Perhaps no recent statement has better captured so glaringly the bent of our culture than Pat Robertson’s advice to a man whose wife has Alzheimer’s: “he should divorce her and start all over again.” This counsel has generated great outrage and much scrutiny to be sure. But it’s that same cruel sentiment of self-centeredness that underlies most of the decisions we make and attitudes we take in this culture as a whole and in our everyday lives as individuals. All Robertson has done is to reveal just how much we’ve bought into the spirit of the age without realizing it. If you stand in the rain long enough, you’ll get soaked. And what’s worse, not only have we bought into the self-centered spirit of the age, even if we’re appalled by Robertson’s statement as we should be, it’s our captivity to that spirit that robs us of real joy when we’re going through a tragic time in our lives.

It was a man seeing another woman because his wife has Alzheimer’s that prompted the question Robertson was answering. Such self-centeredness is not unusual when dealing with an ailing or dying spouse. In twenty years of pastoral ministry, I’ve seen the good, the bad, and the ugly, and there’s a lot of ugly in these kinds of circumstances. This man has abandoned his wife through adultery and Robertson has advised him to abandon her through divorce. But I’ve seen others abandon their spouses by sticking them in nursing homes and forgetting about them, by ignoring them in their greatest moments of need, by getting on with their lives and leaving the care of their life-partners to others, by refusing to spend time with them or visit them if they have to be in a health-care facility of some kind, by expressing anger and frustration at them for things beyond their control, by not seeking to understand what’s going on with their ailing loved ones or how to deal with it in a caring way, and so much more.

I had a woman tell me some time back she couldn’t give her husband his much needed medication during the night because she needed her sleep. How much sleep does a new mother get? A man told me he didn’t want his wife coming home from the hospital for some recuperation before an upcoming surgery because he didn’t want to have to physically help her out of bed two or three times a day. Inability is one thing but unwillingness is something else. And these sentiments are not that uncommon; that’s the cultural air we breathe.

We’re told in the Scriptures that “in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves” (2 Tim. 3:1-2). When a Christian minister tells a man to forsake his vows before God and abandon his wife in her greatest hour of need, we do indeed live in perilous times; we do indeed love ourselves more than God and others. And that is exactly the wrong way to find peace and joy: to focus on self and abandon God and others.

Such focus is the complete opposite of the gospel. Robertson said this man’s wife with Alzheimer’s was dead to him. The gospel tells us that God loved us when we were unlovable. He demonstrated His great love for us by dying for us while we were dead to Him (Rom. 5:8). And marriage is a picture of the gospel and Christ’s love for His bride, the church; He will never leave us or forsake us. To forsake your spouse is to deny the very thing marriage is to display: God’s unfailing love for His people. It is to deny the reality of God Himself.

Think about this: what puts God’s character and power on display more: abandoning one’s wife because he’s not happy (for obviously God wants us to be happy); or giving all you have to care for your wife because she can’t care for herself? But here’s an equally significant question: from where does real joy come? Doesn’t it come from glorifying God; from putting His character on display and finding your satisfaction in Him? Jesus is the true water that satisfies (Jn. 4:10); the true bread that alleviates your hunger (Jn. 6:51); and the true treasure in the field (Matt. 13:44). In Him is pleasure forever (Ps. 16:11).

Does joy come in chasing personal pleasures at the expense of others? Is there ultimate peace in that? Does one lay up treasure in heaven by chasing after a new woman because he’s tired of the old one? Ponder carefully these words: “By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward” (Heb. 11:24-26). That’s how you find joy when your spouse is dying: you trust the promises and God and live them out; you know and believe that chasing personal pleasure at the expense of God and others brings only a momentary happiness; you know and believe that even suffering under the providential care of Christ is better than the temporary pleasure of sin; and you keep your eyes on the reward which is Christ Himself and life (joy) in Him long after your momentary suffering is over.

Our culture has sold us a lie. Is it really all about me? Isn’t this self-focus rooted in evolutionary thought; in survival of the fittest (me)? Isn’t abandoning your spouse with Alzheimer’s because, as Robertson says, “she’s gone” the same logic as the promoters of abortion use? They argue an unborn, and depending upon whose making the argument, even a live-born baby isn’t able to operate at the same mental level as you or me and is therefore not a fully-functioning person and is therefore able to be discarded without any moral consequences. If inconvenient babies can be aborted, why can’t inconvenient spouses be abandoned? Such is the lie Satan is selling in clever disguise in the thousand ways we are selfish every day. God says the way to find joy is to do nothing “through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind, consider others better than yourself. Look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:3-5).

My wife told me the other day if I was stricken by something catastrophic that she would not abandon me. If she had to help me out of bed she would do her best. She said we might hit the floor together but she would be there for me. I would do the same for her. Not caring for her would never enter my mind. None of us want to have to go through these things, but if my wife and I have to for one reason or another, and we end up hitting the floor together, what a day of joy that will be – because we’ll be living out the gospel – together.

I’m not sure I want my wife telling me what I can’t eat, let alone the government (though I do try to listen to my wife). Stories about government banning certain food items, particularly those with high fat content, are increasing. By way of example, not the latest, but perhaps the most prominent, occurred some time back in San Francisco. The Board of Supervisors declared the McDonald’s “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). McDonald’s will be banned from giving away a toy if those standards are not met.

Is it right for the government to tell a restaurant what they can and cannot give away? Suppose it was your restaurant; how would you feel? We all know the concern is children who are obese. However, if the government is going to ban toy give aways or high fat content meals, why stop there? Why not ban inactivity in children or video games that promote such? Why not ban children from watching television or at least put time limits on their viewing? After all, we all know the government knows what’s best for our children, not us. Or at least the government thinks so.

Let’s inquire further. Don’t kids like the “Happy Meal” and the toys that come with them? Do they count? What if I or my kids like French Fries? How many people would rather eat nuts with their Big-Mac, or double cheese burger, or even their regular hamburger? Do we really want the government telling us we can’t eat more than 600 calories at lunch? If I eat two chocolate-chip cookies, I’m at the limit! Isn’t this really an encroachment on personal liberty? We really don’t want government intruding into our lives at this kind of micro-management level do we? Don’t we Americans have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, even if what makes us happy is the Happy Meal? Who should determine what you should or should not eat or whether or not you should run a few miles after you eat? When we put things in these terms the answers to these queries seem pretty obvious.

But let’s think biblically; let’s come to the issue of worldview. Are we simply talking about opinion or can we answer the above questions in a way that has universal application? The truth of the matter is that God has an answer for us. He has created us and has determined how we should interact in civil society with one another; He has determined how we should be civil.

Government plays a role in protecting us from harming each other; people are prone to hurt other people by virtue of their sinful nature. We may defend ourselves from others or enlist help to do so. Government’s role of protecting us from one another, in one sense, is an extension of the principle of self-defense. In other words, Government is simply an agent of ours for self-defense. Government therefore establishes and executes laws that protect us from harming one another.

But, individuals have consciences when it comes to personal choices. We may choose to eat something healthy or unhealthy. It is not the role of government to violate our consciences and make those choices for us. I am the one who determines whether or not I should eat a cheese burger, not the government.

We Christians need to understand the government is force; it is power. We don’t want to give it more power than it should rightfully have. At the same time, the influence we Christians have on others is not by force but by winsome persuasion. God would not have us force Christ or Christianity on others nor would He have non-Christians forcing their views and standards on us. That’s why government is limited to a protective role; a role of protecting rights, not forcing others to conform to someone’s standard of what’s right, healthy, or wise, vs. what’s wrong, unhealthy, or unwise. God is interested in whether or not the government bans Happy Meals; He says it should not. His standard of what government should and should not do in contemporary civil society is universal.

Yet, the point for us is not merely to complain about what government is doing. The reality is that we who call ourselves Christians must understand the biblical role of government and propagate that truth as others are promoting their own views about government. In so doing, we not only want people to see government’s role clearly and therefore society benefited, but we also want people to see their ultimate need is Christ. We can’t talk about good government apart from Christ. At the same time, government will never be perfect or save us. Christ is and will. And, when more and more people get Christ, society and government can’t help but be transformed. More than that, we’ll also be able to freely serve and eat Happy Meals as well as know when to eat something a little more healthy (if we like). Should the government tell you what not to eat? No, God does that.

The issue of marriage with particular reference to a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage is dangerous for conservative Christians who disagree with the majority who are in favor of such an amendment. It’s dangerous in that one who is not in favor of banning homosexual marriage is considered to be in favor of homosexual marriage, liberal, and unbiblical, none of which is the case. To favor a ban on homosexual marriage is actually the unbiblical position despite the fact that homosexuality is indeed sin and not marriage according to God Himself. Let me explain.

This issue comes up most often in conversation surrounding political candidates and their positions on social issues. It’s not uncommon for Christian pundits to agree with certain candidates who are conservative in a number of areas but castigate them profusely when those same candidates don’t support a government ban on homosexual marriage. The argument in favor of the ban usually centers on two issues: the fact that homosexuality is sin and the assertion that government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare by promoting institutions that give stability to society.

Let’s take the issue of homosexuality first. As noted, the Bible is clear that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is sin. Scriptures could be marshaled from both the Old and New Testaments. Despite the fact that liberal and unbelieving theologians have unsuccessfully tried to twist the plain meaning of Rom. 1:26-27 in which God condemns homosexuality, 1 Cor. 6:9 boldly says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Christians cannot support homosexual marriage. Such a marriage is not only sin but not marriage at all. God defines marriage between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:31). However, that does not mean Christians must favor a government ban on homosexual marriage. Stay with me . . .

What about the assertion that government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare by promoting institutions that give stability to society? While the Constitution does say one of the reasons it was established is to promote the general welfare, the founding fathers did not define that promotion as broadly as some do today. They did not conceive of entitlement programs or policies that restrict liberty as part of government’s role. (And, while marriage is a stabilizing force in society in the sense that long-term commitment of men and women raising children fosters stability, banning homosexual marriage won’t keep homosexuals from living together or somehow stabilize society. A ban won’t change their behavior).

But, regardless of what the founders meant, or what a ban on homosexual marriage may or may not do, what does the Bible say? Where does the Bible say the role of government is to promote the general welfare? Where does the Bible say the government has a responsibility to promote institutions that give stability to society? You can’t argue from the Old Testament; America does not stand in the same covenant relationship with God that Israel did. America is not a theocracy. You can’t argue from the New Testament; no where does it say government should promote the general welfare. Even Rom. 13:4 doesn’t say that.[1]

God says that Christians who practice homosexuality must be disciplined by the church and even put out if they don’t repent. But, nowhere does God say the government should ban homosexuality. He does say that Christians should call homosexuals to repentance and faith in Christ but no where does He say Christians should outlaw their behavior.

Let’s talk about marriage then. Marriage is defined by God, not the government. As noted, homosexual marriage then is not marriage before God. So how should Christians think about homosexuals who “get married?” We think about them the same way we think about other sinners and their sinful activity. People do all kinds of things contrary to the Word of God and we try to persuade them through the gospel to repent and look to Christ for salvation. Just because a homosexual couple calls themselves married doesn’t mean they are. And why would we ban them calling themselves married? Do we want the government to ban heterosexual couples living together; or unbiblical divorce; or adultery; or pre-marital relations? What would be the penalty for pre-marital relations? We have to be consistent if we go down the road of banning immoral behavior.

Now, does that mean we’re in favor of unmarried couples living together, unbiblical divorce, adultery, or pre-marital relations? Of course not! It simply means we don’t want the government forcing our moral choices. Christians have the responsibility to tell people what’s right and wrong, not force them by the government to conform to our moral standard. Certainly the government must protect us from things like murder, theft, rape, extortion, etc. But that’s what it means to be free. We’re not free to infringe on someone else’s liberty and right to life, property, and pursuit of happiness. That’s why we can’t murder (abort babies), steal, or . . . ban homosexuals from living together or marrying. Again, we’re not in favor of homosexual marriage any more than we’re in favor of pre-marital relations. But, neither are we in favor of government imposing a moral standard on us. What happens when the government’s moral standard is different than ours? What if the government decides it’s immoral to read the Bible, homeschool my children, or teach them Christian values?

But more importantly than what we want is what God wants. He wants us to persuade others with the gospel to make good moral choices, not force them through the government.

Finally, here’s the real implication of banning homosexual marriage or letting government say anything about marriage at all: if we allow the government to define marriage, we allow the government to usurp God’s role and authority. It is not the government that defines marriage but God. Let the government stay completely out of it. Practically, do you want the government telling you who you can or cannot marry; that you can or cannot get married? Do you really need a license from the government to get married? Didn’t God ordain marriage before human government came along? And theologically/philosophically, if we allow the government to define marriage, then it can define it any way it wants to.

No, we have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness granted to us by God, not the government. If government grants those rights, then the government can take them away. Let’s not go down that road. Let God be God and let Him define marriage and what’s right and wrong. Let the government stay out of God’s business and maintain liberty by protecting us so that we can persuade others what marriage is and what’s right and wrong and to give their lives to Christ. When others give their lives to Christ, that’s when society will be more moral and truly more stable.

The church is not immune to movements, trends, programs, and people latching on to the latest study that’s supposed to transform our lives. Each of these movements or trends is supposed to be that thing we’ve been missing; that thing that will take us over the top spiritually speaking. We could talk about the prayer of Jabez; the latest Christian recovery program; the contemporary music trend; or trends related to drama, power point, conversational preaching, contemplative prayer, men getting wild at heart, confessing our sins in front of God and everybody, accountability partners; and on and on.

Beyond that, there are countless thousands caught up in the health and wealth gospel movement. Others are leaving traditional churches in droves and most are chasing one trend or another. Those who call themselves revolutionaries are revolutionizing church but many don’t seem to know what the revolution is really about, what it should look like, or what really needs revolutionizing. Like so many voters in the 2008 Presidential election, they just know that something needs to change.

Why? That’s the real question; why are so many leaving churches and chasing so many trends? While there are some who know what they are doing and why, the vast majority of individuals do not. The problem lies in the fact that most are not experiencing the real Christ or what we might call real or biblical Christianity. People get caught up in going to church and doing what we do at church. Some are content with simply going to church all the days of their lives. Others wake up and realize that Christianity must be more than what they are experiencing. They don’t know what the real thing is, what it feels or looks like, or what they ought to do; they just know something is not right. Of course, the point is that what people are missing is not found in trends like the prayer of Jabez, contemporary worship, (or even traditional worship), pietism, or getting wild at heart (we’re already wild at heart and need to be tamed by grace).

There is no doubt that some of the things we do in a lot of churches militate against authentic Christianity. But the problem is not in the outward forms per se; the problem is not in being traditional vs. being contemporary or meeting in a medieval, flying buttressed sanctuary vs. a metal building or coffee shop. The problem lies elsewhere. To borrow from Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” We’re the problem.

Now, while it can be true on many levels that we are the problem, the fact is that too many have taken a religious placebo rather than the real thing. That’s what I mean when I say we’re the problem. If all you have is a placebo, you can engage in every kind of religious activity under the sun or participate in any religious movement you like but you will never find what you’re looking for. The other side of that coin is that if you are walking with Christ, while you may lament certain things in the church that hinder genuine, biblical fellowship and mission, you are spiritually content. By that I don’t mean that you’re satisfied with your present level of sanctification. But I do mean that you don’t feel the need to look for or buy into the latest trend because you are indeed satisfied with Christ. People who are satisfied with Christ don’t have to have traditional worship nor do they have to have contemporary worship. They don’t have to be liturgists or revolutionaries; they just strive to walk in the Spirit regardless of their circumstances.

Things like sound doctrine, biblical fellowship, and active prayer, are critical to one’s spiritual growth and well-being. But don’t mistake the outward form for the real thing. Don’t mistake how this church does this or that for what’s real. Don’t mistake religion for Christ. Religion is the placebo. For a church, doing the right things the right way is important. But I’m talking about individuals who are chasing the latest trend for spiritual satisfaction. They’re actually chasing the wind. Spiritual satisfaction is found in Christ, not in religious activity. If you love God, seek to replace your sinful habit patterns with godly habit patterns, pray, exalt God in your heart and life, seek His will, do your job, live for His glory, are concerned with His kingdom, care about others and serve them, these things are enough. This is biblical Christianity, not some experience or feeling you seek (Jas. 1:27).

We don’t need a revolution of what we experience in a religious sense. We need a revolution of thinking and that is a simple matter. Paul put it this way: “. . . present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Rom.12:1-2).

There is no doubt Edward Bulwer-Lytton was right when he coined the phrase for his 1839 play The Conspiracy, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Ideas take root in the minds of people and bear real consequences. When ideas take root in a culture there is a pressure to conform to those ideas, at least publically. That pressure is not only felt externally from the culture at large but internally whether one agrees with the idea or not. That’s the power of political correctness and its increasing influence on all of us.

By way of example, I was watching a little of the 2011 Kentucky Derby coverage when Today Show reporter Jenna Wolfe was talking to an NBC race analyst about the weather. He predicted clear skies to which Wolfe responded, “From your lips to, uh . . . everybody’s ears.” Of course, the saying is “from your lips to God’s ears,” which is an expression that God would hear the statement as a prayer and answer. She was obviously about to say “God,” caught herself, and changed up. She stuttered for a split second, appeared to be searching for what to say, and then made a nice save (from a reporting perspective).

The fact that she wasn’t sure should could or should say “God” and changed up is revealing. It wasn’t that long ago when no one was afraid to say “God” and invoked His name in normal conversation. But the politically correct climate that prevails today has changed all that. While there is the perfunctory “God bless America” from political candidates seeking to gain the evangelical vote, and the use of God’s name in vain in a number of settings, it seems that most others are not sure if they should or are even afraid to use the word “God.” This hesitancy or fear certainly represents a massive culture shift. The relatively short time-span over which this shift has occurred is astounding to say the least. Again, it’s the power of an idea (political correctness) that has brought this transformation about.

For Christians, three major implications suggest themselves. The first has to do with whether or not we have felt that internal pressure. It may be that we’re in conversation with someone and the natural thing for us to say has something to do with God. For example, when something happens my wife will say without hesitation, “that’s part of God’s good providence.” But now, it may be that we’re tempted to revise our words around people we don’t think are committed Christians. It used to be that we feared what they might think of us. Now it goes beyond that. We may fear that our words at best are inappropriate or at worst offensive. The power of cultural ideas affects all of us.

The second implication has to do with the fact that we should not be afraid to invoke or use the Name of God on a regular basis in everyday conversation. That’s who we are as Christians. And while we don’t want to be offensive and while we have the responsibility to be wise in our witness, the fact that we are different from the culture at large is part of what puts the power and reality of Christ on display in our lives. We can say things like “that’s part of God’s good providence” without being obnoxious. We can say things like “the Lord was gracious to me today” without coming across as strange. We simply need to be who we are without forcing an issue or shying away from the way we express ourselves. Someone may be offended if we say “from your lips to God’s ears” but that’s not an offensive act per se and simply points out the reality that people are different. If someone asks us not to share Christ with him we should respect that request. We should never intentionally offend others. But neither should we change who we are because of cultural pressure to be politically correct. The early Christians obeyed the rules of their respective cultures but they also went everywhere talking about Jesus. Their lives had been radically changed and they couldn’t help but show it.

The third implication concerns the power of ideas proper. We have the most profound message there is and the power of the Holy Spirit to energize that message when He sees fit. In a much greater way than political correctness has permeated this culture of ours, the Christian worldview, that is the biblical message of the reality of God and its implications, could once again turn this culture around. But it will never do that unless we put it out there in our everyday talk.

To borrow from the title of Richard M. Weaver’s 1948 philosophical work, “ideas have consequences.” The spread of the gospel in Western civilization and its beneficial influence gives testimony to that fact even as the spread of political correctness in our culture and its negative consequences does the same. The gospel can spread again. People’s lives and the culture at large can be changed. We need only remember that “the pen is mightier than the sword.” Or, to use God’s language on the subject: “the weapons of our warfare are not physical but spiritual and mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4).

If “American Idol” or the latest reality show proves anything it’s that people like to get caught up in things with other people. There is no shortage of news junkies, political movements, rock and roll groupies, or “save the whale” supporters. And it’s more than the viewing – it’s the incessant talk about whatever it is we’re wrapped up in; if my favorite football team is doing well, I can’t help but talk about it. Most of us are groupies of some sort whether we admit it or not. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – it could be – but not necessarily.

Of course the easiest way to make sure we’re not too wrapped up in something is to examine whether or not it has mastered us. Is it something we merely enjoy or does our immersion go deeper? Is it something we feel we can’t live without? Is it something we rearrange our schedules to participate in? Do we get upset if we miss the latest episode, game, or debate? If it’s more than something we merely enjoy, chances are we’ve fallen into practical idolatry. In one sense, idolatry is something we’re willing to sin to obtain. And yes, being angered by an unexpected circumstance that prevents us from seeing the grand finale of our favorite event is sinning to get what we want, or at least sinning because we don’t have what we want. These are heart issues.

But the question is why we get caught up in these things. The truth is that we are created to be part of something bigger than ourselves. There are all kinds of things that will fill that need or desire more or less. And yet there is one thing that’s bigger than ourselves that we can, should, and even must get caught up in if we are to find the true fulfillment and satisfaction we’re longing for and be pleasing to the Lord at the same time: Him and His Kingdom. It is the Kingdom of God that provides for us the greatest and only truly significant movement of which we could ever be a part. It is God’s kingdom that is inexorably advancing in this world; it is God’s kingdom that the gates of Hell cannot keep from encroaching into its territory and ultimately destroying; it is God’s kingdom that is unshakable and eternal; it is God’s kingdom that gives life real meaning.

Daniel offers a powerful statement concerning the coming of Christ into the world five-hundred years in his future (two-thousand years in our past) and the establishment of this kingdom. He declares, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” How can we as Christians not get caught up in such a kingdom? How could we ever consider American politics, as important as it is, of any real significance and satisfaction compared to laboring in this kingdom (perhaps in the political arena with a God-agenda as opposed to a mere party-agenda)? Talk about being part of something big and having something to talk about!

Remember, speaking about the age in which we now live, the Bible says this: “God has promised, saying, ‘Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.’ Now this, ‘Yet once more,’ indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made (the Old Covenant with its physical realities including the earthly kingdom of Israel), that the things which cannot be shaken (the New Covenant with its spiritual realities including the spiritual Kingdom of God) may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom (now) which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Heb. 12:26-28). That’s a big movement; let’s get caught up in that.

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.

One of the biggest complaints from parents and teenagers alike is that there is often little or no communication between the two groups. Perhaps you’re like one discouraged mom who said to me, “I’ve tried to talk with my daughter but she just shuts me down. I’ve tried everything to let her know I care but she just won’t let me in any more.” Or maybe you’re like the frustrated dad who told me the only thing his son would ever say to him was “you just don’t understand.” In such cases teens and parents alike are hurting. Parents would love to know how to talk to their kids and most teens would love for that to happen; they simply think their parents are out of touch. The good news is there is something that can be done to keep the lines of communication open between you and your teenager.

First, show genuine interest in your teen’s life. Often a teenager will perceive his parent to be too busy to really talk. The times that conversations do occur, your son or daughter might think you’re preoccupied even though you think you’re talking. Your one word responses or grunts say to your teen that you do indeed have other things on your mind. Make sure you’re actually listening and engaging. Speak with understanding. Ask questions. Be interested in what your daughter is even if you have no interest in it at all. Make every effort to ask heart-felt questions and get wrapped-up in what your child is wrapped-up in at a given moment.

Second, be truly empathetic with your teen. Your daughter may be trying to open up or tell you something really important in her life. If you respond with opinions that don’t seem connected to her world, if you spit out platitudes or orders without seeming to empathize, if you don’t seem to take into account every factor weighing on your child’s heart, or if you tend to give advice on the go, your child will get the impression that you want her to do certain things but you’re not really interested in what she’s going through. When she feels that, she’ll begin to shut down more and more. You have to identify with what she’s feeling even if you don’t completely understand why she would feel the way she does.

Third, don’t give your teen the third degree. Even when your son has done something wrong you still want to communicate and not do anything to shut him down. Sometimes we can approach our kids like prosecutors cross-examining a hostile witness; and they feel that way too. Rather than pelting your son with questions like “what did you do; who was with you; don’t you know better; haven’t we taught you better; what were you thinking; how could you do such a thing; have you lost your mind; can I get some answers; and the like, try a more biblical approach. Gently ask your teen what happened and give him time to explain in his own words. Let him know you love him no matter what, that you’ve been through similar struggles, and that you really want to help. Help him to clarify what his motives were and talk about how to think biblically about them. Help him to understand all the reasons not to do what he’s done. Your teen needs to see you as a parent but he also needs to know that you are there to help by pointing him to Christ and not simply trying to come down on him.

Fourth, hear your teen’s heart. Understand what your teen is trying to say to you. Part of that is making sure you and she mean the same things with the words you are using. Ask clarifying questions. Say things like, “do you mean . . . ?” Not only will she appreciate it but you won’t be talking past each other. You have to hear your teen’s heart. She can’t always say it like you would say it or even the way you would like her to say it. But she is saying something and you can work to get it. Realize the dynamic works in both directions as well. In other words, you might say, “I never thought you could be capable of doing such a thing. I might have thought it about your brother, but not you.” If you say that more than once, particularly if some time has gone by, she might interpret that to mean you don’t love her or that you don’t forgive her. Translation is just as important as what you say.

Fifth, be ready to talk when your teenager is. Hectic schedules keep teens and parents separated. Your son may be ready to talk just when you were ready to read the paper or even go to bed. You might prefer to wait but the schedule may not allow it, your son may misinterpret your putting him off, he may seek an answer elsewhere, or he may not be in the mood to talk later and your opportunity will be gone forever. Rest in God’s providence and count those late night conversations as blessings, not inconveniences.

These are just a few tips. But, putting these into practice will help you and your teen to stay connected and maintain a relationship that can actually get better over time.

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.