A Misogynist Reviews Mad Men

Hey folks,

"My name is Bill and I'll be sitting in for Steve on this review. He asked me to comment on one of his favourite shows, a period piece called Mad Men that's got the liberals peeing their pants and handing out Emmys as if network television doesn't exist. Before I get to my review, you need to know that Steve and I are friends, but we don't believe the same things. In theological terms, I'm what you call a complimentarian. That's a big word, but basically it means I think men and women are different, and have different roles to play in society. God created us different, and we're just trying to take advantage of those differences in how we think society (and the church) should be run. Steve is an egalitarian, which means he believes men and women are the same. Lord help me, I feel like a retard even trying to explain his position, because it seems so darn silly to me, but he believes that men and women are equally capable in every field. Whether it's running a church or a business, he believes men and women are, well, the same. There, I said it, and I hope he forgives me for feeling a bit tied up when I even think about his position, because it just seems dumb. I mean that in a friendly way, of course.

You also need to know I'm not a big television guy. I like sports, and I don't mind the Dance show my wife insists on watching every week, but I generally don't watch cable shows. Mostly they're an excuse for nudity and swearing and the rest of the liberal nonsense. Like the one about the man and his twenty wives or something. Why would I want to watch a show about a freak like that? No thanks. Or the other one about a gangster and his family, The Sopranos. You remember that one, don't you? That was the show the TV libs were all gaga about before Mad Men came along. Again, why in the world, would a clean living, normal person watch a show about the mob? Ridiculous. I wasn't even gonna do this review when Steve said the show was set in the sixties. It isn't that I'm not interested in fairness, but the world went crazy in the sixties, and some days when I think about it, I just want my country back, you know. But he said it was set in 1960, which is before all the crap started, so I decided I would go along with it.

The show itself is about a bunch of fellas working in the advertising business, just before it became the big business it is today. Season Four opens up in 1964, so I guess four years have passed. Kennedy is dead, and they're working at a new building.

I gotta tell you, the first thing I noticed about the show was how accurate it all was. I wasn't around back then, I'm Steve's age, but from all the pictures and films I've seen, the costumes are bang on. And I have to say everyone looks terrific. None of this baggy saggy look at my arse garbage of today. The men are wearing suits. The women, who look like women, are wearing skirts with their hair done and their makeup in place. For the first five minutes all I could think about was my office this past Friday. Couldn't tell the men from the women. Back then women liked being women, you know. These days, it's like they're ashamed and feel as though they have to look like men to get ahead.

Don Draper (Jon Hamm) is the man in charge. And when I say man in charge, that's exactly what I mean. I would have worked for this guy! He's a big fella who likes the ladies, and they like him back. (I would be a wing man for this guy). He's the creative director and basically the life blood of the firm. His employees all look up to him, but he has a bit of a hard time handling Peggy, who I guess used to be his secretary and has worked her way up to being one of the boys. Watching her there with all those good guys, and how awkward she is sometimes, and so bossy, like she's a big know-it-all, made my stomach clench. Oh, I get it. She's pretty good with the ideas, but she also acts like a man! That part is obvious. An egalitarian would say that she is clearly capable of doing her job, which proves their point. Right. But if she has to be a man to do her job, what happens when every woman starts wanting to be a man? Where does that leave us? What, teaching or nursing or being a secretary wasn't good enough for her? How selfish is that? Oh, and her hair is ridiculous and she's the ugliest one on the show. But that's what happens when a woman tries to be a man. Smart women know this, of course.

The show moves pretty quick, and the actors are all pretty good. They smoke and drink a lot, but there was a lot more freedom back then, before the government got involved in everything. I haven't mentioned Roger Stirling either, Don's partner. Now that guy is funny, and really smart. Every time he says something I find myself agreeing with him. I wish I had a few more buddies as cool as him! I suppose I should talk about Don, the star of the show. Now, Don seems like an all right fella. He seems to agree with rational, normal people about roles in society. But there's something there, something kinda dark, that makes me not believe him when he (rightly) tells a woman to get lost or that he doesn't want a woman present. It isn't that I think he's joined Steve's pink shirted cast of Nancy school girls, but it almost seems as if he doesn't care about men or women. Or that they don't matter because nothing matters. Or something like that.

Anyway, I'm sure that I'll be watching the show again. I liked the costumes and I liked the surety of that society. Oh, I know that it's written by one of the "Nancies" (with a name like Weiner, what do you expect?) but I'm hoping it will remind people how much simpler and more efficient things were back when men were men and women were happy. Hope this helps, everyone."


Thanks, Bill.

-Steve

Authour's Note: Names may have been changed and certain individuals above may not actually exist. But as James Frey says, it's the truth that matters.

Sex: What Religion and Pornographers Don’t Want You to Know

Kyle stood numbly in front of the church leadership. He was a big, sprawling redhead who always had a smile for people, and when he led the worship portion of the service, did so with sincerity and reverence. Today however, his face was glum. I sighed and looked over at the men and women in leadership. There was some sympathy in the younger set, but the deacons, the ones who comprised the lay leadership and handled the church finances, did not look happy. Brad – the church treasurer – looked at the others before finally breaking the silence.

"We accept your apology, Kyle. But you'll have to step down from leadership. We can't be having immorality in our leadership, and while I know you love Sarah, you aren't married yet."

Kyle nodded, his face red. Someone in the church had caught wind that his relationship with his long time girlfriend had become sexual and reported it to my senior pastor, who'd then gone to Kyle with it. Kyle had confessed that they were having sex, and Pastor Hall had told him that he'd have to apologize to the leadership of the church, and that they would go from there. I'd tried to excuse myself from the meeting, but Pastor Hall had been adamant that ALL of the leadership needed to be there, including the youth pastor.

"Is there anything else, Kyle?" Brad said.

"Um, no, sir." His words tumbled out in a half slur, a stark contrast from his singing voice, which was strong and clear. "I'm really sorry about this. I love Sarah, but we sinned. I love God so much…"

Pastor Hall stood up. He was short and stout, and his white hair was thicker than mine, although he was well into his sixties.

"Thank you Kyle. We know that wasn't easy. We'll give you our decision later this week."

Kyle mumbled something under his breath and walked out. I followed him to the parking lot a few minutes later after a word with my boss, but he was already gone. I knew what the Bible said about leadership and expectations, but the whole experience felt dirty to me. At least the leadership wouldn't gossip about it, I knew that much. My church was small, about a hundred and fifty people, but when it came to things like this, there would be no discussion with other members. Pastor Hall wouldn't tolerate it. Still, it didn't change what had happened, or the fact that I felt like I'd bathed in dirty water. And it wasn't Kyle's sex life that had me feeling like a creep.

***

Growing up in a small town in a conservative home meant information about sex was not forthcoming. Rumours and whispers after school when I was young, chatter in the locker room and at parties as I got older. I was still a virgin when I became a youth pastor, and I still knew relatively little about sex. That made it tough, because as a youth pastor, the one thing teenagers (well, all of us) are especially interested in, is sex. What I did know was that it was wrong. Sinful. A crime against your body. Unless you were married, of course, at which point it underwent a startling transformation to something amazing and wonderful and a special sign of your love for your spouse. That's what I knew, so that's what I taught. The internet was in infancy back then and pornography still required a visit to the video store or the magazine rack, but there were nights when I caught glimpses on flickering, blocked cable stations. It was sin, that much I knew, but there was something exciting about probing the darkness around a topic that was completely not only muted in the religious circles I travelled in, but a topic I knew so little about.

It wasn't until I'd left the ministry that porn became more interesting to me. That coincided with its availability as the internet blossomed. Even when I became engaged, I found porn to be more and more enticing. I was twenty four, and what I knew about sex could be summed up in two sentences. Sex outside of marriage was sin. Sex was great. That was the sum total of my knowledge, which, looking back, is mildly terrifying in that I was teaching others about it. I railed against pornography, and joined in condemning it with my Christian friends, while secretly watching it on occasion. Unfortunately, I never learned anything new about sex. All porn did was reinforce what the Christian books said about sex being guilt inducing and sinful. I felt dirty every time I looked at it.

What no one had prepared me for, however, was the marital transformation, the point where sex stopped being sinful and suddenly became wonderful. Despite the sudden "freedom", and the fact I engaged all the "Christian" jokes with my friends about being a "do-er of the Word", sex was never great. It wasn't even good. Mostly, it caused problems. I couldn't figure out what was wrong with me. I read a number of 'Christian' books on the subject, but they were no help at all. Mostly they parroted one another and kept sexuality in a guilt laden frame. It would be a number of years before I learned that what I thought I knew about sex was either a myth, or misinformation used to control me. And even then, I rejected it, because the human tendency is to hold to our illusions, even when they're destructive.

What I never expected however, was to be confronted with the truth that most religions (Christianity, Mormonism, Islam) view sex the same way pornography does.

***

Religion and pornography have seemingly always been at odds with one another, ever since the advent of photography and later film turned porn into an industry. (For the purposes of brevity, we'll skip the naked drawings and sculptures that have marked all civilizations of recorded history, along with the growth of pornography as technology has made it more available.) The two have always been seen as enemies, with religions uniting in the fight against pornography, their members leading the charge in cities and states to have it banned. And yet, the relationship between the two is not what it seems. Just as most people mistake love and hate as being opposites, with the true opposite of love being apathy, religion and porn are not opponents. They are, in fact, step-children of the same parents, children who squabble and make a lot of noise in public, but fall asleep at night in the same bedroom.

Religion perceives pornography as sin. An abomination. A dark evil. Most of that has to do with lust, the idea that any 'lust' outside of your marriage partner is sin. According to most religions, watching other people having sex and being excited by it is not only sinful and wrong, it's gross. Why would anyone watch that? They must be perverted.

Pornography perceives religion to be upheld by a bunch of uptight jerks that are self-righteous and deny their own humanity. Sex is not only good in marriage, but all the time. Isn't that what freedom is for, and clearly, sex feels good. So why not experience it as often as you can? Besides, watching porn is not the same as having sex with someone else. Why not celebrate the human body and watch other hot bodies go at it? What's the harm?

There would seem to be no middle ground between the two, except that both religion and pornography endorse a shallow and immature view of sex. Pornography is senses based, and so promotes that aspect of sex. With a nod to the fact it does feel good (sin feels good), religion considers only the spiritual aspect of sex, is it sin or not. The end result is that most people have no understanding of the deep complexity of sex, and the joy that comes from an intimacy based approach, one that is freeing without being moralizing. Because our need for sex is so powerful, both religion and pornography use it to advance their own ends. Pornography to make money. Religion to control its adherents. Understand that when I say religion, there are no doubt clerics out there who do their best to promote a more complete view of sex. But religion, by its very definition, is incapable of nuance.

But the most disturbing aspect of this is how the two shallow views of sex actually promote one another. That is to say, the more religious people talk about the evils of sex outside of marriage and how degrading porn is, they more they serve to add to porn's growing audience. The reason for that is not only the tendency of people to explore "darkness", but the sense of freedom in pornography when it comes to sexuality. For those raised in a culture of sexual shame, pornography presents sex as a celebration of something innately human. Unfortunately, porn is not actually about freedom. All it does is objectify an incredible gift and turn it into a pretty package so you will spend more money. Even more damaging is the implication within porn is that sex is merely a physical act. Watch enough porn and it dominates how you look at people, and how you measure them. Suddenly, people become commodities, and most of the time that means women. But when a religion argues that it has stood against porn for exactly that reason, they're lying through their teeth. For example, if Catholicism was interested in a mature, positive view of sex, it never would have banned contraceptives. As it is, it practically promotes pornography as the only alternative to a very human need.

We may not like it, but the truth is that religion funds pornography. Religion uses sex to sell its ideas of morality and porn uses religion to sell its false sentiments about sexual freedom.

Instead of hating porn, religious people should be dismissing it as we do childish views about the world, and looking to the positives that we can find in an intimate, emotionally connected relationship.

That isn't to say that porn is not destructive. Of course it is. And no matter what or who you read, there is little evidence to support the idea that porn is helpful. However, the market for it continues to grow, which means that it is filling a need. It's just not filling that need in a positive manner.

***

Porn is an addiction. That's what we've been told by psychologists and experts, and there's a growing list of textbooks and articles that deal with it. Unfortunately, the addiction label isn't very helpful in that it, once again, frames an immature sexuality within a negative frame. It certainly doesn't point us towards a healthy sexuality. Instead, it has become simply another item to add to the growing list of things people are 'addicted' to. A sampling of other addictions could include television, sugar, coffee, nicotine, sex, football, alcohol, marijuana, working out, candy, movies, Starbucks, work, fashion, cars, dating, computers, Facebook, food, and religion. There is not enough space here to debate our tendency to rank addictions, some of which are considered very bad (drugs, alcohol, porn) and some which are considered mild. (caffeine, candy) But we miss the point in that addictions are nothing more than ritually repeated behaviours which we use to help us deal with certain issues we have either not addressed or do not understand. That is, addictions are ALWAYS symptomatic of something else, and while they can reveal the destructive nature of people (think drunk man on a rampage) the problem is not with the thing which holds us, but the emotional and spiritual structure within the individual who manifests the symptoms. Professional, unbiased counseling often helps when it comes to addictions (we still have to be open to what we hear), so much as it helps us learn more about ourselves and teaches us new and healthier ways to deal with our issues. That's why religion is often ineffective when it comes to addictions, because it simply paints behaviours as sin but refuses to address the real issue. (There are a number of enlightened churches that reference professional counselors, and they should be commended for that.)

When it comes to pornography however, we do not regard it as we do other addictions. Within Christianity (as with most religions), pornography is simply evil, with no further explanations offered. Men and women who watch porn are perverts and sinners. And yet, in religious circles, the extreme levels of disgust directed towards pornography are completely inappropriate, and yet consistent with our fascination with "sexual sin." In biblical tradition, the most galling sin is pride. But you don't see people marching to remove pride from their town. You don't see lectures and townhall meetings and conferences to serve the need for more humility. You don't see religions uniting to talk about the need for humanity to be honest about their faults and admit them to the Creator.

Instead, religion commodifies sex in the form of negative advertising and sells its message to promote its own ideas about morality. It uses the mystery and power of sex for self-promotion in the same manner that pornography does, and in so doing, ignores the crying need in the populace for a better model of what sex is and what it can be. In short, it sells its soul for more adherents and more power.

***

Religion has created an aura of shame around our sexuality. Within Islam, that view is reflected in the treatment of women as sexual tempters and lesser citizens. Within Christianity, we can effectively date much of our current "shameful" view of the body back to Augustine and the predominant Greek influence of sinful flesh and the purity of the soul, a duality that did not exist within Judaism until after the first century.

When I think back over my life these past twenty five years, since the time of my first embarrassing erection, my ideas about sex have been largely guilt inducing. No freedom. No gratitude towards God for giving us such a powerful gift. In that way, as with many people I have counseled and spoken with through the years, both in and out of church, sex has been both the seed and seat of true dysfunction and a great deal of pain.

That isn't to say that I have it all figured out, because I do not. I have learned some things however, like the understanding that there is a difference between our genital prime, which happens at a relatively young age, and our sexual prime, which doesn't happen until late into our forties and early fifties. All of this impacts our view not only of life, but the foundations on which we build our relationships. Sad to say, neither religion nor porn do much to help, and in fact, have evolved into a destructive tandem that is not interested in what is best for us, and works actively to keep us in our sexually built hovels of ignorance. We may not like it, but sometimes the thing our religion wants and what God has for us are not the same. And that framing our sexuality in a culture of evil only serves our maddening tradition of defining ourselves only by what we are against.

Do you believe God wants the best for you? Do you believe God wants you to be in a healthy relationship? Do you believe that God, who created you, finds sexuality dirty and shameful? No. Neither do I. How about we move together then, towards a healthier sexuality and remove the stigma of shame from our discussions. Perhaps then we will no longer see the need to embarrass people in the name of our God, and in so doing, embarrass ourselves.

-Steve

Authour's Note: I highly recommend Passionate Marriage by David Schnarch. For many people, including myself, it's been a life changing book.

Authour's Note II: As always, names and places are changed in my examples to protect the privacy of people.

UPDATE: Pornography, Authenticity, and Site Changes

    

    WEBSITE CHANGES

In the ongoing site reconstruction (reconstitution?) here, I've decided to include updates as part of my regular blog posts. I've resisted doing this in the past due to the plethora of blog/sites seemingly enamored with a daily confessional style of daft and uninteresting posts. ("I went to the market today. It was so busy there. And then I bought some bananas.") I didn't want that type of website, and so I resolved that I would only post articles, long thoughtful pieces worth the time it took to read them. Now, I don't edit in the same manner as I do when I'm sending an article out, as some of you grammarians have noticed, but I still work to be as thoughtful and diligent as I can. The purpose of a site like this is an exchange of ideas, and it's designed to provoke your imagination, push you to think about things in a new way, and encourage you along the way.

    That said, I've decided to post a bit more frequently, and so what I'll be doing is essentially a split. I'll still be writing my frightfully long articles that cause you to pull your hair out and yell at me through the computer, but I'll also be including what I'll call "UPDATE Days," which will be written as short pieces. Some of these will be actual updates about what's coming along the chute on this site, and some will be ideas that I've been working through, but do not want to spend two thousand words on, and other days it may simply be an article or video I found while cruising that I thought you'd enjoy. The difference will be noted in the title, where you'll find UPDATE (I know, it's original) and if you're away for a while and want to search through the archives on this site, you'll be able to find the actual articles more easily. The UPDATES will not have Digg buttons on them, and I won't be promoting them along the various social networks (like Facebook) like I normally do. They'll be here however, for those of you with a bit of time to kill. As well, I'll be adding one movie/TV/book review per week. Just check the Review pages for updates.

    It's been a remarkable month of growth here, as this site has expanded and continues to break five year records seemingly with ease. It's been humbling to receive so many kind words from you who grace this site with your presence and valuable time. My life has settled into something of a pattern, and with God's gracious blessings I now have a lot of time to read and write, more than I've ever been able to for such an extended period of time. I can't promise that you'll always agree with me (I'm not looking for consensus here, I'm looking to stir your imagination) but I promise that I will do best to be as fair as possible, and as honest as a person can be. (Which is to say, only slightly dishonest.) I will never align with a political party, though I do have some politicians I enjoy, despite their faults. (President Obama, for example) What I won't promise is that I'll be completely 'authentic' (mainly because I don't know what that means, see the next section for more on this), although I'll never be a (willing) shill.

    Again, thank you all for your readership. If you have an idea for a new "section" for this site, please let me know and I will take it into consideration. Life is difficult sometimes, but it gets better when we continue to ask ourselves hard questions about whom we are and why we're here. Hopefully, this site can help you along the path.

    Blessings,

    Steve

***

    Pornography

    I've written on a number of controversial topics in the past, and when I decided this past Sunday which topics I would approach this week, I didn't think much about it. Honestly, what does 'controversy' even mean to a writer? If you're not willing to write about the hard things, what's the point? That said, the research for my next article, along with the collection of ideas and research, has been disturbing. I actually had to stop for a while this morning because I didn't like where it was taking me. Specifically, not only discussing pornography and its relationship to religion, but the pairing of the two and the effect on the public, the common misconceptions and myths when it comes to sex.

    I was raised in a traditionally conservative home, which meant that information about sex was essentially non-existent. As I moved into the evangelical church in my late teens, the information changed, but the message was the same, and despite the best efforts by a few, it was largely destructive. What has bothered me this week is the striking relationship between pornography and religion. I won't say more until the article is done. (By the weekend, most likely) I expect that this article will upset a number of people, and I understand, in so much that it upsets me (although perhaps for different reasons) and I'm writing it. Hopefully, you'll feel the freedom to comment, whether you agree or not.

***

 

    AUTHENTICITY

    "Authenticity is like authourity or charisma: if you have to tell people you have it, then you probably don't."

    -Andrew Potter, The Authenticity Hoax

    In my current reading of The Authenticity Hoax, which feels like a follow up to Potter's previous best seller The Rebel Sell (a tremendous read), I've been forced to work through a number of pet ideas, favourites of mine that I've held through the years, especially in regards to "authenticity" and transparency. Potter is a good thinker, but what I love most is that he challenges a number of contemporary ideas and forces you to re-digest them. Is our quest for authenticity nothing more than status seeking? Isn't that what we're really witnessing in the local/organic food movement? (For example) What I like best is Potter's drive to push us towards something better than authenticity. He pushes us to an honest appraisal of ourselves. I've seen this continually through the years, in people who refuse to look in the mirror, refuse to get counseling, and refuse to admit their human. (And therefore, a screw up) The consequences are always bad, and we end up worse then when we started the journey, because not only do we not know who we are, we don't like ourselves very much either.

    I'm sure I'll be posting a full article on this in the future, but I'm reminded again how good it is to read against the grain. We all have blind spots. Sign a book out of the library by an author you wouldn't normally read, and wade through some of it. (I'm not stating you need to read, say, Ann Coulter, however.) Although I haven't finished Hoax, I highly recommend it.

***

    (For those of you who didn't see this on my Facebook this week) I was reading some fantasy book reviews and found this on one of the websites. It was (unintentionally) hilarious, especially when I read it out loud. Thought you might get a kick out of it.

    -Steve

 

 

    

The Reason People Hate Church… And Americans

Her left eye was still a bit swollen, and there was a blankness to her gaze that I'd seen before. I was standing outside the church, waiting for the last of the kids to be picked up following our park outing when I saw her. Rita (not her real name) flashed me a fragile smile, and timidly asked me where Anthony was waiting.

"He's inside with Joe. They're horsing around in the fellowship hall."

Rita wasn't a member of our church, but she brought her oldest to some of our youth events from time to time. She was a thin woman in her mid-thirties, with a delicate face and long stringy blonde hair, which she continually straightened and patted without realizing it. Her stance was closed, her gaze nearly always centered on the floor in front of her, and the few times I'd heard her laugh, had been quiet and strangled, as if she was afraid to make too much noise. I'd spoken to a couple of her friends, who'd confirmed my suspicions about her abusive husband.

She went inside and picked up her son, but left without engaging anyone else. She rubbed her son's head affectionately as she put him into the car, and gave me a quiet wave before settling into the front seat and slowly pulling out of the driveway. I could feel my eyes starting to water, and I took a deep breath when one of my helpers called me inside for some help. I turned slowly, thinking about Rita, and the life of terror she lived. Her husband was, by all accounts, a Christian. I doubted it, but he went to church each week and paid his tithes and sang the songs. When I'd asked one of the other parents about Rita, she'd told me that Rita's pastor believed that any woman who left her husband, even if she was being beaten, had committed a great sin. And that the Bible commanded a woman stay in such a situation.

It was such a great lie, I thought, that God would want His children to be exposed to that type of torment. And yet, I'd seen it in some of my extended family as well, this idea that abused women were somehow sinning if they left their marriage. It was so outrageous as to almost be unbelievable, and yet, its proponents were not only still around, but in some cases, gathering even more adherents.

It's been nearly fifteen years since I last spoke to Rita. Nothing has changed. So called Christian leaders like John Piper laugh (disgustingly) over the idea of a woman staying in an abusive situation. And when someone asks a woman like Rita why she remains in such a terrible situation, her answer is simple: 'I'm a Christian. I want to honour God. My church doesn't believe in divorce.'

***

Along the crumbling towers of the old downtown, between the boarded up buildings on one side, and the filth that lines the sidewalks, is a single door that is washed clean and unmarked. The stairs lead upward and open into a large room with a number of couches and a few tables that is again marked by its cleanliness. Sister Mary Jo (not her real name) is wearing washed jeans and an old blue sweater. Her hair is short and curly, and there is a depth to her gaze that grabs you almost immediately. I'd discovered the place by accident, after speaking to some of my kids, and she's agreed to see me, though she asks that I don't disclose anything about her name and location. She has the blessing from her local parish to work here, but she doesn't get many volunteers.

"Who wants to work here?" She tells me with a smile. Her hands gesture towards the world outside the building. "I have a couple of volunteers, but I do most of this on my own."

'Most of this' means the work she feels God has called her to, which is helping young prostitutes get off the street and either into a school or a regular job. Many of the girls are abused, she says, and so it's not a simple thing for them to adjust to the 'norms' of society. A lot of them hold a great deal of anger, and their habits are self-destructive. Think of it this way, she says, most of them do not really have a reason to live. Their life has been hell from the time they were little.

I don't ask to see the rest of the place, because she's been clear about the boundaries. "Seeing a man in the safe shelter would not help them very much" was how she put it. We talk for another ten minutes or so. Sister Mary Jo is a formidable woman with an unusually deep compassion and faith. I ask her how she can maintain her faith in the face of such evil, day after day.

"If I didn't believe that we would all have to account for our actions, I would have ended my life years ago." She says it so matter-of-factly, I'm momentarily stunned. I check my watch and realize it's time for me to go. I ask her one last question before I head out.

"Why do you do it? This… work?"

"I'm a Christian. This is what we're supposed to be doing."

She says it with such conviction I swallow and suddenly feel a wave of self-directed questions.

So, what are you doing, Steve?

There are no answers forthcoming however, as I've had problems attending church for the past five years with any consistency. I think about it throughout the next day, and write about it in my journal before deciding I can't answer the question. That, I'm afraid, will take a few years yet.

***

As much as I've been able to ascertain in my (hobby) readings and study of neurology the past decade, the best analogy I've heard is the one that compares our brain to a jungle. That the competition to sort through the incredible flow of information and agree upon an idea, which will then be expressed as a thought or statement, is as fierce as it is complex. What most often tips the scales, in terms of what we remember and how we experience something, is the strength of the emotion that goes along with it. In fact, emotional 'tags', provide the greatest amount of weight in how we categorize things neurologically. And to that end, our brain categorizes EVERYTHING. We do it because we must. It would be impossible to catalogue all the information we receive and actually accomplish anything if we were unable to label it. This is, of course, the origins of stereotypes. And more negatively, speaks to racism and misogyny, although those issues are slightly more complex in that they deal with other issues which include selfishness and the prevailing need within a person to feel unique.

Back in my business days (which lasted one year, a 94% cumulative average, and extreme fatigue from boredom), I still remember my marketing professor telling us that for a business a negative experience was worth nine people. That is, if someone had a bad experience with a store or business, they would in turn tell nine people of that experience. And since word of mouth is the best form of advertising for any company, it was crucial that the customer be appeased.

Neurologically, it was also sound advice. The negative emotional tag is hard to escape, in that it leaves a great imprint on how we feel about things and how we, in turn, cognitively label them. We all remember our bad experiences, don't we? It's part of the storytelling process when we talk to our friends and family. (It's usually started by a statement like "Can you believe…?") Negative framing is a powerful tool, and in terms of our experience, a negative experience always outweighs a positive one. (Which is why one positive comment is not equal to one negative comment, for those of you out there, who like me, used to insist on being 'fair'.)

I Hate Church

'Church', as my friend and scholar, Mark Groleau, tweeted recently, is not a 'thing'. It is a group of approximately one billion individuals around the world from a variety of cultures. All of these individuals purport to follow the teachings of what was once a small Jewish sect, a sect that believed the Rabbi, Yeshua, to be their anointed Messiah.

That's what the church is.

It is a group of people, and at the latest count, constitutes approximately 15% of the world's population. What forms our opinion on the 'church', then, will arise out of our own experience. (The 'church' is not a thing like say, a banana. I know that sounds obvious, but it is how most people think of it.) Like any label, it's completely subjective. The problem is in giving a single identifier (like 'church') to one billion people is ridiculous. The label is so massive as to have almost no meaning, but it seems to be the only one we have, so there it is.

I have a number of friends who are atheists and agnostics, and when I ask them why they hate the church, I've noticed that a disproportionate number of them have had bad experiences with Christians (like Rita's asshole husband) or various 'church' rulings. I understand that. I understand it because it was my own position for so many years. And dealing with jerks like John Piper, who has clearly never dealt with the destructiveness of his own ideas and yet receives a ridiculous amount of positive attention from Seminary students throughout North America, makes it even harder.

And yet, John Piper does not represent the church. Neither does Rita's husband. Or, for that matter, does Sister Mary Jo. In one sense, they represent the perception of what many people will label 'the church', and that can feel to those in ministry like an awesome responsibility. It also leads to protecting our reputation and not wanting to say anything for fear of 'bad-presenting' the 'church.' It leads, in other words, to politicking.

So can we finally end this debate? You don't hate 'the church.' (Not any more than you hate 'Americans'. You may not like their policies, but there are a number of terrific people living in the U.S., and a number of jerks, just as there is in Canada or anywhere else.) To say that you hate or dislike a billion people is rooted in the pain of our experiences, and the tendency for us to believe what we already believe. Psychologists call this a Confirmation Bias, the tendency for people to favour their preconceptions, regardless of whether something is true or not.

Take Home

There's a small town near the Canadian-American border called Niagara-on-the-Lake. It is scenic and quite beautiful, with its cobbled downtown streets and quaint shops. It is also snobbish and rich. I worked for a summer at one of the hotels there, serving as a waiter. Our clientele were mostly wealthy people from around the world (NOTL has a great reputation). As a waiter, my favourite people to serve were Americans, and it wasn't close. They were far and away the most generous, and their tables tended to be fun. The worst people group to serve was the Brits. Snobby, particular, and cheap, cheap, cheap. And yet, not all British people are cheap, are they? And not all Americans are generous. But that was my experience. In labeling them, however, I do a great disservice to everyone else in those groups whose only reason for inclusion is birthplace.

What are your preconceived biases? What people groups have you labeled and then dismissed, simply because of your experiences? For people who have experienced trauma, like abused women and children, to consider returning to an environment (like a church) that was so destructive is not always a healthy option. But what about the rest of us? Those of us who simply disagree with an idiot pastor or jerky politician. What will our road be? My hope is that you will not remain closed to possibilities in the future, simply because of your past experience. Too many people shut down possibilities in their life without examining their decision. And in so doing, cut themselves off from something great in the future. Many of us have and hold great darkness from our past, and we're afraid to look at it, afraid at what we'll find. But when we live in fear, we let others rule us by manipulating that fear. They can say things like "The church" or "Women" or "Gays" and know exactly what kind of response they will get from us. My prayer this week is that you will not allow your past experiences to dictate your future, and that whatever labels that you do use, you'll become more willing to examine them and what they mean. In so doing, my hope is that you'll find the freedom God holds out for all of us, and that no experience or label will keep you from his best for you.

-Steve