Posted on

Capitalism Didn’t Create Human Nature

When Ideology Searches For Evidence

I stumbled on an article that I won’t link because I don’t want him digitally doxed. But the summation of his piece was that couples’ issues and the rise of Mankeeping as a burden is because of capitalism’s insistence on very different definitions of normal workloads for male and female.

Here we are again, telling the same, tired story. If you’re exhausted reading about it, imagine being the one who feels the need to write about it. Oh well, here I am writing anyway. There still exists individuals who insist on blame-shifting and placing total causation on one entity for the that plague men, as if that one aspect of male plight will solve all social ills. News flash, there is no single solution, because there is no single problem. The problem varies, as do the solutions.

Excerpts

“I think the biggest factor behind Mankeeping is capitalism’s gendered division of labor. That’s where our so-called traditional ideas about what’s natural about men and women come from.”

So-called? So, thousands of years of evolutionary psychology means nothing? Studies on gender preferences being biological mean nothing?

Let’s take a look at such meaninglessness:

  • It has been established that the greater the economic development, the greater the gender differences in preferences (Falk & Hermle, 2018).
  • Among those differences, it has been shown that as a generalization, more males tend to choose things-oriented careers while most females tend to choose people-oriented careers (Su et al., 2009).
  • Yet another study, years later, turned up similar results. When looking at male and female apprentices, females had natural inclinations to occupations oriented towards people, where males had natural inclinations to occupations towards things (Kuhn & Wolter, 2022).
  • When looking at something more specific, like application rates and hiring rates in STEM fields, one group found that the more gender-equal the country, the greater the difference in gender representation in STEM fields, irrespective of similar achievement rates and ability among males and females (Stoet & Geary, 2018).
  • Yet another group noticed that when looking at all of this, it should now be expected that vast majority of psychological sex differences should either remain unchanged or grow more pronounced with improvements in living conditions, like gender quality, education, and economic flourishing (Herlitz et al., 2025).

Biology determines much of what we like, do, and pursue. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good heart-string story.

Another Excerpt:

“Women were told that they’re naturally caring, relational, soft, and feminine. Men were told that we’re naturally stoic, tough, action-oriented, competitive, and masculine. These ideas were aimed at putting women in their place: in the home.”

I’m struggling to see the connection between stating biological fact and an attempt at control. But let’s review the data:

  • In one meta-analysis, Women scored higher in every category related to caring, tenderness, trust, nurturing, and empathy-related traits (Feingold, 1994), as well as compassion and openness in the Big Five personality traits (Weisberg et al., 2011).
  • In the previously mentioned study, they found women more relational (Su et al., 2009).
  • One study found women significantly less aggressive, supporting the idea that they are softer than males, on average (Archer, 2004).
  • Lastly, women showed more feminine traits across time and culture (Costa et al., 2001).
  • In each of these studies, they found the idea of men being naturally stoic, tough, action-oriented, competitive, and masculine true.

Maybe, just maybe, this is why women were told this. Because it is verifiably, biologically and psychologically true.

He Turns to Marx

Where it seemed to take a comical turn was when the writer was criticized for tying capitalism to relational strain. He then said that he uses Marx’s original definition of capitalism and then adds a modern Marxist Feminist’s assessment to complete his formulation.

I… I don’t even know what to say. Like… speechless. Ok, maybe not totally.

The argument isn’t rational, coherent, linear in any way. His ideas don’t even connect to one another. The closest his argument came to some form of actual reality was the unfounded fear porn of “returning to gender norms.” But even then, evolutionary psychology debunks that along with half of his article. I’ve still yet to encounter a man who wishes to return to the norms of yesteryear that place men psychologically and physically abusing women.

When I see a great writer drink ideological Kool-Aid without attempting to do his own research, it doesn’t anger me. It saddens me. This writer has talent.

But he has been told that if he feels it, it’s true. I could give 25 examples in 15 seconds that would completely debunk that notion.

Anti-capitalists fail to recognize that they’re enjoying the right to be misinformed with great confidence because some capitalist created that possibility. No socialist did it. A socialist would have already been tyrannized by his own promises. The very system he would have been supporting would have ensured he, along with everyone else under the systemic corruptive power machine were equal— equally poor and miserable.

But here, a very talented writer is almost babbling. The argument is so incoherent. I wanted to get excited about a new or different viewpoint. Instead, I was left with the fairy tale style utopian delusion that permeates the feeling > fact crowd.

I’m sorry to burst bubbles, but no economic system, nor a vile, malevolent way of viewing successful people are to blame for couple’s issues. The couple is.

We’ll get a lot further talking about a lack of third spaces than shifting blame to an inanimate economic structure. More on that in a later post. For now…

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Archer, J. (2004). Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899

Feingold A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

Herlitz, A., Hönig, I., Hedebrant, K., & Asperholm, M. (2025). A systematic review and new analyses of the gender-equality paradox. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(3), 503–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231202685

Kuhn, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2022). Things versus people: Gender differences in vocational interests and in occupational preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 203(203), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.09.003

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719

Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and Things, Women and People. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364

Weisberg, Y. J., Deyoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

Posted on

What Identity is Not

Knowing What It Is Not Helps Discover What It Is

I recently wrote about what forgiveness is not. We talk a lot about identity. It is helpful to know what identity is not so we can discover what identity is. We often confuse many aspects of our lives with identity, when in reality, they’re not identity at all.

Identity Is Not Your Vocation

Vocation is an assignment, not an identity. A job can change overnight. Careers rise and fall. A title may impress people for a season, but titles are temporary. If your sense of self is rooted in what you do, then failure, retirement, unemployment, or success itself can destabilize you. Many people lose themselves because they built their identity around productivity rather than personhood. Work matters, but work is a tool, not the foundation of the self. Your vocation is meant to express something deeper already established within you. It serves your identity, not create it. You are not a teacher, writer, pastor, mechanic, or executive first. Those are functions.

Vocation is what you do, not who you are.

Identity is Not Your Belief System

Beliefs are important, but beliefs are still capable of change. Rigidity of beliefs hinder. Human beings grow through correction, learning, suffering, and experience. It’s the stretching that produces positive change. Such malleability fluctuates. A person may hold one worldview at 20 years old and another at age 40. If identity is fused completely to a belief system, then every challenge to those beliefs feels like a threat to agency itself. That elicits a defensive and fearful reaction coupled with intellectual rigidity. Proper growth requires the ability to change without losing yourself. Truth should refine us, not destroy us. A mature person allows better information to reshape flawed understanding while remaining grounded in something deeper than opinion. Identity is deeper than opinion, beliefs are not. Beliefs should serve identity, not become identity. Your beliefs can evolve while your core self remains steady, rooted, stable, and anchored beyond shifting ideas and perspectives.

Beliefs are what you hold, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Who You Marry

Marriage is sacred and meaningful, but it is still a relationship between two changing human beings. People grow, drift, mature, fail, and sometimes leave. Death itself inevitably culminates in separation of marriage. If your identity depends entirely upon another person remaining beside you, then your foundation is fragile. Many people lose themselves inside relationships because they confuse companionship with identity. A spouse is meant to walk with you, not define your existence. Marriage can enrich life, strengthen character, and deepen love, but it cannot bear the full scope of your identity. Your value existed before marriage and remains after loss.

A spouse helps you navigate, they’re not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Being a Parent

Parenthood is one of the most meaningful responsibilities a person can experience, but yet again, a role rather than identity. Children grow older, move away, develop independence, and eventually build lives of their own. Genesis 2:24 discusses leaving one’s mother and father to join to a spouse. They will leave eventually. Some parents lose themselves (and their marriage) because their entire sense of worth becomes attached to their children’s success, affection, or need for them. When that season changes, they feel empty and disoriented. Parenting should flow from identity, not replace it. A healthy parent guides, nurtures, disciplines, and loves from a stable center rather than using children to create personal meaning. Your existence does not begin with your children, nor does it end when they leave home.

Parenting is what you do, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Your Political Affiliation

Political systems change constantly. Parties evolve, ideologies shift, leaders disappoint, and cultural movements rise and fall. When identity becomes fused with politics, disagreement begins to feel personal and opposing views feel like attacks on internal agency. This produces hostility, tribalism, pride, and even fear. A political affiliation may reflect values or priorities, but it cannot define the eternal nature of a person. Human beings are deeper than voting patterns or ideological categories. If your identity rests in politics, then every election becomes an emotional crisis and every shift in culture threatens stability. Politics should remain a tool for engaging society rather than the foundation of self.

Politics is a malleable mechanism for interacting with broader society, not who you are.

Your Identity Comprises Your Past, Present, and Future Self

True identity must remain consistent across time. If something can disappear, change, or be taken away, then it cannot be the deepest definition of who you are. Identity is the thread connecting your past, present, and future self into one continuous reality. Careers change, beliefs mature, relationships shift, and societal expectations and affiliations evolve, but identity remains stable beneath each movement. This understanding creates humility and flexibility because the ego no longer depends on always being correct. New information does not threaten existence, it simply refines understanding. A secure identity allows growth without collapse. We can admit error, abandon false ideas, and become wiser versions of ourselves because our core self is not built upon temporary external realities that constantly shift and change.

My Identity

This is not aimed to proselytize, only to share my sense of identity. My identity is that I am a child of God the Father. While you may ascertain this as a belief, a belief about ultimate reality is different from ideological attachment because it concerns ontology rather than opinion. I’m not arguing against convictions. I’m arguing against grounding the self in temporary or contingent things that possess the capacity to remove the ground from under us. Therefore, my identity rests in an immovable and unchangeable target.

This is the foundation beneath every other part of my life. I cannot be the ultimate reality in my life. I must gaze, with focus, on the ineffable telos. It’s in that upward aim that I can relinquish the need for being perfect, yet aim for such perfection, given that it only makes my life better. Because of such aim, as life flows, my identity remains untouched. It existed in my past, stands firm in my present, and extends into my future.

Consequently, I do not need temporary things to define me. Anything I do serves the purpose of being a child of the living God. My marriage serves that purpose. My children, convictions, relationships, and responsibilities all flow from that singular reality. This identity cannot be threatened by change because it is rooted beyond circumstance. Everything else in life is secondary and exists to support that eternal truth.

This is how we avoid identity crises. By rooting them in an eternal, unmoved, mover.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review- Part III

The Unconstrained and Constrained Visions of Freedom and Justice

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

In this conclusion to the series, freedom and justice are viewed quite differently, depending on who you’re asking. While these concepts seem axiomatic, as you are about to see, when viewed through the lens of the unconstrained and constrained visions, they appear to be very different Forms, as Plato might put it.

Freedom

In the unconstrained vision, individualism means to participate in the articulated decisions of collective entities while some with supreme wisdom possess exception from systemic or organized social restraints, like military service, or even laws.

Sowell articulated the constrained vision this way:

“Individualism means leaving the individual free to choose among the systematically generated opportunities, rewards, and penalties derived from other similarly free individuals without being subjected to articulated conclusions imposed by the power of organized entities such as government.”

According to the constrained vision, knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are derivations from the masses, and because so, the most an individual can expect is to be left free to choose among the various rewards and penalties emerging from systemic social processes without exemption from any of them.

Justice

Justice involves the attempt to change people’s motives, leaving incentives less important. This, according to the unconstrained vision, is an attempt towards a solution. Justice involves the mitigation of the breakdown of order. This, according to the constrained vision, is a trade-off because those in the constrained vision are aware of inherent human limitations.

To the unconstrained vision, justice is the conclusion of fairness and equality of results. Morality within justice is equal rights to the results. To the constrained vision, justice is the restriction on others to impede the process, making all processes equal. Morality within justice is equal rights to the process.

Conclusion

Both visions are concerned with social results. The limitations of man are at the heart of the theory of the constrained vision, while the potential of human nature is at the heart of the unconstrained vision.

The unconstrained vision seeks social results through collective decisions prescribing desired outcomes. The constrained vision believes it is beyond man’s capability to manage such vast knowledge and is dangerous to concentrate such power to make decisions, even if it were possible.

The unconstrained vision sees degrees of freedom as that which produce desired results. This is also true with justice through outcomes, power through control of one group over another, and equality being desired results having been achieved.

The constrained vision sees these entities quite differently. The characteristics of processes defined to restrict malevolent nature, whether it be freedom, justice, power, or equality, such processes have significance. A social process has freedom so far as it refrains from interfering with choices of individuals. A social process of justice ensures laws are just. A social process of equality means everyone abides by the same rules.

While results matter to the constrained vision, the general effectiveness of processes are the barometer for success and not measured by each individual result in isolation.

In the unconstrained vision, the moral and intellectual elite failing is preposterous and damning. To those with the constrained vision, failure is no surprise.

In the constrained vision, their adversaries are referred to as “well-meaning.” To the unconstrained vision, they are a “moral outrage.”

In the unconstrained vision, surrogate decision makers are best qualified to speak on our behalf. Such knowledge is consolidated. In the constrained vision, knowledge is inadequately possessed compared to knowledge systemically and collectively mobilized through free markets, values, and social processes. Thus the reason for restricting surrogate decisions makers’ power to rule over the discretion of others.

Thomas Sowell concluded his book by making this bold statement:

“While visions conflict, and arouse strong emotions in the process, merely ‘winning’ cannot be the ultimate goal of either the constrained or the unconstrained vision, however much that goal may preoccupy practical politicians. The moral impulse driving each vision cannot be jettisoned for the sake of winning, without making the victory meaningless.”

Sowell is calling for truth, compromise, and agreeing to disagree with the mass being represented in mind. Though there is a conflict of visions, there does not have to be a conflict of social prosperity.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review- Part II

The Unconstrained and Constrained Visions of Social Processes, Equality, and Power

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

As with anything else, most desire thriving among those close to them. To arrive there, agreement is often hard to find among those with differing views on how to arrive. Here, we see how the constrained and unconstrained visions differ in their view on social processes, equality, and power.

Social Processes

In the unconstrained vision, changes in human nature are the scenery itself, rather than just the costume. And only sweeping changes are deemed appropriate for the future. In the constrained vision, changes in human history are differences in costumes. It is the same fractured nature replaying itself in various new ways.

In the unconstrained vision, Loyalty, promises, patriotism, gratitude, precedent, oaths of fidelity, constitutions, marriage, social traditions, and international treaties are constrictions imposed earlier when knowledge was less, on options to be exercised later, when knowledge will be greater. In the constrained vision, true government requires more skill and experience than any one person can possess.

Comparisons between the morally and intellectually superior to the average person are commonplace in the unconstrained vision. The most outstanding individuals, intellectually or morally, are inherently limited in their capacity for knowledge in the constrained vision.

In the unconstrained vision, human nature is a variable, and variables can change. Obstacles to progress are to be overcome by the commitment, intelligence, and imagination of those who have grasped the possibilities open to society. Understanding human nature’s limitations is foundational to the constrained vision. Those in the constrained vision see outcomes as a function of incentives presented to individuals and conditions under which they interact in response to those incentives.

Best results should be sought directly in the unconstrained vision. When there are equality of results among those who have contributed, abstained, and hampered production, it strikes offense to the equality of process among those with the constrained vision. If a foot race is conducted under fair conditions, the result each time does not define justice in the constrained vision.

In the unconstrained vision, human capabilities permit social decisions to be made collectively through the articulated rationality of surrogate decision makers. In the constrained vision, decisions are to be made collectively through a composite of the average many, rather than the elite few.

What is justice and liberty, and how do we solve the issue of poverty? Here are the differences among the visions:

Unconstrained

  • Justice– something is just or unjust based on the end results that occur.
  • Liberty– results maximize scope of choice of individuals, often leading to advantages to those whose social backgrounds would handicap them in competition.
  • Poverty– subsidize them to produce a more desirable result in the form of higher living.

Constrained

  • Justice– adherence to agreed-upon rules.
  • Liberty– freedom from coercion and arbitrary power of other men.
  • Poverty– Provide incentives to succeed individually.

Equality

Attempts to equalize economic results leads to inequality in political power. Where achieving equal economic process limits centralized power because everyone must play by the same rules. Disagreement does not rely on degree of inequality, but what is to be equalized.

In the unconstrained vision, equality is achieved through results. Equality of opportunity means equalized probabilities of achieving given results. If the process given doesn’t produce equal results, then the process must be changed to maximize equal results for individuals. In the constrained vision, equality is achieved through process. As long as everyone is treated the same and operate under the same set of rules, the process is equal, resulting in equality having been achieved.

Those in the unconstrained vision believe some have little because others have much. There are finite resources. Those in the constrained vision believe consequences of decisions cause one to have little or much. Incentives drive this.

Equalizing material conditions of life are to be equalized under the influence of power of those with intellectual and moral superiority, according to the unconstrained vision. And according to the constrained vision, discretion is to be equally and individually exercised as often as possible under the boundaries of traditions and values derived from the widely shared experience of the many rather than special articulation of the few.

Power

To reduce the chances of war, in the eyes of the unconstrained vision, lean on the morally superior, communicate with enemies better, reduce arms seen as a threat to peace, and de-emphasize patriotism. To reduce the chances of war, in the eyes of the constrained vision, have military maximally prepared, promote patriotism, make adversaries aware of your military might, negotiate only when it can be done so without blackmail.

For crime, William Godwin said, “It is impossible that a man would perpetrate a crime in the moment when he sees it in all its enormity.” People are forced to commit crimes for specific reasons, poverty, discrimination, and unemployment. Therefore, reducing such reasons would reduce crime to those with the unconstrained vision. For crime, the constrained vision rests in the belief that it is axiomatic humans will be given to criminal nature.

Governmental Power?

  • Unconstrained: Governmental power in economics: it is a matter of intentions.
  • Constrained:Governmental power in economics: it is a matter of incentives.

In the unconstrained vision, power is to be seen as limited by intellectual elite through socially desirable results within man’s capabilities. In the constrained vision, power is to be seen as one reducing other’s options. It is not within man’s capabilities to monitor a myriad of individual results of behavior. Therefore, efforts must focus on restrictions of power, thereby restricting the ability of some to reduce other’s options.

Conclusion

Yet again, we see the pattern that both visions long for people among them to thrive in every possible avenue. The mechanisms of how and who decide distinguish the two visions.

For the next and last part, we will look a little closer at the ways in which the two visions disagree on freedom and justice.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review- Part I

The Unconstrained and Constrained Visions of Human Nature, Knowledge and Reason

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

I just completed arguably the best book I’ve ever read, excluding the Bible. In his book, Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell managed to lay out broadly, yet perfectly, two ways in which the world can be viewed. His impetus for writing such a book was based on a thought that plagued him; why can one predict that if someone holds one value, they will hold certain other values that are not, in any way, related? For instance, if one is pro-life, they are also pro-2A and border enforcement. Conversely, if one is anti-ICE, they are also pro-government programs, income redistribution, and socialist policies, like free healthcare. None of those things are related, barring a religious interpretation.

Once faced with this complexity, Sowell began diving in. The result was this amazing book. Sowell primarily referenced Adam Smith as an archetypal guide for the constrained vision and William Godwin as an archetypal guide for the unconstrained vision. The beauty of it may lie in the fact that no one purely resides in one vision. What we find is most people view the world mostly one way and see certain aspects of life in the view of the other vision, if they were being transparently honest. I am no exception.

“It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies, ill as well as good propensities. This results from the imperfection of the institutor, man.”

“It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

– Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers

Human Nature

The unconstrained vision is focused on solutions. The constrained vision is focused on trade-offs. In the unconstrained vision, solutions are achieved when trade-offs are no longer needed.

In the unconstrained vision, man’s understanding is capable of intentionally creating social benefits. In the constrained vision, morally and socially beneficial behaviors arrive from incentives.

Given the immeasurable (or unconstrained) possibilities in human nature, poverty, or other social ills, are a result of evil intentions or blindness to solutions readily available by changing institutions. Those with constrained visions are not trying to create the ideal, but to establish the best that the people can bear.

Believers in the unconstrained vision seek the causes of war, poverty, and crime. Believers in the constrained vision seek the causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society.

In the unconstrained vision, human nature can be changed and social customs and traditions are expendable holdovers from the past. Human nature is unchangeable over time in the constrained vision.

The unconstrained vision is concerned directly with results, irrespective of processes. The constrained vision is concerned with the process considered integral to desired results, but inevitably with unhappy side effects, which are accepted as trade-offs.

Summarized, a constrained vision holds that human desires exceed both personal and societal resources, and people will not voluntarily limit themselves to what society can provide. Therefore, external constraints, like prices, laws, traditions, and social pressures, are necessary to force individuals to live within real limits and reduce harm to others. These limitations apply universally, even to the wisest or most compassionate people. Only by recognizing that all humans are bound by such limits is the constrained vision complete.

Knowledge and Reason

The unconstrained vision believes knowledge is reserved for the special and elite few to serve as guides and instructors for those not blessed with above average intellect. The constrained vision believes knowledge is too vast and complex for explicit articulation. The process must travel through multiple channels, through the collection of the average many.

John Stuart Mill, through an unconstrained vision, viewed legal precedents as “an absurd sacrifice of present ends to antiquated means.” Unequal intellectual and moral standing would justify having equality imposed on others, regardless of their consent, and only “very unequal power would make it possible.” The constrained vision is less concerned with economic and social equality and more concerned with the dangers of inequality of power producing an articulate ruling elite.

A socially responsible businessman would hire the disadvantaged, invest in what is needed most by society, rather than profit, and turn proceeds over to charity in the unconstrained vision. In the constrained vision, The businessman’s competence in his particular field yields prosperity. Competition, rather than individual intentions, comprises the constrained vision and its reliance to produce social benefit.

In the unconstrained vision, the judge’s moral duty is to interpret or change the law as it fits society in the present, relinquishing the grip on the past and applying reason to the present. In the constrained vision, The judge’s moral duty is to faithfully carry out the law he was sworn to uphold, regardless of how he sees the outcome.

Conclusion

As you can see, both distinct visions share the same desired destination. Happiness and flourishing for all. The separation arrives at the mode of discretion (how the decisions are made) and the locus of discretion (who makes those decisions).

Next, we will look into the two visions and how they view Social Processes, Equality, Power.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Testify to What?

Why Love Isn’t Love

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

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

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

Realities of the Music Industry

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

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

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

New Take On an Old Song

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

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

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

Christian Beliefs

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

Exploitation vs. Good Business

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

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

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

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

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

True Meaning Behind the Song

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

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

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

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

Stay Classy GP (God’s People)!

Grainger

Posted on

9/12/2001

The Day Tribalism Didn’t Exist

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

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

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

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

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

Read on to see how you did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • A. 3
  • B. 4
  • C. 2
  • D. 1

How did your team do?

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

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

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Fathers Are Coming Home

The Quiet Revival

To the fathers out there, we see you, and we’re seeing more of you!

Every year around this time, pastors all over the country walk up to the pulpit and deliver a scathing state of the union address concerning current fatherlessness in America. And rightfully so. Men get dressed up, sit next to their wife (who just four short weeks ago was being praised for holding the world together) and get the tongue-lashing society believes they deserve. For a while, it seemed to make sense why. Fathers had checked out. But there was a reason. They were asked to leave.

History of Fatherlessness

Following President Johnson’s overreaction to the Moynihan Report, single mothers were incentivized to remain single, or at least without a man in the home. Prior to this great degenerative incentivization, 8% of white babies were born to single mothers and 24% of black babies were born to single mothers. By 2020, both numbers virtually tripled, showing that this policy did not affect one race more than another. It was equal opportunity disaster.

The Greeting Card Experiment

Author Gary Smalley wrote in his book, “Making Love Last Forever” about an event that took place in prisons. There was a lady who volunteered at the local prison who wanted to help prisoners reconnect with family. She requested donations of greeting cards from a card company and they agreed. When Mother’s Day came, she brought them out to give away to the prisoners. They went so fast that not everyone was able to get one. So she ordered more.

Following such success, she decided to do the same for Father’s Day. She collected her cards, set them up, and anxiously awaited. The smile slowly turned to disappointment on the volunteer’s face. Not one single prisoner came to get a free father’s day card.

The message: Human beings are formed as much by what is missing as by what is present. The void left by absent fathers became an unfortunate formation in the lives of many of these men, and it is willful blindness to ignore the possibility that the same absence helped chart the course that eventually led them to incarceration.

Historically, fathers have a pretty poor track record. During the 1960s, roughly 88% of children lived with two parents. By the 1980s, that figure decreased to around 77%. By the late 1990s, that number had, yet again, decreased to around 69%.

How the Turn Tables

Somewhere around the turn of the century, people looked around and decided to invite men back into their homes. In some cases, men began to fight for the right to see their children after being separated from them against their will. Whatever the method, the tide was turning. Before you knew it, men were showing up to all their kids’ practices and games. Men were spending more time with the family and began requesting less work hours. They were becoming more likely to share in caregiving and see themselves as more than financial provision, but an integral part of their children’s development, as well as finding joy in their marriage.

I had a good father, so I never desired to be anything except a great father. I didn’t quite achieve that, but I tried. I was always thinking about my children and what I could do to both love them where they are and also urge them towards what they could become. My suspicion is this isn’t uncommon.

The Good News

Here is where the good news comes in. Since the early 2000s, those numbers of fathers in the home have increased, steadily. See for yourself:

But the greatest increase comes from the black father. Where there was a 6% increase in overall fathers, there’s an almost 13% increase in black fathers in the home. There are more black fathers in the home than in 1980. And there have been for 10 years! See for yourself:

Conclusion

So, on Father’s Day, while there will likely be a large number of pastors pointing their finger at men and smiling at women, I will be thanking the fathers for doing their part.

  • For taking part in one of the most thankless jobs ever.
  • For doing the hard thing, the selfless thing, the sacrificial thing, and never flinching or complaining.
  • For being the reason your children become healthy contributors of society, rejecting passivity and embracing resilience.
  • For instilling a proper self-perception into your daughters, causing them to pick the right guy because they know their true worth.

You, sir, are being saluted. The numbers are in! And more fathers in the last 45 years are taking their rightful place in the home and being the man the moment demands. Do we have work to do? Yes. The struggle isn’t over. But the numbers show that with each passing year, more men are choosing their family over their selfish ambition. And that’s worth celebrating. Happy Father’s Day Gents!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Intrinsic Defense

When Mistrust is Default

I recently wrote a note that said, “We should treat ambiguous communication with charitable grace rather than offense-tilted.” Although I often get hate, mockery, and uneducated pub-style rants denouncing my “so-called knowledge,” this one seemed down the middle. Yet, almost predictably, it returned disdain. And I thought, why is that?

I pictured that guy who walks into every conversation slightly armored. I’ve been that guy. He listens carefully, scans for disrespect, assumes hidden motives, and reacts quickly when something feels off. An unanswered text becomes rejection. A vague comment becomes criticism. Disagreement is threat. In modern psychology this is often framed as defensiveness, hypervigilance, or cognitive distortion. But that explanation alone feels incomplete, because the instinct itself did not appear out of nowhere. Human beings, especially men throughout most of history, survived by noticing danger early and responding before it was too late. It’s a primordial instinct.

The problem is not the instinct to protect. The problem is when protection becomes the dominant lens through which all social interaction is interpreted.

Balanced Reciprocity

A healthy life requires balance. Enough caution to avoid genuine harm, but enough openness to allow trust, cooperation, friendship, and intimacy to develop. Too little defense makes someone naïve. Too much defense makes them isolated. The challenge is learning how to distinguish real danger from imagined threat, meeting the balance required for optimal socialization.

Sigmund Freud argued that much of human behavior is driven by unconscious defense mechanisms designed to protect the ego from pain and anxiety. While Freud focused largely on internal psychological conflict, his observations apply powerfully to social behavior. A person who constantly assumes hostility from others may not simply be thinking negatively. He may be unconsciously defending himself from vulnerability, embarrassment, rejection, or humiliation. The mind often prefers suspicion over uncertainty because suspicion creates the illusion of control. Defense mechanisms are real.

This helps explain why some people react aggressively to harmless ambiguity. If someone laughs across the room, the defensive mind assumes mockery. If a spouse becomes quiet, the defensive mind assumes contempt. If a coworker offers criticism, the defensive mind interprets attack. The brain fills in gaps with threat because threat feels safer than unpredictability.

The Cost of Imbalance

Human relationships depend on reciprocity. It’s the willingness to exchange trust, patience, and goodwill without demanding certainty beforehand that breeds air into our social lungs. Friendships, marriage, virtually all social life requires risk.

A man who cannot lower his guard eventually sabotages his own relationships. Others begin to experience him as combative, suspicious, or emotionally exhausting. Ironically, the very behaviors intended to protect him begin creating the loneliness and conflict he fears most. It’s the dad on Talladega Nights. He senses the night going smooth, it crawls straight up his nerves because it doesn’t feel familiar, predictable, or safe. So he blows the evening up by getting kicked out of an Applebee’s… on a date night.

Jordan Peterson often discusses the importance of integrating strength with restraint. In his framework, mature people are not harmless. They are capable of danger but disciplined enough to control it. Someone who lacks any defensive instinct becomes passive and easily exploited. But someone ruled entirely by defensiveness becomes destructive. Peterson repeatedly emphasizes that courage is not the absence of danger, it is voluntary engagement with uncertainty in spite of danger.

That idea cuts directly into the modern tendency toward constant psychological self-protection. Some people attempt to eliminate all social risk from their lives. They avoid difficult conversations, avoid vulnerability, avoid disagreement, and avoid trust unless absolute safety is guaranteed first. But absolute safety does not exist in human relationships. The attempt to achieve it often produces emotional paralysis.

Calibrated Judgment

Not every criticism is abuse. Not every disagreement is disrespect. And not every ambiguous situation is a hidden attack. Maturity involves developing the ability to pause before reacting. To ask whether the perceived threat is real, proportional, and worthy of such defense.

This does not mean abandoning caution altogether. There are certainly situations where suspicion is wise. History, crime, betrayal, and personal experience all teach that human beings are capable of manipulation and cruelty. Evolutionary psychology is not wrong when it suggests that men, in particular, evolved protective instincts tied to territory, family, status, and physical safety. For most of human history, failing to recognize danger carried severe consequences.

But instincts developed for survival in extreme environments can become maladaptive in ordinary social life. A nervous system calibrated for warfare, scarcity, or betrayal may interpret ordinary discomfort as existential threat. The body reacts before the mind has time to reason.

Trade-Offs in Interpersonal Connection

Thomas Sowell frequently writes about the importance of trade-offs and the danger of utopian thinking. One of his recurring insights is that human problems are rarely solved. They are managed through trade-offs. That principle applies psychologically as much as politically. There is no perfect formula where a person can be completely safe and completely socially open at the same time. Every social interaction involves trade-offs between caution and connection.

If someone becomes entirely trusting, he risks exploitation. If he becomes entirely defensive, he sacrifices intimacy and cooperation. Wisdom lies in navigating the middle ground rather than pursuing an impossible extreme. It’s that crossroad of order and chaos.

This balanced approach requires emotional discipline. It means resisting the urge to interpret uncertainty as hostility. It means allowing room for misunderstanding before assuming malevolence. It means recognizing that people are imperfect communicators, but not necessarily enemies.

It also means understanding that strength and openness are not opposites. In fact, secure people are often less reactive precisely because they do not experience every challenge as catastrophic. That balance may be one of the clearest markers of maturity.

At the deepest level, defensiveness is often an attempt to avoid pain. But pain cannot be eliminated from human relationships. Betrayal will sometimes happen. Rejection will sometimes happen. Misunderstanding will happen constantly. This shuts down vulnerability. But we can only love and be loved to the degree we are vulnerable. This comes with its share of unpredictability and risk of pain. The goal of life is not to build an impenetrable psychological fortress. The goal is to become resilient enough that openness no longer feels fatal.

Protection matters. Instinct matters. Caution matters. But so do trust, reciprocity, and generosity. Human flourishing depends on D, all of the above.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

What Forgiveness is Not

Letting Go Without Losing Yourself

If you know anything about me, you know I talk often about forgiveness and its benefits. There are many studies detailing the physiological benefits of forgiveness. I cover some of it in this article. Recently, after writing about what forgiveness looks like, I received some feedback regarding what forgiveness is not. I collected my thoughts on the validity of this idea, and this is what landed.

Forgiveness is Not Restoration

Restoration is the reunification of two people. Someone does you wrong, you want to forgive them and reignite friendship with each other. This requires both parties’ consent. Forgiveness can be involved in this transaction, but restoration is not required for forgiveness. Forgiveness only requires one person. That’s because unforgiveness only affects one. We should not feel obligated to restore to someone while forgiving them..

Forgiveness is Not Transforming Into a Doormat

Forgiveness does not give the offender the right to inflict further abuse. He slips up one night and after too many beers, he smacks her. He is visibly upset and remorseful. He apologizes. She says she forgives him. He thinks, “Good, then I can do it again.” Absolutely not. Forgiveness is not a license to continue damage. One can forgive, standing strong in their conviction that they have done nothing wrong and will not stand for such calamity any longer.

Forgiveness is Not Manipulation

Forgiveness cannot be coerced. It must be voluntary. Often, a child is the target of physical or verbal abuse and the parent cries and asks for forgiveness. When the parent commits such an action later, they remind the child, “You forgave me, remember? So you have to forgive me again!” This is nothing short of manipulation. Remember, restoration and forgiveness are not the same. Yes, you could forgive the parent again, but you will feel much less inclined to restore that relationship. This maneuver also involves a bit of vulnerable narcissism (different from grandiose narcissism).

In vulnerable narcissism, the subject must be the center of attention, and in order to get this attention, they draw attention to the negativity in their life. Even (and especially) if they are the instigators of such dysfunction. This is what some parents do.

Forgiveness Doesn’t Justify the Infraction

Erica Kirk publicly forgave her husband’s killer. This does not make the murder acceptable. There still remains consequence. Moses needed forgiveness from God for placing himself too high on the spiritual ladder. God forgave, but Moses did not enter the promised land.

  • Justice = getting what you deserve
  • Mercy = not getting what you deserve
  • Grace = getting what you don’t deserve

True forgiveness typically stems from the recognition of grace extended to me, through mercy, while remaining entangled in the justice I invited.

Forgiveness is Not Forgetting

The idea to “forgive and forget” is absolute nonsense; not tangible, reasonable or, in many cases, possible. Forgetting may seem insurmountable, but the sting doesn’t have to linger. How does one remove the sting? By shaping the mindset from “you did this to me so I hope you get what you deserve” to “I feel sad for you and what your decisions have cost you.” It’s seeing the humanity in people. Remember, victims perpetrate, survivors heal. Victims say, “Now it’s your turn to get what you deserve.” Survivors say, “I hope you get the help you need. But I forgive you.”

Keep in mind there is an amount of determinism involved in certain malevolent actions. They got here through a series of events they had no control over, leading them to make decisions that were mostly in their control, but heavily influenced by what they could not control.

Example: A young man doesn’t have a father. Mother is an addict. Raises himself. Gets connected with people who are addicts and in gangs. His grandfather was also an addict and stayed in trouble. And his grandfather’s father was in and out of prison. This young man literally has no example of what normality or proper functioning looks like. One could even include the man that had parents in the home but threw money at their son so he’d go away. He wasn’t parented. He doesn’t have an example of how to act either. So he turns to nature’s way, which is hungry for acceptance through power, greed, and tyranny.

Forgiveness is Not Emotional Numbness

Some people believe forgiveness means becoming unaffected by what happened. It does not. Forgiveness is not the absence of pain, anger, grief, or disappointment. In fact, attempting to forgive too quickly often results in emotional suppression rather than genuine healing. A person says, “I’m over it,” while resentment quietly festers underneath the surface. Avoidance helps no one and paralyzes the progress of forgiveness.

Healthy forgiveness allows room for emotion. Jesus wept. David lamented. Job grieved. Emotional pain is not evidence of spiritual failure. It is evidence that something meaningful was damaged. The goal of forgiveness is not to become cold or indifferent, but to prevent pain from transforming into hatred, bitterness, or revenge.

A scar may remain tender long after the wound closes. That does not mean healing has failed. It means you are human. Forgiveness says, “This hurt me deeply, but I refuse to let the injury harden my heart or define my future.” Forgiveness doesn’t mean being conformed, it’s means not being consumed.

What It Comes Down To

Forgiveness is release without denial. Mercy with delusion. Compassion without sacrificing truth. Freedom from hatred without freedom from consequence. Should you forgive? Absolutely. Should you relinquish all agency over it? Absolutely not. That’s what forgiveness is not.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger