Dec 8, 2020

Retiring this blog

My dear readers,

    It has been quite a while, hasn't it? I'm sorry I haven't posted in so long. Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and stories and sometimes strong opinions on this little blog. I appreciate everyone who has joined me on this journey over the years. 
    As some of you know, I've decided to retire this blog and have been working on and off building a new one. My purpose in this is to move to a platform that is both easier for me to use and more pleasant for you to enjoy. I also hope to begin again with a clean slate; not to leave behind the things of my past and the growings-up that are part of who I am, but to take the best things with me and start a new chapter. This blog will still remain in the shadows of the internet for anyone who might want to take a trip down memory lane but will not be active. 
    Though it will be in a new place, I'm looking forward to sharing again with you the thoughts that weigh upon my heart, the events happening in my life, and the Truth that we are ever receiving the grace to see and believe. 

Till then, I remain,






May 23, 2018

Does America Misunderstand and Misuse Disagreement?

     More and more I notice people avoiding controversy. Folks treat disagreement like that song about the Grinch; they wouldn’t touch it with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole even if it means keeping silent on their strongest beliefs or most passionate opinions. Either that or people are having an all-out, F-bombed debate in the comments on YouTube. This has led me to question what America thinks disagreement is and whether we are using it properly. The longer I observe, the more I believe the current understanding and use of disagreement by our postmodern society is wrong. 

     In our culture, disagreement is mainly seen as something to be feared. But up until a few decades ago, this was not the case, especially in universities. The classical values of discourse, dialectic and rhetoric, were still being taught and modeled in society, whether in schools, churches, or the home. Dialectic is the art of questioning or understanding the given through logical argumentation and rhetoric is the counterpart, an art that trains the mind to see or discover the things we ought to write and say. Both are very important, good, and necessary parts of communication. Some might argue that people fear disagreement today only because dialectic is being neglected (it’s hard to research, build, or find strong logical reasons to support something). But both arts, dialectic and rhetoric, are being neglected because not only are people forgetting to back their disagreements up with good, logical arguments, they are not using rhetoric at all. They are not training to see the best means of persuasion. Instead of adapting their arguments to each unique situation and audience, they say the same things over and over, and when nobody listens, they begin name-calling in order to get people’s attention. Obviously, our postmodern society’s disagreement is falling short of the classical values of discourse.

     Unfortunately, when our society ignores the classical values of discourse it leads to disrespect in our disagreements with one another. This is how disagreement is understood today as a result of postmodernism: a verbal confrontation where people are angry or offended and leave feeling more fed up with the other person and that person’s argument. Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., explained this kind of disagreement quite well: “In a word, the type of opposition I am questioning is what I call “agonism.” I use this term, which derives from the Greek word for “contest,” agonia, to mean an automatic warlike stance—not the literal opposition of fighting against an attacker or the unavoidable opposition that arises organically in response to conflicting ideas or actions. An agonistic response, to me, is a kind of programmed contentiousness—a prepatterned, unthinking use of fighting to accomplish goals that do not necessarily require it.”[1]

     This “agonism” is exactly what our culture calls disagreement. Not the courteous exchange of ideas, the search for truth, the testing ground for one’s own opinions, instead, disagreement is a spiteful, ad hominem attack or scandalous accusation, a rude interruption, an inability to understand where the other person is coming from or what they are saying. Our society’s disagreement is inherently disrespectful because the people disagreeing do not listen to each other. They do not try to understand or give the other their undivided attention. They abuse each other with their words.

     Why do we do this? Because we believe ourselves to be gods. Postmodernism is primarily the belief that there is no objective truth. Just as the Sophists believed that there was no truth, so does postmodern society. We believe everything is relative which leads us to think that it is better to stick with our own truth and our own kind and make fun of everyone else. It is certainly easier to do. There is less risk in name-calling and misinterpretation than there is in listening to someone, placing ourselves in someone else’s shoes, and respectfully responding to someone’s reasons. Besides, it is more comfortable. And far be it from us to forego our 21st century, American creature comforts; the right to call someone a homophobe.

     Because Americans practicing postmodern society’s version of disagreement do not treat each other with basic dignity and politeness, their disrespect quickly grows into hatred. When someone is not allowed a word in a discussion or their reputation is compromised, it is understandable why they would have feelings of extreme dislike, resent, and bitterness towards the offender. Unfortunately, disrespect eventually ends with one or all of the parties in a discussion hating one another. Hatred does not open someone up to another person. It closes them down and divides households, churches, communities, and even the nation. They do not leave the conversation more educated or interested in what the other person has to say. They leave the conversation as bitter enemies.

     And after disrespecting someone to the point of making them hate you, some people might even commit an act of violence in retaliation. One example of this is the deadly attacks on abortion clinics by pro-life citizens. How ironic that doctors, staff members, patients, and guests at abortion clinics have been murdered by those who disagree with the murder of the unborn. Mary O’Hara reported for NBC News that: “In 2015, U.S. abortion providers were targeted in three murders, nine attempted murders, and 94 reports of death threats.”[2] Not only is violence caused by those who disagree with abortion horribly wrong, it undermines the very argument of pro-life citizens that each life is sacred. This illustrates how people cannot look beyond an opinion or belief to the valuable human being behind it. We are not God. We do not have the moral right to determine who lives and dies based off of our preferences and standards. We have the right to speak about our opinions and beliefs and disagree with someone if done properly, and it is right to do so. But we do not have the right to physically harm others because we disagree with them, and it is wrong to do such a thing.

     The understanding and use of disagreement by America’s postmodern society is wrong because it falls short of the classical values of discourse, is disrespectful, hateful, and violent. This imposter of true disagreement, which is necessary and good, has driven people to fear and even reject discussion, dialogue, and debate. Brett Stephens clarifies the situation well: “So here’s where we stand: Intelligent disagreement is the lifeblood of any thriving society. Yet we in the United States are raising a younger generation who have never been taught either the how or the why of disagreement, and who seem to think that free speech is a one-way right: Namely, their right to disinvite, shout down or abuse anyone they dislike, lest they run the risk of listening to that person — or even allowing someone else to listen. The results are evident in the parlous state of our universities, and the frayed edges of our democracies.”[3]

     This begs the question: if postmodern society’s model of disagreement is so wrong, then what alternative do we have? How will we ever communicate with each other? The alternative is to encourage diplomatic discussion, disagreement, and debate. We need to train ourselves to listen first and ask questions next. We need to test our own views before jumping to test others. We cannot listen to someone and consider their viewpoint if we do not lower the defensive guards around our own opinions. We cannot understand where someone is coming from if we are not empathetic and cannot try to imagine what it would be like to walk in another’s shoes. Thus the key ingredients to changing how we disagree and how the rest of society will view disagreement are humility and love for our neighbor. Only after we have done the previous steps can we offer our own opinions and views about something. When having a discussion or disagreement, we must win the right to speak our piece, remembering that we may be wrong and might have something to learn from the other person. 

     The majority of America’s understanding of what disagreement is and the way they use it as a result of postmodernism is very wrong. If the correct and true art of disagreement continues to be rejected and uneducated in our homes and churches, our schools and universities, our media and public forums, then society will remain with the harmful results. Americans will either continue to shy away from disagreement altogether rather than discussing important issues with each other or we will continue to chew one another up and spit each other out, which regresses the discussion. Amy L. Wax, Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, concludes better than I ever could: “Disliking, avoiding, and shunning people who don’t share our politics is not good for our country. We live together, and we need to solve our problems together. It is also always possible that people we disagree with have something to offer, something to contribute, something to teach us. We ignore this at our peril.”[4]



[1] Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War on Words (New York, NY: Ballantine Books, 1998), 8.

[2] Mary Emily O’Hara, “Abortion Clinics Report Threats of Violence on the Rise” NBC News, accessed April 26th, 2018, from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna719426

[3] Bret Stephens, “The Dying Art of Disagreement” New York Times, accessed February 5th, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/opinion/dying-art-of-disagreement.html

[4] Amy L. Wax, “Are We Free to Discuss America’s Real Problems?” Imprimis, vol. 47, no. 1, Hillsdale College, 2018, pp. 5.

Apr 27, 2018

Superficiality

   In our culture, pressures bombard us from every angle. We're pressured to take a picture looking a certain way, making a certain face, only showing the good, and the "perfect" parts of our lives. Why does this happen? The world is cursed. We are sinners. We mess up, fail, experience great sorrow, pain, and anger. Every day this happens over a billion times in the world. I'm not trying to be depressing. I'm not saying we should accept sin and move on. I'm saying that life is not perfect. And neither are the people on your Facebook and Instagram.

   We can try to make ourselves seem and look perfect. It's especially easy to do on social media. But God sees and knows our hearts. That's pretty convicting. Our facades are empty when compared to the awesome holiness of God. God isn't like man, concerned about the outside. He looks at your heart.

   In 1 Samuel 16:6-10, when God appointed Samuel to anoint the next king, the Lord told him that just because someone is good looking or great in stature (or seems like he has his life together) doesn't mean he is chosen by God. "When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the Lord’s anointed stands here before the Lord.” But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, “The Lord has not chosen this one either.” Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, “Nor has the Lord chosen this one.” Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The Lord has not chosen these.”"

    After researching and writing a speech on screen use last year, I've been more aware of the time spent on and motivation behind social media. Yesterday, in one of my classes, we were discussing idolatry and how it manifests itself today. One of the questions asked was, has idolatry/idols changed throughout history or has man simply found different mediums through which to express idolatry? I believe that we have idolized the same things over and over. Fame and glory, money and earthly goods, people, etc. One of the ways we idolize people and fame is through our technology. The more likes and followers there are, the more popular we perceive ourselves and others to be.

   Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying we should go delete all our social media accounts. Beautiful pictures of yourself, are splendid. I love observing the gorgeous sunsets my friends capture, and I love seeing their stunning faces even more. But you know what my favorite pictures are? The ones captured when no one noticed and someone's making a goofy face and laughing their unique laugh because someone made a bad joke. I like real photos. I'm saying you shouldn't be afraid to share real moments, because the real moments best capture our true hearts. There's nothing wrong with being yourself and sharing what you may consider your less attractive moments. No one cares about a pimple on your chin. If they do, they're not worth having as a friend.

Just some thoughts that have been on my mind lately...


The Why Behind the What

     This post was written 1/2/17

     In the last four years, I've had more questions about why I believe in and am part of a church that practices paedo-baptism (infant baptism) than questions about why I'm a Christian. This post isn't to start an argument or debate. It is simply a biblical defense of why I believe what I believe. Just to make this clear, I don't consider this an issue of salvation or anything to break relations over. This is just to answer the curious questions I've received (unspoken or not).
     My pastor wrote an article a few years back that eloquently and succinctly sums up the reasons. He puts it much better than I ever could, so I'm sharing it with you.

Reformed? Part IV Infant Baptism
by David Inks

   "This is the last installment of a four part series on what makes Reformed theology distinctive from mainstream evangelicalism. That distinction could be simply stated as two things: (1) that salvation is granted as a gracious bestowal, by way of God's sovereign will or simply "sovereign grace"  (2) Covenant theology. This second distinction has provided the grist for the milling out three articles: the contrast between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, the rejection of dispensationalism and now this article, infant baptism. (I may add a little trailer article on church government).
   Many Bible believing Christians see the doctrine of infant baptism as a compromise with either liberalism or Roman Catholicism. But those of us in the Reformed camp believe it simply and solely because we find it in Scripture. When we ask certain questions of the Bible regarding infants and baptism what we hear the Word of God saying is, "the infants of the covenant community are in the covenant and therefore wear the badge (baptism) of those in that community". I will give what I perceive to be the true and best ground for the practice. That ground is the covenant of grace.
   Let's begin by laying some basic beams in this house of infant baptism. Man's relationship to God is constituted a covenant. The covenant entails not just individuals but a community of people. We see this in Noah and his family. Gen. 6:18 Later we see the covenant with Abraham was not just with himself but with his seed after him. Gen. 17:7 Israel was a covenant community as constituted on Mt. Sinai. They were the seed of Abraham. Now a very simple question is: Who was in this covenant community? The answer is all the adults who desired to be so identified and their children. I don't think anyone would want to contest this obvious construction. The big difference comes with the advent of the New Covenant. This is where the Baptist persuasion argues that while in prior days the community was a merely physical body now it is a spiritual body constituted by those who can articulate the Gospel and its impact on their lives, making them new creations in Christ. Children are mere physical seed and can't "believe" therefore they are not in the covenant community and should not be baptized. The administration of the covenant prior to Christ is seen to be set in a radical disjuncture from its administration after Christ. The question then that must be answered is this: are infants, due to their birth and place within a covenant home therefore within the covenant community? The universal agreement of both parties is that baptism marks those who belong to the covenant community. Therefore, the question is not who should receive baptism, on that we are agreed; all those who belong to the covenant community. The question is this: are infants members of the covenant community? Howard Long used to ask, "Who kicked the babies out of the church?" This is an excellent question! If the New Covenant called for a sudden expulsion of infants from the covenant community do you think the early Jewish Christian church would have meekly said, "OK"? Look what happened over circumcision, a major uproar! But not a squeak regarding their children being excluded from the New Covenant community? Such silence is difficult to imagine. For centuries the covenant community included their children in the community, and they taught them to stay true to their covenant God. To suddenly disenfranchise infants and write them off as outsiders would first require a clear, positive statement for such a radical change and then would have created an uproar of at least the same decibel level as the circumcision issue. Where the slightest indication that with the New Covenant infants are now excluded? There isn't a peep! Who kicked the babies out of the church? On the other hand, there are a number of indicators that the children of adult community members were included along with them in the church. Let me list these.
   First, is the fact that the New Covenant is seen to be a fulfillment and continuation, not an "end", of the Abrahamic covenant, which included the children. (Romans 11 and Galatians 3 demonstrate this). It is true that circumcision is replaced by baptism. However, no comment is made that now in the New Covenant the boundaries are tighter so as to exclude children. The continuity between these covenants favors the Reformed view that infants are within the covenant, just like they had always been.
   Second, Peter on the day of Pentecost, when the New Covenant community was formed, proclaimed that "the promise is for you and your children". 2:39 He employed a familiar phrase to his hearers' ears regarding the fact that their children, just like the Abrahamic covenant taught, are embraced along with them in the arms of the covenant Lord.
   Third, Jesus "blessed" infants in the Gospels. The blessing of the covenant could only come through the Abrahamic covenant, since our sin under the Mosaic meant cursing. Jesus placed this blessing on infants. This meant that He had to include them within the Abrahamic covenant that He would Himself secure through the New Covenant with His blood and resurrection. Jesus blessed and thus included the infants in the covenant.
   Fourth, the Apostle Paul said that the infants of believers were "holy and clean"; such terms are descriptive of those within the covenant community. 1 Cor. 7:14. In Ephesians, a letter addressed to "saints" Paul without hesitation includes children within that designation in 6:1-3 ad he reminds them of their covenant obligations to their parents. Terms distinctive of covenant membership were applied to the children.
   Since the New Testament does not indicate the exclusion of children under the new administration but rather their ongoing inclusion in the covenant, just like it had always been....then, who kicked the babies out of the church? Not Abraham, not Jesus, not Peter, and not Paul.
   For this reason the Reformed insist that since infants are members of the covenant community, the church, they should be identified by wearing the badge of membership, baptism. The specific example needed for withholding or administering baptism to infants is nowhere supplied. What is supplied is the rationale in its favor!!
   At the very least you can see why Reformed Christians have tended to take seriously the task of teaching God's works and Words to their children. The unity of the covenant means that Gen. 18:19 and Deuteronomy 6:7 are not to be left to an old era but carried on in faithful covenantal obedience to the Lord. It certainly increases the wonderment at God's covenant blessing. It should also increase the weight of warning to children that are tempted to imitate that other covenant child, Esau, who having loved this present world and despised the heavenly gift, came under judgment. Not everyone will agree with this argument. However, it should be evident, our commitment is sola Scriptura."

     Even if you disagree, I hope that was enlightening. :)




Sep 22, 2017

Senior Thesis: A Tremendous Responsibility

Trying to decide what to write my senior thesis on feels like trying to decide what I'll major in, but more frightening if that's even possible. Why? Because my senior thesis, just like declaring a major, will be judged by family, friends, and strangers. Because my senior thesis, just like declaring a major, will reflect on what kind of person I am and what I hold valuable. Because my senior thesis, just like declaring a major, needs to be something that is purposeful, true, and gives back in a new and transformed way the precious givens that have been gifted to me. 
And that is a tremendous responsibility.

When studying rhetoric, I learned the various jobs of the rhetor. What I had to do to transform all the thoughts, beliefs, and values passed on to me into old and well-worn words, arranged in new and creatively fresh ways to craft a speech that would hopefully spark a result, a "do" from the audience. Hopefully persuading them. But I didn't just learn how to write a speech, or speak better, or be more persuasive. I learned that I have many responsibilities, not just to the audience, but to all the teachers and friends and people and parents and God who have been before me, giving to me. Now it's my turn to give back, and give something worthy. I want it to be good and true. Solid and lasting. They say that we will be forgotten but our words live on, and in many ways that's true. Things rust away and get eaten by moths. But Augustine says that words are never things. So I want them to be good words. 

In rhetoric class, your friends and fellow students are willing to lend you their ears because they are expected to do so and respect and care for you. Outside the classroom, there's no guarantee that your audience will listen . There's no guarantee that your audience will agree, no matter how reasonable you are, how much evidence you have, or how persuasive you are. There's no guarantee they will be impacted by what you say. But we are still commanded to be ready and to give an answer for the hope within us, with gentleness and respect. To do it with the best of the ability that has been gifted to us so that hopefully, we will persuade them.

So I want them to be good words.
And that is a tremendous responsibility.

Feb 22, 2017

Debate-why do I do it?

It's ridiculous that I have so much to say and share and yet I don't know what to sit down and blog about. Then something hits me, and I have to write it all before I forget.

My personality type (infp-introverted intuitive feeling perceiving) does not like conflict. I can attest to this being true. I would rather avoid arguments, yelling, and violence at all cost than experience or inflict it on others. Many of you know I'm part of a speech and debate league so you might be wondering, how I can enjoy and participate in debates. Isn't the whole point arguing?

First a clarification, formal forensic debate is very different from arguing. What we tend to consider "arguing/arguments" usually aren't real arguments, it's bickering. Formal arguments are logical, structured, easy to follow, and usually don't involve raising your voice.
Second, formal debate isn't spurned by anger. You speak with a clear mind rather than say something illogical or hurtful in the emotion of the moment. And whether you may or may not be emotionally invested in your argument, you can still speak with passion.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I value truth over relativity and lies. I would contend the truth rather than sit back and let the falsity roll free. That is why I love debating and why I will argue with people. Not argue in a bickering way, but argue with logic and integrity. I don't argue to win or triumph over another, no. I argue for a much more important reason, I argue that truth may be upheld and will not be beaten down by lies and inconsistency. I argue that others may begin to see that truth and how it stands firm. I may dislike conflict, but I dislike truth being shot and trampled without any support for crazy claims even more. And upholding truth is more important than being peace-loving.

1. How can anyone be peace-loving or achieve peace, if everyone is at war with each other because of their different values and different interpretations of peace and truth?
2. There are consequences for not upholding truth. Earthly consequences and eternal consequences. I fear the consequences more than I fear going outside my comfort zone.

Ultimately, this is why I debate, that I may defend truth whenever it comes into question.

"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:14-16

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should." Ephesians 6:10-20


Jan 8, 2017

Resolutions

   I was too distracted and exhausted to make new resolutions for the new year. Even though resolutions are overdone and quite frankly, pretty ridiculous most of the time, there's nothing bad about making goals (even if you don't always keep them).

   Now that I have some time, here are my goals for the new year.

1. Stay in the Word - read the Bible more. Not just read, but take notes and study the entire passage.
2. Go to bed at a reasonable hour each school night - no more late night history reading.
3. Stay off the screens - Even though I take classes online, read articles for debate online, and exchange important information with coaches, pastor, and team mates online, it's time to spend more time outside and take advantage of the vitamin D.
4. Read more books - I know what some of you are thinking, "Wini? Read more books? Wut?" When I was younger, I was able to eat books for lunch. As I get older, I realize that although I read more than the average person my age, I read less and less. My booklist has only grown. It needs to shrink.
5. Write once a week - I'd like to do it more than once a week, but I know I won't accomplish that. So I'm starting with a small goal. Sit down, work on my stories, actually get some words down, move forward.
6. Blog twice a month - I love this blog. I like how it's quiet and waits for me and let's me sort my thoughts. It's nice to see that people can relate and appreciate my brain sometimes too. I want to share more with those who don't know me well, and so that those who do can know me better.

   That's all I have that I feel like sharing out loud. I don't want to put lots of small strenuous things on here and overly burden myself. Or make things seem like they just need to get checked off. It's good to evaluate your year and what your priorities should be though.