Posted on

How Perspective Shapes Determinism Through Compatibilism

The Free Will Debate

L-R, Socrates, Descartes, Daniel Dennett

This is in response to a 3–part series written by Dr. Steve Stewart-Williams. This post is a bit more philosophical than usual. I’m not smart enough to have real philosophical conversations, but I can converse on the subject of free will and how it applies to our everyday lives. Please know that this is written from the perspective of a Christian. So my angle is often from my belief, both intellectually and experientially, in the Judaic God.

We are in the process of looking for a house to buy. If you have ever done this, you know the next statement. It has been tumultuous to say the least. The ups and downs of buying a home is not for the weak of heart. In the midst of it, my wife takes a deep breath and says, “God already knows what house we will end up getting, He already knows what we desire, and He already knows what He desires for us, which is greater than we could imagine.” This was her way of coping with the stress.

This sparked a thought, just how much of this should we hold on to? Is it true that God already knows? The answer is yes. And here lies the biggest question: If God already knows, does this mean we are determined in our choices? Because if He already knows, this suggests determinism. But if we are determined to act, why wouldn’t we act solely in our own best interest, forsaking all others? Good question. Let’s tackle it.

Determinism vs. Libertarian Free Will

Dr Steve Stewart-Williams (SSW) addressed this issue in a robust 3-part series. First he tackled the issue of determinism, and more specifically, hard determinism vs soft determinism. Hard determinism can be viewed as the reluctance to accept anything as reality and that we are all merely in a sub-reality playing parts in another’s game. I’d like to leave that right where it is. Soft determinism (compatibilism) offers something more closely identifiable in that free will and determinism are compatible. This is in slight conflict with libertarian free will in that libertarian free will strictly rejects determinism and rest solely on the idea that we choose.

Definitions:

  • Determinism: everything we do is already determined.
  • Libertarian Free Will: rejecting determinism. we have the ability to choose.
  • Compatibilism: freedom doesn’t require that our actions are somehow neither caused nor random. It requires only that our actions flow from our conscious desires, intentions, and reasoning processes. On this view, we have free will as long as we’re not unreasonably coerced or constrained by outside forces.

Dr. SSW briefly addressed the idea of mind versus matter and how this argument is not the same as the free will argument. And that’s true. I still think it’s a good place to start. Descartes was an early dualist. But he wasn’t the first.

  • Pythagoras (6th century BCE) already hinted at a distinction between the soul and the body.
  • Plato argued that the soul belongs to the realm of unchanging Forms (truth, justice, beauty) while the body is part of the mutable, deceptive physical world.
  • Aristotle wasn’t so separatist in his view. The soul (psyche) and body (matter) were distinct but not really separate.
  • Descartes built dualism into the scientific framework. Physicalists later formed in rebuttal to his theory of substance dualism.
  • Carl Jung eventually highlighted such dualism in modern psychology. He also introduced the idea of spirituality as a result of his dualistic views. We are more than the matter that can be measured. We are made up of physical matter as well as archetypes and collective unconscious, structures in the psyche, disctinct from brain matter. This gives rise to my perspective on this issue.

Compatibilism

In part 2, he tackles compatibilism head on. Dr SSW writes:

Most compatibilists and most hard determinists agree on all the important facts. They agree that contra-causal free will is impossible; they agree that people frequently act voluntarily and without coercion; and they agree that it’s often useful to hold people responsible for their actions. The only real disagreement is about how to define free will. And that’s not very interesting.

Compatibilism strikes me as the most convincing view. It echoes the repeated disputes among early psychologists who tried to crown a single master key to the mind. Some swore by behaviorism, others by the machinery of the brain. Still others by conditioning or by self-understanding. One camp invoked genetics as destiny. Another pointed to the shaping power of environment. The trouble is that each holds a fragment of the truth. To all, I say, Yes!. The same pattern shows up in debates about free will. Certain moments in our lives are shaped by forces that run deeper than conscious choice. Such as our DNA, the temperamental leanings we inherit, the quiet impulses that orient us long before deliberation begins. In those moments, our decisions feel tethered to determinism.

Yet the outcomes of our choices unfold plainly before us, reminding us that we do in fact deliberate. We act from a conscious center, selecting what seems meaningful or right in the moment as we understand it. This is the footing on which we ground the very idea of holding someone responsible for what they do. Compatibilism makes the most sense to me.

Moralism

In part 3, Dr SSW dives into the moral argument. He writes:

If we don’t have free will, we can’t hold people responsible for their behavior.

If free will is an illusion, why bother being good?

If our behavior is determined, then rewards and punishments might influence people’s future actions. If it’s not – if it’s simply random – then they can’t. So, rather than undermining accountability, determinism seems to be the only hope for accountability.

Upon the treatment of criminals, he quotes Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen:

Free will as we ordinarily understand it is an illusion generated by our cognitive architecture. Retributivist notions of criminal responsibility ultimately depend on this illusion, and, if we are lucky, they will give way to consequentialist ones, thus radically transforming our approach to criminal justice. At this time, the law deals firmly but mercifully with individuals whose behavior is obviously the product of forces that are ultimately beyond their control. Someday, the law may treat all convicted criminals this way. That is, humanely.

My response here is, first, it is not obvious that criminal behavior is beyond their control. Secondly, I’m for restorative justice in almost every case. However, there are those that are more of a liability to society than a contributor. At that point, what’s best for the entire society may not be great for that individual. This is another arena where we must separate our feelings from that of good public policy. Feelings and policy are capable of both being good simultaneously and still not match.

Life Application

Lastly, he quoted Rousseau as saying:

I may think that I have rationally demonstrated my will is not free, but I can never succeed in believing or living as if this were so.

This is where the argument takes a severe turn for me. Because the free will argument dabbles into the conversation of objectivity vs subjectivity. If everything is determined, then everything seems to be subjective. And if everything is subjective, we have no gauge towards meaningful interactions.

Here is an excerpt from my new book, What is a Man:

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

Verbiage

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. Some say Peyton Manning is the greatest quarterback of all time. Others would argue that he is not. This is a subjective principle. However, Peyton having won two Super Bowls is an objective principle. We can argue over whether he’s the greatest quarterback of all time, but we won’t argue over whether he won Super Bowls. 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.

Perspective

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 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 deterministic in 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.]

This is where the entire argument lies for me. Our perspective, and its effect on the quality of our lives. Dr. SSW noted a study where they found that when consequence was removed, people were nudged toward selfish, greedy, and unethical behavior. He noted that the study was flawed, but I think the point stands.

This can be viewed from the original sin lens. It’s now in our nature to do harm, wrong, bad. Therefore, if we are nudged in a manner that removes consequence, we dive towards selfish ambition. The tenets of God’s teachings are to deny our nature and take on His nature. This is what leads us to a more peaceful life and helps those around us thrive as well. Without this directive, our nature leads us in a path contradictory to our innate goals.

Conclusion

In the end, the perspective we carry shapes the arc of our lives. The question becomes how to use what we understand to grow into a sounder, steadier version of ourselves over time. When a perspective begins to wound us or those within our reach, it’s a signal that the lens itself needs changing. Perhaps God already knows the full story, but I don’t. Living as though I do only blurs my judgment. Whatever is fixed lies outside my grasp. What I can influence is how I meet the moment before me.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Responsibility: A Solution No Policy Can Write

The Lie of Structural Salvation

In my book, What is a Man, I leaned heavily on men to be the man they were designed to be, fathers, husbands of but one wife. Be the man that works hard for his family, comes home to a faithful wife, and serves her in every way. One who finds out his girlfriend is pregnant, and doesn’t run away, but runs towards. At least part of the solution to the abortion issue, in my estimation, is men sticking around and not leaving their ladies feeling helpless and alone. We could get into all the other reasons, which I won’t, so don’t try. But a large portion of the problem stems from men not being men.

Solutions

Like this issue, the issue of solutions to societal problems has a similar twist. No one disagrees that certain things are worse than they’ve ever been. In some cases, things are better than they’ve ever been, but this can be argued. But on the subject of problems, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are quick to diagnose. With the best of them.

  • Sects of society are greedy.
  • There are too many poor people in America.
  • Inequality is at its worst.
  • Homelessness must be eradicated.

Macro

But we all fall short on solutions. Many, including the great Richard Reeves, look to public policy for solutions. This is where, much like covid, the cure is worse than the disease. Public policy can only be written, voted, and executed by the government. The government regulates behavior under conditions of conflict. When policy becomes our primary solution, we have missed the entire point! What is being framed as a structural deficit is often a developmental one. Covid taught us that, though history taught us that many times over.

The government does not produce meaning, attachment, competence, or character. Actually, the government does not produce anything. It cannot model responsibility or cultivate resilience. Its function is governance, not formation. And psychologically speaking, entities designed to manage conflict trend towards tyranny, not growth. When we outsource solutions to the state, we bypass the family, the community, and the individual psyche, which is where the actual work of human flourishing occurs. Problems of the human condition cannot be legislated into health, they must be developed into it.

Micro

So what is a viable solution? People. Hearts. Discipline. Perseverance. Resilience. Work. Compassion. Self-sacrifice.

Where it really gets off course is bringing Jesus into it. I hear it all the time.

“If you don’t show compassion to the poor, then you’re not following Jesus.”

And on the surface, that’s true.

We love to use the teachings of Jesus to influence public policy. Except he wanted nothing to do with public policy.

“Give to Caesar what’s Caesar’s. Give to God what’s Gods.”

“But wait? He said take care of the poor. He said if someone asks you to go one mile, you go two. He said if someone asks you for your shirt, give them your jacket too. Jesus was interested in sociology.”

Almost. He was interested in people. But from the individual out, not from society in.

Sociologically, problems are viewed as societal, affecting individuals along the way. If the societal issue gets resolved, the individual will be better. The problem with this line of thinking is, what if the institution or system never figures it out? Then we are completely dependent on the system to rectify our shortcomings in life. When we view problems as individual issues, from the inside out, then we are capable of flourishing regardless of systemic fractures.

The apostle Paul wrote this regularly. He consistently wrote about how he could be jailed, but not silenced. They could try to break his spirit, but they would not succeed. Viewing his problem sociologically, he would’ve fallen to extreme despair. Hope remained alive in the idea that he had autonomy, even in chains.

Individual > Government

My contention is that Jesus said the things he said, addressed the things he addressed, to the individual, not the society. He was not instructing the government to feed the poor. He was instructing us to do it. He didn’t tell the government to help those in need, he instructed us as individuals to do so.

Any reliance on a system, institution, or government, is relying on an outside entity to ensure your own personal well-being. It assumes that meaning, safety, and order can be outsourced to an external structure rather than cultivated through agency, virtue, and responsibility. History shows an extended rebuttal to that assumption. Systems do not love, institutions do not sacrifice, and governments do not exist to make individuals whole. They manage, they regulate, they constrain.

When we treat these abstractions as guarantors of our inner stability, we confuse governance with guidance and authority with wisdom. The result is predictable disappointment. Such entities fail us not because they are corrupt in every instance, but because they were never designed to fulfill existential needs.

This is where I lean on the church. If the government is not to be that, then we are. This applies more pressure, but it’s pressure for which we have received mercy and grace. If we fail, the government steps in.

So the ball is in our court. Step up, or watch tyranny take over.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Gospel of Fake Compassion

A Sermon On the Mount of Ideology, Where Truth is Blasphemy

In case you missed recent articles:

A former priest, a struggling comedian, and a delusional writer with diagnosed TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) walked into a bar. Bartender said, “Hey Father Nathan Monk!”

Who is that, you might ask? It’s not important. What is also not important is the truth, apparently. The only thing that matters is the nauseating eagerness to vomit out convenient lies. As long as the lies wrap everyone in a soft blanket of false comfort. As long as no one’s feelings are ruffled. Unless, of course, they dare to think differently. Then cruelty becomes a virtue. Then it’s open season. The same people preaching love, acceptance, and kindness sharpen their knives the moment disagreement enters the room. That’s who Father Nathan Monk is. “Empathy” is one-sided. It only resides with the in-group. And if you prefer facts over feelings, then you, my friend, are the out-group. Welcome to the circus. Let me show you around.

Highlights From One of His Recent Posts:

Empathy

So, you might be sitting here watching folks shrug off the death of another and saying, “How can you lack empathy? How can you lack understanding?” And I am asking you the very same question. How can you lack empathy and understanding for those whom he harmed?

I would even go so far as to say that having such empathy is good in a sense, it means you aren’t as vile as he, a man who couldn’t find empathy at all for anyone, and actually demeaned empathy as weakness.

Empathy is dangerous. That was his stance. That is my stance. That is psychologist Paul Bloom’s stance. That is Jesse Prinz’s stance, the professor of philosophy at the City University of New York. Empathy can never play a role in decision making. Especially major decisions, like policy. See what I mean here, here, and here. This isn’t new.

Charlie Kirk spent his life vilifying people.

Wrong. He said, “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens.” He vilified ideas and policies, never people.

He turned their parents and siblings against them.

Another lie. What he actually said: “If You Don’t Fear Your Parents, You Don’t Fear God! Honor your parents.” – Kirk

Gender

He made using the restroom a battleground.

Kirk was in no such business. He refused to bow to the Marxist ideology that compels speech. He refused to repeat a lie that sex is not biological, there are more than two genders, and that kids, who can’t figure out how to tie their own shoes should be able to choose their gender and begin mutilating their body.

Race

He called Black people less than human.

There is zero evidence of this quote. The closest you’ll find is: “If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

In context, what he was saying was that affirmative action, which directly and openly discriminates against white people and Asians, was the only way they could have gotten into college, based on their own admissions. Another way I know this wasn’t about race was because he was referring to democrats. He did not refer to Carol Swain, Candace Owen, or Kimberly Klacik. Why? Because they were republicans. This was not about race to him. It was about discrimination. Against whites and Asians.

2A

In the wake of school shootings, he told parents that their children dying in the hallways was a necessary casualty of protecting the Second Amendment.

Not even close. Here’s the full quote:

I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

In context, he said that we, as a society, have made decisions on cost-benefit analysis; cost vs. reward. Every year, 50,000 people die in car accidents. We have decided that those 50,000 deaths are worth the cost to receive the benefit of having vehicles at our disposal to enhance our lives. One life is too many, but we know there will be car deaths, yet we still don’t ban cars. The same can be said of guns. There will be no such era of zero deaths from guns. We have decided that some deaths are worth the cost of the benefit of being able to protect ourselves. First against a tyrannical government. Next against people who wouldn’t abide by a gun law under any circumstance.

Words ≠ Violence

-He fomented young people to become violent so that he could hide behind his words and demand nuance

-Countless people have lost their lives to the violent rhetoric of Charlie Kirk

-Charlie Kirk was a White Christian Nationalist who promoted hate and violence

Can we acknowledge that the word countless immediately comes with a fact-check symbol. Especially when the number is actually zero. Words are not violence. If words are violence, then violence is a valid, acceptable, and necessary means to suppress such words. Therefore, words ≠ violence. If words are violence, then correlation = causation. But it’s not. Plenty of people hear things that upset them and don’t shoot a guy for it. This means that some are capable of self-control and others aren’t. Which means this is an internal human condition. Not some axiomatic call to action.

Quick Conclusion on the Right

In the aftermath of his death, the Christian Nationalists were quick, without any proof, to lay blame at the feet of the trans community

This part is true. Christians, republicans, conservatives everywhere jumped to this conclusion that the trans community had something to do with this. That, by itself, was reckless and reduces creditability. However, they were right. Even so, they were right too soon. The shooter was in a relationship with a trans female (a dude- for those of us who struggle with double negatives). And this could end up being something as simple as a man (a cowardly boy, really) defending his love. But the jump was irresponsible. Valid point.

Monk goes on to discuss Trump’s comments at Kirk’s memorial. Donald Trump? Why are we bringing a dumb, irresponsible comment by Trump into this? TDS at its finest.

UK or US?

It is already happening now in other parts of the world. The mere attempt to protest is landing folks in handcuffs. We are watching our fundamental rights being stripped away from us.

Here he says “other parts of the world” followed by “we” are watching rights being stripped from “us.” So is it us or other parts of the world? Other parts. It’s not happening here. So he must be UK-identifying. Maybe he’s Transnational.

What is happening in UK and Australia will not be happening here. If it does, it will be because they figured out a way to disarm every gun-owning citizen in the country. Good luck. We have the 2nd amendment for this very reason. To resist a tyrannical government.

Freedom of Speech

I need you to understand that what I have written here today will likely be read at my own sentencing someday, when they justify ripping me away from my children simply because I wrote words, asked questions, and openly challenged the narrative of my government.

I am begging you to do this now, because very soon, those voices will be silenced, and the only thing that you will be able to hear is propaganda being pumped by the mechanisms created and endorsed by the man you are demanding that they mourn.

I will fight and die for his right, your right, anyone’s right to say these things in open discourse. I will stand against suppressed and compelled speech at any turn. This will never be a thing in this country. Not without a fight they’ll never forget. Having said that, this statement is merely fear-porn. Meant to stoke an emotion that cannot be backed by evidence. Nothing more. Do better.

They have lacked empathy at every moment from Columbine to Sandy Hook, but are now feigning shock that no one can mourn the wicked.

First, I’d hardly call 22 million people “no one.” The difference here is that Kirk was killed because of his beliefs. What he said. The spoken word. And when that child aimed his gun, he was aiming at viewpoint diversity. He was aiming at the right to free speech. He was aiming at every Christian and every white person that is tired of being the subject of blatant racism, mockery, and discrimination in the name of “progress.” This makes the claims of comparing this to school shootings baseless.

Immigration

Listen to the hurt and pain and reality from those whom Charlie Kirk wished to see deported, arrested, and executed.

On record, Kirk is quoted as saying that people who are here illegally and committed crimes should be deported. Read that again. Here illegally and committed a crime. This is why empathy is so dangerous. This is the same emotion that led people to fall in love with Ted Bundy and others like him. When you’re empathizing with someone, you put on blinders, apply a spotlight, and shut out the rest of the world, including good judgment and common sense. And here it is on display. We are empathizing with those who are here illegally and committed a crime over those who are here legally and have not committed crimes. That’s as close to insanity as one can get without saying that sex is not biological.

Unilateral Violence?

Make no mistake, they will suddenly find the motivation to stop violence. But they will use violence to do so.

Here are some names of those who used violence in the name of justified retribution:

  • Tyler Robinson – Kirk’s killer. Dating one with Gender Dysphoria (F64.0)
  • Robert Westman – Minnesota Christian school shooter. Suffered from Gender Dysphoria (F64.0)
  • Audrey Hale – Nashville Christian school shooter. Suffered from Gender Dysphoria (F64.0)
  • Thomas Crooks – Attempted assassination of Trump. Likely suffered from a schizotypal disorder or MDD.

Conclusion

As you see here, feelings have bulldozed facts into submission. The facts are plain: Kirk said aloud what countless Americans quietly believed. He wanted fairness. He wanted an honest, level playing field. No racial handouts. No college admissions based on anything other than merit. That’s not unreasonable. And it’s not new. Thomas Sowell has been saying it for decades.

Kirk wanted freedom from compelled speech. The right not to parrot rhetoric he didn’t believe. He stood by the science of sex and biology. Truths humanity has understood, validated, and lived by for centuries.

Yes, Kirk stumbled. He went about it clumsily, made mistakes, and sometimes undercut his own cause. But to twist that into “he called for violence,” or “he encouraged racism,” or “he was fine with children dying”? That’s not just dishonest, it’s malicious. On a generous day, it’s intellectual cowardice. On a darker day, it reeks of Cluster B theatrics, psychotic distortion, and a sadistic Marxist project that thrives on smearing rather than understanding.

Name-calling is always easier than introspection. It takes no courage to sneer, but it takes discipline to ask: Where might I be wrong? or Where might another perspective be just as valid? Some can’t manage that. They can’t fathom why the whole world doesn’t fall in line with their view. So they elevate feelings above facts, emotion above evidence. Forgetting that policy is meant to serve the majority, not the loudest 1% screaming from the rooftops.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Buy Me a Beer
Posted on

Forgiveness is a Decision

This is a response to a recent article by Aly Dee: The Gospel of Cowardice: How Cheap Forgiveness Weakens the Church

Just my thoughts:

There is a lot of good stuff here. Particularly the “Turn the other cheek” part. It was a power shift. By turning the other cheek in that era, you shifted power from the aggressor to you without doing much. The aggressor was left with a dilemma, strike with the “unclean” hand (left hand) or open hand, which implied equality in status. Or nothing and show weakness. One slight move shifted the entire dynamic.

Strength under control is also a good theme here. A man should be capable of danger and wise enough to know when to and not to use it.

I’d like to provide a little nuance here on two main points.

  1. Evangelical Protestantism
  2. Forgiveness

Evangelical Protestantism

“Evangelical Protestantism is the worst form of Christianity available today.”

This is hardly accurate. But when speaking in absolutes, accuracy is rarely found. It’s hard to call a movement that is bringing people to Christ by the thousands that had given up all hope in being forgiven for the atrocities they’d committed in their life the “worst form of Christianity available today.” The worst place for deep spiritual growth? Maybe.

But remember, the people that who are entering these domains often believe, truly believe, there is no hope for them. They believe they have made entirely too many serious mistakes to be forgiven by a perfect God. Not realizing it is in His perfection where the ability to forgive resides. They enter at the request of someone they know, believing there is no way God can love them. Then they hear otherwise and everything changes. I cannot possibly tag them with “worst.” Not even close.

I’d dare say the worst form of Christianity today are the denominations being willfully blind to obvious scriptural instruction for the sake of identity over merit and making sure no one’s feelings are hurt. Starting with the Presbyterian church. That’s the worst form. Absolute false prophets dressed in robes adorned with crosses.

Forgiveness

“Forgiveness isn’t really something reasonable to foist on someone mourning a fresh assassination, whether it be Charlie Kirk’s widow or American Christians who have been persecuted and attacked by Leftists for nearly a decade.”

I totally agree that it isn’t reasonable to push forgiveness onto someone in pain. I also believe that while it isn’t reasonable, it is possible. Because it is a choice. When Erika Kirk chose to forgive her husband’s killer, a few things happened and a few things didn’t happen.

What didn’t happen:

  • She didn’t forget
  • She didn’t accept this guy into her life or public discourse
  • She didn’t stop hurting

What did happen:

  • She removed the weight of justice from her shoulders onto her creator. It’s natural for us to want justice and harbor anger. She relinquished that.
  • Forgiveness spread like wildfire
  • Tim Allen forgave his father for the first time
  • Thousands were driven to Christ as a result.

“I have found that the greater the offense, the harder it is for a person to reach forgiveness.”

I agree that, in one sense, the greater the offense, the longer it takes to embody human forgiveness. But in another sense, not really. Why? Forgiveness is not a feeling. It’s not an emotion. It’s a decision. Divine forgiveness is what we are called to, which we can’t fully understand. Therefore, we need to act on it before we fully understand it. Often in scripture, God called his people to act first and understand later. He understood that action drives behavior.

The story of Moses is one. Three times, Moses is in the presence of God and comes back to deliver God’s word. Two of them, the people state in response, “We will obey.” The last time, they said, “We will obey and then we will understand.” Erika’s choice was a decision. Not a feeling. She chose to act now and heal as she goes.

So I think there’s a balance, which seems to be the undercurrent of Aly’s post, which I respect and appreciate. We can forgive and not restore. They’re not the same. Letting go of the sting while ensuring we don’t lay down and accept evil as normative can be attained.

Lastly, the reason I know we will never be the UK? They’re facing these struggles for a reason. The same reason we once triumphed against overwhelming odds. This country was not built on submission. From the very beginning, we fought as if survival itself was on the line. That spirit, born in the Revolutionary War when an outnumbered people refused to bow, still runs in our DNA. We fight for what we know is right, in the face of cultural deviance. This is why we’re seeing revival, now led by Gen Z!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

I’m Defending My Values Without Apology

The Age of Passivity is Behind Us

Today, I agreed with people I rarely agree with. Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Candace Owen, and many others. We all agreed that the attack on Kirk as senseless, unfathomable, vile, and evil. I even saw the statement, “Charlie Kirk and I have never agreed on one thing, except that everyone has the right to free speech and should not have to die for that.”

The shooting of Charlie Kirk has shaken the country and parts of the world. But you have to ask yourself why? People get shot all the time. And he was just a young, family man living the American dream. So why did this rattle the country and get polarizing political opponents all in agreement?

Because he was civil. Because he sought to have civil discord with those he disagreed with. Because he never once called for violence. Because he stood on convictions and could intelligently articulate them. Because he made the bold statement that the country cannot move forward until people who disagree have genuine, difficult conversations with the goal of understanding each other, in hopes we can find shared fundamental ideals to live our lives around.

Some want to be angry. And that’s a warranted response. “They hit us, we’ll hit back harder.” Unfortunately, Kirk would never have approved of that. He, like Dr. Martin Luther King, always declared to conduct peaceful interactions only. They both declared that violence was never the answer. So if not violence, then what should be my response? Well, first, I’m not about to tell you how to respond to a tragedy. But I will say the age of passive conviction is dead. The time for sitting back, wishing the psychopaths would pipe down and the problems would vanish, is over.

We’ve stepped into a new era. One that demands we give voice to our convictions. When something feels deeply wrong, silence is no longer an option. As the saying goes, “Well-behaved women rarely make history.” I’m not calling for misbehavior. I’m calling for courage. The kind of vocal, unflinching fortitude that protects values that you will defend.

What I Will Defend

  • I’ll defend my right to free speech. Along with that freedom comes the right to reject compelled speech. I will not be forced to call you anything I don’t want to. I will not be forced to call you a kitty cat because you feel like one today. I will not be forced to accept that you are using diagnoses as crutches to justify oppositional behavior. Especially in the counseling room.
  • I will defend ideas around biological sex.
  • I will defend family values and the obvious benefits that come with it.
  • I will defend men and boys.
  • I will defend girls, being that I’m a girl dad.
  • I will defend being a good person in every situation.
  • I will defend my right to carry.
  • I will defend integrity. Doing the right thing even when no one is watching and no one will find out.
  • I will defend ideas surrounding the benefits of religiosity. An upward aim at an ineffable telos. And my right to practice of such an aim.
  • I will defend a woman’s right not fear being around a man. That being around men should be the safest place for women to be. Therefore, men should work harder to be that guy.
  • I will defend stronger penalties for sexual offenders, particularly against children.
  • I will defend making the federal government smaller and smaller.

I will stand on convictions. And I will no longer be quiet. I will no longer sit back and hope things change. I will work to be the change I want to see. I will set this date as the day I defended values. The values that this country was built on: Faith, Freedom, and Families with strong men. Without apology. You can’t avoid being offended. And I won’t dance around your feelings. If your feelings get hurt, that’s your problem, not mine. If I belligerently set out to harm you, different story. Anyone that knows me knows that’s not my speed. But I’m not worried about your feelings anymore.

Defended Concern

  • I’m worried about the child that doesn’t know how to tie his shoes but somehow knows he was born in the wrong body, set up for castration because he has a mother with Cluster B-style FDIA. I’ll defend that.
  • I’m worried about the males that are told they are toxic just for being male, leading to committing suicide 4 times more than females. The ones that hear they are the problem. The ones that are targets of victim blaming. Like the ones who said it is Kirk’s “fault for being shot because he is so divisive” (This was on a major news network). I’ll defend that.
  • I’ll never sit on a train and watch a man stab a woman to death and do nothing. That man (really he’s a little child) in Charlotte would likely have been carried away in a zipped-up bag had I been on that train. Because I know the justice system won’t come through. I’ll defend that.

If Kirk’s shooter wanted to wake people up, he just did. Just not the people he hoped would wake. There are certain people in this world that I have never agreed with, not one sentence. But I will defend their right to say it.

Lastly, Kirk was right. He was right to be on a mission to get people in disagreement to talk. To sit, civilly, and discuss opposing ideas about how to achieve, what is mainly a shared goal: Human flourishing. But until we relearn the lost art of speaking with conviction without violence and without theatrical rage, brace yourself. That same gut-sinking feeling you had watching the Kirk video will sit on repeat, like a curse we refuse to break… #becausetribalism.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

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