Posted on

“How Many Times” Should We Say We’re Sorry

This aticle is written for Christians about Christians. If you do not share this fundamental belief, that is fine. Just know that this is the framework from which it is written.

Every parent most likely has had this happen. You are supposed to be at a certain place at a certain time to pick up your child. And you forget. It happened to me. I was supposed to get my daughter from school, and I forgot. I wasn’t running late or stuck in traffic. I forgot. My mind was stuck on the tasks at hand and it just slipped my mind. My daughter was just hanging out with the teachers by the car rider line. She began wondering if I was ever showing up. I finally get a call, “Dad, you coming to get me?” This is one of the worst feelings as a parent. For a couple of reasons. You feel stupid for forgetting your own child. But you also feel terrible for your child who probably is dealing with some sort of embarrassment that their own parent isn’t on time. She gets in the car, and I begin apologizing incessantly. She listens carefully. When I’m done groveling, she just smiles and says, “It’s ok dad, I know you didn’t mean to.” And now you feel worse!

This wasn’t the last time I would have to apologize to her and hope she forgave me. And she did, every time. I often wonder how it was so easy for her to forgive me. How did she cognitively understand the genuine sorrow I felt when I had to apologize? As an adult, I see the difficulties in accepting apologies. You wonder if it’s sincere. You wonder if it means you need to just trust them in the future, but you don’t think you can. You don’t want to get hurt again, so you keep them at bay.

There is a clear difference between human forgiveness and divine forgiveness. Divine forgiveness is unconditional and designed to restore. God forgave me in order to draw me back to Him. Human forgiveness is simply removing the burden. I can forgive someone who is deceased. Because with human forgiveness, there is only one necessary participant, me. Forgiveness requires only me, restoration requires two parties. I can forgive you and not want to restore to you. There are many valid reasons why someone might not want to restore to a previous relationship. But what should we do with those apologies when they show up?

John Crist

Comedian John Crist found himself on the wrong end of a scandal a few years ago. He had built a brand of being the Christian comedian. But his lifestyle was revealed to not align with Christian teachings and values. Crist went public with his apology. He was genuinely sorry for those he hurt along the way. He understood that, for better or worse, fans of a celebrity get hurt when that celebrity breaks the trust of the fanbase. Should they hold celebrities in such high esteem? No. But they do. And they get hurt in the process. I’ve been around celebrities my whole life and they are aware of that pressure. It is part of what makes their life somewhat lonely, in spite of what many think.

Following Crist’s apology, many came out destroying him online. Saying that he wasn’t truly sorry. Saying that it didn’t matter if he apologized, he’s still a monster. Saying that he can’t change and that he’ll always be evil. These were the sentiments of many. I watched the apology video. It seemed genuine. But to many, it didn’t matter. I wondered how many times he would have to say sorry before someone believed him. And why is it necessary to repeat himself?

Michael Tait

Insert Michael Tait. Allegations circulated of sexual misconduct by the Christian singer. This began in 2024. Then in January, Tait abruptly left Newsboys and somewhat disappeared. His statement has recently been released and we now know where he has been since January. Rehab. He was abusing alcohol and abusing illegal drugs on a regular basis. Primarily cocaine. He released a full statement of admission, shame, and sorrow. Towards the end of the statement, he made a very well put and fair assessment of reality:

“To the extent my sinful behavior has caused anyone to lose respect or faith in me, in understand, deserve, and accept that. But it crushes me to think that someone who would lose or choose not to pursue faith and trust in Jesus because I have been a horrible representative of Him- for He alone is ultimately the only hope for any of us.“

-Michael Tait

I’m not going to get into the fact that I knew more than 10 years ago that Tait was conducting himself this way. I’m not going to address why he felt it was ok to do so then. I’m also not going to minimize his struggles with sexual propriety. We all have our own struggles. My dad says, “I sin differently than you.”

The real question here is, when is an apology enough, and when is it not enough? John Crist was not found of any legal wrongdoing, but he still hurt many people emotionally. I have no idea what Tait’s legal troubles will be. But regardless, he has hurt many people. Do we accept Tait’s apology? If so, why? If not, why not?

My personal belief here is that we should accept his apology, in the context of what our Bible says about forgiveness, and in light of the aforementioned human forgiveness vs. divine forgiveness. We should take Tait at his word. We should allow him the room and time to heal. One may have no reason to ever want to listen to his music again or be his friend again. And that’s a personal decision. But that person still needs to forgive him and move on. Maybe we need to act like my 7-year-old and get better at forgiving.

He said he’s sorry. We have no reason to believe he’s being insincere. He should not have to repeat himself ad nauseum. He should simply show us that he has truly changed and let his life be an expression of such change. As Believers, we should extend the same grace we were given in our darkest moments. Hurt people hurt people. But forgiven people forgive people.

Stay Classy GP (God’s People)!

Grainger

Posted on

Would the Real Jordan Peterson Please Stand Up

I have read the newest critiques of Jordan Peterson and his ill-advised appearance on 1 Christian vs. 20 Atheists on YouTube. Peterson was so vague in most of his responses that they had to change the name of the show to Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists. Many came away with more questions than answers. Most who watched and commented on it were bemused by Peterson’s refusal to place a stake in the ground. One thing is certain, whoever had the idea to put Peterson on a show entitled 1 Christian vs 20 Atheists did not think that through. It was a terrible idea. Those on Peterson’s team who did nothing to stop it also need to be held accountable. So, to be fair, the criticisms of Peterson in these exchanges are warranted, albeit some felt invigorated to “take him down” as if their worth increased if they were able to successfully dismantle such a brilliant thinker. I have “taken down” a few people in discussions and felt no such invigoration. I felt sadness. And if you feel anything less than sorrow after ruining someone’s day, you should get that checked out.

Jordan Peterson on 1 Christian vs 20 Atheists

So what does Peterson really believe? It’s not as complicated as one might think. First, to know the answer to this, you must know his temperament and personality type. (I laid out a more broad interpretation of who Jordan Peterson is HERE. This post will hone in on spirituality)

He’s Agreeable

Peterson is an agreeable person who greatly dislikes conflict. I know what you thought, “He runs to conflict!” No, he doesn’t. He avoids it like the plague until he has weighed out the consequences of not saying something.

He started his intellectual journey studying the vilest characters of modern history. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, (The Deadly Trio). In this endeavor, he discovered that there were a couple of patterns to their success:

  1. Lies. People were willing to tell lies incessantly and people were willing to blindly believe the lies. What the trio had in common was they were consistently selling lies that people were buying. As a result, Peterson always swore he would tell the truth at all costs.
  2. Silence. For those who knew there were major problems with what was going on in their society, they were silent. Few spoke up. For obvious reasons. They feared being killed for speaking up.

Because of this, Peterson always maintained a position of saying what needs to be said to avoid catastrophic outcomes in the future by telling the truth. It’s even one of the points in both of his 12 Rules books: The first book, 12 Rules for Life, “Tell the Truth, or at least don’t lie.” The second book, Beyond Order, 12 More Rules for Life, “Do not hide unwanted things in the fog.” This explains his need to speak out in spite of his propensity to avoid confrontation. It also explains his willingness to find ways to agree on positions that many think shouldn’t fluctuate. And maybe they’re right. It may not excuse it, but it explains it.

He’s searching

As with most people who reach that place in life where the end looks closer than is used to, we hit this existential crisis of sorts and begin thinking of what it all means in the end. Peterson is there. He began learning more about the Christianity he was exposed to as a child. And in typical Peterson fashion, he made psychological connections that allowed him to process what he was reading. Everything had to have a psychological parallel for him to make sense of it. His seminar on Genesis, Exodus, and the Gospels all had psychological underpinnings which enabled him to competently ascertain the benefits of such a religion. He took it a step further and began to determine that it made more sense that Jesus was who he said he was, and that the resurrection happened than it did to deny it. Logically. Philosophically. Psychologically. He is in search. For the deepest possible meaning.

He’s Humble

It is noted by most everyone that he consistently avoids the direct question of his claiming to be a Christian. And I think I know why. Sure, he has fits of anger and has problems with certain confrontations. He only desires thoughtful debate, and in good faith. Chances are, he went into this YouTube special with a preconceived notion they were not doing this in good faith. Remember, these were probably some of the same people, or the same type of people that thrust him into the spotlight by attacking his positions on free speech back when he was at the University of Toronto. He was incredibly uncomfortable during that period of his life and very possibly harbors some resentment from that experience. So he may have underestimated the level of his PTSD going into this show. But at the end of the day, he is a humble human being. He does not think himself to be better than anyone simply because of his education or status. He desires for everyone to seek to be better versions of themselves each day. That’s all he really wants out of life.

His humility comes as a slight detriment to his current effectiveness in the public sphere. One would have needed to follow him for some time to see what is happening here. He is so humble, that he cannot wrap his head around the idea that God in all of his perfection can love and embrace someone like him. Peterson can’t fathom the idea that all of his failures, slips, thoughts, can be forgiven and wiped away by such an ineffable God. This is his struggle. He will not place the stake in the ground for fear that he can’t live up to it. He, like many academics have opened the door to Christianity by way of reason, intellectual exploration, and cognitive education. What they have all yet to do is walk through the door that was opened. They have stepped into the doorway through reason, but they still need to walk through the door with faith. And that’s where it gets murky. You can’t measure faith. And often, faith looks ridiculous.

Peterson was not the right guy to be doing that show on YouTube. Wesley Huff would have been much better. Peterson is still exploring. Spiritual exploration is messy. It’s murky. It’s plagued with confusion and even cognitive dissonance at times. But at the end of the day, Jordan Peterson wants what we all want. A thriving society of people acting in good faith and learning to become better versions of ourselves. He is peaking through the door of Christianity but still can’t fathom God being accepting of Jordan Peterson in all of his humanity. Therefore, he refuses to claim the tag “Christian.” It doesn’t excuse his inability to have civil discourse with people who disagree with him, but it does explain where he’s coming from. That’s the real Jordan Peterson.

Stay Classy, GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Returning Rabbit

Are bunny rabbits cute? Sure they are. So let’s talk about them. One group of researchers took babies between the ages of 3 months and 7 months old and conducted an experiment. They put on a puppet show with little stuffed bunnies. They were wearing various colored shirts. The primary bunny had a gray shirt on. He was trying to get an item into a box and needed help. Along came a bunny with a blue shirt and helped the gray bunny get the item in the box. Nice thing to do. They did the scenario again, but this time a bunny with an orange shirt came and closed the box so the gray bunny could not get the item in. Not so nice. Afterwards, they presented the blue and orange bunnies to the baby and allowed them to choose which one to pick. Over 80% of the babies chose the blue bunny. They instinctively knew the blue bunny was good and the orange bunny was mean.

Next, they had a yellow bunny and a green bunny involved. First, the baby was to choose a food item, a golden graham or a cheerio. Let’s use the cheerio for this scenario. The baby chose a cheerio. Then the yellow bunny chose a cheerio. Next, the green bunny chose the golden graham saying the cheerio was bad. Again, they presented the bunnies to the baby and over 70% of the babies picked the bunny that chose the same food they selected.  

This last experiment is where it gets interesting. They used the bunnies who chose the food items, yellow and green, and conducted the first experiment. For instance, the baby chose the cheerio, and the yellow bunny had also chosen the cheerio. The yellow bunny approached the gray bunny and slammed the box shut so that the gray bunny could not get the item into the box. While the green bunny helped the gray bunny get the item into the box. This produced an internal dilemma for the babies. They liked the good bunny in the first experiment. They liked the bunny that chose the same food they liked. But what happens when the bunny that chose the food they liked is the bad bunny in the next experiment? When presented with the yellow and green bunny in the situation I just presented, the baby still chose the yellow bunny who selected the same food as the baby, even though the yellow bunny had been mean to the gray bunny.

What does this mean? The baby chose what was familiar over what was good. In fact, most babies in this experiment chose what was familiar over what was good. This indicates a natural tendency in humans to choose the familiar over the moral or ethical. The implication for human behavior is that when we encounter adversity in our lives, we quickly return to whatever is familiar. We like, and ultimately choose, whatever is familiar because there is safety in this. We recognize this. It shields us from the unknown. If abuse is familiar, this is what we will return to. We are quicker to return to abuse if we a) don’t know our worth and b) possess too much empathy for our abuser, also known as identification with aggressor (IWA).

Setting the tone for our children to learn and fully understand who they are and their worth is vital to adequate development. They must be taught what their actual value is. If they are not taught by parents, someone else will teach them, and it will likely be wrong. When we believe we have more worth than we actually do, this causes problems, as we overestimate our abilities, as seen in the Dunning-Kruger effect. When we believe that we have less worth than we do, this causes problems in assertiveness, standing up for ourselves, and allowing others to take advantage of us personally and professionally. The solution is simple. Who is God in you? That is the question. If we truly understand that we are nothing without God, but we are everything with Him, this gives us proper perspective. I have accepted this perspective, and subsequently, I do not allow someone to offer me less than what I deserve, but I simultaneously do not believe I am owed more than I deserve either. When you do not understand your worth, you allow things to happen to you that you would never normally allow if a) you knew your actual worth and b) it wasn’t previously familiar.

Another aspect of this conversation is empathy. Too much empathy can be absolutely poisonous. Empathy has a dark side to it that discriminates against anything or anyone not in perfect alignment with the individual you are currently showing empathy for, even in the face of moral or even legal dilemmas. This happens in the context of this subject as women try to show empathy to their abuser, believing there are good parts of them and they choose to focus on those aspects of the person they are in a relationship with. In this case, empathy drives IWA and blinds them to the reality of the boundaries this person has obliterated, in the name of empathetic dysfunction. A pre-covid study was done on this subject. Victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) were surveyed, and it was discovered that over 66% of women had reported to have left and returned to an abusive relationship once and 97% reported to have left and returned multiple times. There are many reasons for this, but the primary reason is not knowing your worth. It is fair to suspect these numbers are even higher post-covid.

This only highlights the need for parents to instill in our children good habits and good interpersonal perspectives. My parents forced me to go to church when I was younger. Then later, when life became very difficult, I returned to what I knew, church. Whatever you instill in them as a child, they will return to when things get tough. My parents made sure that I knew that I could accomplish great things, while understanding my place in the home and in the world, all while putting me in the position to return to healthy practices when life did what life does. Set your children up for success by instilling a balance of knowing who they are and who they are not. This will take care of the self-esteem issue and knowing their worth will help them avoid many obstacles in life.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Objective Truth Hurt My Feelings

Here is a fair question. How is that we have both a massive rise in mental health cases like never seen before and more mental health professionals than ever before? If we have more mental health professionals than ever before, then we should have fewer cases of mental health issues. That’s the logical assumption. But that’s not what’s happening. We have both an increase in mental health cases and more mental health professionals than ever before.

So how did we get here? To answer this question, we must look at the differences in the overall value structure in societies before the mental health crisis explosion and after. Because what we value is what we will espouse, pursue, and emit into the world. Our values point us towards an end goal, whether we realize what that goal is and regardless of whether it is a positive and uplifting goal or a negative and destructive one.

The value and belief system of yesteryear is one of simplicity. Boys and girls grow up in school together, use different bathrooms, understand that their issues are different, and respect and appreciate the inequality of boys and girls. The values and beliefs of the past espouse the notion that where I lack, my neighbor will fill in the gap until I can stand again on my own. The community raises our children. If there was a problem with a teacher, we were instructed that we were the problem (if indeed we were, and we were most of the time). We all play a part and live closely by the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In the midst of this, if someone in our community was out of line, we stepped in to help right the wrong. If it hurt your feelings, so be it. You were better for it afterwards. Men could accomplish things that their wives couldn’t. And likewise, women could accomplish things their husbands couldn’t. And that was ok.

The values have shifted. Now, boys can go into girls’ bathrooms. Girls can join the “boy” scouts. Read that again. Now girls believe they can do anything a boy can do causing boys to react citing they can do anything a girl can do, neither of which is correct. Today’s values say take care of yourself because you can trust no one. Today’s belief system says that you can’t say anything to my children or there will be consequences. If there is a problem with a teacher, it has to be the teacher’s fault. Today’s golden rule is “He who has the gold makes the rules.”

Wives believe they can do absolutely everything their husband can do, allowing for no individualism, cooperation, negotiation, and contribution by both parties. As a result, this goal of “equality” emasculates their husband and leaves him feeling useless and worthless, which contributes to divorce. Men and women simply are not equal and appreciating that and utilizing one’s strengths where their partner is weak, and vice-versa, makes a relationship thrive long term. There is so much science that proves this.

Today we are so afraid of hurting anyone’s feelings that are willing to allow a total falsehood to control the narrative of human existence. We will deny thousands of years of objective science, thousands of years of learning and figuring out which way is the best way, and thousands of years of believing that we are not the highest being in the universe so that one person won’t have their feelings hurt.

How did we get here? We removed objective truth from our society. When I throw a ball in the air, it will come down. If a fetus has XY chromosomes, it will be male. Subjective versus objective can be explained this way: Merle Haggard is a great singer. That is a subjective truth. I believe that but my wife doesn’t. Merle Haggard has won multiple Grammy awards. That is objective. Regardless of how my wife feels about that, it is a verifiable, objective truth.

Some objective truths that we have let slip away include differences in sexes, appreciating the two genders, the family system is the best unit on earth for sustaining a society, the best possible environment for a child to be raised is in a low-conflict home with two biological parents, and the fact that religiosity balances, sustains, and causes any society to flourish. It promotes well-being, community, helping those in need, and unselfishness.

But we are so afraid of hurting someone’s feelings that we ignore these facts and tell outright lies. By “we”, I mostly mean mental health professionals. Although “we” as parents and societal members can also be included. And by outright lies, I mean telling society that a child being raised in a single-mother home is the same as being raised by two parents. My children don’t get to be in this category. I am divorced and remarried. That hurts my feelings. But it is a fact, regardless of how I feel about it. Or that males should be allowed to compete in female’s sports because we don’t want to hurt their feelings of being confused and qualifying for a mental health disorder, according to the DSM-V manual. This is where feelings override solid facts that point you towards healthier living. Healthier living requires that we die to one belief in order to make room for another. That requires that we hear something uncomfortable and are forced to acknowledge it and evaluate it for validity.

Regarding religiosity, when you believe you are the highest order of being in your universe, you are aware of your humanity, aware of the mistakes that you can and have made, and this frightens you. Therefore, you are either frozen in fear and refuse to take risks, or you are completely nihilistic about it and take far too many risks. Neither are good. When you believe in a higher power (God), you understand that you make mistakes but follow the One who doesn’t. You are willing to take risks, but not catastrophic risks. You understand that you have an ultimate goal to reach for, thereby making you better each day than you were the day before. You acknowledge your shortcomings, but chase the perfect One, which only makes you better, which makes your family better, which makes your community better, and so on.

We MUST return to a belief in an objective truth. Facts. Facts that say that discipline reroutes a child to success from where they were otherwise headed. Gentle parenting does not work. Facts that include teaching children that they are not the most important person in the universe and the world isn’t about them. It’s about others. Children are growing up believing they are so important that when they find out that they really aren’t, it is causing a mental health breakdown. These are measurable, scientific facts. There is an argument for and against objective morality. You can read that HERE.

Once we return to facts, even if it hurts someone’s feelings, objective truth, belief in something higher (God), we will begin to see the mental health crisis start to subside. Until then, we still have more mental health cases and more mental health professionals than ever before, which makes no logical sense. Bring logical sense back.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Where Two or Three are Gathered to Witness

We have all heard people say, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I will be with them” (Matthew 18:20). We have all most likely said it in our lifetime. “Father, I know you’re here because you said where two or three are gathered…” Having said that, I have rarely, if ever, heard this verse quoted in its correct context. I have been guilty of misquoting it myself. I think we all have. But learning to read the Bible in context helped me with many things I was struggling to understand. Think about it, if it takes two or three, does this mean God isn’t there until then? So when I’m by myself, God doesn’t show up? I can easily find verses that say He is there when I’m by myself. So that would be contradictory.

This verse is mostly used to imply that when two or three people are gathered, you now get to enjoy the presence of God. It is also used to justify “forsaking the assembly, as so many are in the habit of doing.” Yes, they justify not being part of a local church with this verse, taken completely out of context. In order to get the true context, we must read Matthew chapter 18, verses 15-20.

First, these verses have absolutely nothing to do with the church. He does use the word Ekklesia, but He is not referring to the “two or three” people mentioned later. The church was only mentioned as a way of handling conflict. So “two or three” is not referring to a local church or a church gathering of any type.

Next, it is not referring to the presence of God. The presence of God is ever-present, according to Psalm 46:1. So you don’t need two or three in order for God to be present. He is omnipresent, according to Psalm 139:7.

This leaves us with what Jesus is actually talking about. He is referring to conflict and discipline. It is a very practical matter for a practical people. His audience was most likely people who understood the Torah, because he was referring to it. Jesus says that if someone sins or falls, we are to go to them and point it out to them. Now wait, I thought we were to never judge? Another misconception. We are only to never judge non-believers. But other fellow believers, we are certainly to judge each other, according to this verse and many others.

Jesus then continues and says that if they won’t listen, take one or two others along so that every word that is said is said in the presence of witnesses. This was very practical and not new to the listeners. Again, Jesus was quoting the Torah. The passage is from Deuteronomy 19:15. This was the law handed down by Moses. It was put in place to prevent someone from being prosecuted by one person. It would be unfair and unjust for one person to hand down judgment. So they put this practice in place to prevent an unjust prosecution from happening and Jesus was echoing this law. Jesus then says that if they still won’t listen, take them to the Ekklesia (derived from two words meaning called and out of, the gathered people of God- the church) and if they still refuse, treat them as a tax collector (or someone who just does not know God).

One thing to keep in mind in all of this, treating someone as if they do not know God means, according to Jesus’ other teachings, that we are to love them, accept them where they are, teach them through our example of living, but not allow them to be in leadership positions. That’s how non-believers were to be treated. They are to be taught and loved but not to teach in the church. This is important because recently, someone took to social media to chastise a church for not letting them be in a leadership position because they were knowingly living in a life of consistent sin and not letting the very verses we are discussing play out. She was told of her sin. She has chosen to deny that she is living in such sin. The Bible then teaches that we are to treat them as thought they do not know God. They can no longer be in a position of leadership or authority. When this church did exactly what the Bible teaches, she took offense. And many came to her defense. The real problem was that she was already in this place of leadership and they recently decided to remove her. And for that, this church was wrong.

So after Jesus says all of this about pointing out sin, taking it to them, then with two or three witnesses, per the Torah, then to the Ekklesia, then treated as a tax collector, Jesus then says that “whatever they agree on and ask for, It will be done for them”, meaning that the conflict at hand has been resolved. He then says, “Where two or three gather in my name, I am with them.” The two or three Jesus is speaking of are the witnesses to the conflict and discipline. Jesus is basically saying, “Follow the Torah. This law is good. Once you have followed what God has commanded, I will be there to deal with the consequences, whether positive (“they agree on”) or negative (“They still won’t listen”).

Now that we know the context of this, it makes sense with the description of the church in Acts 2, Ephesians 4, Hebrews 10, and Hebrews 13. It also makes sense with the verses in Psalm 46 and Psalm 139. It all fits. But only in context. And it teaches a good lesson on how to deal with conflict and discipline with love.

So next time someone says, “Where two or three are gathered…”, you can respond by asking what they witnessed. Stay informed. Read the bible in context. Taking scripture out of context only hurts us and those around us. In context, it displays truth, and the “Truth shall set you free.”

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

I’d Like To Place an Order for God

It seems here lately I’m seeing an unusual amount of people asking about churches in my area. And with these requests are some disturbing patterns. Every post asking for recommendations has a laundry list of demands for what they need in a church. Only from the King James Bible. Soft music only. Only reading, no opinions. Once saved, always saved. One said, “mostly traditional, but some contemporary.”

Are we ordering from Burger King now? We get to have it our way? I feel like we are making a list of demands on God, and if He doesn’t meet them, we aren’t going to serve Him. “I need a 2:15-ish service. With a coffee bar that has pumpkin spice lattes with half and half and a sprinkle of nutmeg fixed to the perfect temperature. This will lead me closer to God.”

Here is a fair series of questions, what happens when God doesn’t accommodate all that? Is that God’s fault? What happens when God makes us uncomfortable? Do we immediately assume it’s not God?

If you are truly wanting to serve God, it will be uncomfortable. There will be times when the temperature in the room and the coffee aren’t perfect. There will be people there that you don’t like. The pastor WILL say something you don’t like (If he’s delivering God’s word). Someone at the church WILL offend you.

If you are looking for the perfect church with the perfect pastor and perfect people, you will be looking for a very long time. And if you find it, don’t join because YOU will ruin it.

In my many years of walking with God, I’ve learned that God is not interested in making us comfortable. Not at all. If we are comfortable, either we get a momentary break from real life, or we are missing something that God is doing. Your comfort is not on God’s to-do list. Your transformation is. Your denial of a long-held belief, thus making room for a revelation that God was wanting to show you… that’s on His to-do list.  

Majoring on minors won’t get us anywhere as a people. It’s just more division. Dunk, sprinkle, traditional, contemporary, bright, dark, big, small, doctrinal creed, just say yes… at the end of the day, it ends up at the same place, are we closer to Jesus? A sprinkle or a dunk won’t make the difference. Pursuing Jesus like we pursued our spouse or best friend will. Reading about Him, talking to and about Him, listening to others who know Him talk about Him, this will bring us closer to Jesus. And that’s ALL THAT MATTERS.

I’m not suggesting one way is better than another. You can dunk or sprinkle. I don’t care. But I am suggesting that if you are making a list of demands on God and His house, then that house is the least of your concerns.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Thou Shalt Not Cheat on Your Test

Should the Ten Commandments be in Louisiana schools?

The answer to this question has multi levels.

  • What relevance would the Ten Commandments have for a school?
  • Does this violate the separation of church and state?
  • What is Separation of Church and State?
  • Are there any judicial precedents for this?

Let’s start with relevance. They are foundations for good behavior. They are pillars of how the founding fathers of America sought to build a great nation. While the first four are religious based, number five, “Honor your father and mother” seem to be of the most important among most anyone who studies behavior (and/or religion). Numbers six, seven, eight, and nine (murder, adultery (grounds for divorce), theft, perjury- respectively) have legislation attached to them in our nation. So, are they relevant? It appears as though they are. Children need these principles in their lives. And often, they are not getting this instruction at home.

Does this violate the separation of church and state? Great question. It is first important to present the fact that “Separation of church and state” does not appear in the constitution. It was a phrase that was made popular when Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to members of the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut. Why did he write that? Another good question.

A monument with the Ten Commandments stands on the grounds of the Haskell County Courthouse in Stigler, Okla., Wednesday, April 26, 2006. A federal lawsuit challenging the marker’s location comes amid a prickly national debate over displays of Ten Commandments on public property. (AP Photo/Brandi Simons)

The founding fathers knew a couple of things that informed and swayed their decisions when putting together the founding principles of America. They knew that where they came from, and all other countries as well, the government had formed an alliance with the church that caused the church to become as corrupt as the government. This, along with the church of the time espousing the idea that rituals, giving, and acts were what gained you entry into heaven, ignited the Protestant Revolution. Again, the government urged the church to continue to preach this message of acts gaining your way to heaven so that the government could heavily tax their people and the church’s parishioners would believe that this was directly tied to their heavenly reward. More collusion. More corruption. The Protestant Revolution ensued.

This revolution of free speech, individualism, and believing that you are saved by grace and not through works led the founders to consider something no one had ever considered. They chose to be the first country in the history of the world to NOT have an established religion. This had never been done. They simply wanted the church to be a pure place where one could worship freely, and the government wouldn’t have official strongholds over the church and its people. This revolution also brought about their belief that the government must be limited. This is why the U.S. Constitution is a document written for the purpose of limiting the government. For more on the foundations of America, how we became a country, and what it will take to bring America down, go grab my book HERE.

Therefore, the separation of church and state applies to establishing an official religion for the state. This still has never been attempted in America. So why is this such a big issue? Because some forgot how we were founded as a country. But just to be sure, in Van Orden v. Perry (545 U.S. 677, 2005), it was ruled that a “reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State endorsed religion.” One objection to this is that Van Orden v. Perry applies to a state capitol building and not schools. The obvious rebuttal here is that the ruling and precedent applies to anyone within The State (government), including buildings and schools.

This leads us to one conclusion, if the Ten Commandments are displayed for historical context rather than a call to an established religion, they do not infringe on any part of the First Amendment, including the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. If Van Orden v. Perry holds up, Louisiana will not have to reverse its decision to post the historical monument.

The commandments themselves, regardless of your religious belief system, foster a behavior that promotes good will towards others, respectfulness, and kindness. Think about it, you’re being asked to believe in something greater than you, to not put your faith in things, to not speak ill about anyone’s God or beliefs, to rest when necessary, to honor your parents, don’t kill, steal, or commit adultery, don’t slander others, and don’t wish for what others have to the point of it being unhealthy. This all sounds reasonable. Surely, this can’t be a bad thing. But what do I know, I‘m just a writer, father, husband, mental health counselor, and overseer.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Is There an Objective Morality?

Is there such a thing as objective morality? This is one of those questions that requires perspective. One could make a case that one’s sense of objective morality is in fact rooted in subjectivity, making it subjective morality and no longer objective.

For instance, if one says God is their objective morality, someone else could say that this is a belief, which is, in itself, subjective. There’s a strong case for this. So I’ll take a slightly deeper dive into this.

The term objective morality is the belief that there are morals and values that can be true and exist completely irrespective of individual opinions or cultural norms. As you’re reading this, you’re thinking that everyone disagrees on certain issues of values and norms, so they have to be subjective. For instance, it is immoral for a woman to get an education in some parts of the world. But in others, it is welcomed. They don’t agree.

The reality in this argument has two places of interest. Verbiage and Perspective.

In verbiage, we find that many believe that everything is subjective. No two people agree on absolutely everything. Therefore, there cannot be an objective set of values and morals. But the verbiage is off. The term objective morality never says that two people must agree on everything. It merely states that values and morals can exist outside of individual opinion. So, for example, there are no cultures in which you can steal someone’s property and it be widely accepted. It is objectively wrong to harm another human (outside of defense).

I once read some philosophy on this subject and saw two good points of view. First, let’s look at slavery. While there are still areas of slavery in the world today, no one will openly state that it is a good thing or a moral thing to be a slave owner. Everyone inherently knows it is wrong. Therefore, the objective morality around slavery exists. And if it exists anywhere, then it exists. It is the common sense theory. There are certain common sense areas where there is objective morality.

Another point of view is that when two people disagree over something, it is something subjective. But people won’t disagree over something objective. I love listening to Merle Haggard. My wife does not. The idea that he’s a great singer is a subjective principle. The idea that he has won Grammys is an objective principle. We won’t argue over whether he won Grammys. This is objectivity. This notion alone brings about the reality of an objective morality. If we can’t steal without causing harm, and we can’t enslave without causing harm, and we won’t argue over this being immoral, then it is based on an objective morality.

The other place of interest is perspective. This one is as simple as the first. If you have the perspective that there is no possibility of an objective morality, then there is nothing to stop you from taking what you want and doing what you want without limitations on your behavior. You have no guide, no standard, no measuring stick. Nothing is off limits. This will inevitably produce strife, recklessness, chaos, pain, heartache, and suffering of all sorts. Anyone that’s lived for any amount of adulthood time knows this. Therefore, the perspective must be that there is a standard by which we all live. There must be an objective morality. Or at least there must be the perspective of an objective morality. The only real question for many is where this objective morality would derive from. My favorite psychologist, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, once said, “I live as though there is a God.”

As Christians, we believe this objective morality comes from God and God’s word to us. But again, there is this perspective thing that creeps its head into the church. For instance, Calvinism. Calvinism is the belief that God already knows everything, everything has already been determined, and your life is a predicted outcome of circumstances and events that will not change God’s predetermined mind as to who enters the kingdom of heaven. The premise was that one should live hoping to be that soul. There is a case to be made that this is factually true. However, the problem with this line of thinking is obvious. If your perspective is that God has already chosen who enters heaven, then it doesn’t matter how you live. There again, you find yourself having no limitations on your behavior, leading you right back down that hole of despair and brokenness. I must say that if there is not a single source of objective morality from which you pull your belief system from, you are bound to be misled into a way of thinking that is not grounded in fact or anything helpful to society. Again, for me, it is God. The system of God and Christianity leads me to a place of being the best version of me if I follow the teachings. I firmly believe the denial of an objective morality is the denial of evil, and we all know evil exists. God has never steered me wrong before. I don’t expect Him to anytime soon.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Shame on You

I can remember as a kid, we went to Showbiz pizza. It was basically a Chuck E. Cheese. I was probably around 7 years old. I go to the bathroom. As I’m about to walk out, a woman walks in. I look at her, with full confidence and say, “You’re in the wrong bathroom. This is the boys.” She said, “No, it’s not. Check the sign.” I looked at the sign and to my horror, it said “Ladies.” And to make it worse, there were some kids I didn’t know nearby and saw the whole thing. They started laughing at me.

I then knew what it felt like to be shamed. Shamed for going into the wrong bathroom. No, this is not a blog about Target. I avoided that meaningless nonsense altogether. If you don’t know which bathroom to go in, we don’t have much to talk about.

Throughout life, I’ve seen people be shamed repeatedly. Sometimes it’s warranted. Like when they knowingly committed an awful crime and are only sorry that they got caught. Shame should be the reaction. But most of the time, it is not warranted.

When birth control was invented, improved, and became affordable, this caused more women to be able to enter the workplace. And, as predicted, many men had an issue with this. And also predictably, these women were shamed for not wanting to stay home. The problem here was that those that were shaming them for wanting to go to work were not aware of their daily issues.

All of this took place in the 1960’s. Birth control. More women entering the workplace. And men becoming more and more absent.

Originally, men being absent had a real reason, the war. Whether it was WWII or the Vietnam War. But this wasn’t even the worst of it. President Johnson read a report called the Moynihan Report and made a drastic response to it. President Johnson then proceeded to incentivize single mothers for being single mothers. These women would get more money and not have to work as long as they had children and had no man in the home. So they had as many children as they thought they could handle. The results were staggering, yet also somewhat predictable. There was an explosion of babies that grew up not knowing their fathers. But if you thought this only affected the black community, wrong. Prior to this policy, 8% of white babies were born to single mother homes and 25% of black babies were born to single mother homes. After this policy, white families born to single mothers rose to 25% and black babies born to single mothers rose to 75%. They both TRIPLED. And here you have the beginning of the epidemic of fatherless homes. Crime statisticians had plenty to do following this radical response to a report.

As a result of this, mothers were left to figure this out on their own. So with birth control becoming an affordable option within reach of almost any woman that wanted it, they were now able to go and work and not try to rely on the man, who would often use their position of breadwinner as a power play to mistreat their wife. The shaming began… by who? Men. Towards who? Working women. The very men that were walking out on their families were shaming women for bettering themselves. For obvious reasons. They were losing power.

Following the American Revolution, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John Adams, and said, “In the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.” To which the future President of the United States replied, “We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems.” Of course men were furious at women working more.

Thus began the nonstop shame. Working women were ridiculed everywhere. Eventually, there were more female lawyers, more female representation than male in almost any university in America, and more men ditching their responsibilities than ever before. At some point, the table turned completely. Women began meeting men that were staying home and taking on their duties as husband and father. Men were providing, but not abusing. They were protecting but not dictating. They were directional but loving. This new man was something women longed for but hadn’t seen in a while, if ever. But he came along and caused many women to simply want to be a mother and housewife.

I read the transcripts from Harrison Butker. He’s a Catholic, speaking at a Catholic school, about Catholic issues. To expect anything other than that is very delusional. The response from the “Love is Love” crowd was anything but loving. Having said that, I don’t agree with his stance on IVF or birth control. But I also didn’t raise hell about his speech. Because Catholics all have the same stance on birth control and IVF. But in the flip of a switch, the shaming that once was abhorrent to society, was now ok as long as it was aimed at women who wanted to stay home and be wife and mother. This cannot be ok.

Shaming a woman for being a working woman, CEO, Attorney, (insert any career here) is uncool, self-righteous, and just mean. Along with that, shaming women for wanting to be a wife and mother only is equally as wrong. It is just as noble to want to make a lot of memories with your children as it is to make a lot of money for your family. So when Butker applauded the women for their accomplishments and also, at the same time, acknowledged that some of them may end up wanting to stay at home, there was literally nothing wrong with this.

And what was America’s response? Butker’s women’s jerseys are sold out. Apparently, they really do want to be a wife and mother as long as they have a man that will handle the other stuff and not be abusive along the way.

Leave the shame out. Let people be who they are. Even when (especially when) you don’t agree with them.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

A.C.T.

During my time in the music industry, I ran into so many people who looked as though someone had taken them out back and whipped them repeatedly. They looked dejected, worn down, and defeated. For some, it took over. They lost their record deals, their families, and in some cases, their lives. I had a couple of good mentors in the industry that pointed this out and told me to be careful of this happening to me. As a result, I learned from some of the best and managed to figure out how to manage the stress of the industry.

At the time, I was learning how to survive the music industry, but the principles that I was learning from others and what God was showing me was more universal than just the music industry. What I learned in that time was how to cope with being in a visible position. This applies to any visible position. Music artist, TV personality, pastor, professional athlete, CEO, any visible position where people tend to view you in a higher social status and tend to “brown nose” to get close to you in hopes that they too will be viewed in this higher social status.

One thing I learned is that everyone will compliment you. Constantly. “You’re the best singer ever!”, “You’re amazing!”, or “If you don’t make it, I’m moving back home!” These were some of the things I heard through the years. A couple of things I learned from this. First, we were never meant to take on that much praise. Verbal encouragement is a necessary dichotomy. In the right doses, it’s needed. Too much, and it’s costly.

The reason for this is that compliments were designed to benefit the giver. As we know, God is a giving God. So God made us in His image. Therefore, when we give, we benefit. It’s His design. From a physiological angle, God designed it so that we release a neurochemical called oxytocin whenever we either do something generous for someone or even when we witness it. It’s a feel-good chemical. And it only gets released by kind, generous acts and touch, like when you shake a hand, pat on the back, or hugs. So again, God made us to give. Therefore, the compliment benefits the giver. The compliment is a burden to the recipient. We weren’t meant to take on large amounts of praise. As you see, this is why it’s a necessary dichotomy.

This is what kills most people in visible positions. It is incredibly easy to begin to wear the accolades thrown in your direction. Everyone wants to be near you. They want to throw compliments at you hoping you will return the favor and invite them into your circle. It feels good when they say kind things about you. And what many do is they put those compliments on like a coat and wear them around. Not realizing that this coat is poisonous. It begins to erode your sensitivity to what’s right and true. You begin to think you are the reason for your success, not God.

The only way to properly handle all of this is to A.C.T. First, we must Acknowledge. We must acknowledge that the compliment is for the giver and a burden to the recipient. We just discussed that. The next thing is to Collect. When we are given compliments, we should collect them and proverbially set them to the side. Don’t display false humility, “It’s not me, it’s only God.” No one wants to hear that. Just say thank you and set it to the side for later. Collect all of the kind things that people are saying about you.

And lastly, Transfer. When the dust settles on the event, and you are finally able to get away and get alone for a few minutes, take all of those compliments you set to the side earlier, get alone with God, and offer them up to Him saying, “Look at what they said about YOU.” See, those compliments were meant for God, not you. If you keep that perspective, you prevent yourself from ever believing the lie that they are about you. Then you remove the burden of the compliment. Jesus said to cast all of our cares and burdens onto Him. Here’s your chance.

I’m firmly convinced that this is what killed Elvis. He was getting it from every direction. And I don’t believe it was intentional. But I believe that no one ever taught him how to manage this and he just went on instincts. And left to our instincts, we will believe what people say about us. He believed it to the point where he became almost untouchable. He fired a bodyguard who was his close friend before he ever became famous. This guy had been with him from the very beginning and in 1976, one year before Elvis’ death, Elvis fired him for caring about Elvis and suggesting that he was taking too many pills. He had become “too big.” Elvis did not know how to handle the pressure. He never turned it over to God. In defense, Elvis did make an attempt. He would get the band together before every show and sing hymns. This was his way of refocusing before a show. But it wasn’t enough. He died… from those pills.

If you or someone you know is in a place of visibility, pass this on to them. If the place of visibility and power isn’t handled correctly, it will get to you and destroy you. We must maintain that the gifts are from God. Therefore, the compliments are for God. If you’ve never tried to A.C.T., then give it a try. I dare you.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger