The problem with "Identifying" as what you aren't

                                                      (Timesnews religion column 4/29/22)

Imagine as you are being seated aboard a commercial flight a 14 year old passenger proclaims, “I’m a pilot. Show me to the cockpit, I’ll fly this plane.” Then, like a scene out of the Twilight Zone, the flight-crew accommodates this childish whim -- but none of the other passengers budge. Would you have the courage to deplane?

Speaking of flying, as a four year old I dressed up as Superman for Halloween. My costume was as comfortable as pajamas, and since I was only four, I wore it for days. Soon I went from pretending I was Superman, to believing I was. Eventually I asked my mom if I really was Superman; she indulged my immature imagination and said, “Yes, yes you are.”

Being an irrational four year old I wanted to fly, so I climbed to the top of our bunk-beds and called my mom to my bedroom. I said, “If I’m really Superman, then I can fly. Right?” Thankfully my mom had the sense to end my fantasy, “I wouldn’t try that if I were you.” she said.

Can we fabricate every outlandish transformation we desire? If I “identify” as a Pulitzer prize winning columnist, am I now entitled to be called one? What about those students supposedly identifying as “Furries?”

There was a false rumor circulating about a school board meeting with an agenda item for adding litter boxes to the school bathrooms for the students identifying as “furries.” In actuality, Michigan, Iowa, and Kentucky schools recently have reported situations with teenage students acting like cats and dogs, walking on all fours, barking and hissing at other students.

To any worried teachers: Perhaps you could “identify” as the Principal and forbid it, telling these students they need proof that their veterinarian vaccinated them for rabies, that animals do not receive driver's licenses, and there are leash laws. Perhaps add, being “furry” requires fur.

What happens when teenage students “identify” as school administrators and demand to start making their own rules? If we continue down this path, our classrooms won’t be far from Golding’s “Lord of the flies.”

When is enough, enough? How far will we go, how long will we indulge the fantasies of delusional people who claim to identify as something other than what they actually are? Why is this even important -- what’s at stake when society caters to these fraudulent identities?

We are embattled over objectivity, and our strongest weapon is the Truth. If we can erode confidence in objective reality then it becomes acceptable to say, “That’s your truth,” or, “That’s true for you, not for me.” If you can destroy objectivity, you either take away our ability or at least make it nearly impossible to make truth claims, such as, there is only One God and only one way to God — through Jesus. Jesus said, “I am the way, the Truth, and the Life.” Either He told the truth or He lied, He didn’t merely “identify” as a Messiah.

The battle for “identifying” as something other than what you are ontologically isn’t about personal choices, or being gender fluid, or living in a fantasy realm. It’s a distortion that leads towards destroying our civilization, not by personal choices that affect only an individual, but by forcing everyone to acquiesce to a total lie. These concessions weaken the Truth with a capital T -- continually violating our conscience is causing a crippling cultural cognitive dissonance.

Paul’s words in II Cor 10:3-5 seem more relevant now than ever, “3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ...”

These are not impolite, uncompassionate, or intolerant questions. These days, sharing our opinions about these matters is courageous. Some people will shame/bully Christians into silence, but we need to be able to dialogue about this. I do not want to take away anyone’s right to choose their identity or persecute Trans-people, I simply want the right to civilly voice our disagreements.

Honestly, medically speaking, if you examine a person scientifically you can deduce from their organ structure, skeletal structure, and DNA what species/gender they are — regardless of what the individual believes. Also, doctors do not “guess” a baby’s gender at birth.

Some will accuse us of hate speech. When the Emperor was showing off his new clothes, was it hateful to point out his lack of clothes? How long until we say enough is enough? If we are forced to agree that people actually are whatever they claim to be when in fact they aren’t, brace for impact -- our culture is in for a crash landing.

When we only talk with people who already agree with us

Have you noticed how difficult it has become to disagree with other people? Trump is a great example, he gets everyone talking -- we’re just not talking with the right people. How so? People on one side think that he can do no wrong, while other people believe he can’t do anything right. You either have a zealot-like loyalty to him, or you find him utterly loathsome. Just like the topic of abortion, there is no middle ground when it comes to talking about Trump.

The same could be said for discussing transgender people teaching sex-ed to preschoolers, current events in the Middle East, or immigration. We are too polarized these days. Worse yet, we can’t even seem to have a civil conversation with people “on the other” side of any issue.

FYI: It is okay to be neutral on the topic of the President, and, not every discourse is “hate speech” simply based on the fact you that disagree. You are not homophobic or Islamophobic whenever you voice a different view than what is held on the TV talk-shows. Yet, our culture has bullied us into silence when it comes to speaking up in the public square whenever we voice our conscience about the moral decline we see daily.

I find it ironic when a relativistic culture that on the one hand claims “what’s true for you isn’t true for me” (discarding logic and reason) wants to set a standard for diversity that is dependent on the stipulation that you can speak up only as long as you are in complete agreement with their views. There really isn’t room for exchanging ideas within this false diversity when their standard tells the other side to be quiet or acquiesce because you are hateful whenever you disagree with them.

How has our culture kept you quiet? They shame you and guilt you into silence, as they marginalize your mainstream-traditional virtues, claiming you are “intolerant.” And you probably think that you should remain quiet, since that’s the polite thing to do. The people who would suppress your voice, they are banking on you to be polite. And it works after-all, since all good Christians are polite like Jesus was.

Forget the fact Jesus braided a whip and drove out the money changers. Ignore the disciples asking Him in Matthew 15:12, “Don’t you realize the Pharisees were offended...?” by what He said. Jesus wasn’t killed for being polite. We somehow imagine Jesus to be charming and witty, almost like a candidate running for office or a TV game-show host, all the while forgetting He was killed for speaking the truth which offended people.

Jesus wasn’t combative, critical, or judgmental when He disagreed or when He voiced His unpopular ideas. He was confident, compassionate, creative, and caring when He shared the truth. Unfortunately, we as believers don’t even practice Jesus’ example on dialoguing with other Christians. Until we can do a better job of disagreeing amongst “ourselves” over the gray areas of theology or faith, are we really in a place to correct the world? It doesn’t have to be an either or, i.e., either we finally achieve unity or we can’t reach out period. But, we certainly need to avoid hypocrisy. And, we need to do whatever we are going to to improve our ability to dialogue soon.

When it comes to discussing our differences in the public square, it seems like both sides are merely perpetuating echo-chambers where all we are doing is sharing our opinions with other people who already hold the same views which we do. Sure, it’s comfortable, but it’s also catastrophic. Revolts, riots, and revolutions happen when you suppress people. There’s a reason Proverbs 27:17, “As Iron sharpens iron” is in your Bible. It’s healthy to respectfully disagree and to challenge each other.

The only way we will grow and mature as people is through comparing and contrasting ideas and through open dialogue. When we lose our way in this matter, the church becomes irrelevant and we are lost as a civilization.

Can we debate issues without misusing the Bible?

Chances are, you’ve recently had a disagreement with someone over the border/immigration situation. My guess is, both of you were passionate about whichever stance either of you took. It’s good to have firm convictions, but can you share your convictions without condemnation? And more importantly, can we debate issues without misusing the Bible in the process?

You see, I’m not so much interested in your stance or even in sharing my position here regarding the border, as much as I am in a greater principle which is at stake: How most of us attempt to use the Bible to backup our views. Do you find it interesting how nearly everyone who is commenting on both sides of the border crisis, whether is about the families who were separated or how we should treat refugees, they are all referencing the Bible to convince others of their stance?

You might be asking, “But shouldn’t we backup our perspectives with the Bible?” It might sound heretical, but maybe not -- at least not in the way most people mean. For example, the question, “How do we know when the Bible actually supports what we think?” is more than likely the wrong question, and it’s that type of thinking that gets us in trouble. Instead, we need to ask, “Are our thoughts in line with the Scriptures?” not the other way around as in “Does the Bible support my stance...?”

Why is it tricky to “use” the Bible, for example, to backup our position on the border? For starters, as far as governments and nations go, the Bible was written in a different context and cultural situation than ours. Namely, the ancient world of Bible-times was governed by Theocratic governments and dictatorial empires. Those forms of government were very dissimilar to our modern day democracies, and lest we forget, America is a Republic.

So, if you say the Bible instructs us to obey our government, we are all in trouble in America since we rebelled against Great Britain during the Revolutionary War... And if you say, the Bible commands us to treat refugees a certain way since the children of God were wanders, that’s tough to support too since not many of us can trace our lineage to those who wandered through the desert for forty years.

It is extremely difficult to “use” the Bible to defend a political position on most of our current events. It’s nothing new for people to twist the Bible to say whatever they think is the most accurate point of view. The fact is, in America during our Civil War we had preachers on both sides of the Mason-Dixon who were guilty of cherry-picking passages of Scripture to support their views on slavery.

It requires humility to submit to God’s word, not a hostile heart that is aggressively trying the be the champion of truth. Please don’t misunderstand me, I believe in absolute truth, and I think relativism has done more harm than any other ideology, but most of the people who think they have a monopoly on the Truth are usually the most judgmental and mean-spirited people I’ve ever met.

To interpret the Bible and to apply it to our everyday life is a prayerful enterprise. We need to ask questions based on which genre we are reading because the Bible has many styles of literature: Narrative, Law, poetry, wisdom, apocalyptic, Gospels/parables, epistles. We need to also ask questions about the author and the audience, asking what did a passage mean to the original audience comes before asking what does it mean for us.

It’s healthy to acknowledge we could be mistaken about many of our opinions on a host of subjects. It’s healthier still to immerse ourselves in the Scriptures and study the Bible in such a way that it guides our thoughts, not the other way around. If you are opening up the Bible to find a verse that supports what you already believe, close your Bible and open your heart to the Spirit.

Sadly, our nation is presently divided and polarized into extreme ideological camps, both on the “Right” and “Left” over a multitude of issues; the border issue is merely the latest debate du jour. It may be unfortunate that these days we can’t even have a civil dialogue about our views with the “opposing” side, but actually, the real tragedy happens whenever we recklessly wield our Bibles like a hammer.

What doesn't add up about distrusting modern day journalism

I'm a recovering News Junkie.  When I fall off of the wagon, it gets intense.  I'll listen to NPR all morning, watch Fox news all night, and read the Washington Post and New York Times online throughout the day.  Oh yeah, I'll also check my BBC and AP apps and twitter feeds too.  My family knows when I binge on the news.  It gets ugly when I neglect the world around me to catch up on the world.

Who do you turn to for news, where do you turn?  Newspapers, cable TV, radio, internet, this list goes on.  Chances are, there are more news outlets you avoid than ones you feel you can trust.

Over the last few years, the biases of many major news outlets have become so crystallized that they overtly share their political leanings quite freely.  The corollary to this is, many Americans now judge the reliability or trustworthiness of their colleagues and friends, based on what news source their acquaintances consume.

Haven't you ever been suspicious of someone simply based on their favorite choice of news?  It's nearly impossible not to fall into this divisive trap.

It's not that reporters and commentators have gotten lazy.  The entire "information production" is charged with energy and it's clear there is a lot of effort poured into the pyrotechnics of delivering the news these days.  There's something far more sinister afoot regarding the way our news is being distilled.

Mainstream journalists have gotten away from presenting simple facts, and they have mastered entertaining us with their prejudices and opinions.  We have a place in our culture for news sources to spread opinions, it's called the column.  Columnists are paid to share their opinions about current events, even editors have their own page.  Talkingheads on TV have their monologues too.  There's nothing wrong with this, what is disturbing is when "news" is reported as news but it's clearly sharing a company's policy preferences or biases.

Why do we distrust the majority of the news outlets?  Simply put, they all seem to break the cardinal rule of journalism, i.e., simply report the facts and leave your opinions out of it.  Instead, it seems like news sources want to shape the story, and then shape their audience's perspectives.

It is almost as if news companies have decided to take it upon themselves to shape our minds, and to shape culture and society itself.  Here's where it gets interesting to me...

It's interesting being in a relativistic culture that says, "What's true for you isn't true for me" that people crave and even demand that truth and fact be reported, and these same people become outraged when a news sources slanders objectivity.  Now, we are cynical and jaded.  We don't trust anyone or anything, yet.

And maybe the larger question remains, why do we continue to tolerate or pay attention to news sources which we by & large mostly distrust?  It just doesn't add up, unless we are the lazy ones.

Is the movie Silence significant?

Many Christians will hesitate to see the movie "Silence" because they distrust Scorsese after his movie, "The last temptation of Christ." I chose to ignore those types of concerns.  In fact, earlier today, my wife & I watched Martin Scorsese's "Silence."

Silence was heavy.  It's not a warm-fuzzy, feel-good movie by any stretch.  It covers you like one of those protective lead-aprons radiologists have you wear during an X-ray, and it can be just as uncomfortable too.  Still, I highly recommend watching the film.

There are several reasons why people of faith should see this film, if not simply to be relevant in talking about our faith with people who remain distant.  Silence holds great value, there are deep truths enshrouded within this movie, real lessons for people of faith, if they will watch it.

This movie exemplifies the power of community, comradeship, and the necessity of partnering with other people whenever we want to accomplish anything good or worthwhile. Early in the plot, the two 17th century priests who will eventually travel to Japan in search of their favored teacher, leave as "an army of two."   It's a powerful metaphor, and a lesson we've seemingly forgotten in our modern-day quest for independence.

This movie is based in the challenges of taking risks, along with the power of relationships.  For example, the initial underlying desire for the two young priests to travel to a dangerous land where Christians are being tortured and martyred, is driven by their ferocious loyalty to their mentor who has been missing and hasn't been heard from in years.  Then there are the Japanese villagers who place their lives in jeopardy sheltering these two priests, which fuels the tension in the plot even further.

The combination of real risks, overwhelming fear, and the concern for the well-being of others is the trifold-thread that holds the tapestry of Silence together.  Without these factors, there is no story here, and this tension seems like a true reflection of real life.

And this is where the questions enter in, as you watch the movie.

The biggest question the story raises isn't necessarily, "why is God silent in our sufferings," even though that's the meaning behind the title, and the story-arc depends on that question.  God does seem silent during horrific situations and that can rattle the faith of the strongest, there is no doubt about that.  The question that's larger in this story, and in real life, seems to be, is redemption possible.  Can even the apostate (one who turns away from the faith) find hope.  Can we be forgiven?  Can we be pleasing to God and others when we fail?

This story will also cause you to question what true devotion consists of.  It will cause you to be more cautious in the burdens and expectations you place on others.  You'll see the limitations of religion in changing people's hearts.  You will ask yourself, what have I done in my life for the Gospel, what am I doing for the Gospel now, what will I do for the Gospel?

You'll also question what happens when we spread the Gospel cross-culturally and you'll grapple with relativism along the way.  Does missionary work help or hurt people?  What happens when we place to much hope in religious leaders?  What is the church?

You'll walk away from the experience of this film, realizing the difference between what true persecution looks like, compared to culturally biased view that North Americans have when they feel their rights are being threatened and they think that's what persecution is.    

You'll also face the question of why is Christianity deemed so threatening and apparently dangerous to certain people -- until we can answer that question and alleviate those concerns in others, we will remain less effective than the Silence we are all so worried about.