Why is American Christianity so Disgusting?
That was the question on quora. com.
Sometimes, it’s hard not to speculate that those kinds of questions aren’t anything other than just an invitation for atheists and agnostics to spew their discontent with the Reality of Biblical Absolutes.
But this was my response…
It depends on what you mean by “American Christianity.”
There aren’t different versions. You’re either a Christian or you’re not (Rom 10:9–10).
And while there are a number of people who’ve got it in their head that just saying they believe in the empty tomb somehow qualifies them as a believer, the demons believed that Christ rose from the grave. So, a belief in the resurrection, from a biblical standpoint, goes beyond acknowledging Christ’s having risen from the grave as more than a historical truth. It’s a personal reality that’s represented by the Spirit of Christ living inside of you (Rom 8:9–10; 1 Cor 2:16).
One thing that often gets distorted is the idea of “love.” In the absence of Truth, love is nothing more than selfishness and neglect. In 1 Corinthian 13, it says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” So, when you’re breaking the law and justifying it by saying that you have the right to be happy, or when you’re attempting to defend something perverse by saying that love is stronger than hate, that’s just a coward wanting to be accommodated rather than evaluated.
You can’t disagree with “love,” so you make that your storefront in order to conceal what you’re actually selling.
It’s the same thing with the way people either claim to be a Christian, or criticize Christians in that they want to maintain themselves as their own moral bottom line while simultaneously sounding “godly.”
Just like the gospel says that you are more than your mistakes, the Truth is more than a personal preference. And when that “preference” is threatened, it’s then that some will try to reduce institutions to traditions, and an authentic relationship with Christ to a flawed opinion.
Bad Bunny
A pastor posted his “struggle” in trying to identify which half time show represented the more Christlike response to the tension created by selecting Bad Bunny as the half time show artist.
This was my response…
Let me get this straight: You’re “struggling” to figure out if the TPUSA half time show option represented more of a Christlike response to the NFL that chose for its half time artist a guy who sings this particular song:
He’s acting like she doesn’t know me (Like she doesn’t know me; no, no, no)
But in my bed, I gave it to her on all fours and in all the positions (In all the positions),
eh I eat her out fully, no one is finding out (JHAYCO)
It’s not that complex. You’ve got a performer who celebrates sexual decadence in his music. That’s not someone I want to listen to and for it to be implied that unless I do listen to it and endorse it as “inclusive,” I’m somehow either a bigot or I’m not especially Christlike, is insane.
And you think because Bad Bunny references the fact that love is superior to hate, that somehow translates to something more aligned with the gospel than Kid Rock’s performance?
Here’s what the Bible says:
First of all, Satan quoted Scripture (Matt 4:5-6). Just because you reference a biblical Truth, unless it’s quoted in its proper context, it’s nothing more than a vice disguised as a courtesy. “Love,” as referenced by folks who see themselves as their own bottom line, are not referring to “love” as its defined in 1 Corinthians 13, in that their idea of love absolutely delights in evil.
The Bible says to flee sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:18) and to obey the governing authorities (Rom 13:1, 4). Bad Bunny has denounced the enforcement of immigration law and you can read some more his sexually perverse lyrics by visiting https://www.vibe.com/lists/bad-bunny-songs-translated-into-english/titi-me-pregunto/.
Kid Rock’s performance began with a rehearsal of what he used to be, followed by an extended string section that then segued into a tune where he sang about the transforming Power of Christ.
And you’re trying to figure out which of those most closely aligned with a Christlike perspective?
And let’s end this dilemma about “judging.” Jesus never said not to judge (John 7:24; Eph 5:11). He said not to make things worse by being a hypocrite (Mat 7:3-5). If you were to extend your interpretation of Scripture to its inevitable conclusion, you would be hard pressed to present the gospel because of it being seemingly “wrong” to address someone as a sinner.
You’re not wrong in recognizing that this tension is a spiritual one and it isn’t remedied by an alternative broadcast (Eph 6:12). But we are commanded to be salt and light (Matt 5:13-16) and both of those get totally lost when you endorse decadence as a ministry.
The choice was obvious to anyone who’s looking at the Bible as a whole, as opposed to some judiciously selected verses that conveniently allow a person to take a seat rather than taking a stand.
Jesus Wasn’t a Socialist
Jesus wasn’t a Socialist.
At no point does Jesus try to classify people into two categories, as far as those who own the means of production and those who don’t.
That’s the supposed problem that Socialism tries to solve – the idea that rich people are corrupt and poor people are oppressed. To solve that problem, Socialism controls both the supply and the demand and categorizes anyone who would attempt to disagree as being opposed to the concept of sharing and the common good.
The problem is that when you replace personal responsibility with a default corporate endorsement, the end result allows for a toxic level of mismanagement and neglect that leads to poverty and death.
Jesus praised and promoted industry, not subsidies in the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14–30). In the same chapter, He emphasized accountability in the first 13 verses. The book of Proverbs is rife with condemnations of the “sluggard” (Prov 21:25; 26:13–14). 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says if you don’t work, you don’t eat.
Thomas Sowell said that the strongest argument for Socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against Socialism is that it doesn’t work. Margaret Thatcher echoed the same sentiment when she said that the problem with Socialism is that you inevitably run out of someone’s else’s money.
Socialism appeals to two kinds of people: Those who want to appear compassionate without having to sacrifice anything, and those who want to be given what they would otherwise have to earn.
Sharing and Compassion are obviously promoted in Scripture. But sharing is not controlling, nor is compassion a subsidy. Both, in the sense that they are commanded in Scripture, are voluntary acts of service and obedience that are ultimately done as a way to honor God, not compulsory gestures of good will designed to empower the government.
According to What You Prefer
A question on Quora came up that asked how you can support President Trump as a Christian.
! Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality.
Broaden Your Base
If you’re a hockey fan at all, you may have heard about the “bongo anthem” – a unique version of the National Anthem sung by Bruce Gust, a nine year veteran of the USMC and a former national recording artist. While it’s been referenced in multiple news outlets, it got yet another boost recently on ESPN’s TikTok channel where in the space of only 3 days, it got over 3 million views.
As it turns out, Bruce has got an interesting resume that includes having sung and played with a band that broke the Country Music Top 40, in addition to having served in the USMC for nine years, five of which were as a Drum Instructor at the Armed Forces School of Music. He credits his career path to a piece of advice he got from a retired Marine Corps Major when he was getting ready to graduate High School…
High School Graduation
Years ago, when I was getting ready to graduate High School, I sat down with a retired Marine Corp Major who gave me some counsel as I was attempting to navigate my options after graduation. He suggested that I “broaden my base.” He went on to explain that when you broaden your base, you’re making choices that afford you more opportunities, rather than those d
ecisions that unnecessarily regulate you to a limited number of options.
I decided to enlist in the Marine Corps. My rationale at the time was I wanted to serve, given my Dad’s recommendation, and I was determined to go to college – an aspiration I figured the military could help finance in some way, though I wasn’t completely sure what major I wanted to pursue. It was an audition for the Marine Corps band program, however, that initiated a professional trajectory that truly “broadened my base.”
I had been attending the Eastman School of Music Preparatory Department (now the Eastman Community School), studying under Ruth Cahn, one of the principle percussionists with the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra. Under her guidance, I was exposed to mallet percussion as well as orchestral snare. That, coupled with my involvement with my High School’s music program positioned me in a way that made me a strong candidate for training as a military musician.
The Marine Corps
I went to Parris Island and from there reported to the Armed Forces School of Music (Modern Drummer did an article about the School while I was an Instructor there). I spent two years in Hawaii and then came back to the School and became a Drum Instructor.
As a drummer in the military, you are required to be able to function in a variety of playing situations. In the morning, you may do a colors ceremony, where you’ll be playing rudimental snare. Later that day, you’ll be in a concert band rehearsal where you’re playing bells, orchestral snare, and timpani. Later that night, you’re behind the kit playing selections that require a familiarity with swing, and several latin styles.
In addition, in order to graduate from the School of Music, you have to successfully complete courses in Theory and Ear Training. As a non-commissioned officer, the Intermediate Course takes that same training a step further and you’re now learning traditional harmony and how to arrange for a stage band. And this is on top of qualifying with your rifle and keeping your physique in line with military physical fitness requirements.
It’s a phenomenal program and several drumming icons including Steve Gadd and Billy Cobham are among those who have served as military musicians.
As an instructor, you have to be able to teach and lead by example. All of what’s expected in your students has to be personified in both your appearance and your ability to demonstrate the skills they need to learn. It’s both an inspiring and sobering responsibility and provides a huge incentive to be more than just adequate.
It was while I was serving as a Drum Instructor that I finished my degree in Business Management by attending night school – a program I began while stationed at Pearl Harbor. Now I’m practicing more than I might otherwise and my study habits are more focused in part because of the way the Marine Corps emphasizes discipline.
I was about a year away from my discharge that I was introduced to Norman Miller who used me on a project featuring his wife, Sheila Walsh, a successful Contemporary Christian Music artist, who was co-hosting the 700 Club with Pat Robertson at the time. That lead to me being his drummer for another project he produced called the Young Messiah Tour, which featured an entire roster of Contemporary Christian music icons.
So, what began in Boot Camp was now a chance to tour as a college graduate with people whose albums I owned. After the tour, I moved to Nashville. I joined Two Rivers Baptist Church and it was in the context of playing in the church orchestra that I met some talented musicians who were looking to start a country band.
Western Flyer
Together we formed the band, “Western Flyer.” Initially, I was a little hesitant, however, having cut my teeth on Jazz Fusion. I had been part of Jazz Trio that played music by Spyro Gyra, David Sanborn, Jeff Lorber, and others. And while I had played and sang in a band in Virginia that played Top 40, Country Music was not part of my musical vocabulary and singing parts was uncharted territory.
But instead of restricting my opportunities to only those styles that resonated as familiar, I again chose to “broaden my base.” As it turned out, although we were categorized as a country band, we all had influences that extended beyond a singular genre. Instead of being compelled to follow a conventional template, I was encouraged to apply concepts I had gleaned from some of Dave Weckl’s instructional content to our title cut. It was Steve Gadd’s approach to “Friends” by Chick Corea that informed my approach to another one of the selections on our first album. In addition, it was the Ear Training I learned at the School of Music that helped me get up to speed when it came to singing harmony.
Western Flyer would tour all over the country. We were featured on national television and my engagement to my future bride was announced in Country Weekly magazine. But, while it’s tempting to think that a record deal translates to a career, that’s not always the case. Regardless of how many arenas you play, or how popular your songs are on the radio, the business side of it can sometimes override your aspirations and you wind up having to reinvent yourself in order to pay your bills.
It’s here where the counsel of that Marine Corps major would surface once again. While being a former national recording artist is a prestigious credential, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee you opportunities as a studio musician or even a position as a touring drummer. But instead of resolving to define myself exclusive according to my drum kit, I chose to “broaden my base.”
More Opportunities
I became a Corporate Trainer and taught myself web programming. I then expanded my portfolio to the point where I would secure a position as a full-time web developer.
Simultaneously, I wrote a book on how to play the drums. That translated to clinics that occurred throughout the country. I made my activity known to Pintech, Peavey, and Taye Drums and they responded by providing the necessary gear to perform at these events. And by drawing from my training in Arranging, theory, and chord progression at the School of Music, I created a play-along series based on arrangements of hymns designed to feature the drummer.
Given my military background and a commitment to fitness, I got certified as a Group Fitness Instructor and developed an audio workout system featuring…drums! You can see it at https://loosecannonfitness.com/
The NHL performance that has since gone viral was the result of a conversation with the mother of one of my drum students who happened to work as part of the Nashville Predators who was able to contact me with the right people who then got me on the ice.
Your Signature
Many of those who pick up a drumstick see their musical fulfillment defined according to a very narrow collection of criteria. They will, in some cases, make unhealthy sacrifices in pursuit of a goal that sometimes proves either illusive or less than satisfying.
But there’s a prize to be won that provides a level of fulfillment that doesn’t depend on circumstances and opportunities that one can’t always control. It’s both accessible and motivating and it all comes down to “broadening your base.”
Benjamin Franklin was an incredibly accomplished individual. He signed the Declaration of Independence, he was a part of the Constitutional Convention, and he was there to sign the Treaty of Versailles. In addition, he invented the Franklin Stove, he was revered throughout the world as the one who developed the lighting rod. He invented the Public Library, the postal service, and organized the very first volunteer Fire Department. Given all these accomplishments, it’s interesting to note that he often signed his name, “B. Franklin, Printer.”
As musicians, we are similar. We have the capacity to contribute in ways that go beyond a solitary passion, yet maintain a signature that acknowledges our favored pursuit. Consider some of the most successful musicians. In many cases, not only are they singers or instrumentalists, they’re also entrepreneurs that maintain successful business ventures. They don’t see multiple obligations as distractions. Rather, they see them as additions to a platform characterized by healthy priorities and a variety of professional accomplishments.
They have “broadened their base.”
When you do that, you’re not longer restricted in seeing your craft as either a full-time effort or a side hustle. Rather, you see yourself as a conglomeration of skills and talents that, taken together, translate to a full color resume and the opportunities that result.
The SIC-ness of the Left
There are times when you’re talking to someone and, while they may push back initially, once they see your logic and understand that there’s more to the issue then what they originally thought, they change their mind and you’re now both in agreement.
But there are other times when you’re going back and forth with someone and regardless of how obvious the truth may be, they simply refuse to change their mind.
They’re not just “stubborn.” It goes deeper than that. It’s as though they’re invested in something that will not allow them to consider any perspective other than they’re own.
Its as though they’re basing their assessment of the issue on a scale that is calibrated according to a fluctuating standard as opposed to a fixed point of reference. The end result is a conviction that is not at all consistent with reality.
When you’re confronted with this kind of individual, you want to be able to understand the way they think and what is the root cause of the irrational vitriol that often characterizes these kind of situations.
Buckle up!
I Am My Own Absolute
In many instances, the person who refuses to change their mind is someone who sees themselves as their own absolute. They see themselves as not only entitled to discern the difference between right and wrong, they live in a manufactured reality where they have the right to dictate the difference between right and wrong.
It breaks down into three main poisons:
Three Poisons
Truth
Katherine Maher, in a speech she made at a Ted conference said that truth is based on many things and for that reason cannot be restricted to a singular viewpoint. In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me. The problem with that perspective, however, is that if truth is not based on a fixed point of reference, then all knowledge is reduced to a meaningless collection of personal preferences.
People who want to pretend that truth is whatever it is they want to believe ignore the fact that by saying that they have declared themselves to be irrelevant. According to their own logic, they don’t have a point, they have only a preference.
Right
A right is a term that’s been emptied of its original meaning, as far as the way its used in the Declaration of Independence, and instead is used to justify being selfish and immoral.
According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God. They are Divine entitlements that exist independently of the way any human convention may try to alter them. That’s what makes them immutable.
The moment you remove God from the equation, however, while you have eliminated the transcendent nature of the “right” you want to assert, you have also removed the moral standard that you would otherwise be accountable to.
That is the intent of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. Whatever is sacrificed in the context of now being dependent on like minded individuals in order to secure a legal endorsement for one’s behavior, that is a trivial concession when compared to the way in which a person can now be morally accountable to no one other than themselves.
Victim
A self-serving paradigm can’t be championed directly without sounding both absurd and pretentious. But you don’t have to get people to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you. You can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and hateful. This is how a person who sees themselves as their own bottom line can avoid having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.
S.I.C
People who think this way do not process those who disagree with them as intellectual adversaries as much as they see them as existential threats. You are not questioning their logic, you are challenging their authority. This is what shapes the way in which they attempt to defend the way they think and this is how you can tell when you’re talking to someone who sees themselves as their own absolute.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) (Saul Alinski’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they attack the character of the person who’s speaking. By making them look bad, anything that they say is now assumed to be corrupted and therefore something you don’t need to listen to. They do this in three phases…
Stupid (They’re not qualified)
Phase One is to criticize their intellect. You don’t need to pay attention to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Immoral (They can’t be trusted)
Phase Two: If your opponent’s platform can’t be effectively refuted by accusing them of being “stupid,” the next phase is to accuse them of being immoral. You don’t have to have any basis for your accusation. Your opponent now has to prove their innocence before they can be perceived as credible, and because of the way it’s assumed that a guilty person will insist they’re innocent, apart from something irrefutable, there is now a shadow of suspicion that will linger over anything your adversary would say.
Criminal (They can’t be supported)
The final phase is to indict them. Charge them with a crime and make it difficult for anyone to support or agree with them given their criminal status.
Untouchable
Embedded within each of these accusations is the idea that the person who’s having to contend with these dynamics is being forced to conform either to an inferior intellect or a depraved character. They are sophisticated victims attempting to stand up against uneducated villains. And because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel or hateful, all a person has to do is claim to be either offended or oppressed and they become untouchable – perpetually excused from having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.
This is how bad ideas and solutions that don’t work get introduced into the marketplace. Not because of their intellectual or practical merit, but because of the way anyone who opposes them is dismissed due to their supposed lack of intelligence or integrity. But they’re not accusations as much as they’re distractions. By keeping the focus on the person speaking rather than on what is being said, topics are replaced with tactics and principles are subordinated to preferences.
What’s truly bizarre is the way people who see themselves as their own bottom line will accuse others of the very thing they themselves are doing. By pointing an accusatory finger in the opposite direction, it’s assumed that the person making the accusation is innocent of the stupidity, immorality, and criminality they would insist is being perpetrated by another. This was a tactic applauded by Joseph Goebbels, the head of Nazi Propaganda during the second World War (see sidebar).
Ask the Right Questions
Overcoming these tactics is not accomplished by reason and debate. All the boundaries otherwise established by truth, logic, and common sense are nonexistent once truth has been redefined as something that is based on a personal preference as opposed to a fixed principle. In addition, if you’ve been labeled in a way that makes everything you say resonate as something either stupid or sinister, you first have to prove you’re credible before you can prove that you’re right. Given the way guilty people are expected to claim that they’re innocent, regardless of how compelling the defense of your character may be, there is nevertheless a shadow of doubt that’s been cast over your platform that you can never completely eliminate.
There is, however, another approach that can prove very effective in revealing the lack of intellectual and practical merit that characterizes a particular perspective.
Simply ask the right questions.
Jesus did this every effectively when the Pharisees tried to trap Him with a topic they thought would incriminate Him.
When you ask a question, in that moment you control the conversation. Your opponent is now obligated to provide an answer that will either resonate as logical or hesitant. That hesitation can do more for proving your point than the argument you would articulate, regardless of how eloquently you might be able to state your case. Instead of providing the necessary space for tactics and distractions to be deployed, you’re now able to clear the field of everything save the reality that your opponent needs to either qualify or dismiss entirely.
You can see several examples of this approach that cover topics such as Racism, Homosexuality, and Voter Fraud by clicking here. Another issue that serves as a great example of the way those who recognize standards that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels are accused of being “SIC,” is Illegal Immigration.
Those who would label the current administration as a Nazi operation, given its direct approach to the deportation of illegal immigrants, will not sound especially confident if compelled to answer the following questions honestly.
While you often see “SIC-ness” in the context of Politics, it’s not limited to the disagreements between Conservatives and Liberals. Anytime you encounter someone who sees themselves as their own bottom line, you inevitably encounter the approach where what’s being spoken is being ignored in favor of trying to discredit the person who’s speaking. While that’s not always inappropriate, it is a common tactic used by someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they’ve got something to hide.
In the end, it’s a spiritual darkness, given the way it can be accurately described as a person elevating themselves to the status of a deity. While that’s not something you can completely address from a human standpoint (Eph 6:12), we are nevertheless doing well to be capable of effectively explaining what we believe and why (1 Pet 3:15).
Being able to ask the right questions is a good start. It’s an effective strategy that protects something we can’t live without…
The Truth…
