SCiPP
It’s difficult not to notice a common thread amongst all of the criticisms leveled at President Trump. Regardless of the subject matter, it seems to come down to one thing that’s far more profound than mere Politics.
It’s the extent to which you’re willing to acknowledge a bottom line that exists independently of the way an individual thinks or feels.
There are two ways in which a person is going to process themselves and the world around them.
They’ll see things either in the context of Standards and Consequences or…
Preferences and Power.
Think of it as “SCiPP” (pronounced as “Skip”).
This simple acrostic captures the tension that exists in our society today, regardless of the topic or the parties involved.
On one hand, you have a standard that functions either as a boundary or a benchmark. It can be a situation where if you cross that line, you’re responsible for your actions and you have to suffer the consequences. Or, it can be a standard of excellence that if you meet or exceed that standard, you’re able to enjoy the benefits.
Standards and Consequences.
On the other hand…
You have a perspective that’s determined to dismiss any concept of having to answer to something other than what you might prefer in that moment. And because you can’t logically defend what you believe and why you believe it without sounding either selfish or foolish, you instead work to secure the power necessary to ensure your preferences are prioritized above any standard that might otherwise apply.
Preferences and Power.
Again, it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about.
You’re either looking at what’s real or the way you feel.
Standards and Consequences. Preferences and Power.
SCiPP.
Whatever the Topic May Be
Whether the topic is Illegal Immigration, Transgenderism, Abortion, Voter Fraud, the Separation of Church and State, or Militant Islam, the schools of thought that argue back and forth will inevitably fall into one of those two camps.
| Standards and Consequences |
Preferences and Power |
| Illegal Immigration |
| National sovereignty is acknowledged and due process is applied accordingly both to those who have no criminal record as well as those who are engaged in criminal activity and / or are categorized as international terrorists. |
Border security is ignored and any criminal activity that would qualify an illegal immigrant for immediate deportment is overlooked. |
| Does the Attorney General have the legal authority to deport illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity? |
| Transgender |
| You can’t change the way the human species is designed just because you’re not happy with who you are. |
I can change who and what I am by changing my pronouns. |
| Question: Can a person change their gender by changing their pronouns? |
| Racism |
| I can’t shoot myself in the foot and then blame all my pain on the person or the principle that told me not to pull the trigger to begin with. |
As long as I can successfully position myself as a victim, I don’t have to answer any questions or take responsibility for my actions. |
| Question: Do you base the way a person is evaluated on their color or their conduct? |
| Abortion |
| If you have an abortion, your baby doesn’t get a chance to live. |
It’s not a baby until I decide it is. |
| Question: If you have an abortion, does your baby get the opportunity to live? |
| Voter Fraud |
| Fraud is defined according to the lack of integrity in the way votes are cast. |
Fraud is defined according to whether or not I win the election. |
| Question: Is voter fraud defined according to the person being elected or the votes being cast? |
| Separation of Church and State |
| The separation of church and state was designed to limit government’s influence on Christianity, not the other way around. |
I don’t have to pay attention to anything I’m not comfortable with. |
| Question: What is our national motto? |
| Militant Islam |
| You can’t take what doesn’t belong to you. |
Whether it’s a life or a piece of property, I can take whatever I want. |
| Question: What’s the difference between a thief and religious zealot if they’re both taking what doesn’t belong to them? |
In order to have a double standard, you have to have a standard to begin with. This is why it can be so exasperating to talk with someone whose disposition is based on Preferences and Power. There are no standards, only situations.
All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, the rule of law, and historical truths are now subordinated to the idea that there are no realities apart from what the individual is willing to acknowledge. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed as either unreliable or irrelevant and truth isn’t an objective reality, as much as it’s a matter of opinion.
Facts Don’t Matter
Confronted with this scenario, you can’t hope to successfully champion what’s true simply by enumerating a list of facts.
The only facts they’re willing to acknowledge are those that can be manipulated to reinforce their bias, and their “fact checkers” evaluate what’s being said using only the criteria that translates to their desired conclusion. Nothing is “true,” in the context of being an absolute. There’s only what an individual is willing to acknowledge according to their personal preferences.
Everyone’s capable of ignoring what’s true in favor of what’s preferred. It’s human nature to protect yourself from either getting hurt or even corrected. No one wants to admit they’re wrong. But there’s a difference between someone who’s not convinced and the person who simply wants to be in control.
You can see that distinction in the way a person responds to something that’s being said. The person who wants to be in control can’t defend their perspective without being revealed as both selfish and nonsensical. So, instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they assault the character of the one who’s speaking. By casting those they can’t refute as being ignorant villains, they are now perceived as sophisticated victims, and you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain.
This is the signature tactic of the person who sees themselves as their own bottom line. I can’t get you to agree with me, so I get you to feel sorry for me by insisting that the only people who criticize me are either stupid or sinister, and this is how they obtain the power necessary to force society to adopt their insanity all in the name of being “sensitive.”
But you can reveal the flawed nature of their approach by asking the right questions.
Bottom Lines…
33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33)
Bottom lines – absolute truth – isn’t welcome in the bind of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. This is why there’s so much animosity in our culture today when it comes to anything that implies a Standard that exists independently of the way a person wants to process themselves and the world around them.
The Right Questions
When you ask a question, you control the conversation. A question requires an answer and a weak response is impossible to conceal. While it may not change the mind of the person you’re talking to, those who are listening are impacted and for that reason you want to always be ready to defend what’s True, not only with the data that reinforces the substance of your platform, but with the questions that can’t be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than the manufactured world you prefer.
Every one of the perspectives listed in the “Standards and Consequences” column in the chart above can be stated as a question. That’s what you see documented in the row beneath each issue. By asking the right question, it can be a game changer in the way it compels an answer that must recognize an empirical standard in order for it to make any sense.
Conclusion: These Are Spiritual Contests
Divisions (1 Cor 1:10) and Darkness (2 Cor 4:4) are spiritual contests (Eph 6:12) that aren’t won by reason alone. Wisdom is available (Jas 1:5), but it has to be chosen and it is not an option to the person who refuses to consider anything other than what they want to see.
You can’t convince someone of the truth if they’re philosophically invested in a lie. You’re not challenging their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to define what’s right according to what they prefer.
But you can nevertheless be effective in the way you champion what’s true by first of all recognizing the way people define truth.
Standards and Consequences vs Preferences and Power.
By identifying their mindset, you can be better prepared to ask the right questions and not just present all the relevant evidence.
“In God We Trust.”
