesus, till you can’t.”

Both artists controversial. Both have disreputable pasts. Both brought a strong positive message. This causes me to ask two questions?

  1. Why is one better (or worse) than the other?
  2. Why are we dismissing the message because of the messenger?

The only possible answer to the 1st question: Tribalism. And the answer to the 2nd question? See 1st question.

  • Solomon gave us the wisest book of the Bible.
  • King David gave us the most passionate book in the Bible.
  • Moses is the father of Jewish law and a foundational pillar of the Christian faith.
  • One left his first wife, hopped in bed with every chick this side of the Euphrates, decided to have multiple wives, who, eventually, were his downfall.
  • Another had an affair and killed her husband, who was his most loyal soldier, to cover up the affair.
  • Another killed a man because he got pissed off.

Do we throw their message out because of their mess-ups? I hope not. I have a lot of good things to say to help people live their best lives. But if you knew me in high school, you may not listen. Because I was a jack-wagon. Ernest Hemmingway and Robin Williams had plenty of good to say but ultimately couldn’t live by their own words. There have been many people in places of leadership that have positively altered the course of people’s lives, changing them forever, yet found themselves in a career-ending scandal.

There’s a strong psychological pull to dismiss a message once we discover flaws in the person delivering it. When someone lives inconsistently with what they teach, the instinct is to label everything they said as invalid. That reaction is understandable, but it isn’t always objective. Information can still carry value independent of the character of the person who delivered it. Sometimes the messenger is simply the vehicle. While the insight itself remains useful, constructive, or even transformative.

The tribalism has to end. There’s no real progress until we see through each other’s eyes.

I thank God every day there were no smart phones when I was in school. I thank God I’m forgiven. Thank God I’ve been given a second chance.

Don’t throw the message out with the mess-ups.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Information Correctly Examined

The Hidden Truth Behind Emotional Headlines

I realize it is uncharacteristic for me to jump into the legal realm, but my criminal justice minor comes out of hiding in certain situations, particularly if the law is being ignored or misrepresented. Knowing the facts behind any situation, juxtaposing those facts against the emission of information, and seeing clear and obvious incongruencies will cause me to write something like this. As a result, we will pause the 3-part series on men valuing marriage and interrupt the regularly schedule program for an important update.

We can all agree that the current crisis of illegal immigration, enforcement of such, and the violent protests that are taking place have captured America, at least in the short-term. We can also agree that loss of life is terrible, regardless of the circumstances. These were human beings coming to the rescue of other human beings (at least in their eyes, this was their intention). These are pure motives. Respectable. Honorable (sort of). But as Thomas Sowell once said, the only thing that made him realize Marxism was the wrong way to go was… Facts. And this is precisely where this story takes a turn, the facts.

Legal facts

Is the current operation lawful under the U.S. Constitution?

  • In Article I, it states that Congress is to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. From this, SCOTUS has inferred national sovereignty over borders.
  • In Article II, the executive branch is given authority to enforce such laws using entities available to it, such as ICE and DHS.
  • Because the courts have determined that immigration enforcement is a civil function and not criminal, immigration laws do not fall under Article III.

When did SCOTUS decide that?

It is vital that the public understand the clear distinction the courts have made between civil enforcement and criminal enforcement. If it were criminal enforcement, then Article III would come into play, granting rights to counsel, speedy trial, jury trial, etc. This is not needed for civil enforcement. Therefore:

  • ICE does not need to provide criminal-level due process.
  • Immigration courts are administrative courts, not Article III courts.
  • Standards of proof are lower.
  • Detention can occur pending proceedings.

The Recent Cases

Now that we have legal facts, let’s break down the facts from this lens for just a couple of recent cases (The Renee Good case is HERE).

Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias

This gentleman was being pursued by ICE for being in the U.S. illegally. Arias also had warrants for multiple criminal offenses. Upon realizing that he was being pursued, Arias fled his vehicle, leaving his son alone in the vehicle. The officers then helped the small child stay warm, provided him food, and sought to reunite him with family. Upon taking the child to a family residence, they refused to open the door and take this child in. Therefore, he has now been rejected by both his father and other family members. ICE then detains Arias, who then agrees to reunite with the child. They are placed in a residential facility together awaiting immigration trial.

When reading the facts, I don’t see detainment of a child, bait, deception on the part of ICE. I see a lawful federal operation.

Alex Pretti

This gentleman attended a protest with a camera and a pistol on his side. ICE agents were there to arrest a different individual. So far, Pretti had been peacefully protesting with a camera in hand. Upon attempting to arrest the targeted individual, Mr. Pretti ceased being peaceful and physically interfered with the arrest. This resulted in an attempt to detain Mr. Pretti for his actions, to which he physically resisted. While agents were attempting to detain him, another agent removed Pretti’s pistol and walked away. Immediately following this, Pretti reaches for his pistol, that he thought was still there, to avoid detainment using lethal force. Neither Pretti nor the agents knew that the pistol had been removed, based on both subsequent actions. ICE agents, believing there to be a pistol, fired shots.

Again, this is a simple case of someone violently interfering with a lawful federal operation, resisting arrest, and attempting to fire shots at an ICE agent. This is sad. Unfortunate. Needless. Preventable. Some say the administration should give ICE a break for a while and let the fury die down. And maybe they’re right. But when they attempt to do their job again, will someone physically attempt to interfere? Will someone hurt the ICE agents who are doing their job? Will someone else lose a loved one? How does culpability rest with those doing their lawful job in the face of unlawful mobs?

All loss is sad. Good’s loss is sad. Pretti’s loss is sad. And you may read this thinking, “This is so wrong!” And maybe you’re right. The solution to these tragedies is quite simple.

Solutions

Exercise your First Amendment right to peacefully protest. Peacefully means:

  • Do not block the road with your body or a vehicle.
  • Do not use your vehicle as a weapon.
  • Do not become physically involved with an ICE agent doing his/her job.
  • If you legally possess a weapon, do not reach for it at any time while being detained.
  • Protest with your right to vote

Hold your local leadership accountable for exacerbating anger by not allowing local authorities to assist ICE while fueling anger and division. Local leadership holds at least as much culpability for these tragedies as the individuals themselves for exercising poor judgment.

I am in full support of your right to detest the current administration.

I am in full support of your right to hate what ICE is doing.

I am in full support of your right to peacefully protest.

I cannot support physical interference with lawful federal operations. Either we have laws with consequences, or we have no laws.

So, do you still feel the same now as you did when answering the poll question?

Now, can we get back to talking about how much I love my wife?!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger