The Problem of Normalization

First I want to say what I mean by Normalization:

Normalization is the process by which humans take the history and opinions of their own personal lives, assume them to be normal, and then expect history and opinions of others to be similar.

Normalization is the primary way in which humans make sense of the world. Therefore, it is a very important process, for without it, it would be difficult for us to maintain our sanity.

However, normalization causes a great deal of problems as well. First of all, there is the basic problem of how we communicate. We usually assume that what we are saying is perfectly understandable, but often we completely miss how someone will respond to what we say. The same word can mean something very different to someone else, or someone can have a very different take on a topic.

Then there is the reverse of that, where you assume that they way you received something was what was intended by the speaker. This is especially true if the speaker received something negatively. The most common experience I have had with this is the "big word" problem. I have a decent sized vocabulary, and sometimes I use a word that somebody else doesn't know. Because they assume their vocabulary is "normal" they believe the only reason that I am using a word they don't know is that I am showing off. The truth is I didn't know they didn't know the word.

Probably the biggest problem though is the normalization of one's abilities. We assume that because something is easy or difficult for us, it is therefore the same for others. This causes us to have expectations on their performance which is often very unreasonable. The simple sentence "Well just do..." often demonstrates this principle. If it is obvious to you to do this "simple solution" and somebody else doesn't see it or doesn't want to do it, it often means that solution is tied more to your personal abilities than it is to what's "easy".

Logic is the probably the ability where this happens the most, and it is where it is the most fallacious. One of the things that very few people realize is that all logic is based off of unprovable presuppositions. What is worse is that my basic presuppositions may be very different than yours. So what to you appears to be common sense may appear to me to be completely illogical. Dr. Olson once referred to these different perspectives as bliks (an odd term, yes, but a worthy concept). Often in certain conversation, it seems like you are speaking an entirely different language than someone else. But perhaps the real problem is that you are assuming that your "blik" is normal, and fail to recognize that the other person is common at this from a completely different perspective.

Now it is important to note that I am not a relativist. I believe that there is only one true reality. But I do recognize that once you are interacting with someone else, you need to take the time to consider that you are not the standard of what is normal, and that the other person may be different than you in more ways that you initially realize. All interaction is give and take, and it behooves you to balance it out.

Top 10 Comic Heroes

Ok, time for something completely silly and fun. I've listed below what I believe are the top 10 comic book heroes. These are not the 10 most powerful, or the 10 most cunning. Instead they are the 10 heroes which I believe imbue the qualities of heroism the best. My criteria, in order of most important to least important, are inspirational, moral, and competent (as in they can get the job done). So here is the list:

10. Wonder Woman

While many of DC's superheroes are a hodgepodge of abilities, Diana has the most unusual blend: bulletproof bracelets, boomarang tiara, indestructable lasso that makes one tell the truth, an invisable plane which doesn't render her invisable, and the usual superstrength, flight, and speed. And yet, in classic DC style, something which should be corny has actually become pretty great. Her courage and tenacity has an inspiration to many women throughout the years, and she remains a superhero standard.

9. Flash (Barry Allen)

Flash is the epitome of the everyman hero. What really makes Barry Allen special is that he is an average guy, who got superpowers, and he stayed an average guy. The hype has never gone to his head. He takes the time to help the people in his city with the small things, and gets to know people. He is just another neighbor, with an odd fashion sense that can run really really fast.

8. Cyclops

Despite the fact that there are a lot of Cyclops-haters out there, and despite the fact that the X-men movies and Grant Morrison completely abused the character, Cyclops is a natural born leader. He is a man who understands how to shoulder responsibility, and does the right thing because it needs doing.

7. Green Lantern (John Stewart)

That's right, I went with John, not Hal. When I got into comics, Hal Jordan was Parrallax, and John Stewart was paralyzed. Yet despite that, John remained involved in the superhero community, and continued to do what he could. Now that he is healed (don't ask me how) he still brings same tenacious spirit to the Corps and remains one of their bravest lanterns.

6. Storm

The second leader of the X-men, Storm represents that rising from nothing to becoming something amazing kind of person. A pickpocket on the streets of Cairo, she eventually became leader of X-men and Queen of Wakanda. Her street smarts and regal presense in combination with her raw power makes her a true force to be reckoned with.

5. The Thing

Ben Grimm is a walking tragady. He's a good honest man with truly rotten luck. He looks like a monster, and his powers can often be inconvienent in life, yet he never fails to do the right thing. Even when he has a choice between getting his old life back and doing what is right, he still does what is right. That kind of sacrificial living day after day makes The Thing a hero in of itself.

4. Spiderman


Spiderman is a haunted character. He is haunted by the death of his uncle. It wasn't just that he died, but that Spiderman could have stopped it. From this, his uncle's words, "With great power comes great responsibility" came to define Spiderman's whole life and career. I know of no other superhero more philosophical driven than Spiderman, and his life shows us how to live according to one's principles.

3. Captain America

As a general rule, if you want to understand what a Marvel Comics writer really believes is the most moral thing, simply look at the words they put in Captain America's mouth. In every way imaginable, Cap is perfect. Yes, he is physically at the peak of human conditioning, but it was for his character that he was selected, and his understanding of what it's like to be the little guy.

2. Batman

Most people who know me will be surprised by Batman not being number #1. However, you have to remember that my highest priority was inspirational, and let's face it, as awesome as Batman is, nobody actually wants to be him. Batman is defined by trauma. However, one thing that seperates Batman out from the other heroes is his incorruptability. No matter how good they are, the other heroes are often tempted to go too far in the using of their power. Batman, who isn't as pure, recognizes how easy it is to fall in that hole, and fears it. His recognition of his own dark side, and him choosing the light despite of that is an inspirational feat. So few of us can really tote that line between good and evil that Batman is able to do.

1. Superman

Some say that power corrupts. Superman stands in defiance of that notion. Despite his absolute power, he remains concerned with the average people of his city. He is a man he does his utmost to stay connected to his roots. He got to where he is simply from being endowed with such power, not through ambition or inheritance. He is a man who knows he is a symbol and does what he can to live up to that standard he set for himself. There is a reason why when we think of what a superhero is, we think first of Superman.

Would I Woship A Calvinist God?

This question was posed to Dr. Olson a couple of months ago, and I've been thinking it over: if I became convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that God really did govern the way that Calvinists claim He governs, would I still worship Him? It is an interesting question.

First of all, I want to state that I agree with Olson that if God governs the way in which Calvinist claim He does, then He would be immoral by His own standards. I recognize that Calvinists don't believe that God is immoral, but they are simply being inconsistent on this point IMO. So my understanding of the question is this: could I worship an immoral God?

The answer is yes and no. It is important to note that worship is not simply giving thanks and showing affection. It is also veneration to a recognized authority. Because God is God, and God is king, He deserves that veneration; that worship.

But I would not worship Him as I worship Him now. Simply put, I wouldn't love Him. I couldn't love someone who would intentionally bring His children to corruption, and then condemn the vast majority of them just to prove to Himself how just He is. That just doesn't fly for me.

So, ignoring that in the Calvinist schema I don't really have a choice, if I became convinced that Calvinism's description of God was accurate, I would submit to His authority and show Him all of the proper respect which I would be responsible to show, but I would do no more. I would simply do my duty to the sovereign. Would I be grateful that I was one of the chosen few? Sure, but salvation at the cost of billions of other lives is a bitter kind of joy. How could I love a being so capricious?

Can We Morally Judge God?

From a couple of different sources, I have noticed a new tactic of Calvinists of criticizing Arminians "judging God". The most public source was a post Roger Olson put up a couple of weeks ago, but there has also been others. But is it an appropriate question? Can we judge God?

First of all, we have to ask what in the world it means to judge God. Let's first take it in the broadest sense: Do we have the right to make a judgment about whether God is good or bad? Well, clearly we do, since the Bible declares God to be good, and calls us to recognize His goodness. Declaring God to be good is judging Him; judging Him to be good that is. So clearly we are allowed to do this.

Alright, well perhaps our Calvinist friends mean something different when they say judge. So let us consider the most restrictive/literal sense: a judge presiding over a court of law. However, this doesn't really make sense either since we can't really pass a verdict on God. At least we can't enforce one.

Perhaps this is a statement of capacity. After all, God's ways are above our ways. We cannot see the full spectrum of reality which God does and lack His vantage point. Considering this, it is difficult to argue that we would be capable of ascertaining the appropriateness of something which God does (at least in the particular). However, the tone is accusatory rather than indicative. They are claiming that we are doing something wrong, not something futile.

Fine. Well, perhaps they are accusing us of questioning God. However, isn't that what David did throughout the book of Psalms? And isn't the book of Psalms our proper guide to how we conduct ourselves before God?

I've got it! They must be thinking of Romans 9:20, where Paul is imagining a hypothetical Hebrew complaining about God saving Gentiles. No, that still doesn't make sense, because that is not even close to what we are doing. We are not challenging God; we are merely challenging their description of God.

Or maybe that is simply the key. Maybe the only real problem is people confusing their view of God for God Himself. I can empathize, for I believe that Calvinist insult God, as He truly is, whenever they claim that my description of Him makes Him weak, or less than sovereign. However, I would never accuse them of directly belittling God for I understand that they act out of ignorance. How much more should the Calvinist appreciate that, given their view, we would not only be speaking out of ignorance, but out of an ignorance which was ordained by God for us to have?

It is important that whenever we enter these conversations about God, we should be humble enough to put some distance between our opinions and God Himself. Remember that God is sovereign and can take care of Himself. If I criticize what you say about God, I am criticizing you, not Him. If it bothers Him, he'll take care of me. It is not your job to be God's protector; it is your job to be His herald, and to proclaim truth in love and humility. So proclaim His truth, and let God be in control of what happens with it.

CALVINIST RHETORIC: Straw ManOr "An Affinity for Effigy"

What I Mean by Straw Man

The term "Straw man argument" or "Straw man fallacy" is usually understood to be based off of the common training technique of using mock versions of enemies (mock versions which are, in theory, made of straw). This "enemy" is much easier to defeat, since it doesn't really fight back. Examples of such straw men can be seen in this video (skip to 41 seconds):

Well, I guess they are only easier to defeat in theory. Anyway, the rhetorical idea of a straw man argument is that the speaker describes his opponent in a fictitious way, which is referred to as the straw man, and then defeats this straw man, thereby making the listeners believe that he actually defeated his opponent.

So imagine if Robin Hood dressed one of those dummies up as Prince John and put it in the square. Then, he calls the town together at the square. Then he shoots an arrow at the dummy and hits it in the V-8 can. He then claims that Prince John is dead and the town believes him. This is the picture that we are painting when we are talking about a "straw man argument".

The problem of course is that you haven't defeated anything. This is why it is important that in any debate that you choose to participate in, you understand your opponents beliefs as well as your own.

Most Calvinists today are grossly ignorant about what Arminianism teaches. This includes some of their most prominent leaders, though I won't list who here. It seems to me that most Calvinists understand Arminianism as the opposite of Calvinism (which on its own is an untrue statement), and define Arminianism based off of reversing what Calvinists believe, rather than defining it off of what Arminius and other Arminians have taught. This is, of course, conjecture on my part, but it seems consistent with the definitions of Arminianism I have often been given by Calvinists.

Straw Man In Action

One of the most frustrating examples of the straw man argument is a particular list of "the 5 points of Arminianism" that I often find come up. This site is an excellent example of this garbage. It lists the points of Arminianism as follows:

1. Free-will or Human Ability
2. Conditional Election
3. Universal redemption or general atonement
4. The Holy Spirit can be effectually resisted
5. Falling from Grace

Even the parts that it names correctly it describes wrong. In either case, I want to know who on earth came up with this list? What is it based on? It clearly isn't based on the Articles of Remonstrance which it contradicts. I also doubt that it is based off of any Arminian scholar.

Especially this term: "Human Ability". Who believes in Human Ability? I don't know anyone who teaches that as a concept. What does that even mean anyway? Especially since Arminians believe in Total Depravity, something that Calvinists seem to constantly ignore.

In fact, the only point up there that I can accept even in name is conditional election. But even here he fails with this erroneous statement: "The faith which God foresaw, and upon which He based His choice, was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation." Not true. We believe salvation is accomplished in Christ, and God's prevening enabling grace is constantly working in man. How in the world is that "leaving it up to man"?

It is my opinion that many of the Calvinists who so misconstrue the basic definition of Arminianism are basing their definitions on Dort, rather than actual Arminians. By this I mean that they take the stances of Dort, and assume Arminianism to be the opposite of them. This is simply untrue seeing how the Remonstrants strongly supported Total Depravity, held to the necessity of grace, believed election was of God, and didn't even take a stand on apostasy.

The End Result

The libel and slander is so pervasive within the A/C conversation that most people have no idea what Arminianism is.

Now, one may argue that words change meaning. After all, a word is primarily defined by how it is used. There is certainly some truth to this. However, when it comes to "isms", they are generally defined historically. Even Calvinists who get it wrong still say that the foundation of what Arminianism is is based on what Arminius himself taught. They just don't bother to find out what Arminius taught.

So we have a large group of Arminians who claim they aren't Arminian, we have people who come to believe in Calvinism because they are convinced of this two-party false dichotomy, and we have an overall break-down of real dialogue between Calvinists and Arminians. On top of this, when it comes to how Christianity is perceived by those outside of it, we have a rather embarrassing presentation of Christians' attitudes towards each other. There is zero good which comes out of misrepresenting the other side of the debate.

This also goes both ways. At SEA, we take great pains not to misrepresent our Calvinist brothers, but there are many who have no such scruples. However, putting Calvinists on the defensive where their walls go up merely makes it that much more difficult to explain anything to them. It doesn't help.

Both of us need to stop it! There is a time and a place for polemics, and there is nothing wrong with making an argument from consistency (as long as it is formally made and not expected to be "understood" by the reader). Let's put the straw men away, and actually listen to each other.

CALVINIST RHETORIC: ProoftextingOr "Say hello to my little friend!"

There are four different ways to interact with Scripture within a discussion:

1. Exegesis: Carefully breaking down the meaning of a text through grammar, definitions, and context.
2. Quoting: Repeating word for word what a particular passage says.
3. Referencing: Just naming the Book, chapter, and verses to which you are referring.
4. Inferencing: Integrating Scripture into what you are saying without reference to origin, by summarizing, partial quotation, or other means.

Naturally, we would like to exegete whenever possible. However, anytime in which you quote, reference, or inference Scripture in order to demonstrate the validity of the point which you are arguing, you are in a sense proof-texting.

I feel that all good Protestants need to have a love/hate relationship with Proof-texting. Whenever I quote a portion of Scripture, I have an intrinsic desire to explain how I know it means what I believe it means. However, prudence demands that sometimes I have to just quote or reference the passage. This is especially true if I am making an argument from across all of Scripture. However, whenever I do that, I feel icky.

The problem is that most people do not really understand how language works. Human language is fascinating in its complexity and diversity of expression. Every word has a range of meaning, and figures of speech diversify their meaning even further. However, it appears to me that most people are under the impression that words have intrinsic meaning.

However, they don't. Words are arbitrary symbols which are linked to certain categories of ideas, and these categories are broader for some words than others. Therefore, all words need to be defined by how they are used. This is called context. And the sentence itself isn't sufficient to define a word's context, for the same word can be used in the same sentence multiple ways.

However, whenever we simply quote, reference, or inference a text, we are necessarily separating that text from its context. This means that we are either assuming our listeners know the context (which is rare), or hoping that the meaning is apparent apart from the context (which again is rare). However, we can't avoid it, for if we are going to make generalized points, we have to discuss more than one passage. Therefore, proof-texting is a bit of a necessary evil.

However, most Calvinists, indeed most of my fellow evangelicals, don't seem to see it this way. Most "arguments" consist of rapidly firing a set of bible references or quotes at someone like a machine gun from an old mobster movie. Indeed, it seems to be believed that the sheer volume of biblical passages should be sufficient to convince a person (as if quantity was more important than quality).

This is probably unsurprising considering our culture of sound-bites and flash over substance. Exegesis can be long, technical, and confusing. Things which are long, technical, and confusing generally don't convince people. It is much easier for me to see two lists of Scripture and determine which one is longer than it is to analyze the individual passages in that list. I believe that those who do proof-texting believe they are honoring Scripture, and are attempting to demonstrate how their case is more biblical. But while such lists are useful as tools to enable to do more research after a conversation, within a conversation it is rare for these texts to be treated with the care and dignity that they deserve.

Proof-texting in Action

Machine-Gun Hermeneutic

There is no way I can get through talking about proof-texting without mentioning the MGH. In 2008 I published an article expressing what I call the Machine Gun Hermeneutic or MGH. It is a form of an argument from verbosity. An argument from verbosity (or elephant hurling) is a kind of fallacy where you overload the listener with more information than can be assessed. It is unfortunate, but it is easier for a person to recognize superiority in quantity than it is to recognize superiority in quality and elephant hurling can be fairly effective. The MGH in particular is overloading the listener with a series of Bible verses which the listener cannot practically assess. Calvinist websites and internet debaters do this often.

However, there are some inherit problems with these Calvinist verses. First of all, most of them do not say anything explicitly Calvinistic, such as Romans 8:29-30 or Ephesians chapter 1. However, any verse which says a word which Calvinists really really like to use, like election or predestination, is considered to be a "Calvinist" verse, whether those features are explained or not. This of course ignores the fact that Arminians use those words too.

A second reason is that the KJV was translated by Calvinists, and many subsequent translations are based off of the KJV. Take for instance Acts 13:48 which is usually translated with the word 'ordained' or 'appointed' for 'tasso', even though the word's core meaning is 'to position', or 'to set'. 'Appoint' or 'ordain' unnecessarily limits the scope of interpretation, as well as making it sound more "Calvinisty" (of course, even with using 'appoint' or 'ordain' it doesn't prove Calvinism).

And the final problem, at least the final one that I'm dealing with here, is that there is a certain amount of arrogance to believe that we haven't read these verses before. Take this video, which is a particularly heinous example of MGH (and straw man argumentation, but that's for another time). It consistently claims that verses are being ignored, or rewritten. However, we have read the whole Bible, and I've never read a single portion of it that I felt was out of line with my theology. If I had, I would have changed my theology. The problem isn't that one side ignores or is ignorant of certain verses; it is that we approach the Bible from different interpretive grids. (And ours is right of course ;-))

Scriptural Pot-Shots

There is one more kind of proof-texting that really hurls my elephant. It is where you take a verse which is theologically neutral, and then inference it to sound "more biblical" than the other person. For instance, using Isaiah 1:18 to make it sound like you are using reason, unlike your opponent. Another example is to use Romans 9:20 to gain some kind of moral high ground (which usually entails the speaker confusing themselves with God, but I digress).

If you do this in the midst of a variety of other proof-texts, it makes it sound as if another text is supporting your claim. However, it's not. If a text has nothing to do with to do with conversation, than it has nothing to do with the conversion. It is a form of enslaving the text to your theology, instead of submitting your theology to the text.

The End Result

Here is why this actually bothers me. When you search the Scripture for texts that sorta sound like your point of view so that you can win a debate, you are enslaving Scripture. As someone with a high view of Scripture, this bothers me immensely.

Scripture is supposed to transform our perspective. It is the Rule of Faith: the measuring rod upon which we test our beliefs. It is not a debate tool. Some people are so focused on using the Scripture to transform others that they forget to test themselves against it.

This isn't to say we shouldn't talk about Scripture when we have differences. Absolutely we should! But we should respect one another enough to know that the other side isn't simply ignorant about our favorite passages. They've read them, and clearly understand them differently. Therefore, we should talk about the passages themselves, instead of merely seeing who can quote more of them. We all would be much better off.

For series index, click here.

REFLECTIONS ON FATHERHOODSafety

Babies have no sense, and I mean no sense, of danger. We have all the standard babyproofing that one would find: plugged the outlets, stowed away the pointy cornered coffee table, wrapped up the cords, stashed pillows away (which are agents of death apparently), and put all the poisonous stuff up high. Fine, I get that. He's still learning.

However, the shear lack of respect for gravity befuddles me. If I am laying on the couch, he wants to climb up on the couch. If I am holding him on the couch, he desperately (and I mean desperately) wants to climb right off. And by climb, and I mean crawl to the edge and fall on his head. Maybe he'll learn if I didn't catch him, but then again he may stop learning all together, and I'm not willing to take the chance.

I always thought that a fear of heights was programmed into us pretty well. Heck, babies don't like to lay on their backs because it makes them feel like their falling. However, to babies there is apparently bad falling (aka lying on your back in a crib) and good falling (aka actually falling). One time, he actually twisted right out of someone's arms while they were holding him... securely. We still haven't figured out how he did that, which is a bit scary by the way.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to this kid learning that falling is bad, before he makes me completely grey before I'm 30.