I’d like to begin this series on essays with a question: What if HGTV is way more evil than Game of Thrones?
That likely seems like a strange way to open a collection of essays on faith and politics, so let me back up and give some context. I love Game of Thrones. I have watched the entire series and I have read all five (1000-plus page) books. Needless to say, I’m invested! Now, in many Christian circles Game of Thrones is likely viewed as an abomination. It is clearly not wholesome, PG-13 entertainment. It has sex, violence, bad language, and magic… That’s the quadrilateral of American Christian paranoia! And please don’t misunderstand my agenda. I am not suggesting you watch it. I am virtually impossible to offend, so I can get invested in it’s sweeping, complex narrative without being bothered by the creepy incest and ice zombies. (Well, perhaps I should clarify. I am bothered by creepy incest in real life. Just not in fictional worlds with dragons!)
On the other hand, I have also watched many hours of HGTV in recent years. In many ways, HGTV is the polar opposite of Game of Thrones. There is no sex, no violence (other than demo day, which is awesome), no scandal, and no intrigue. On some level, this is the network’s greatest appeal. The reason my wife and I started watching HGTV is because it is, on the surface at least, light, positive, wholesome television. In a world in which scandal, corruption, and dishonesty seem ubiquitous, it is nice to watch something devoid of bitterness and vitriol. If a Christian company has created a “Christian” cable package, HGTV is probably included.
But, here’s what I have noticed in the last few years: HGTV has been far more destructive to my soul than Game of Thrones! Game of Thrones forces me to keep tabs on a dizzying array of betrayals, and occasionally someone gets their head chopped off, which is of course unpleasant. But HGTV makes me want stuff, which is far more corrosive to my heart and my life than fictional court intrigue.
Every time I watch Fixer Upper or Flip or Flop, I look around my house and think to myself, “This isn’t enough. I need more. I need better. I need what they have! I need some new hand-scraped wood floors… and some shiplap… and some new furniture made from reclaimed wood... and a new bathroom with a jacuzzi tub and lots of white subway tile… and an open-concept floor plan (Is that wall load bearing? I could probably take that out myself)… and a new garage addition… with a bonus room... and a home office… of course with shiplap (what is shiplap, anyway?).”
For all its “wholesome” charm, HGTV sows doubt, desire, and dissatisfaction in my heart. It makes me break the 10th commandment (“Though shall not covet…”) hard! Gratitude is central to the Christian life. When Paul utters his profound (and endlessly misused) statement, “I can do all things through [Christ] who strengthens me,” he is saying this about his ability to cultivate contentment and gratitude in all circumstances. Gratitude is in many ways the key that unlocks the spiritual life, and HGTV slowly and insidiously extracts gratitude from my heart and replaces it with dissatisfaction, which inevitably leads to entitlement, which gives birth to envy and resentment, which almost always leads to depression. And every bit of that is far more dangerous to my soul than sword fights and ice zombies.
St. Augustine referred to sin as incurvatus in se - the soul “curved in on itself.” Sin, according to Augustine, is when the psyche becomes incessantly concerned with the self, when it leaves gratitude (which is the natural and necessary by-product of Grace) to live in the world of scarcity, entitlement, and growing desire. And HGTV is like a petri dish in which this soul-eating bacteria grows. But we never even think to question it because Chip and Joanna Gaines are so utterly delightful.
You see, in my nearly two decades of navigating this often perplexing world of Christianity, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: American Christianity is very good at missing the forest for the trees. We often fixate on superficial “evils,” giving them all our attention and energy, while the Trojan Horse (the true, destructive danger) is being rolled right through the front gate unnoticed… or worse, to our applause and welcoming embrace.
The things that are truly dangerous, the things truly likely to undo us, are seldom the things with blinking neon signs over them, waving flags saying, “Look at me, I’m dangerous.” Rather, they are the the subtle, insidious things hiding in plain sight, disguising themselves as innocuous (or even good). The things that will cause a person or group to unravel aren’t the controversial, hot-button issues. They are the underlying assumptions you wouldn’t even think to question until they already own you.
To put all this another way, what if the real dangers to our society right now aren’t the things we’re always arguing about - cultural shifts, obvious moral questions, conflicting political ideologies, where people stand on a particular set of hot-button issues, etc. What if those are (on some level) just superficial trivialities. What if the problems lie much deeper than that, at a level we don’t think to question?
First, what if the problems actually lie at the foundational assumptions of our society? What if the real problem is simply Individualism? What if the real danger is the very notion that your life is about you? That the appropriate lens through which to see the world is a lens which is fundamentally about your own personal fulfillment, the protection of your personal “rights,” and what you are personally entitled to?
Second, what if, to use some potentially trite, modern religious language, the real problem is a heart issue, not a head issue. We spend so much time arguing about specific political doctrines and issues as though they are the main thing. What if they aren’t the main thing? What if the main thing is the more fundamental disposition of our hearts as we form those positions and engage in those discussions. What if it’s possible for two people who have different “positions” to both be “right” based on their heart reality? And likewise, what if it is possible for two people to share a “position” and one to be right and the other wrong based on their heart realities?
Let’s shift to the New Testament for a moment. In 1 Corinthians, which is a letter written by a man named Paul (who had been commissioned by God to share the “good news” of Jesus to all the non-Jewish peoples of the world) to a church community he had started in the Greek city of Corinth. The Corinthians were a hot mess of misconceptions and misunderstandings, and one of the protracted, nuanced conversations he had to have with them was about food sacrificed to idols (the many pagan gods worshipped in Hellenistic culture). In that discussion, he said this:
1 Corinthians 8-10: (selected verses)
1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God.
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one”....
7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.
10:23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of [their] conscience 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
Now, this discussion is both detailed and nuanced. It probably even felt convoluted at one point or another. But, here is the gist of it… Whatever you do, do it with an eye for what is best for others. Sometimes eating food sacrificed to idols is the right thing to do. Other times it’s the wrong thing. It just depends on the context. Eating and not eating can both be done to the Glory of God depending on your reasons for doing it or not doing it. But if your question is, “Am I allowed to do this?” or “Is it my right to do this?” you have completely missed the point. If your starting point is anything other than “What do those around me need from me?” you have lost before you’ve even begun!
Now, I want to draw out two implications from this text, which will hopefully bring this whole HGTV-vs.-Game-of-Thrones, missing-the-forest-through-the-trees discussion into focus.
First, the Christian faith, from the very beginning, has always been about the path of descent, radical self-sacrifice, and placing the needs of others above our own. In Philippians 2:3-4, Paul says this more succinctly: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” And of course, this idea is rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, who “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45).
In other words, it is hard to overstate just how antithetical modern Individualism is to Christianity. Paul likened the Church to a body, which I imagine was the most interdependent entity he could think of. And within the interdependence of life and community, Paul (and Jesus) always demanded that Christians prioritize the needs and concerns of others.
Second, in one of the most controversial questions of his day (Can a Christian eat meat that was sacrificed to a pagan god?), Paul said that either answer could be right based on the context, the reasoning behind it, and the posture of the heart of the person making the decision. In a sense, Paul was saying, “Well, it’s complicated. From an intellectual level, idols aren’t real, so sacrificing to one isn’t real, so it doesn’t matter. BUT, everyone isn’t quite on that intellectual level, so they might read something into it. If you eat it, then someone may assume you worship that god, which will misrepresent what we think about the real God. BUT, if you just unilaterally don’t eat with pagans, then they’ll never get a chance to know Jesus through you, and they’ll probably think you think you’re too good for them, which will make them think God doesn’t care for them also. So, I can’t really tell you what the right “position” is, but I suspect your conscience will if your heart is coming at it from the right place.”
Just as it is hard to overstate the contrast between modern Individualism and traditional Christianity, it is equally hard to overstate how different Paul’s ethical perspective is here from modern American culture. Imagine how different things would be if this was the attitude we carried into political discussions. If we acknowledged the unmanageable complexity of many of our “litmus test” questions, respected different perspectives as people wrestle through that complexity, and judged people on their generosity of spirit rather than their correctness.
If we are ever going to begin redeeming the political process in our country and make any progress toward a better society and world, I believe we need heart change more than ideological change. We, more than anything, need to relearn the humility and servanthood that is at the heart of Christianity. We need to remember that we worship a Messiah that died on a cross, not crushed everyone that was “wrong” with a display of power, authority, and “rightness.” In fact, the Jesus story itself redefines what power, authority, and “rightness” look like. It appears to me that the Church in America has forgotten that, and as such, the culture as a whole has forgotten too (because there is no one there to lead it somewhere else).
If there is a way forward through the malaise of 21st-century American politics, I believe it must be the way of internal transformation (not programmatic change). For this reason, I suspect these may be essays without an audience, because no really wants internal change. Few people seem interested in becoming more humble, more compassionate, more empathetic, more sacrificial, more human! Everyone, rather, seems much more interested in remaining stagnant, demanding that everyone see the world through their lens. And this is the one thing Conservatives and Liberals are united on!
In fact, this is one of the great ironies of modern American political discourse. Conservatives and Liberals consider themselves so irreconcilably different, but in the one way that truly matters they are exactly the same. Conservatives and Liberals alike (at least the vocal members of each side who seem to be dictating the terms of the discussion) want nothing to do with the Cross! They want nothing to do with taking up their cross and following in the steps of a Savior who emptied himself for others (dare I say, even his enemies!).
Thus, I suspect the reactions to these essays will be either (1) disappointment, because they are interested in something different than most people want to hear, or (2) dismissal, because the idea of legitimate spiritual/heart/psychological change at the societal/cultural level sounds absurd. As a realist I want to agree with this second objection, but as a Christian I can’t. So I will conclude this rambling, quixotic introduction with Jesus’ words in John 14:12, “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” Unless Jesus was a liar or lunatic, fatalism is not an option. So let the quixotic ramblings continue!
That likely seems like a strange way to open a collection of essays on faith and politics, so let me back up and give some context. I love Game of Thrones. I have watched the entire series and I have read all five (1000-plus page) books. Needless to say, I’m invested! Now, in many Christian circles Game of Thrones is likely viewed as an abomination. It is clearly not wholesome, PG-13 entertainment. It has sex, violence, bad language, and magic… That’s the quadrilateral of American Christian paranoia! And please don’t misunderstand my agenda. I am not suggesting you watch it. I am virtually impossible to offend, so I can get invested in it’s sweeping, complex narrative without being bothered by the creepy incest and ice zombies. (Well, perhaps I should clarify. I am bothered by creepy incest in real life. Just not in fictional worlds with dragons!)
On the other hand, I have also watched many hours of HGTV in recent years. In many ways, HGTV is the polar opposite of Game of Thrones. There is no sex, no violence (other than demo day, which is awesome), no scandal, and no intrigue. On some level, this is the network’s greatest appeal. The reason my wife and I started watching HGTV is because it is, on the surface at least, light, positive, wholesome television. In a world in which scandal, corruption, and dishonesty seem ubiquitous, it is nice to watch something devoid of bitterness and vitriol. If a Christian company has created a “Christian” cable package, HGTV is probably included.
But, here’s what I have noticed in the last few years: HGTV has been far more destructive to my soul than Game of Thrones! Game of Thrones forces me to keep tabs on a dizzying array of betrayals, and occasionally someone gets their head chopped off, which is of course unpleasant. But HGTV makes me want stuff, which is far more corrosive to my heart and my life than fictional court intrigue.
Every time I watch Fixer Upper or Flip or Flop, I look around my house and think to myself, “This isn’t enough. I need more. I need better. I need what they have! I need some new hand-scraped wood floors… and some shiplap… and some new furniture made from reclaimed wood... and a new bathroom with a jacuzzi tub and lots of white subway tile… and an open-concept floor plan (Is that wall load bearing? I could probably take that out myself)… and a new garage addition… with a bonus room... and a home office… of course with shiplap (what is shiplap, anyway?).”
For all its “wholesome” charm, HGTV sows doubt, desire, and dissatisfaction in my heart. It makes me break the 10th commandment (“Though shall not covet…”) hard! Gratitude is central to the Christian life. When Paul utters his profound (and endlessly misused) statement, “I can do all things through [Christ] who strengthens me,” he is saying this about his ability to cultivate contentment and gratitude in all circumstances. Gratitude is in many ways the key that unlocks the spiritual life, and HGTV slowly and insidiously extracts gratitude from my heart and replaces it with dissatisfaction, which inevitably leads to entitlement, which gives birth to envy and resentment, which almost always leads to depression. And every bit of that is far more dangerous to my soul than sword fights and ice zombies.
St. Augustine referred to sin as incurvatus in se - the soul “curved in on itself.” Sin, according to Augustine, is when the psyche becomes incessantly concerned with the self, when it leaves gratitude (which is the natural and necessary by-product of Grace) to live in the world of scarcity, entitlement, and growing desire. And HGTV is like a petri dish in which this soul-eating bacteria grows. But we never even think to question it because Chip and Joanna Gaines are so utterly delightful.
You see, in my nearly two decades of navigating this often perplexing world of Christianity, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: American Christianity is very good at missing the forest for the trees. We often fixate on superficial “evils,” giving them all our attention and energy, while the Trojan Horse (the true, destructive danger) is being rolled right through the front gate unnoticed… or worse, to our applause and welcoming embrace.
The things that are truly dangerous, the things truly likely to undo us, are seldom the things with blinking neon signs over them, waving flags saying, “Look at me, I’m dangerous.” Rather, they are the the subtle, insidious things hiding in plain sight, disguising themselves as innocuous (or even good). The things that will cause a person or group to unravel aren’t the controversial, hot-button issues. They are the underlying assumptions you wouldn’t even think to question until they already own you.
To put all this another way, what if the real dangers to our society right now aren’t the things we’re always arguing about - cultural shifts, obvious moral questions, conflicting political ideologies, where people stand on a particular set of hot-button issues, etc. What if those are (on some level) just superficial trivialities. What if the problems lie much deeper than that, at a level we don’t think to question?
First, what if the problems actually lie at the foundational assumptions of our society? What if the real problem is simply Individualism? What if the real danger is the very notion that your life is about you? That the appropriate lens through which to see the world is a lens which is fundamentally about your own personal fulfillment, the protection of your personal “rights,” and what you are personally entitled to?
Second, what if, to use some potentially trite, modern religious language, the real problem is a heart issue, not a head issue. We spend so much time arguing about specific political doctrines and issues as though they are the main thing. What if they aren’t the main thing? What if the main thing is the more fundamental disposition of our hearts as we form those positions and engage in those discussions. What if it’s possible for two people who have different “positions” to both be “right” based on their heart reality? And likewise, what if it is possible for two people to share a “position” and one to be right and the other wrong based on their heart realities?
Let’s shift to the New Testament for a moment. In 1 Corinthians, which is a letter written by a man named Paul (who had been commissioned by God to share the “good news” of Jesus to all the non-Jewish peoples of the world) to a church community he had started in the Greek city of Corinth. The Corinthians were a hot mess of misconceptions and misunderstandings, and one of the protracted, nuanced conversations he had to have with them was about food sacrificed to idols (the many pagan gods worshipped in Hellenistic culture). In that discussion, he said this:
1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God.
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one”....
7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.
10:23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of [their] conscience 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
Now, this discussion is both detailed and nuanced. It probably even felt convoluted at one point or another. But, here is the gist of it… Whatever you do, do it with an eye for what is best for others. Sometimes eating food sacrificed to idols is the right thing to do. Other times it’s the wrong thing. It just depends on the context. Eating and not eating can both be done to the Glory of God depending on your reasons for doing it or not doing it. But if your question is, “Am I allowed to do this?” or “Is it my right to do this?” you have completely missed the point. If your starting point is anything other than “What do those around me need from me?” you have lost before you’ve even begun!
Now, I want to draw out two implications from this text, which will hopefully bring this whole HGTV-vs.-Game-of-Thrones, missing-the-forest-through-the-trees discussion into focus.
First, the Christian faith, from the very beginning, has always been about the path of descent, radical self-sacrifice, and placing the needs of others above our own. In Philippians 2:3-4, Paul says this more succinctly: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” And of course, this idea is rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, who “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45).
In other words, it is hard to overstate just how antithetical modern Individualism is to Christianity. Paul likened the Church to a body, which I imagine was the most interdependent entity he could think of. And within the interdependence of life and community, Paul (and Jesus) always demanded that Christians prioritize the needs and concerns of others.
Second, in one of the most controversial questions of his day (Can a Christian eat meat that was sacrificed to a pagan god?), Paul said that either answer could be right based on the context, the reasoning behind it, and the posture of the heart of the person making the decision. In a sense, Paul was saying, “Well, it’s complicated. From an intellectual level, idols aren’t real, so sacrificing to one isn’t real, so it doesn’t matter. BUT, everyone isn’t quite on that intellectual level, so they might read something into it. If you eat it, then someone may assume you worship that god, which will misrepresent what we think about the real God. BUT, if you just unilaterally don’t eat with pagans, then they’ll never get a chance to know Jesus through you, and they’ll probably think you think you’re too good for them, which will make them think God doesn’t care for them also. So, I can’t really tell you what the right “position” is, but I suspect your conscience will if your heart is coming at it from the right place.”
Just as it is hard to overstate the contrast between modern Individualism and traditional Christianity, it is equally hard to overstate how different Paul’s ethical perspective is here from modern American culture. Imagine how different things would be if this was the attitude we carried into political discussions. If we acknowledged the unmanageable complexity of many of our “litmus test” questions, respected different perspectives as people wrestle through that complexity, and judged people on their generosity of spirit rather than their correctness.
If we are ever going to begin redeeming the political process in our country and make any progress toward a better society and world, I believe we need heart change more than ideological change. We, more than anything, need to relearn the humility and servanthood that is at the heart of Christianity. We need to remember that we worship a Messiah that died on a cross, not crushed everyone that was “wrong” with a display of power, authority, and “rightness.” In fact, the Jesus story itself redefines what power, authority, and “rightness” look like. It appears to me that the Church in America has forgotten that, and as such, the culture as a whole has forgotten too (because there is no one there to lead it somewhere else).
If there is a way forward through the malaise of 21st-century American politics, I believe it must be the way of internal transformation (not programmatic change). For this reason, I suspect these may be essays without an audience, because no really wants internal change. Few people seem interested in becoming more humble, more compassionate, more empathetic, more sacrificial, more human! Everyone, rather, seems much more interested in remaining stagnant, demanding that everyone see the world through their lens. And this is the one thing Conservatives and Liberals are united on!
In fact, this is one of the great ironies of modern American political discourse. Conservatives and Liberals consider themselves so irreconcilably different, but in the one way that truly matters they are exactly the same. Conservatives and Liberals alike (at least the vocal members of each side who seem to be dictating the terms of the discussion) want nothing to do with the Cross! They want nothing to do with taking up their cross and following in the steps of a Savior who emptied himself for others (dare I say, even his enemies!).
Thus, I suspect the reactions to these essays will be either (1) disappointment, because they are interested in something different than most people want to hear, or (2) dismissal, because the idea of legitimate spiritual/heart/psychological change at the societal/cultural level sounds absurd. As a realist I want to agree with this second objection, but as a Christian I can’t. So I will conclude this rambling, quixotic introduction with Jesus’ words in John 14:12, “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” Unless Jesus was a liar or lunatic, fatalism is not an option. So let the quixotic ramblings continue!
Comments
Post a Comment