Suppose you owned a restaurant. Would you want the government telling you that you couldn’t give something to your customers? Would you want it to ban you from giving away a toy to children if your “Kids Meal” had slightly less calories than two pieces of pizza? Well, that’s exactly what the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has done to McDonalds, according to the New York Times. The “Happy Meal” must have less than 600 calories, fewer than 640 milligrams of sodium, and less than 35% of calories from fat (unless the item that pushes the meal past the limit is deemed healthy — like nuts). If those standards are not met, McDonalds will be banned from giving away a toy.

Of course, the issue is childhood obesity. But, if we’re going to jump on the “ban-wagon,” why not ban video-games that create couch-potatoes? Better yet, let’s ban couches. When we get on this track, it’s a slippery slope that can spiral down rather quickly. Further, not all kids have that problem. Should everyone suffer because some are struggling?

Here are some other questions that come to mind: What if customers like the “Happy Meal” and the toy? What if the reason some kids like the “Happy Meal” includes those high fat French fries? Wouldn’t people go somewhere else if they wanted nuts? Does the government have a right to tell a restaurant it can’t give something away? Does it have a right to restrict my freedom in this way? Is it the role of government to micro-manage our lives? Don’t I have the right to pursue happiness? What if giving away toys makes me happy? What if a super sized order of fries makes me happy? Don’t you have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the “Happy Meal?” Should the government systematically force you to eat what some bureaucrat thinks you ought to eat or ban you from eating what he thinks you shouldn’t eat? Should the government limit your calorie intake per day? Some days I do pretty well; some days I don’t. Sh ould I be forced to eat nuts instead of fries by the government? Sometimes I feel like a nut; sometimes I don’t.

Here’s a question: is there any way to determine a universal answer to the above questions? Yes, there is. Because God is the Creator of all things, He is the one who determines how human beings ought to interact with one another in civil society. Inherent in the definition of civil society is civility. That’s why there must be laws against harming others. Human beings often harm others because it’s in our nature to do so. Government should promote law and order to keep people from doing that. But, because God has given human beings no right to violate the consciences of others, it is not the role of government to determine how individuals should pursue happiness. The “Happy Meal” makes some people happy! It’s unwise to eat too much fat. But it’s for me to decide how much is too much for me, not the government.

The truth is that government is power; it’s force. On the other hand, promoting the ways of God (the gospel) is not by force but by persuasion. So, God’s way to promote His way in the world is through persuasion, not force. God doesn’t want His people forcing Christianity on others; neither does he want others forcing their views on Christians. Therefore, government should limit itself to protecting the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For government to ban McDonalds from giving away a toy is to overstep the bounds God has set for it. That’s universal.

And yet, my point here is not that we should grumble, complain, or rebel. Those things dishonor God as well. The point is that Christians should understand these things and add their voice to the ongoing national conversation about what’s happening with American government. But more than that, they should add their voice with a view toward opening the door for further dialog about Christ. People need Christ more than they need good government. When they get Christ, they get true happiness and can handle difficulties in life, including government intrusion. Of course, when people get Christ, they begin to think more biblically about government. And then, when people begin do that, the less talk of banning “Happy Meals” we’ll have.

We’ve all heard of “spin” or “spinning a story.” Newscasters give us their spin on different events everyday and we understand that. That’s why we watch our favorite stories analyzed to death; we want to get as much information and opinion as we can. But we’ve moved beyond spin as a culture and it’s not a good thing. We’ve moved into changing reality itself.

An eye-opening statement caught my attention the other day. Stephen J. Hadley, a former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, was on CNN’s “State of the Union” show talking about the situation in Libya.[i] He noted, “The narrative we want to come out of this is that the Libyan people overthrew a dictator, not that we came in and toppled a despot.” The truth is that the American government does want a despot toppled and is indeed working toward that. But that reality doesn’t look good so the story has to be changed.

The statement caught my attention not because of its brazenness or because I believe the U.S. government is always truthful. No, this kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It’s the language that caught my attention, specifically, Hadley’s use of the term “narrative.” He’s talking about the narrative or story he wants people to believe and history to record. “Narrative” is a big term in postmodern thought. Let me explain.

In answer to the question, “What is truth,” the postmodern answers, “Truth is what you make it to be.” We create our own reality; what’s true for me may not be true for you. There is no such thing as objective truth or something that’s true for everyone; each person makes his own truth claim and every truth claim is equally valid (except for the claim that there is absolute truth).

But let’s think further. Postmodernism says there is no metanarrative, or big story, that explains everything (like the Bible); whatever metanarrative we’ve been taught cannot be believed. There is no big story; there are only many little stories. Because we create our own reality, we really don’t have a true sense of history; we can even revise it. We can’t believe things like the Bible because we don’t understand what the writers meant with the language they used based on their understanding of reality; therefore we can make the Bible say what we want it to say. The French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard defined postmodernism as the incredulity of all metanarratives. They are inadequate to represent or contain us all. In other words, we must be suspicious of all big stories. All we can talk about is our own little stories.

Here’s the issue: if all we can talk about is our own little stories, then facts go out the window. All that matters is our interpretation of the facts; our feelings about a matter; our impressions; our desires; our perception of or perspective on the facts; what we want the truth to be.

This idea has so penetrated our culture that we can now speak openly of the story we want to create regardless of what the real story is. Stephen Hadley has no problem manipulating the facts in Libya to create a pleasant story for us because facts are not real; only what we want to be real is real. And in the end, those who have the power to put forth their story have the right story. In a postmodern construct, might makes right.

Obviously such a development is deeply troubling. If we are not committed to the truth or the facts, how can we really communicate, have a sense of what’s right and wrong, make sound judgments and decisions, or even understand our world? These are massive idea shifts in our culture with equally substantial consequences.

This language and way of thinking is everywhere now. MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow said recently, “The idea behind President Obama’s insistence on talking to other nations, is to change the narrative. Do you want the narrative of America’s role in the world to be ‘America leads Western aggression against Arab countries?’ President Obama wants the narrative to be something different by showing reluctance to partake in the struggle. He wants everybody to know how reluctant he was while trying to force to the forefront the Arab world.”[ii] Again, it’s not about the real story but the story we create for our benefit.

And isn’t it this kind of thinking, this philosophy, that explains the evolving narrative regarding the death of Osama bin Laden? Certain facts have been put forth, disputed, and retracted. The story has changed in some way almost daily since the raid. And there have been admissions that some of the false facts were put forth to avoid possible negative public opinion. Regardless of where we fall down on the Osama bin Laden issue, we don’t want the White House’s best narrative: we want the truth.

So what do we do? As always, we tell the truth. The truth of a situation is what matters because there is objective truth and we can know it. And that notion is rooted in the reality of Christ, truth itself. Yes there are different perspectives on facts, but the facts are the facts regardless of how you perceive them. It’s that message alone that will bring sanity to a world “spinning” out of control.