Crossing my mind. Mind on the cross.

Okay, so I’m shrinking this series down to “Four TV Shows….” from “Five TV Shows.” It’s mostly due to work load in the next couple of weeks. So, this will be the last one….

Series Summary

In the late 90s, HBO started becoming perceived as less of simply a cable video store as it started producing more of its own original content. Some of Hollywood’s talented younger writers, directors, and producers saw in the premium channel less restriction from Standards and Practices censorship and more creative license for their product. Consequently, HBO started producing edgy, highly acclaimed original series such as The Sopranos, Oz, and a critical darling targeted at young women called Sex and the City.

Of the shows that I’ve written about thus far, I’ll freely admit that Sex and the City is the one which I’ve seen the least and know the least about. But I’ve seen enough, read enough, and talked to enough young women to understand its societal impact.

In many ways, SATC was considered a knockoff of an earlier network sitcom called The Golden Girls, which was only able to get away with half of its content because people considered little old ladies talking about sex as cute, quirky, and harmless enough.

The show follows a New York City writer named Carrie Bradshaw. Carrie is also the show’s narrator and every episode is structured around an article she happens to be writing that week for a relationship column in a New York newspaper.

While in the 80s a weekly show like Sex and the City, starring mostly women, addressing the content matter that it did, would have most likely been considered nearly unconscionable by the collective American public. But by the late 90s, it was met with great critical and consumer fanfare. In its six season span, the show collected 54 Emmy nominations, 24 Golden Globe nominations, and 11 Screen Actors Guild nominations.

And finally, it’s easy to denounce the overtly lewd and immoral content of the show. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting such criticism of the show is unwarranted. It unquestionably is. But I will say this…..Sex and the City is yet another painful reminder that Hollywood beat us to the punch on an important issue and our Christian inactivity allowed shows like SATC to be the first to shape young minds (including many Christian young minds) about human sexuality. In other words, the Christian Church, by and large, shied away from openly and honestly addressing the delicate issue of sexuality for years and years and years. And while there is such a thing as an inappropriate fascination with the topic, its preposterous to have young people learning about sex primarily from locker rooms, or the internet, or premium cable TV, especially when you consider how much it’s on the minds of sexually maturing human beings.

GOD is the one who created humans to be sexual beings. Yes, God invented sex! God even inspired nearly an entire book of the Bible to be recorded about it – you know that one that remains virtually unstudied in most Bibles – Song of Songs? If we as Christian leaders and parents don’t have the courage to address difficult topics with young people who are naturally going to be curious, they’re eventually going to be instructed by someone (or some show) that shapes their understanding of what exactly is sexually “normal” and “healthy.”

What was “magical” about the show?

Even apart from the risqué content of the show, from what I’ve seen, I found the show virtually unwatchable because of the main character’s notorious overuse of “puns” – the lowest, most groan-inducing form of humor I can imagine. The show is littered with them. My personal preferences notwithstanding, the show was, and continues to be, enormously influential.

To get a feel for how much impact the show actually had, particularly on young women, just consider this list. These are all items that were maybe around prior to SATC, but were, for the most part, considered social “norms” by the end of the show. I’m not saying each was directly caused by SATC influence, but the show certainly presented all of these as viable, fairly common, trendy options.

1) Extravagance in fashion, especially shoes – the fashion of SATC is the aspect of the show that actually garnered the most awards. The show spawned fashion lines and is the reason that many young women wear unthinkably high-priced shoes to proms and weddings called Manolo Blahnik’s.

2) Having a gay best friend – Several of the characters on SATC have close gay friends in addition to their network of four girl friends. Again, I’m definitely not suggesting that people didn’t have gay friends prior to SATC, nor am I suggesting that most friendships with homosexual men are disingenuous. That’s ridiculous. But, if we’re honest, these types of friendships did become trendy, almost as a way to publicly express how open-minded and culturally diverse you were. Furthermore, if I was gay, I’d be a little offended and skeptical of some young women who were potentially using me as a fashionable accessory, sort of like how very wealthy and famous people are often, at times, understandably skeptical when people pursue them in dating relationships.

3) Multiple boyfriends back-and-forth – dating became a nearly all-consuming lifestyle with SATC. Dating multiple people until some public proclamation of “exclusivity” is made is fairly common today. This isn’t necessarily inherently good or bad. I’m just saying, it’s a new normal.

4) Occasional one night stands – promiscuous sexuality is not new to mankind or the American public either. However, fairly or unfairly, for a long time the general public perception was that while male hormones were almost uncontrollable, women needed to play defense. SATC unapologetically said that previous “norm” was passé, that women can/should play offense too. And now we’re seeing a fairly historically unique social phenomenon where both men and women are willing sexual aggressors, and the end result is more offense than an Arena League football game. There is very little stigma in “hook-ups” any more, to such a degree that it is considered normal to have had a few.

5) Women primarily with careers outside the home – yes, lots of women worked and worked outside of their homes prior to the mid 90s. But there are now more women currently in college than men. That’s never happened before. It suggests we have a growing trend of women who are not having kids, women who are not raising their own kids, stay-at-home dads, and women who identify themselves primarily with their profession. That’s historically unique as well.

6) Glamour of Manhattan – SATC was not the first or only influence in the fascination with New York City. But along with shows like Seinfeld and Friends, SATC certainly contributed to the allure. Seeing single people in their 30s and 40s living uninhibited, exciting lives led to an influx of young people moving into the city. This is different from previous eras in NYC history where people moved there because they had to for work, but tried to move out of the city once it was feasible for work and finances.

Okay, so how has it influenced us…spiritually?

1) Gender Distortion

To some degree, I think the gender distortion presented by Sex and the City wasn’t created in a vacuum. I think it was a bit of a reaction to gender distortion that was previously presented in a Leave It To Beaver era. No, Sex and the City doesn’t present God’s intention for Christian young women. However, I don’t think that a different generation’s depiction of an admirable woman was necessarily perfectly biblical either – barefoot in the kitchen, primarily capable of simply having kids, making dinners, and cleaning clothes.

Contrast both of these depictions of women with Proverbs 31. Here, the Bible says that a “wife of noble character” is not only hard to find, but also “worth far more than rubies” (Prov. 31:10). Such a woman is…

• hard-working and responsible -  “She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands” (vs. 13); “She sets about her work vigorously” (vs. 17); “She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.” (vs. 27)
• ambitious – “She gets up while it is still night” (vs. 15)
• financially savvy – “She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.” (vs. 16); “She sees that her trading is profitable,  and her lamp does not go out at night.” (vs. 18)
• possesses a certain amount of physical fitness – “her arms are strong for her tasks” (vs. 17)

(By the way, this might be a good time to remind readers of the site that we are always interested in your feedback. Please forward all complaints to pastorjameshein.humanresources.superoffended@gmail.com.)

• generous – “She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.” (vs. 20)
• strong and respectable – “She is clothed with strength and dignity” (vs. 25)
• has a sense of humor – “she can laugh at the days to come.” (vs. 25)
• wise – “She speaks with wisdom” (vs. 26)

And yet, while she has all sorts of great attributes that the world would likely applaud, the greatest thing about her is that she loves her Lord and Savior – “Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.” (vs. 30)

Okay, so my point is that in a sinful world, almost every cultural depiction of a what a woman “should be” is going to be a little different from the Bible’s picture of godly femininity. Sex and the City presented the ideal image of woman as strong-minded, independent, ambitious, and highly sexual. Previous eras of TV presented the ideal image of a woman as passive, quiet, respectful, and virtuously pure. Isn’t it possible that the Bible might present something different, but better? Isn’t it possible that the ideal woman could be presented as both sexual AND pure, respectful AND ambitious, strong AND complementary? In short, the Bible says “Yes. Such is a woman who fears the Lord.”

Sinful hearts are inclined to make good traits into ultimate traits. Accordingly, an ideal goal for a woman should not be to be “strong” or it will compromise another good trait. Rather, if her goal is to be “godly,” she’ll get “strong” thrown in.

2) Overt Female Sexuality

There is absolutely no mistaking how far the “normal” for female sexuality that is presented in Sex and the City is from God’s design. One of my favorite biblical warnings about human sexuality is what the Apostle Paul says to the Ephesians, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality.” (Eph. 5:3) What was once “hinted at” on TV, SATC went ahead and told the whole secret.

When Paul writes to the Romans, he mentions the commonness of departure from God’s design for human sexuality amongst females as a benchmark for how far a society has fallen from God – “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.” (vs. Rom. 1:26) For one reason or another, historically, women have generally been more virtuous in the arena of sexuality. When the morals of females go downhill, a society’s hope for sexuality as God designed is all but gone. In SATC, the women give away what previous generations would have paid money for, but now it’s considered being “sexually liberated.” It’s not hard to imagine what long-term implications there might be if this becomes the average woman.

It may sound like I’m being unfair in finger-pointing here at women. I certainly don’t blame all women, or only blame women, or even primarily blame women for the broken sexuality of the 21st century. To be perfectly honest, I primarily blame us men. A recent survey I was reading of 29,000 people at North American universities suggested that 51% of men and 16% of women spend up to five hours per week online for sexual purposes, and another 11% of men spend anywhere from five to 20 hours per week. And this information should be processed while understanding that statistics on sexual behavior that might have a social stigma are notoriously underreported.

You see, for many men, the advent of pornography that is easily accessible, affordable, and anonymous, has, as Naomi Wolf in New York Magazine put it, turned “real naked women” into “just bad porn.” Culturally, one unfortunate end result of this is that it has suggested to many young women that they need to some how keep up with pornography if they are ever going to find real intimacy with a man who can more easily get his sexual fix elsewhere. And some women, the Sex and the City girls included, have taken the “may as well join them” attitude about sex.

But there is hope. As C.S. Lewis wrote in “The Weight of Glory”:

“Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered to us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased….Do you think I am trying to weave a spell? Perhaps I am; but remember your fairy tales. Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as for inducing them. And you and I have need of the strongest spell that can be found to wake us from the evil enchantment of worldliness.”

NET takeaway: Socially, our current understanding of human sexuality is a fairly strange and heart-breaking place. But there is One who not only promises satisfying intimacy, but himself designed it, and is willing to guide us in it if we let him.

If you’re okay with  idea of a Christian pastor writing about Seinfeld, then feel free to skip ahead to the Summary. If not, please read the disclaimer below.

DISCLAIMER:

You’re probably going to see a lot of these in this particular series . By writing about a certain TV show, please understand that I’m not giving a ringing endorsement of all of the show’s content. A show like Seinfeld, popular as it was, on network TV as it was, certainly more than pushed the envelope at times in its subject matter.

That said, I do think it is important to honestly recognize talent where talent exists. It’s sort of like an adult telling a child they cannot watch a TV show because “it’s NOT funny” when, in truth, the TV show is, in fact, fairly clever, insightful, witty, and funny. Saying “it’s not funny” is probably not the right approach. That might merely cause you to lose credibility with your kids. After all, why would my mom or dad be more qualified than the American majority to label something as “funny” or not? As a Christian, if the show is mean-spirited and immoral, then that is the reason not to allow your kids (or yourself) to watch. But don’t just say it’s “not funny.”

Furthermore, I also think it’s important to recognize that the Christian Church hasn’t historically shied away from culture’s more influential art forms or artists, whether that be in literature, music, painting, sculpting, or theater. For some reason, perhaps American Pietism, the church in our country is well behind in embracing the most influential current cultural art forms. From a mission standpoint, I personally believe this makes it HIGHLY difficult for Christians to meet people where they’re at in life with the gospel.

In other words, I don’t exactly know how to “go into the city” (Jer. 29:7; Jonah 1:2; Acts 17:16), careful not to fully embrace the ways of the city (Gen. 19:1; Josh. 6:18), without ever entering the city. That balance is part of the purpose of this blog.

As I’ve gotten older and grown spiritually, I’ve become a bit more discerning in the entertainment I consume. I would absolutely support someone who avoids shows like Seinfeld for the right reasons. But I also see value in dissecting what impact they have on the thought of the very people we are trying to love, serve, and save with the gospel today.

So…………

Series Summary

I remember the moment I first fell for Seinfeld. It was during episode 34 (Season 3), “The Boyfriend, Part 1.” Main character Jerry Seinfeld was trying to convince his friend Elaine that professional baseball player Keith Hernandez did not, in fact, spit on his eccentric friend Kramer or Jerry’s arch nemesis, heavyset mailman Newman, Kramer’s close friend. I had never heard a conversation so sophisticated and yet so unimportant. It was beautiful in its own way.

Twenty years later, like many men my age, I’ve seen every episode of Seinfeld countless times, can annoyingly recite virtually every line, and still often laugh harder on hearing these lines for the 50th time even more than the first time. Seinfeld became such a distinct part of my life and the way that I think that to this day I have a harder time remembering my childhood address than Jerry’s – 129 West 81st St, Apt. 5A.

I’m sure there will come a day when Seinfeld’s brand of humor is no longer funny. It’ll almost definitely come at a time when the common worldview has shifted, since the idiosyncrasies of (post)modern man is what Seinfeld tapped into so well. But today, as evidenced by the fact that still no other show comes anywhere close to grossing what Seinfeld has in syndication, the series continues to capture the American zeitgeist, perfectly illustrating the foibles of the thought and spirit of our day.

“Isolated, narcissistic, urban, ‘thirty-something singles’ float through their existences trying to make sense out of what they ultimately perceive to be a meaningless, patchwork world. We laugh as we watch these actors portray individuals with no roots, vague identities, and conscious indifference to morals outside their self-determined ones.” (Hurd, R. Wesley (June 1998). “Postmodernism: A New Model of Reality”. McKenzie Study Center.)

What was “Magical” about the show?

In its June 1997 edition, TV Guide called Seinfeld, “the greatest television program of all time.” Why?

As mentioned, in Seinfeld, series creators Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David captured the spirit of the times and brilliantly pinpointed and poked fun at the finicky, superficial, indecisive nature of postmodern people. But the show’s mechanisms were also highly unconventional. Seinfeld, a self-professed “show about nothing” was less about plot line and more about character development, or lack thereof. And yet, despite the rather inconsequential nature of the characters’ day-to-day lives, all of their storylines ultimately interconnected in some uncanny way. This inevitably resulted not in a positive outcome for the characters (who can barely be labeled as “protagonists” due to their obviously selfish, superficial natures). Rather, in the end, the main characters generally got what they deserved. Even the series finale (SPOILER ALERT) concludes with them being tossed in jail precisely for their lack of concern for their fellowman.

Evidence of the impact of Seinfeld can still be heard in everyday conversations, which often sound like retreads of the sitcom’s classic bits.  Whether slight variations or direct theft of Seinfeldisms, if you’re looking for it, it’s nothing short of amazing how much modern comedy is so transparently driven by Seinfeld humor.

Since the show concluded in May of 1998, there have been other shows that have shifted the way TV, particularly comedies, have been done. The Office comes to mind. But most critics would tell you that none of them even come close to the continued impact of America’s most beloved “show about nothing.”

Okay, so how has it influenced us….spiritually?

1) The characters never develop

Prior to Seinfeld, the way a story was generally told, in simple terms, was that a character has some sort of humble beginnings (moral or financial or simple naïveté, etc.). The character experiences a conflict which causes him/her to go on a journey. Everything comes to a head, a climax, and finally the character learns an important lesson and the tension is resolved.

If you’ve ever seen Seinfeld, you know that this doesn’t happen in one single episode. The show’s creators were acutely aware that the conventional storytelling method, while compelling, is often not the way life really works. Much of the time, people don’t actually learn the lessons they should, continuously falling into the same traps.

In the show, Jerry, a single, indifferent, semi-famous comedian, is constantly looking for a true companion, but due to his perfectionist, picky ways, he ends up dating a different girl each week. George Costanza, his lifelong best friend, is petty, cheap, dishonest, and constantly jealous of the success of others, yet possesses no real drive to achieve success of his own. Elaine Benes, Jerry’s ex-girlfriend but continued good friend, is assertive, a bit of a feminist, and wants to prove the power of the modern woman. Nonetheless, she’s a bit of a self-righteous liberal, which tends to cause her to fall into the very stereotypes she hates. And then there’s Kramer. Kramer is the do-nothing, know-nothing, but good-natured and good-fortuned eccentric, across-the-hall friend of Jerry. And every single one of the characters ends the series as the exact same person as when the show began. They start the show as superficial, single adults complaining about the minutiae of life, aspiring for something greater but refusing to make the painful changes in themselves that would lead to changes in their lives. They flirt with such changes at times, even holding lengthy conversations and making pacts about things like growing up and getting jobs and getting religious and getting married, but none of them is ever able to fully follow through on the execution. To the characters, life is just too hard and their own comfort and pleasure is just too important. In fact, this lack of development is such an integral part of the show that the very last conversation of the series shows the characters holding one of the same petty, pointless discussions that opened the series – the placement of the second button on a man’s shirt making or breaking the quality of the shirt.

Alright, does this teach us anything spiritually? Yes, something painfully applicable in fact. As the years go by, humans are not only supposed to grow up physically, but it’s also understood that we’re supposed to develop in character. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.” (1 Cor. 13:11) Seinfeld is filled with characters who have refused to grow up (i.e. develop). This is illustrated in every episode in subtle ways, such as Jerry’s fascination with Superman and his tendency to eat cereal for every meal.

When you’re a child, your world is very small and you are the center of it. It’s only as you grow up that you realize you are a mere speck on a giant planet which is itself a dot in the universe. When your world is small and your thoughts are simplistic, comfort and pleasure and entertainment, base desires, are generally your only goals. On Seinfeld, there is very little action. Probably around 80% of the show takes place either in Jerry’s apartment or Monk’s cafe, their local diner around the corner. They live in New York City, but their world is very small because they are full-grown children.

Today we have a similar situation/problem – young adults, especially young men, refusing to grow up. Why? In part, simply because we can get away with it. If your parents are willing to let you live in the basement until you’re 40-years-old and you’re not starving and there’s very little societal shame in not tracking down a job, you can bank on finding boatloads of guys who won’t grow up, who are the center of their own little universe, and who see pleasure as the main goal of life.

The Apostle Paul encourages us to grow up and put childish ways behind us. Culturally though, we’ve responded with a collective “No thanks. Responsibility is scary. I’m afraid of failing. And it’s much easier to play video games.”

2) It was an intensely interconnected “Show About Nothing”

For thousands of years, philosophers have asked questions about the meaning of life. In a fresh way, Seinfeld just resoundingly said, “Life is about nothing.” If that’s true – that life truly is about nothing – then, as the show points out, that reality creates basically miserable, selfish people.

Notice how different this mindset is from what Jesus teaches in the great “Good Shepherd” chapter of the New Testament, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10:10) Now, a fair number of “prosperity theologians” have interpreted this passage to mean that God wants us to have a comfortable, pleasurable life here on earth. Notice, not coincidentally, that’s the exact same end goal of the selfish Seinfeld characters. But, without diving in too deep, we can glean from Jesus’ words here in this passage that life is NOT about nothing; it’s about something.

According to the Bible, life has purpose and therefore we do have something worth living for, which transforms us into more thoughtful, fulfilled people. If everyone simply lives for their basest wants and desires, how laughably disgusting of a world might it be? But if we’re living for something greater than personal pleasure and comfort, well……what on earth would that something be?

Some of the higher, more noble-sounding goals that you hear people living for today are good things like “saving the planet.” Every year NBC changes their logo green for a week and has some of their stars tell us about the importance of recycling and lowering our harmful car emissions.  As you can perhaps tell by my tone, I take John Krasinski’s encouragement to reduce my carbon footprint fairly seriously. But okay, so lets say we do prolong the existence of the planet (and don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting we abuse the planet). But what’s the final goal of that? So that another generation can have a planet? And then their life goal is ALSO to preserve the planet for the generation after that? Seems unsatisfactorily cyclical. The same could be said when someone makes a pious-sounding statement about how we’re doing things “for the children.”

Another popular goal is what was referred to in the 20th century as “world peace” but today is called “tolerance.” Basically, we want all humans to get along. Again, this is a legitimate and noble goal, but if it’s made to be the ULTIMATE truth of life, it violates my personal biblical beliefs. Martin Luther once said, “Peace if possible, truth at all costs.” Luther was referring to doctrinal agreement, but it’s a general universal principle. For instance, I’d like to get along with my neighbor, but if I find out that he’s abusing his wife or children, we’re going to have problems – the truth at that point outweighs my desire for neighborly peace.

My belief that salvation comes exclusively through Jesus is probably going to rub some people the wrong way. I’m certainly not going to engage in physical war with anyone over it, unless perhaps I have to someday defend myself. Nonetheless, difference in spiritual beliefs has certainly caused (and continues to cause) wars in the world. Truth claims do tend to put people at odds. But, understand, if you ask billions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other to put away their truth claims, YOU are making a truth claim – that world peace is more important than such beliefs. My point is that in order to achieve true world peace, everyone would have to think alike, which means you’d have to suppress everyone’s religious beliefs. And that wouldn’t be particularly peaceful, right? You can’t force everyone to be “tolerant” without being intolerant yourself. There are other points, but the bottom line is that logically life cannot ultimately be about world peace and tolerance.

According to Christian doctrine, life is about more.  True life/full life comes from personally knowing Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. It is in understanding God the Father’s plan/design for your life. It is in recognizing the Son executing a rescue mission to deliver you from your sins, yourself, and hell – an existence apart from God.  Finally, it’s about being filled with the Spirit who makes these truths real in your heart. While we desire to grow in our relationship with this God and recapture the perfect image of God, we know that we are a work in progress in this lifetime and that this will not be fully realized until heaven. That is the goal of life for a Christian. Life, since it is growing in connectedness with an infinite, cosmic God, is then invaluable.

Let me put this a slightly different way. Life is NOT about NOTHING as Seinfeld joked. Nor is life just about a good but not ultimate SOMETHING, as many well-intentioned people would have you believe. According to the Bible, life is the only thing. Poetically and profoundly, life is about the ONE who creates, redeems, and sustains life. And the Bible says the only way to that is in Jesus (John 14:6; John 17:3; and the rest of John’s Gospel).

The hallmark interconnectedness of Seinfeld episodes, in its own way, shows some sort of divine, cosmic guidance to the human existence. But why would a divine being guide events ironically into nothingness? Simply to amuse himself? Or does it make more sense that he is, in fact, guiding events, but for a greater purpose – to develop true relationship with spiritually maturing human beings.

NET takeaway: Life cannot be about NOTHING. If it is, there is nothing “wrong” with stunted character growth, solidifying ourselves as selfish, miserable human beings. If that doesn’t sound right, too empty, then life must be about something more, something bigger, SOMEONE better.

I knew what I was walking into several weeks ago when I decided to write on a topic as controversial as same-sex marriage. Granted, I didn’t realize at the time how much attention it was going to get (I’m still getting back to many of your emails). Nonetheless, I knew the topic was hot and the Bible’s stance was counter-cultural and unpopular.

I’ve now also been contacted by several people who expressed sympathy regarding the anti-biblical stance and denigrating tone of some of the comments the post received. While I appreciate the support, my general reply, in short, is that it doesn’t bother me. There was a day when someone not liking me or not agreeing with my opinion would probably have bothered me to some degree. Depending on the person, it may have crushed me. That day is not today though.

What’s changed? It’s not that I’ve “grown up” or “become tougher,” although life experience and a heightened sense of understanding how the world operates does tend to help. No, I’d like to think that my lack of concern for what others may think is for a much more theological reason than that. The more I’ve grown in understanding the gospel, the more I’ve learned to find my name from it.

What does that mean?

Well, the Bible contains a great deal of information about who/what we are to live for and where we are to find our ultimate value and identity, i.e. our “name.” There’s too much good material to share all of it here, but I’ll give a quick summary: In Genesis 11 we hear the famous story of the Tower of Babel, where we learn that people at that time and place in history were desperately seeking some sort of positive external judgment – “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves.” (Gen. 11:4) In contemporary language, you could probably say that they were looking for fame…..or a positive performance review…..or just to have people “like” them. The rest of the story, of course, tells of how their plans were thwarted by God because he never intended for humans to establish their identity apart from him, as these people were seeking to do.

If you understand the art of biblical narrative, you’ll be led to contrast this account of Genesis 11 with chapter 12, where we hear God say to Abraham, “I will bless you; I will make your name great“ (Gen. 12:2) Although this is obviously a specific promise to Abraham, there is a general principle established here that God alone is the one with the authority to make names. The echo of this principle is even heard in the Christmas account, when the angel Gabriel announces to Mary, “You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.” (Luke 1:31) See what’s happening here? No human gets to name God. According to the Bible, God names humans.

Similarly, we see the same principle at work in the story of the Rich Man and Poor Lazarus (Luke 16). Ever noticed how the rich man has no name? Mere coincidence? I think not. I believe the Holy Spirit is suggesting that if you live for someone or something other than Jesus (in this case, money), you lose yourself. However, if you live for Jesus, you are known by God eternally, and therefore are truly rich.

Furthermore, if we believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we have ALREADY been named and therefore have no need to make a name. Jesus prayed to his Father, “I have revealed you (Greek: “your name”) to those whom you gave me out of the world…… for they are yours……Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me.”  (John 17:6-12) Get it? The only reason that you’d ever live to “make a name” for yourself is if you don’t realize that 1) God is the only one who gives names, and 2) God has ALREADY given you a name, the status and identity of “his child” through faith in Jesus, the name that is above all other names.

I could go on, but hopefully this is enough to provide the theological framework of the Bible’s teaching on identity, names, and criticism – that humans are desperately looking for a name for themselves, but that we’ll only find ourselves, our true name, if we find it in Jesus.

2 Practical Implications of This Teaching

1) I don’t have to work so hard to make a name for myself

Much of the world is putting in unhealthy hours at work, enduring unnecessary anxiety, and causing themselves many sleepless nights because they’re trying to create a name for themselves that simply will not last. They want to be “the best” or “the prettiest” or “the smartest” or “the richest” or whatever else, not realizing that such titles are fairly empty and always temporary and, most importantly, don’t benefit you at all after you’re dead. If you are living to create a name that will undoubtedly fall short of the glory of God, then, in death, you will not taste the glory of God. According to the Bible, you weren’t built to create a name, you were designed to receive his name. Consequently, trying to establish an identity apart from God, even if it is an identity that celebrates a good thing – a title like “mother” or “doctor” or “nice guy” or “genius” or “pastor” – it will crush you in the end.

But if you truly recognize the combination of God’s goodness to you and his verdict already laid upon you, you’ll work in a healthier way towards a healthier goal, i.e. expressing gratitude to God. Wouldn’t it make sense that working the way God designed us to would create greater satisfaction and superior quality work?

2) I don’t have to worry about the other names people might call me

As a  Christian and one who makes his living as a minister of the gospel, I’m fully aware that some people are going to hate me and hate what I have to say. Jesus promised it would be that way (Matt. 10:22). I’m well aware that on a fairly regularly basis I’m going to offend a segment of society that not only doesn’t care what God has to say, but one which hates that God. Now, if and when I offend people as a Christian, my hope and prayer is that I offend people for the right reasons. If I offend people because I’m unwavering in what the Bible teaches, so be it. I can’t do much about that. However, if I offend people because I’m condescending and self-righteous and unrepentantly hypocritical, then that’s on me. Whatever the reason for the offense, the bottom line is that Jesus also said, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt. 10:28)

In other words, I couldn’t care less how this world labels me. You see, I’ve already got my name! I’ve already heard the final verdict. Through Jesus, God has declared me to be his perfect, righteous child who will live in his home eternally. What greater validation could I possibly want? It’s like the difference between a 4-year-old calling you a good basketball player and Michael Jordan calling you a good basketball player. If a 4-year-old marvels at your skills, it really doesn’t mean much since his praise is a bit shallow due to his lowliness. On the other hand, if the greatest basketball player of all time says you’re “good,” THAT’S validation.  That’s proof! So if God himself says you’re valuable, why on earth would you care what another flawed and broken human being thinks of you? Why should you let that affect your self-image? It’s not just unhealthy; it’s illogical.

Additionally, if your self-image is so cemented in Jesus that it is not altered by the criticism of others, you can actually take the comments of your critics and use them to your advantage. Sometimes, although perhaps presented without love or tact, criticism is fully warranted. But whether the criticism is fair or not, if that criticism doesn’t shake your self-perception in Jesus, then it won’t crush you, it’ll just help you continue to grow. So thank the Lord for your critics too.

Conclusion

Only when you discover that you already have the most beautiful name possible, affirmation and acceptance from God himself through Jesus, will you stop letting the world name you and stop worrying about the names it may call you. And when you do…..well, won’t that be nice? Wouldn’t it be great if you never feared criticism again? Do you realize that the gospel of Jesus offers you that exact freedom?

“The biggest danger of receiving criticism is not to your reputation, but to your heart. You feel the injustice of it and feel sorry for yourself, and it tempts you to despise not only the critic, but the entire group of people from which they come.” – Tim Keller, from his Redeemer City to City Blog

Last week, I addressed the sixth of the seven reasons Deborah Mitchell cited in her controversial CNN article “Why I Raise My Children Without God.”

Mitchell’s 7 Reasons “Why I Raise My Children Without God” were, as follows….

1. God is a bad parent and role model.
2. God is not logical.
3. God is not fair.
4. God does not protect the innocent.
5. God is not present.
6. God does not teach children to be good.
7. God teaches narcissism.

Final Week: 7) God teaches narcissism.

Mitchell writes:

“God has a plan for you.” Telling kids there is a big guy in the sky who has a special path for them makes children narcissistic; it makes them think the world is at their disposal and that, no matter what happens, it doesn’t really matter because God is in control. That gives kids a sense of false security and creates selfishness. “No matter what I do, God loves me and forgives me. He knows my purpose. I am special.” The irony is that, while we tell this story to our kids, other children are abused and murdered, starved and neglected. All part of God’s plan, right?

When we raise kids without God, we tell them the truth—we are no more special than the next creature. We are just a very, very small part of a big, big machine–whether that machine is nature or society–the influence we have is minuscule. The realization of our insignificance gives us a true sense of humbleness.

I understand why people need God. I understand why people need heaven. It is terrifying to think that we are all alone in this universe, that one day we—along with the children we love so much—will cease to exist. The idea of God and an afterlife gives many of us structure, community and hope.

I do not want religion to go away. I only want religion to be kept at home or in church where it belongs. It’s a personal effect, like a toothbrush or a pair of shoes. It’s not something to be used or worn by strangers. I want my children to be free not to believe and to know that our schools and our government will make decisions based on what is logical, just and fair—not on what they believe an imaginary God wants.

NOTE: Mitchell says so much in this section that it’s hard to comment on all of her assertions in a general way.   Therefore, I’m going to isolate some of the phrases that capture the spirit of what she’s saying here and give an evaluation as to why I think each is either fundamentally incorrect or perhaps truthful, but misguided.

What About This Statement Is Wrong?

Mitchell’s entire first paragraph mirror’s everything else she’s said to this point – that she simply cannot comprehend how the idea of a “loving” God could possibly be reconciled with all of the pain that exists in the world.  I’ve addressed this ad nauseum in recent weeks, so I’d recommend going back and reading those first if you’re curious about how to respond to such a criticism of God.

Moving on….

“We are no more special than the next creature.”

I’ve met many people who believe this.  I have never in my life met one person who believes this consistently.

Here’s the example I always run to: I know a lot of young people who have fully swallowed the theory of evolution as fact.  They accept the basic tenets of natural selection and survival of the fittest.  So, I’ll ask them how they feel about the oppression going on in the Middle East or portions of Africa or elsewhere.  And almost invariably they’ll respond by talking about how unjust it all is.  And then, honestly, I’ve got them.  I’ll respond by saying that if we humans, just like the animal kingdom, operate according to the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest, then no one ever has any right to get upset about a more powerful nation with a bigger military and better weapons swallowing up and enslaving or destroying a smaller nation.  After all…..survival of the fittest, right?  This, after all, would only be for the propagation of a more advanced species.  If we’re merely animals, this is not only fair game, it’s natural and good.

I’ve never had a young person respond to that without pausing and saying…….“Hmmmmmm.”

Too many people walk around with the obvious inconsistencies in their head such as aborting humans is okay but wearing animal skin is immoral.  That inconsistency needs to gently but firmly be pointed out.

Finally, either humans are only animals OR they’re special.  Which is it?  If we’re merely animals, then let’s put the lower intelligence, lower functioning of us in cages and on leashes and force them to do our manual labor.  If we’re not animals, then let’s not refer to human life as “no more special than the next creature.”

“The realization of our insignificance gives us a true sense of humbleness.”

I’m going to default to the wisdom of the great C.S. Lewis here, who, in one of the most brilliant insights I’ve ever heard, said, “Humility is neither thinking more of yourself or less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.” 

Thinking that you’re a nobody doesn’t make you humble.  It makes you a self-centered person with a low perception of yourself as opposed to a self-centered person with a high perception of yourself.  In both cases, you’re dangerous to this world because in both cases your life is all about you.  In both cases, it’s STILL narcissism – the very thing that Mitchell is trying to blame belief in God for!

People who think they’re insignificant rarely accomplish anything worthwhile.  People who think they are significant might accomplish more, but don’t hesitate to step on people in order to get there.  Isn’t there a third option, C.S. Lewis’ option?  Couldn’t someone believe they are special, unique, gifted, and talented but that their life (and gifts) should be used to benefit others, not self?

“I do not want religion to go away. I only want religion to be kept at home or in church where it belongs.”

This is spoken as someone who doesn’t understand some of the basics of Christianity.

The word “gospel”, in the original Greek language of the New Testament, literally means “good news.”  Inherent in the concept of good news is that it begs to be told.  Otherwise, almost by definition, it’s not really all that great of news.

Let me give a quick illustration: For someone to say that they’re fine with Christianity but that they don’t like Christians trying to convert anyone, it’s sort of like saying that they like everything about ice cream except its frozenness.  If you took the “frozen” component out of ice cream, you’d still have something there – same amount of calories, grams of fat, and basic ingredients – but you wouldn’t really have ice cream, would you?

For someone to say that Christians shouldn’t try to convert others, they’re demonstrating that they don’t realize “good newsing” is part of the DNA of the Christian faith.  Or as atheist comedian/magician Penn Gillette has accurately and eloquently put it, “If you really believe people could be going to such a place as hell……how much do you have to hate someone not to proselytize?!” 

“I want my children to be free not to believe and to know that our schools and our government will make decisions based on what is logical, just and fair—not on what they believe an imaginary God wants.”

I love (read: go nuts to the point that a vein pops out in my forehead) when people make statements about God or Christians or the Bible being illogical, without any attempt to qualify such statements.  Part of my goal in the past 7 weeks of posts has been to demonstrate that Mitchell’s argument has little to do with logic, presenting my own logical counterpoints to her reasons against God.

I personally believe that God is not illogical, but that there are many elements of Christianity that are indeed supralogical, and therefore are not or cannot be understood entirely by finite humans.  But I don’t think this is an issue of logic.  I think it’s an issue of personal bias.  I have personal reasons for wanting God to exist.  But I’m honest about that. Mitchell clearly has personal reasons for not wanting God to exist.    I’m not convinced she’s honest with herself or the world about that.

So, we have two adults seeking to present logical philosophical arguments.  Unless they’re unlike anyone else in world history, they both have bias.  So who are you going to believe?  It’d seem to boil down to evidence.

And at this point I’d again defer to the argument of Christian Apologist C.S. Lewis, who popularized what is sometimes called the “Trilemma of Jesus,” which states that Jesus is either “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord” but he’s not “just a good teacher/man” as so many modern thinkers feel.  In other words, if Jesus actually believed he was God (which the Gospels record) but he wasn’t truly God, he’d be a Lunatic and unworthy of following.  If Jesus claimed to be God but knew that he wasn’t God, then he’d be a Liar, and therefore an unethical teacher.  Or, the third option was that he believed he was Lord and, in fact, actually was God.  If that’s not the correct option, then you have to somehow account for the fact that either an insane man or a brilliant magician has duped literally billions of people in the past 2000 years into believing he was God, to such a degree that they would sacrifice incalculable quantities of time, money, and even their lives not just to follow his teaching, but to worship him.

What About This Statement Is Truth?

“God has a plan for you.”

While this statement is true, if that’s the only message that we present to kids, it absolutely can cater to a self-centered spirit.  Phrases like this seem to suggest that you are still the center of your own universe.  Children will only gain spiritual health if they instead recognize that Jesus is appropriately the center of their universe, contrary to our egocentric default.  “The last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matt. 20:16) is the standard operating principle in the kingdom of God, but seems totally contradictory to human intuition.  Therefore, we need to be careful that we’re not teaching God as a means to an end – a tool to help get you to your true passion, rather than your true passion himself.  I’ve certainly heard this taught incorrectly in the Christian world and apparently Mitchell has too.

“It is terrifying to think that we are all alone in this universe, that one day we—along with the children we love so much—will cease to exist.”

That is a terrifying thought.  And it’s true that many people want to believe in God in the same way that many people want to not believe in God.  One suggests that we don’t have to fight our way through this world alone.  The other says that we can be our own person without having to answer to anyone.  Both are, in their own ways, appealing.

But let me just point out the flaw in Mitchell’s logic here: just because I want to believe something doesn’t lessen its chances of being true.  This is actually the same logic used by many atheists, perhaps most famously by former MN Gov. Jesse Ventura, years ago, in a famous interview in which he claimed religious people were “weak-minded” because they need a god.  Aside from the obvious – be advised when accepting spiritual advice from a guy who made most of his money shoving a roided up body into pink tights, I’ll say it again: wanting something to be true does NOT make it untrue.  A teenage boy might pine for a girl to like him.  He desperately wants it to be true.  She may not like him OR she may actually like him.  Wanting her to like him does not lessen the odds that she might also have feelings for him.

How Is the Gospel of Jesus More Beautiful Than This Belief?

Not only does God not teach narcissism according to the Bible, but Jesus himself, if the Bible is true, is literally the only being in the history of mankind who is, in fact, not a narcissist.

If the Jesus of the Bible is real (which I obviously believe he is), then he literally is better than you and me in every way – he’s not only smarter (John 21:17) and more powerful (John 2:7-9; John 11:43-44; Mark 6:41-44; Mark 4:39; Mark 1:34), but he’s also more holy (Col. 2:9) which has all sorts of practical applications, such as he’s purer, he’s kinder, he’s gentler, he’s more generous, etc.  This, by the way, is part of the reason why even few of the non-Christian religions in world history have ever dared to speak poorly of Jesus.  Even the demons themselves in the Gospels, for that matter, refuse to talk badly about him.  There is NOTHING you can say against the God-man and come out sounding reasonable.

And despite his perfection, he didn’t come to earth to earn your admiration but to humble himself and get tortured and killed to save and serve your soul.

Do me a favor and read this: “Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; ⁴ so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. ⁵ After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.” (John 13:3-5)

Come on.  Does that sound like a narcissist to you?

Three Summary Points to Consider:

1) Is it possible that belief in God – and that we humans are the crown of his creation – if processed correctly, could actually lead humans to be humbled by such love and good fortune?  In other words, could recognition of God’s grace possibly make us less narcissistic, not more?

2) Many truly do desire to be loved by God.  Does it really make sense that such a desire would lessen the potential for God to exist?  Or, as Aristotle, and later Thomas Aquinas, reasoned, does the mere intellectual conception of an Unmoved Mover seem to argue for his existence?

3) The Bible paints Jesus as many things.  Most anyone who has ever read the Bible, of any faith background, would NOT suggest that “a narcissist” is one of them.  Therefore, when the Bible states that God originally created his people to live like him and desire what he desires (Gen. 1:27), does the claim that the biblical “God teaches narcissism” sound accurate?