The Destruction of the Family

The family began in the Garden of Eden.  Adam and Eve were perfect, and perfectly complementary.  Adam was the head of Eve in role, but Adam was equal to Eve in value.  Had things stayed perfect, wonderful children would have entered the mix.  

     But alas, it was not to be.  Satan broke marriage, and it has hobbled along ever since.  Polygamy, homosexuality, incest, divorce, abuse, and countless other perversions entered into the institution of marriage. Did things only go from bad to worse?  Actually, no.  God gave the Law, and this established many parameters.  When Jesus came, these parameters were further refined.  In short, a positive understanding of marriage is as follows:

     One man leaves his parents, and joins with one woman, and these two become a family.  Only after marriage occurs does sexual activity occur.  This activity brings about children.  The man, who loves his wife dearly, and the woman, who respects her husband immensely, are thus permanently bonded in marriage, preparing the children for the day when they themselves will enter into marriage covenants with their respective spouses from other families, and the cycle continues from there.

     Zooming into American society, we can see how much of this view of the family has been eroded, until this picture of the family is either unrecognizable, or considered a relic of a bygone era.

     The first domino was the preparation of the children.  For a while, the norm in America was that a young woman was protected from a potential suitor by her parents.  Likewise, a young man was taught to view his urges as something good, but something to be suppressed until its proper time.  At this point in time, young couples did not date; they courted.  The two spoke often in the presence of their parents.  When they did spend time alone, they were not truly alone.  Parents and trusted friends observed conduct from afar, allowing the courting couple both privacy and protection.

     Eventually, however, parents stopped teaching their children how to court.  In fact, young people began to find themselves on their own when it came to opposite-sex interaction.  Eventually the protections of courting fell into disuse, replaced by dating.  Dating is focused not on an evaluation of a future relationship, but the enjoyment of a current relationship.

     The next domino is that of sexual activity being exclusive to marriage context.  As attention shifted away from future marriage to current dating, sexual attention shifted the same way.  Within decades, sexual activity began to be considered acceptable for engaged couples.  And then long-term partners.  And then after a few dates.  In some contexts, a “one-night stand” has become quite acceptable.  At this point, sex is considered something great for married couples, and great for dating couples as well.  However, there is a stability found in marriage that simply does not exist outside it, and sexual activity has the tendency to produce children.  This fact lead to two different attacks on marriage.

     First, now that sexual activity has become acceptable outside of the marriage union, the idea of a more “free” sexuality becomes alluring for many in existing marriages.  Their own marriages, having grown “boring” are seen as less fulfilling than those elsewhere. This collective urge for fulfillment lead to the existence of “no-fault divorce” laws.  Entering into a marriage no longer carries the weight of permanence, but merely the hope of permanence, with a relatively easy way out if things go south.

     Second, sexual activity outside of marriage highlights a key difference between men and women: childbearing.  In a marriage, the man and the woman work together enduring the development and birth of a baby (the level of male involvement varies by marriage, but there is at least some involvement in a cohesive marriage union).  When sexual activity is acceptable outside of marriage, there is less and less reason for the man to stay.  In fact, for one-night stands and short relationships, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the man never learns that the woman is pregnant, because he has moved on to other relationships!  

     This harsh reality causes women to feel lesser in value.  It appears, at this point in our story, that men can do whatever they want sexually, but women do not have that ability due to childrearing.  “Hope” is then found, in the form of the birth-control pill.  Casual birth control allows women to have casual sex, thereby “fixing” the problem of unfair treatment in sexuality (it is not conceivable at this point that people would think to simply return to sexual activity as being exclusively within a marriage, it seems).  Should a pregnancy occur, despite use of birth control, abortion is always at the ready should it be considered the best thing for the woman.

     At this point, it would be helpful to take a step back, and compare these two forms of marriage.  One form views the premarital relationship as one characterized by protection and loving oversight by parental figures; the other views the premarital relationship as one characterized by self-fulfillment and pleasure, with all oversight considered “oppressive”.  One form views marriage as a permanent union; the other views marriage as a conditional union, with the hopes that the conditions will be met until death do they part.  If not, divorce and try again. One form views children as the expected result of marriage; the other views children as a hindrance to autonomy, and easily delayed or discarded until a time thought more appropriate.  If desired, marriage can easily be intentionally child-free.

     We should notice that in the first understanding of marriage and family, the distinctions between marriage and non-marriage are obvious.  Certain actions are acceptable within marriage and not acceptable outside of it, and vice versa.  In the second understanding of marriage, distinctions become blurred.  Marriage is less desirable, because most of the benefits of marriage are available outside of it, and that without the “constriction” of legal commitment.

     We should also notice that the first understanding views marriage as an institution, in most cases by God Himself.  Marriage and relationships are then seen in that light.  Relationships are not just about the people in them.  They are about the God who is revealed in part through those relationships.

     The second understanding of marriage shifts this entirely to a self-centered understanding.  This isn’t to say that people are selfish; it is to say that the happiness and fulfillment of both parties is seen as the ultimate function of a relationship.  If one or both people are consistently happy or unfulfilled, the relationship should end, whether it be outside or inside the marriage relationship.

     This has been a long and roundabout way of explaining why we are where we are.  Why marriage is not viewed as it once was.  Here is the point.  Homosexuality simply could not function in marriage 150 years ago.  If marriage is viewed as one man and one woman, joined permanently for revealing God’s relationship with His Church, as well as creating godly offspring that will do the same, then homosexuality simply cannot fit.  However, if marriage is viewed as the path to happiness and fulfillment, as well as legitimization of people’s relationship with each other, and can exist with or without children, then we cannot see how homosexuality cannot fit!

     Today, I am convinced, will be a historic day.  This day will be written about in history textbooks, and will be celebrated this time next year, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, and 50 years from now.  Today is June 26, 2015.  Today the Supreme Court of the United States has legalized Homosexual Marriage in all 50 states.  The world is elated, while the Church reels.  Many cannot help but ask, “How did this happen?"

     It did not happen overnight.  Homosexuality did not destroy marriage.  Satan did.  And when we finally had a workable concept of marriage to go on (the first understanding of marriage given above), we allowed it to slip.  Slowly.  It was not homosexual lobbyists that destroyed the family; it was neglectful parents.  If you want to fight as though it is Us V. Them, then realize that we killed the family, not them.

     Our task now is the same as it has been since this mess started: Reclaim that original view of marriage.  We cannot condone our children to date indiscriminately, and have sex outside of marriage.  Further than that, we cannot attempt to reign our children in when they are 16 or 17; it is far too late for that.  When they are babies, teach them about your authority as it is submissive to God’s authority.  Model that out.  And pray that God will use you and your children to teach a coming generation that self-centered relationships are not the default.  Far from it.

7 Reasons Not to Let the Government Educate Your Child - Introduction

It is fascinating how quickly new things become tradition.  One of the quickest, most widespread of these is the American Public School system.  There was once a time when education occurred primarily in the home, or in the church.  It was not until the 18-19th centuries that a "public school" divorced from a religious body gained any traction.  Even then, these were disjointed, isolated schools, outside of the oversight of the government (except where laws are concerned, of course).  The next one hundred years, from about 1850-1950, saw massive change in education.  At the beginning of the period, two states had mandatory laws requiring parents send children to state schools.  By 1950, every state required formal education. (To be clear, this formal education could be either public or private schooling.  Only homeschooling was illegal.)

Thankfully, things have changed, again quickly.  Since 1997, it is now legal in all 50 states to homeschool.  However, it remains in the public mind that, unless you can afford expensive private schooling, your only option is to send your kids to the government, where they will educate your kids for "free" (we'll talk about those quotes later in the series).

Over the next seven Fridays, my goal is to go beyond merely endorsing homeschooling.  I want to make the claim that we should not allow the government to educate our children.  I'm not saying to supplement public school with youth groups and Sunday schools.  I'm saying pull the kids out of public school entirely. Like most homeschooling parents, I grew up in the public schools, and even being lost I could see something of the cesspool I attended (partly for this reason I did not even attend my high school graduation out of protest against the school).  It was not until years later after Jesus bought me that I realized just how horrible these places are.  We should not send our children there.

A few notes about this series.  

      First, the seven topics are listed in no particular order, with the exception of the first one. The first one is in a class all by itself, and so I will speak of it first.  With the remainder, while I attempted some loose thematic arrangement, I didn't feel the need to put great effort in its ordering.

      Second, let me say that about the first one:  if the only reason I had to disallow my children from going to public school was this first reason, I would do it anyway.  I am making a cumulative argument here, but the first reason is all I need to homeschool.  The rest is just gravy.

      Third, if I only had reasons two through seven, they would cumulatively be enough for me to homeschool.  While none of these reasons are strong enough, together they make a major case against public schooling.  It should also be noted that reasons two through seven, unlike the first, are secular arguments.  In other words, while the unchurched could care less about the first (and more important reason), all the rest of them apply even to them.

      Fourth, while the first reason does not apply to a good Christian private school, the rest of them, to one degree or another, do.  For this I would say that while sending your children to a Christian school is certainly acceptable, I still maintain homeschooling to be the preferred option. 

        Fifth, most anti-government education from a Christian perspective tends to focus on three things: Evolution in the science class, Common Core, and Sex Education.  These are all important topics, but I will not be focusing on these.  While they may have place in our discussion, all too often the response from Christians gives off the idea that if only we just change the schools by getting rid of Common Core, getting rid of Sex Ed, and teaching Creationism instead of Evolution, then we'd be happy to send our kids to these schools.  For me and my house, that simply is not the case.  Therefore, these topics will not be focused on.

        I hope this series is helpful.  It would be helpful for me to state my audience.  My audience is not primarily parents whose children are already in high school.  My audience is not primarily parents whose children are in school at all.  The group I'm thinking of as I write this are those whose children are too young to go to school, or those couples who don't have children yet.  Even those who are single, and the idea of having children in school seems like so very far off.  You are my audience because you have time.  You have the time to sincerely research these matters, and make an informed decision about the particulars of your children's education.  I pray that you will make good use of it, for it is fleeting.

How Should A Christian Relate to Videogames? - Limitations and Conclusion

We come to the final entry in this series.  Up to this point, the position has been argued that videogames are an acceptable medium of recreation for Christians to consume.  What must be discussed now is the limitations one puts upon themselves when playing a game.  In our culture today that values autonomy and personal choice, the concept of setting personal restrictions is anathema.  However, we as Christians understand that the flesh is wicked and incurably sick (Jer. 17:9).  Therefore, we know that we must rein in our flesh, and make it subservient to Christ.

        I do not intend to be Pharisaical here.  In other words, the limitations I put forth are not limitations that I believe others must observe.  They are limitations that I observe.  If one feels led to respond differently, then that is no problem, as long as you are doing it for the Lord.

        I do, however, insist on one principle.  This principle applies to every Christian everywhere.  If you disagree with me here, then be prepared to defend your case.  If you get nothing else from this whole series, let the following principle sink in deeply:

        Do not check your theology at the Main Menu!

        In reality, this applies not only to videogames, but to media entirely.  Truly, this applies everywhere.  If all things "were created through Him and for Him" (Col 1:16), then every aspect of life, entertainment included, must take Christianity into account.  What games one plays, and how one plays those games, must be suitable for a Christian.

Now to my personal limits.  The four areas that I categorize my limitations are the areas of addictiveness, violence, sexuality, and language.

Addictiveness

     This I know from personal experience: games can be addictive.  This is a double problem: On the one hand, our time is valuable, and we shouldn't be spending a large amount of it on videogames, or any other form of entertainment. On the other hand, it is very possible to play a videogame so much that when you aren't playing it, your mind continues to think about it.  When you are so busy thinking about a videogame that it impacts your ability to think about things that are true, noble, pure, etc., the issue must be dealt with.  Therefore, I limit the time that I spend playing games.  It isn't a hard and fast rule, but gaming certainly isn't something I do every day (which is very different from how I was a decade ago, when I probably played games for about 5-6 hours a day).  When I'm in school, I'll routinely go over a week without playing, and usually if I did it was a multiplayer game that I would play with my wife after the kids went to bed.

        In addition to general time limits, I have also banned myself from playing a few games simply due to how addictive and mind-consuming they are.  The two games on my no-play-list are Pokemon and Guild Wars.  While I'd like to play them sometimes, I simply can't allow it.  I know my flesh.

Violence

         Next is violence.  Some people think that if a game is violent at all, then it is unacceptable.  I do not hold that view.  I take a more nuanced understanding of violence.  We must remember that the Bible is a very violent book; if our children are to read that, then I take from it that violence can have a place in other forms of media.  

          Here's my view: I don't play games in which the protagonist, as the Player Character, indulges in needless, grotesque killing of human beings.   That clarification is important.  If the villain of the game is wickedly murdering, that is not a great issue to me, for it is my job as the protagonist to stop them.  But when it is the "good guy" who is going around slaughtering mercilessly, that is very different.  The ends do not justify the means.  Most first-person shooters fail on this from the get-go.  The general rule when it comes to FPSs is that when you see a group of enemies, your goal is to end all of their lives.  I reject that. The killing is completely needless. A great example of the inverse is a scene from a recent Tomb Raider game.  Lara Croft, as a scared girl mustering all of her strength to survive, is forced into a situation where either she kills the enemy, or she will be killed.  She kills him, but with great reluctance.  After realizing the gravity of what she's done, she actually vomits.  She killed another human being.  In this scenario, the enemy was treated by the protagonist as a human being with dignity, and she feels both reluctance and shame in taking his life.  Contrast this with Call of Duty, where you control a hardened soldier who dispatches of entire squads of men with less heartache than if he spilled milk.  While both involve the main character taking the life of another, one treats human life with dignity, and the other degrades human life.  I will gladly play the former, I will not play the latter.

        The grotesque nature of much killing in games also deserves commentary.  Take the Assassin's Creed series of games, for example. Oftentimes in these games combat comes in the form of defeating squads of enemies.  When one kills the last enemy, the action often slows down, and the camera zooms in to show an exceedingly grotesque finish.  This is unacceptable.

        Constrast that with Splinter Cell: Blacklist.  I was very excited about that game, because I was told that you could play as Sam Fisher and never kill a single opponent.  After getting it, I played the first level, and that's exactly what I did.  I must have defeated 50 militant terrorists, without ending the [digital] lives of any of them.  I actually went out of my way to dispatch of my enemy in such a way to show them dignity, despite their disgusting ideological beliefs.  Violence like this, inside of a videogame, is much more palatable than your typical "kill everyone in this room" mentality. 

Sexuality and Language

        We now come to both sexuality and foul language in videogames.  This ranges from characters (mostly female) showing a little too much skin, to whole sections of games where the goal is to have unmarried sex.  Language is relatively self-explanatory.  

        Honestly, I don't have a clear cut line even for myself, in large part because I don't really have to.  The sorts of games that have an excessive display of sexuality or language are the same games that have an excessive display of violence.  I suppose a loose line would be that if fornication was required to continue in a game, then I would not.  Furthermore, if there was a large amount of foul language [an admittedly subjective standard] then I would not want to play it.  If it just had the occasional curse word, however, I wouldn't be too opposed.  The only exception I make here is the use of the Tetragrammaton.  If God's Personal Name is used flippantly, I want nothing to do with it. (This is the same reason why I don't watch Joe Dirt anymore).  The Word God is common in our language, and can refer to any deity, actual or imaginary.  To actually say “Yahweh" takes extra effort and understanding, and I will not tolerate its misuse in my entertainment.

Conclusion

        As this series comes to an end, I feel it helpful to quickly explain why I wrote about it in the first place.

        As both a Christian and a gamer, I have often been considered something of an oddity in both camps.

        As a Christian, I have found very little common ground in the gaming community, a community which holds agnosticism, if not flat out atheism, as almost a pre-requisite to acceptance.  It is strange to stand firm on the rock when everyone else is sailing on ships of sand.

        As a gamer, I have been looked at with a sort of assumption that I'm lazy.  An assumption which I do not believe is legitimate.  I don’t want to brag, but here goes.  Not only do I go to church on Sundays, but also Wednesdays.  And I teach Sunday School.  And I go to Seminary.  And I plan on homeschooling (not an easy task in the slightest).  And I lead Family Worship.  And we take the burden of our children during Sunday church service.  Even today, I am taking vacation in order to potty train my son.  I can be given called a number of things, but lazy is not one of them, especially if this laziness is grounded on my preferred recreational activity of choice.  

        To those who are gamers, but not Christians, I say this: Investigate the claims of Christianity.  Christianity is not the end of fun.  Rather, it is the beginning of true joy, in which videogames can certainly play a part.

        To those who are Christians, but not gamers, I say this: Do not paint with so broad a brush as to assume that all gamers are the same.  I suspect that if someone knew a few Catholics in high school, and then assumed that you pray to Mary and baptize infants, and believe that you have to attend Mass to get God's grace, that you would not appreciate such broad assumption.  Recognize that many gamers have a burning love for Jesus Christ, and that submission to His will filters into the games we play.

        To those who are both Christians and gamers, I say this: You are not alone.  Enjoy your Christ, and enjoy your games.  But know that Christ will always, always be sweeter than the new Zelda.  I conclude with a principle that applies to every videogame, but will never apply to Christ:

The long-awaited will become the long-forgotten.

How Should a Christian Relate to Videogames? - Objections

Thus far in this series, we have looked at videogames as an entertainment medium in both positive and negative lights.  This form of media certainly has advantages that no other form of media has at its disposal.  Along with them come limitations, typically tied to the very benefits they offer.  The question, then, is what is a Christian to do with these things? 

This post will focus on six objections to Christians playing videogames that are usually brought up, and we will analyze them to see if they have any merit.

Objection #1: Too much time

        First, we will look at the idea that games take too much time.  It must be noted that, as Christians, our time is very valuable.  Our time on earth is as a vapor, and we must make good use of our time, because the days are evil.  This cannot be underestimated.  We have no business playing games if we are not doing our job as Christians.

        On the other hand, is this to mean that there is to be no time whatsoever for recreation? How many of those who wag their fingers at gamers for wasting time have absolutely no recreation?  Very few, I suspect.  I have heard with my own two ears people say  that videogames are a waste of time while the football game is on!  I propose that Christians can and should make time for recreation.  Whether it be movies, watching the game, reading a good book, or playing a videogame, it is important for everyone to take time to relax. 

        Unfortunately, even for those who would agree to most of the previous sentence, oftentimes a double standard is used.  Whether they verbalize this or not, they contrast the well-regulated movie watching habits of one person (usually themselves) with the extreme unhealthy habit of some gamers who play for 22 hours a day.  This is illegitimate.  By this logic, I could contrast my well-regulated gaming habit with the extreme movie watcher who spends all day watching movies.  It simply doesn't work.  Videogames do not, in and of themselves, take too much time.  The issue is with the person playing, which is no different from any other form of media.  All forms (even books) can be dangerous if used to an extreme.

Objection #2: Too much money

        Another major objection is the cost of these games.  Admittedly, in comparison they appear rather steep.  A book (your average recreational novel; not everyone enjoys recreationally reading scholarly work) costs about $8.  An album is about $15.  A movie, even your fancy 3D Blu-Ray+2D Blu-Ray+DVD+Digital Copy movie tops out at about $35.  A PS4, Xbox One, or Wii U game?  $60.  And that is after the cost of the system itself, which ranges from $300-400 new (to be fair, the Wii U comes bundled with a couple games).  If you want other people to play at home with you, then you have to buy extra controllers.  If you want to play online with a PS4 or Xbox One, you have to pay $60 per year (online is free for Wii U).  In sum, if you intended on buying a PS4 with one game, an extra controller, and the ability to play online, you are looking at a $550 investment!  That is simply too much money to warrant a purchase, right?

        Well, let's hold on here.  First off, it is important to remember that the system is a one-time purchase.  They don't usually upgrade systems for about 6 years.  Second, one must realize that games are designed to give experiences that last far longer than movies do.  A movie lasts a family about 2 hours.  A videogame can last a family well over 30 hours!

         So let's do the math here.  If a DVD player costs about $50, and a DVD costs about $20, then the experience is $70 for 2 hours of recreation, or $35 per hour.

          Using that $550 figure above, if that experience lasted 30 hours, then it would end up costing only $18 per hour of recreation.

          Here's where it gets important.  Nobody buys a DVD player for one movie, and nobody buys a game console for one game.  How does the math play out when you have five movies/games instead of one?

           If each DVD is $20, then the total cost of a DVD player and 5 DVDs is $150.  That comes out to $15 per hour.

           If each game is $60, with 30 hours playability, then the total is $790.  While that is very steep, the hourly cost is a paltry $5.26.  In the long run, watching movies actually ends up being more expensive than playing videogames.  Mind you, I used the most expensive console.  If I redid the math with a Wii U, which comes with two games, it would cost only $480, with an hourly cost of $3.20.  For what you get out of videogames, they are a very cheap medium.

Objection #3: Silly Christian, Games are for kids!

   This one is simply frustrating, and reveals an ignorance of the history of videogames.  One should realize that the earliest forms of the videogame utilized WWII equipment, and were made for adults.  It wasn't until arcades got big in the 70s that you started seeing more kids in the arcades.  There is a deep-seated stereotype that those who play games are male children, or fat male unsocial adults.  In today's world, one of the largest percentage of gamers are middle-aged women! Nintendo and the smartphone are to thank for gaming breaking out of that stereotype, and it is time for Christians to understand the changing landscape, especially for pastoral purposes.

Objection #4: Games are unChristian, therefore wrong

        This is the one that I don't have a clear answer for.  If one takes the position that the only acceptable forms of recreation are those that are explicitly Christian in nature, then one can safely dismiss videogaming as an entertainment medium (this is only true at present; the concept of a 'Christian videogame', while difficult, is likely possible).  However, most of those who use this argument are guilty of it themselves.  If secular videogames are wrong, then so is secular music, secular movies, and, technically, secular sports!  While I don't care for most secular music, I wouldn't say it is wrong to listen to it.  One simply has to be more careful, and keep your guard up a little more than with explicitly Christian music (which you should keep your guard up for that, as well).  In the same way, one may freely play videogames as a Christian, so long as one guards against secular influences.

Objection #5: Games make kids violent

          I'll be honest here.  This is the dumbest objection of all, and gives Christians a horrible image in the eyes of non-Christian gamers.  The idea that people should not play (any) videogames because the violence of (some) videogames "makes" (some) kids violent is simply asinine.  

          This is further bolstered by studies that link violent games to violent crimes.  I suggest that these studies are confusing causation with correlation.  In other words, I propose that 90%+ of the problem is a family that is violent, or that does not restrain them.  When they train up their children in the children's way, it is no surpise that violence occurs.  The violent videogame is a symptom of a rampant, unchecked sin problem, not the cause itself.

           Let us take this logic to the medium of music.  Most, if not all, of these violent crimes are committed by those who not only play violent videogames, but listen to very violent music. Damon of Athens, a musician from the fifth century BC, is quoted by Plato as giving the following brilliant proverb: 

Give me the songs of a nation, and I care not who writes its laws. The music one listens to is very important. Therefore, I suspect that these violent crimes were committed because of the shootings and other wicked actions described in detail in these songs.  Therefore, all music everywhere is violent, and Christians should not allow their children to listen to music, because music makes kids violent.  

           Anyone ready to pitch their hymns yet?  Of course not, because not all music is to be treated the same.  It is no different with videogames.

Objection #6: Just read a book

        Finally, we come to the claim that reading is better than videogames, so we might as well just read a book.  In all honesty, I agree with the first claim.  On a level playing field, if I was to grant one medium as the best, I would have to choose the book.  After all, the written word is what God used to give us His sacred Scripture.  John 1:1 does not say "In the Beginning was the Videogame".  Whether written or spoken, words are powerful, and they are the most versatile of all forms of communication.

        The issue with this objection, of course, is that it suggests that you can only use one form of media.  This is absurd.  In fact, oftentimes forms of media are blended.  Movies, for example, have had music for the last 75 years.  Before that, spoken lines were delivered via text, so that the audience could read them.  Videogames are no different.

Whether it is the idea that games make kids violent, or that they are too expensive or take too much time, none of these objections are convincing enough to suggest that Christians shouldn't play videogames.  The question that remains then, is how does a Christian play them?  What limits should a Christian put on themselves when consuming secular media, gaming in particular?  These questions will be addressed in the final post of this series next week.

8-Year-Old Johnny and his Ford Focus: A Look at the Transgender Revolution

For those who have been observing the culture shift during this past decade, our current position does not take us by surprise. Some, however, appear to be rather befuddled by the transgender revolution.  What was once merely a minor "T" in the LGBT designation has now grown, thanks in part to Caitlyn Jenner (as he prefers to call himself), into a major arena of discussion.  But don't worry.  Once the initial shock dies down, discussion will cease for fear of being "on the wrong side of history".  While we have this brief moment of tolerance, I think it would be wise to take a closer look at what it means to be transgender, and the implications of it beyond mere sexual morality.

First, let's take a look at the two key terms: sex and gender.  For a long time, these two concepts were thought to be interchangeable, mere synonyms.  But no longer.  What is meant by sex in today's culture is the external biological status of a human being.  With rare exception, the two options are male and female.  This status is fixed at birth, and if it can be changed (something itself hotly debated) can be changed only by surgery and hormone therapy.  In short, we can sum up the modern concept of sex in this way: sex is one's external reality in terms of sexual identity.

     Gender, on the other hand, is another matter altogether. Gender is considered the inward sexual identity of the person, how one feels they are.  Opinions on this, even in the LGBT community, range from being fixed at birth, all the way to being completely fluid, their gender identity being changeable entirely at one's whim. At any rate, the following definition is appropriate: gender is one's internal reality in terms of sexual identity.

     In most cases, it is evident that one's sex and one's gender are the same.  For most of those who are externally male, they are male internally as well.  In some cases, it is said, these two do not connect. For those who are externally male, yet internally female, or vice versa,  obtaining a solid sexual identity is extremely difficult.  So what is one to do?  

     Today's culture has come to a verdict: a person's true identity is the inward identity, even if it conflicts with the external identity. To defy one's external reality for the sake of the internal is not seen as sin, but rather as courage.  Whether one attempts to change their external body or not, we are told that we must celebrate "trans-people" as the sex they want to be.  We now live in a world where the USA Olympic Committee is willing to show in its records that a woman won the men's decathlon in 1976.  

     The dangers here are readily apparent.  When speaking of sports, an immediate issue is that of combat sports like MMA (mixed martial arts).  Can a biological male compete as a woman if he feels like a woman?  The answer is yes, and the results can be devastating (For more info, look up transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox's latest win, especially his opponent's opinion of the match).

     But does this not go beyond sexuality entirely?  If the precedent set states that one's identity comes from how they feel internally rather than what they are externally, then this simply cannot remain an issue about sexual identity.  Take the following scenario:

     Johnny is eight years old.  He feels older than eight.  A lot older.  In Johnny's mind, he is 23 years old.  Should Johnny have the right to vote? To drink?  Should he be able to purchase and drive a Ford Focus?  Can we deny Johnny's inward identity because of his external identity, when we celebrate others inward identity in spite of their external identity? Can we really not imagine a scenario in which a biologically white person who identifies as black will fight for black-only scholarships, when the seven most liberal female-only universities already allow for biologically male students to enroll?  What seems like the right to use a physical facility on the basis of one's inward mentality may well be a Pandora's box that has already been opened.  

Honestly, I don't know if we can close this box. Praise God, I realize that this box, and all the demons it unleashes, will ultimately be destroyed when King Jesus comes to reign on Earth as He does in Heaven. But as we wait for Messiah to return, we now strive to bring His kingdom ever closer.  Two ideas immediately spring to mind as a way forward.

     1) Question the concept of gender.

          

          They tell us that humans have gender as well as sex.  But this is relatively new to human understanding.  Without knowing its history, I'd venture to guess that the idea of gender divorced from the idea of sex came as a result of people who appear to act or think according to the opposite sex.  Perhaps this is not a normal psychological feature that just happens to be at variance with the physical body.  Perhaps this is a disorder that doesn't require the invention of an arbitrary psychological device.  Perhaps the study of gender belongs not in psychology textbooks, but grammar.

     2) Apply rights and benefits on the basis of external realities, not internal identification.

          We must remember that we cannot probe the mind like we can the body.  The simple fact is that, just like homosexuality, the only person who can verify whether one is transgender or not is the person in question.  Even thinking purely pragmatically, society is more stable if the basis upon which its rights are conferred are stable.  If you can become a man, then a woman, then a man again in the space of a week, we certainly run the risk of overstretching our society's ability to apply laws and customs affecting sexuality coherently and consistently, much less a stable understanding of what it means to be a man or to be a woman.

Fellow Christians, let us not embrace this as though it is normal or acceptable.  But neither let us attack those suffering great inner trauma.  We must be hard where the world is soft, and we must be soft where the world is hard.  While we must make the truth that transgenderism is sinful known, we must do so lovingly, with great respect, and knowing that we are no better.  At the most basic level, the only difference between them and us is that God has changed our lives with the message of His Gospel.  O that we would be messengers of this life-saving word to the hurting world.  O that God's name would be magnified across the entire planet.  O that we would submit to His Lordship in absolutely every respect, sexuality and all.

How Should a Christian Relate to Videogames? - Limitations

Last week we looked at the many benefits that videogames offers as an entertainment medium.  Many of these are simply impossible to achieve on other forms of media.

However, videogames have their limitations as well, in large part as a result of these benefits.  This short post will catalog a few of these limitations.

Imagination

     One major limitation is that, because the videogame is a visual medium, imagination is more or less cut out of the process.  One of the best things about books is that it sparks the imagination of those who read them, especially children.  If nothing else, this limitation demands the conclusion that videogames should never replace book reading (although this applies equally to film and television as well).

     It should be noted that one genre of gaming escapes this limitation.  There are a number of text-based games, where you stare at a screen comprised of nothing but text (one example is the Text-based MMO called Valheru).  While these games do allow for more imagination, it does stretch the definition of videogames.

Storytelling

      The primary benefit of the videogame medium is the interactivity it provides.  Unfortunately, this interactivity comes at the cost of storytelling.  While many of the best videogames have compelling tales, the goals of storytelling and videogames are in sharp conflict.  Storytelling works because the author has complete control over the characters.  This control enables the author to weave the characters' choices into a brilliant story.  Videogames, on the other hand, work primarily by relinquishing control of its main character.  When the player can choose how the character acts, it becomes difficult to tell a compelling story without the game feeling like little more than one long interactive cutscene.  This is done, but with great difficulty, and to an extent at the cost of both gameplay and story.  Perhaps the best games are those that have no major story.  They are free to focus on how the game plays, rather than why the character is here in the first place.

Must win

     Finally, videogames as a medium are inhibited by the fact the player must win.  For the world this is of little note.  However, for us as Christians, we recognize that our victory is not the goal.  We lose the world, that we may gain Christ.  This is true most clearly in multiplayer games.  When two Christians are playing against each other, the self-centered goal of victory inherent to the videogame medium rings a touch hollow.  Cooperative games mitigate this somewhat, but the mindset is there nonetheless.

Videogames have great benefits as an entertainment medium, as well as notable shortcomings.  We are now ready to begin evaluating the question of whether or not Christians should be playing videogames.  Next week we will work through some of the most popular objections to Christians playing games, and analyze them to see if there is any merit.