What Type of Role Model are You; The False Dichotomy of Role Models

It’s been a quiet month for The Dialect of Praxis, but many thoughts have been brewing, and it’s about to get a little louder. Among the percolating questions, who are role models, why do so many Christians misunderstand mental illness, and Sanctification; what happens after Justification? Today’s post, “What type of role model are you; The False Dichotomy of Role Models” (we’ll get to the other questions another day).

Everybody is a role model. But, not everyone is the same type of role model and maybe some people shouldn’t be afforded the title. Everyone’s a role model, but not everyone wants the job.

“I'm not a role model... Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids” (Charles Barkley).

“I would like to be called an inspiration to people, not a role model - because I make mistakes like everybody else. When I'm offstage, I'm just like everybody else” (Britney Spears).

“I’m not a “Role Model,” I don’t wanna babysit kids…” (Eminem).

The previously quoted celebrities claim they are not role models and I feel sorry for them. Few people choose or feel called to be role models, but it’s not that simple. It used to be, parents, teachers, ministers, and prominent public figures that were bestowed the title of role model. Thanks, in large part, to the internet, no one is exempt from the title. If you come into contact with other human beings, you are a role model, but what type of role model are you?

To be a role model is an arduous task and all have been designated with the job, but not all share the same responsibility. NBA super-stars, like Barkley, may be an example to kids and/or admirers, but their examples may not be what parents want for their kids; that’s why celebrities and public figures are generic-role-models. The difference between celebs, parents, and people like me, job description defines what kind of role model responsibilities come with the position.

Public figures, like celebrities, teachers, and ministers have two things in common: first, they are not primary-role-models; second, if they don’t want to be criticized for their influence they’re in for a bumpy ride. Hence, this is where I let celebrities off the responsibility train. Their example (intended or otherwise) is one of a generic-role-model and their job description is only the technical definition of “role model.”

Teachers and ministers make a decision or fill a calling; as a result, they are secondary-role-models.  A secondary-role-model has more responsibility than celebrities (who are generic-role-models). Teachers and ministers were hired (professionally and voluntarily) to fill an, intentionally, influential position. As secondary-role-models, they will receive more critical reviews. As a Ministry Worker (and a human being) I don’t enjoy heavy criticisms of what I say or do, but it comes with the job description. Thus, the difference for secondary-role-models (like me) and generic-role-models­ (like celebrities and public figures) is we have a greater responsibility to respond to our critics. This reality does not give us primary responsibility.

Parents are the primary-role-models. It is a parent’s job description to raise their children in the ways they think best and they have the most responsibility for the behavior they want their children to emulate. If parents want their kids to be educated, it is on them to foster good work habits and environments, it is up to them to work with teachers, and it is up to them to be the primary example of learning for their children. If a parent wants their child to have lifelong faith discipleship, then a parent has to model the example of faith that they hope their children will live out. As a Youth Minister, I will teach young people the scriptures and foster orthodoxy to the best of my abilities, and encourage orthopraxy, but the job of faith discipleship starts with the parent.

Bottom line, all people are role models, but parents are primary-role-models, educators and ministers are secondary-role-models, and celebrities and public figures are generic-role-models. No one is exempt (thank you Social Media, Internet, and human communication). All aforementioned role models fail and God’s grace is sufficient. Jesus, the Role Model of Role Models, died for all of us role models (called humans) out of grace for our imperfect modeling; may we look to the cross in humility, as none of us has been afforded our positions as role models, without the work of God.

  

Religion and the Internet vs. Systemic Affliction

I abandoned the regular flow of dialect to engage the works of others: Lewis, Dostoyevsky, and DeVries. As a result, I’ve enjoyed the invitation to minister to people in the absence of writing. With my eyes fixed on the cross, this blog seems less essential to my being. But, some thoughts have been stirring that I thought I’d share with you all.

Religion is not the problem, as some might suggest, it is infected by what afflicts the greater systemic issue. Religion is meant to serve as a GPS to the cross (where we find God) and the negative symptoms occur when we abandon our navigational tools. Religion is a stabilizer to our experiential and emotional perceptions; it is a set of beliefs, constructed of theologies and philosophies, which do not waiver when we don’t feel good about God. Sadly, religion tends to get the blame for things it has little or nothing to do with and its definition gets lost.  

The greater affliction I mentioned earlier, infect more than just religion. The internet is a relevant example, a system within systems, which is meant to serve the user. Our systemic affliction takes algorithms meant to customize sites (like Google, Facebook, Netflix, and more) and reveals an ugly symptom of the greater affliction (the symptom being individualism). If “it’s all about me” it’s no wonder we point fingers at systems, like religion and the internet.

Dear friends, life is the system and it is afflicted by a chronic condition, the sin nature. Sin isn’t popular and it may be over emphasized in some denominations, but it is a real affliction. Thankfully, religion tells us that the God of the cross died for us. Christ’s death is the antidote for our chronic affliction and the systemic affliction is given over to the hope of resurrection. This is the work of God, through the gift of grace. And that, my friends, is the definition of religion.  

"Just a Song," Girls, (Father, Son, Holy Ghost; music only)

The God Who Wasn't There: a Scholarly Response

The documentary film, The God Who Wasn’t There, by Brian Flemming makes a lot of statements, but not all of them are obvious to the film’s creator. The filmmaker is a former Fundamentalist-Christian, turned Fundamentalist-Atheist. Thus, his interpretive lens is trapped by his past and present bias; unable to see Christianity, its scriptures, its doctrines, or traditions outside of that Fundamentalist viewpoint. Strategically, the documentarian attempts to turn “Moderate Christians” and Fundamentalist Christians against one another, by claiming that Fundamentalists have it right. In the film, Flemming uses historical criticism and literary criticism to bolster his anti-theology. However, his historical criticism is weak, his literary criticism fails miserably, and he completely ignores any cultural analysis.

In a historical timeline, the documentarian refers to the time between the gospel events and the gospel recordings, as the period “everyone forgot.” He goes on to state that this was a forty year time span. As for forgetting, in the words of scholar Rowan Williams, “There is little or no trace in the first Christian decades of a Christianity unmarked by devotion to Jesus as a living agent.” In contrast to the film’s proposed 70 A.D. authorship, of the gospel accounts, and the forty year gap between events and their recordings: the first accounts of Mark could be as early as 65 A.D. (Christopher Tuckett). Additionally, Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians and Galatians were recorded around 50 A.D. (Markus Bockmuehl). Okay, so what, the film’s historical timeline is off by two, possibly three, decades; Flemming still has literary criticism.

In conjunction with the filmmaker’s weak historical criticism, there are at least three major literary criticism failures. The first, claiming that “God isn’t a moderate,” the film quotes Luke 19:27 for support, and ignores that this is the end of a parabolic text. In other words, Jesus was telling a story. The second, inferring that Paul never thought Jesus was, “on Earth,” the documentary uses a quote from a verse in the book of Hebrews. Yet, if “nobody told Paul,” why does he mention Jesus’ interaction with Peter and the twelve (1 Cor. 15:3-7)? Nevertheless, many scholars – conservative and liberal alike – indicate that we don’t know the author of the book of Hebrews.

The third fail, claims that the Gospel according to Mark was not based on history; this automatically implies that the accounts of Matthew, Luke, and John weren’t either – because the documentarian, Brian Flemming, says they all came from Mark’s account. Using the film’s position against itself – because the Synoptic Problem (Matthew and Luke) and the Two-level Drama concept (John) are too great for the scope of this post – if the events of the gospel accounts were not historical, why did non-Christian figures in history, like Josephus, mention that Jesus was put to death by Pilate? Perhaps, The God Who Wasn’t There showed up in the scholarship. Perhaps, The God Who Wasn’t There is gracious enough to redeem a trapped interpretive lens. Perhaps, The God Who Wasn’t There is no reduced God, to this “Moderate Christian.” The God who is there, died for you.


 For more thoughts on this film visit:The Logic of the Cross.

 

Subordinate to Inconsideration

There is a difference between pity and understanding. One is inconsiderate and doesn't last; the other, is truly defined by redemption, tolerance, compassion, and respect. I feel like people can be truly inconsiderate of my feelings, needs, and emotions. Now, I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t mention that I’ve been guilty of this myself. In any case, here are my issues and concerns:

First, I have Cerebral Palsy and am currently rehabilitating a, slow-healing, hamstring injury. Please, don’t assume that I can keep physical pace with you. Frankly, I never could before the injury; however, this lack of consideration in light of the injury makes me feel belittled, disrespected, and inferior. This frustrates me. Nonetheless, I would hope that the average person can respect that there are some things I simply cannot or should not do and it is not because I’m lazy. Honestly, I hate even talking about my limitations because I’ll push myself harder to keep pace with other people. I’m sensitive about saying the words, “I can’t do that” or “I shouldn’t do that.” If someone tells me to, “suck it up,” the problem is, I will, and I won’t tell them that I don’t appreciate their lack of consideration

Second, I haven’t found a job yet and have, more or less, tapped out my bank account. I tell people this every day and I do not enjoy it. In truth, I loathe it because I feel like a leach and a broken record. I don’t want to put anyone in the position of feeling obligated to pay for me. I don’t have a job and went bankrupt; unfortunately, school loans are not easily covered under bankruptcy. I hope one can be considerate of the fact that the imposition of my situation on others causes me great pain.

Third, I joke about being an “asshole” or a “bitch” because it helps me deal with the hurt and because, sometimes, I actually believe those things must be true if people say them about me. Honestly, I’d rather not feel like I’m perceived to be an “asshole” (though I do accept that I can be and have been known to be arrogant). In relation, the term “bitch” has a similar effect to “asshole,” but it’s more because I feel like one – subordinate to the will of others – because I can’t bring myself to say, “No.” Frankly, I only have one friend who has ever truly acknowledged these realities, without me saying something, and I love him for it.

Forth, I have become more passive-aggressive than I ever have been because so many people told me that I didn’t treat people with diplomacy. In response, I drastically reduced my use of colorful language in my writings, I accepted responsibility for being unemployed, I swallowed my hurt and frustration when I felt offended, and I even censored one of my songs. In turn, I resemble someone who is passive-aggressive and cannot communicate their feelings. I keep more silent than one might think, out of diplomacy, tact, professionalism, and a desire to pay my bills again someday. “The Man” wins, I will play “the game,” but I ask people to consider the cost – I engage in the idea of diplomacy willingly, not because I like it, but because my will has been broken – in caging all that is “negative” about my personality, there have been many positive casualties.

Fifth, my lovely “liberal” friends, tolerance and diversity is a great pursuit, but one must be considerate enough to their more “conservative” opponents to achieve this goal (yes, I know I am guilty of failing to do this). On the flip side, my “conservative” brothers and sisters, if I disagree with you on ethics that does not make me immoral – nor does it mean I have low standards. It is one thing to champion for the acceptance and equality of the LGBTQ communities and individuals in the courts and the Church; it is another to single any group out, as if to say, the courts and the Church only alienate this one group of people. It is one thing to say or imply that homosexuality is a sin – a question I find irrelevant for a number of reasons – it is another to be a part of the Church and deny compassion, love, and grace to anyone for any reason. In a balanced, moderate, clarification, I love the LGBTQ individuals I have met, so does Jesus, they can and do produce amazing work in the name of God, and I’m not concerned with whether or not it’s a sin.

In juxtaposition, I want to extend all people groups the same love, respect, compassion, and grace because everyone needs these things. I will not place a greater emphasis on loving any one group (“liberal,” “conservative,” GLBTQ, Evangelical, agnostic, atheist, or otherwise). Love the sinner, love the saint, and leave the redemption of sin – and/or the perception of sin – to the Lord. Why do we hate when the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a proclamation of love? In the words of Lady Gaga, “I want to love you, but something’s pulling me away from you; Jesus is my virtue, Judas is the demon I cling to.” This, my friends, is the result of Original Sin, which alienates us all more than any one sin or sins.

Finally, I share these things not seeking pity, not seeking rebellion, not seeking a fight, not indulging in immorality (or the perception thereof) Ultimately, I share with you so you may understand that I feel subordinate to inconsideration.