The Christian Bro Code [in King James English!]

The "Bro Code" is one of those unwritten sets of laws chiseled into the hearts of men everywhere. While many have attempted to write it down, there is no authoritative canon of the Bro Code, and it remains as hard to grasp as oil and wind. As the Apostle Paul attempted to "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ," so I am attempting to take the Bro Code and make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:5)

I found this to be necessary after thumbing through The Bro Code by Barney Stinson, the reprehensible fictional character on How I Met Your Mother. (For a related post on How I Met Your Mother, read here.) There is definitely a code that exists among Christian "bros," but it is not Barney Stinson's amoral version of it. The goal here is to discover what principles already exist on Christian bros.

Below are a few articles that my students and I came up with toward a definitive Christian Bro Code:

1. Bros before harlots. Thou shalt hold thine bro accountable to only courting righteous ladies. (Leviticus 21:14, KJV)
2. Replace thine bro's toilet paper if thou uses the last square. (Matthew 7:12)
3. Never covet thine bro's lady. (Exodus 20:17)
4. Reverse dibs: When two bros doth see a righteous Christian lady that they both would like to court, the righteous bro will concede to the other. (Matthew 19:30) 

• [Addendum: The second bro is under no obligation to then insist on a second reverse-dibs. The matter is finished.]
5. A proper Christian wingman's job is to help his bro cleave to a Proverbs 31 woman. (Proverbs 31:10ff)
6. Thou shalt not sit in an empty pew space next to another bro unless thou can sit in a relaxed disposition without touching thine brother's shoulders or thighs.

• [Addendum: This article may be abrogated during Easter and Christmas services with large numbers of visitors.]
7. Definition: "bropologetics" (broh-pol-uh-jet-iks) -- defending one's bro against attack, disbelief, or offense. (1 Samuel 19:4)
8. Bros do not share hymnals, but bros may share Bibles as long as their hands do not touch.
9. Thou shalt only date ladies of such modesty that they will not cause thine fellow bros to lust in thine hearts. (1 Tim. 2:9; Col. 3:5; Matt. 5:28)
10. Thou shalt treat a bro's mother with the same dignity, honor, and respect that thou shalt treat thine own mother. (Exodus 20:12; John 19:26-27)
11. Bros shall never use emoticons on @Twitter, especially when tagging other bros. #ChristianBroCode
12. When a bro is preaching, thou must always affirm him with an "Amen, bro." (Eph. 4:29)
13. Acceptable "bro" nicknames include: Broseph, Brosephus, Bropocalypse, Bronabas, Brobednago, Brotholomew, Bronesimus, Bromothy, Broliath, Brolijah, and Broaz.
14. A bro shall not allow another bro to declare any meat unclean, especially bacon. (Romans 14:16)
15. Bros shalt not say "YOLO" ... ever. (John 3:3)
16. When selecting one's bros, diversity of race and socioeconomic status is acceptable and encouraged. (Leviticus 25:35; Galatians 3:28)
17. When selecting bros, a few is better than many. Facebook is not conducive to becoming bros. (Prov. 18:24, ESV) 
18. Thou shalt not hassle thy bro with foolishness, lest thou spoil the bromance. (Titus 3:9) [contributed by Mike Blissett of Chicago] 
19. [NEW] Thou shalt not engage in any wager involving currency. But a friendly laying of odds involving man points, honor, or silly feats of humiliation is acceptable. (1 Timothy 6:10) [contributed by Steve Houser of Songtan, South Korea]
20. [NEW] Thou shalt peruse thine bro's library upon entering his abode, find one book with which thou disagree, and smite him. It is for thine bro's good. (Titus 1:10-16) [contributed by Steven Houser of Songtan, South Korea]
21. [NEW] Thou shalt periodically engage in sword fights with thine bros--both figurative and literal. (Proverbs 27:17) [contributed by Jason Lantz of Songtan, South Korea]
22. [NEW] Thou shalt always require thine bros to provide tangible proof of their boasted accomplishments, particularly ones highlighting bravery or heroism (John 20:25) [contributed by Jason Lantz of Songtan, South Korea]

I invite Christian bros everywhere to assist me in the production of the Christian Bro Code. Please leave comments below regarding articles that you believe ought to be added.

[Note: The Christian Bro Code is the brainchild of my 4th period philosophy class-Hailey, Karalee, Hannah, Griffin, Luke, Shane, Mark, and Will. Thanks, class. You're good bros.]
-------------------------------------------------------

Should Christians include Santa in Christmas?

Santa Claus is an enduring figment of western society's collective imagination, designed to deliver a certain kind of annual euphoria to children and moral leverage to parents. The historiography of jolly ol' St. Nick is about as varied and complicated as that of the U.S. Civil War, but certain historical outlines become fairly obvious upon observation (see the video below). But, this post is not about the history of Santa, as it is largely irrelevant. What matters to the question of whether Christians should include Santa in Christmas is what Santa is now.

Santa as narrative

"Santa" is more than a crimson-clad cookiephile; he's the personification of an entire narrative. His story includes Mrs. Claus, tiny working elves, a flying sleigh and reindeer, moral omniscience, and a magical toy factory at the North Pole. He has a jolly laugh, rosy red cheeks, and a twinkle in his eye. He has a grandfatherly sweetness about him that children can trust. Santa is a sweet and fun story for children.

A brief History of Santa Claus

What is most convenient about the modern (American) Santa is that he is essentially secular. That is, he appeals to most people, regardless of religious belief. Everyone loves Christmas, with its gift giving, festive music, and diversion from the otherwise-depressing winter solstice. But, not everyone loves Jesus or the Christian religion. (This should be no surprise to anyone.) Santa provides a secular narrative backbone to the cultural tradition of Christmas. This is necessary, because traditions do not survive without stories. At least for young children, who are credulous by nature, Santa keeps the tradition of Christmas alive in an increasingly secular culture. Without some associated story, we would all lose Christmas.

Secular Christmas?

Is a secular Christmas so bad? After all, the Bible doesn't command that we celebrate Christmas. While Jesus' birth is described in the Bible (Luke 2:16ff), it doesn't mention the exact date. In fact, we're not even certain of the year, much less the month, of Jesus' birth. [1] If Christmas were completely secular to begin with, it is not clear that it would be immoral to celebrate it, so long as we avoided pagan Sun worship and the excesses of greedy consumerism. It could be a secular, civic institution like Thanksgiving. It would, of course, not be called Christ-mas. Perhaps it would be called "Festivus," as in the sitcom Seinfeld. If Christ had never been any part of Christmas, it would not necessarily be wrong to celebrate a gift giving solstice festival.

"Festivus" is an entirely secularized version of

Christmas that was invented by George Castanza's

father. The reason it doesn't work is that it doesn't

have a compelling narrative.

 Are we lying to our children?

Is it immoral to perpetuate the myth of Santa Claus with children? Again, not necessarily. The distinction between fiction and non-fiction is not so clear for young children anyway. Do 3-year-old little boys know that Bob the Builder, Dora, Barney, and Ronald McDonald aren't real? It seems unlikely that a young child would even understand the category of "not real." At the point that a child does begin to understand the concept of "not real," parents who want to keep the myth alive must take increasingly drastic steps to conceal the truth, until it becomes too absurd to keep it up. Then, the story ends. It is at this point--when the child begins to understand "not real"--that parents are faced with a real moral dilemma. How far is too far to push the myth? When is the age of [parental] accountability? [2]

The problem with Santa

There is a problem with the Christian use of Santa, however. By comparison to the Incarnation of Christ, the narrative of Santa is paltry (pitiful, small, slight, inconsequential, puny, measly, etc...[3]). The intrusion of the divine upon the mundane in order to sacrificially save those who rejected him as Father and Creator is a narrative without equal, and yet Christians have too often substituted the relatively meager Santa story. How many Christian children know as much about the birth and life of Jesus as they know about Santa, the reindeer, and the tiny elves? How many parents who have walked on the roof of their homes to sound like Santa have gone to equal lengths to make the Gospel come alive?

Why spend so much effort keeping up the Santa story and so little teaching children about the magnificently beautiful Incarnation? Has familiarity bred contempt for the story of the Incarnation? Have we lost the ability to tell good stories? Or, have we quit reading and reflecting upon the Incarnation? It is beyond the scope of this post to diagnose the cause, but the prognosis is clear -- substituting Santa for the far superior and historically real Incarnation of Jesus inhibits our children's ability to appreciate the beauty of God's narrative.

Christmas is a fun and memorable holiday, which is tailor-made for children. What an opportunity Christian parents are given every single year to communicate the Gospel to their children. Why wouldn't parents, teachers, and other children's workers take maximum advantage of this holiday to penetrate their young hearts and minds with the glory of God's gospel?

The problem is not Santa per se but that the Santa narrative is an unnecessary adulteration of a better story. (For a reminder of the story, please listen to and reflect on the video below.)

This is a particularly poignant telling of the Gospel

by Christian theologian R.C. Sproul of Ligonier

Ministries. After hearing the Gospel it is simply

difficult to care much about Santa.

--------------------
[1] That's not to say that we aren't certain of his birth itself. The fact of Jesus' birth, death, and life enjoys a great deal of historical support, not the least of which is the historical document of the Bible itself. The historical evidence suggests that Christians celebrated the birth of Jesus (the Incarnation) very early, but the date of December 25 was instituted later, because that date happened to be the date of a winter solstice festival, which was a time to worship the Sol Invictus (The Unconquerable Sun).  Some Christians bemoaned this assimilation of that date into Christian tradition while others accepted it as an opportunity to baptize a pagan holiday. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a well-documented account of the historiography of the Christmas holiday.
[2] I'm of the opinion that, when a child does have a firm grip on "real" and "not real," at whatever age that may be, keeping up the act becomes increasingly immoral.
[3] Thank you, thesaurus.com.

Thinking Differently About Poverty

Being poor is not just about money, or the lack of it. Poverty is a multifaceted condition that requires an equally multifaceted definition. There has been much debate by Christians, NGOs, governments, and the United Nations on precisely what constitutes "poverty," but there is one element that has been too often overlooked by everyone when it comes to ministering to the poor -- poverty is fundamentally an inability to make meaningful decisions.

Think about all of the important decisions that you make in a day. [1] You must decide what you are going to wear, where you are going to eat lunch, whether you will gas up the car before or after work, or what you will make for dinner with your family. Or, maybe you're making more high-stakes decisions: What pediatrician will I choose for my children? Where will I go to college? Should I buy a sedan or an SUV? Will we have an indoor or an outdoor wedding? Should we move to a neighborhood that has better schools? Which church offers the best childcare program? These are all questions that the truly poor do not have the luxury of even asking themselves, because they don't have the resources to even execute them. This is why poverty is not ultimately about money; it is about not having the meaningful margins of life that money affords us.

The poor do not usually get to decide where to eat or what to eat. They eat when food comes along. It might be a handout of some sort, a meager paycheck from some temporary work, or the tiny bag of chips that were purchased with the quarter found on the ground that day. The poor do not get to pick the schools that their children attend. They will attend whatever school serves the poor community they live in, and, due to systemic inequalities, those schools are often sub par. They don't get to decide what to wear to a job interview or how to dress their kids so they won't get teased. They wear whatever they can get, whether it is made for their size and gender or not.

Poverty makes one a passive recipient at the mercy of the system, of the neighborhood, and of the wealthy that surround them (in other neighborhoods, of course).

The despair of endless meaningless days:

Imagine living this passive existence in which you make no meaningful decisions. There is no Sabbath in which your mind is free to reflect, to dream, to rest. It is just one unending week. Everyday is the same. Consider the father of three who daily feels emasculated by the fact that he can't be the leader for his family, because there are no meaningful leadership decisions to be made. Or think of the mother who desperately wants to feed her daughters more often than once per day. There are children whose only sure daily meal comes from school. This means the weekends and summers are times of famine rather than fun. It means that the parents' only moment of security for their child's welfare is when the family is not together.

It is likely that most Christians (including myself until only relatively recently) have never really thought of poverty in this manner. This aspect of poverty is so much more moving, because it no longer just involves money. What hangs in the balance is not a wage, but a person's sense of humanity. Christians ought to be in the business of reconciling people with their God-given humanity, which is created imago dei.

In light of this definition, how should Christians approach poverty and ministering to their poor neighbors? First, we must recognize that not all poverty is the result of sinfulness on the part of the poor person. While that may be the case some times (Prov. 13:18; 20:13), other times the poor are genuinely the helpless victims of circumstances, or worse, the injustice of others. (Prov. 13:23; Ecclesiastes 4:1; Psalm 12:5) Ignoring that the poor are sometimes poor due to the sins of others is a bit of willful ignorance, both of reality and of the Scriptures. In reality, it is probably a mixture of the two. This fact -- that our problems are caused by ourselves and by others -- is true of everyone. Nonetheless, God's desire for his people is that they care for the poor, the oppressed, and the weak.

In the Old Testament law that God gave to the ancient Jews, God built in structural protections for the poor. Although the OT law was fulfilled in Christ and does not apply directly to Christians, the spirit of the law does reflect the unwavering heart of God. In the old covenant, the land was to remain fallow every seventh year so that the un-landed poor may work it. (Ex. 23:11) The debts of the poor were to be cancelled every seventh year in order to break cycles of poverty. (Deut. 15:2) The poor were permitted to partake of the crops they passed by, so long as they only used their hands, a legal protection that Jesus and his followers took advantage of. (Deut. 23:24-25; Matt 12:1) Likewise, farmers were forbidden to harvest the corners of their field so that they may be left for the poor, like Ruth the Moabitess. (Leviticus 19:9-10; Ruth 2:2-3) Sodom was condemned for not helping the poor and needy. (Ezek 16:49)

God's concern for the poor is not limited to the OT. Take note of the many New Testament references to caring for the poor. (Luke 14:12-14; Luke 18:22; Romans 15:25-29; Romans 12:13; James 2:5-7; Galatians 2:10; Ephesians 4:28; James 1:27)

It is clear that God's own heart is with the poor, but the question is how should we love the poor?

Why a money-only approach does more harm than good:

On the surface, the most obvious solution to poverty is to give money to the poor. However, given the definition put forth here, money is not ultimately the problem. The problem is the inability to make meaningful decisions. Throwing money (or material things) at such a problem could actually only multiply problems. This is especially the case with multi-generational poverty. Imagine, for example, an adult who is poor and was born into poverty. She has likely never made a meaningful life decision. Now imagine that she spends the only dollar to her name on a lottery ticket out of desperation and wins one million dollars. Will she suddenly know how to make wise decisions with her money? No. How could she? She has never been equipped with the tools and wisdom necessary to handle such money.

Money alone is not the answer (although sacrificial giving of money will be required). What the poor need is to live (and love) in a community that will raise them up. This provision is made in OT law as well. In Leviticus, the Jews were required to help the poor as they would an alien or a temporary resident "so that he can continue to live among [the community]." (Lev. 25:35) The poor needed the community, and God would not permit the community to kick them out or hide them away in trailer park ghettos on the other side of town.

The same is the case here. More than money, the poor need our love, our friendship, and our community. They need discipleship. They need a hug, a person who knows their name and the names of their children. They need someone to give them advice, and they need someone to ask them for advice. They need to stand shoulder to shoulder with others with whom they are equals before God, worshiping Him in all his glory.

They need to feel significant. Before giving a poor person money, look her in the eyes, ask her name, and get to know her for the beautiful, image-bearing person she is. Then, break bread with her.

-------------------------------------------------------

[1] If you're reading this blog post, there is a very high probability that you are not living in poverty, as the truly poor do not usually enjoy the luxury of reading blogs.
-------------------------------------------------------

Comments, questions, and discussion are welcome. 

On Worldly Wisdom and Stupid Internet Quotes (#1)

In my time spent on Twitter (@ChazMooney) and Google+, I've come across countless nuggets of worldly wisdom. So, I've started to collect the worst of them one at a time, like lent from a belly button. As I accumulate them, I'll post them here with what I hope is a reasoned, biblical response. I've tried not to be too snarky, but some of these quotes deserve a somewhat curmudgeonly response.

"Love isn't all about flirting, hugs, kisses, and sex. Love is about having the ability to take all those things away and still having feelings for that person." --unknown

Let it be clear, I'm not opposed to feelings, flirting, hugs, and kissing. They are all wonderful things that add to the goodness of this life. However, they must never be confused with love. To equate love with feelings is to cheapen love and eventually kill it. According to this bit of prepubescent Internet wisdom, love is the ability to have feelings for someone despite the lack of certain types of physical and emotional contact. This is nonsense. People do not have direct control over their feelings. No amount of will power can make you feel a certain way when you don't. If it were a matter of the will, no one would ever feel hungry, or sad, or depressed, or anxious. This is simply contrary to the human experience. What we can do is change the patterns and habits of our life in such a way that we can systematically, but slowly and indirectly, begin to change the way we feel. This is done partially through flirting, hugs, kisses, and mutually edifying sexual contact (within the confines of a marriage relationship only). One can also foster good "feelings" toward loved ones by praying for them, by complimenting them behind their back, and secretly and repeatedly doing random acts of kindness for them. All of these things indirectly alter the way we feel, but we cannot just choose to feel a certain way at any given moment. Feelings are good, but they are fleeting.

Love, on the other hand, is a sheer act of the will. It is choosing to put another before yourself. It is choosing to sacrifice your own feelings, aspirations, resources, and opportunities to seek the best for another person. It is risking your life to save another. It is daily cleaning and caring for your wife who has Alzheimer's and treats you poorly because she has no idea who you are. It is spending your life's savings to adopt a child whom you've never met and who will sadly live out the rest of her days in an orphanage if you don't. It is willfully dying on a cross for the very people who nailed you to it.
The confusion of love and feelings has tragic consequences, not the least of which is the destruction of marriage. Marriages often end because married couples often don't "feel" in love anymore. Or, because one spouse "feels" more in love with another person. Love is a commitment for better or worse, in sickness and health, in richness and poverty, and in times of feeling and no feelings.  Whoever wrote this bit of wisdom needs to grow up and quit thinking like a 6th grader. 

"Having a rough morning? Place your hand over your heart. Feel that? That's called purpose. You're alive for a reason. Don't give up." --unknown

This one immediately stimulates my gag reflex, resulting in incessant dry heaving. It sounds as if it was written by a middle-class 12-year-old girl who is high on puppy dogs, glitter, and fairy dust. As a Christian, I would obviously agree that life is infused with purpose, and every moment is thoughtfully crafted by our Almighty God with his own glory in mind. There is no purposeless moment. However, this quote gets at the heart of our vaguely and irrationally optimistic society. We (in America) are a culture that loves things like hope and purpose and yet we reject God. What, therefore, is the source of our hope and purpose? We have none. As Francis Schaeffer illustrated in The God Who Is There, our culture has taken an irrational leap of faith toward faith itself. We don't have faith in any known God who is actually there and has actually done something to which we can look forward, but we have faith in faith for faith's sake. I don't wake up in the morning and blindly choose to have faith that everything is going to be alright; I'm convinced by reasonable reflection, the constancy of God's provision, and the self-authentication of God's Word that faith in Jesus Christ has secured for me an eternal inheritance and a resurrection body of which I will one day take hold. That is why my day has purpose, and that is why I can get through bad days. I don't get that optimism, however, from some subjective feeling that I receive by feeling the beating of my own heart. At any moment that heart could stop. What hope will I have then?

"Sometimes, you have to give up on people. not because you don't care but because they don't."

 This is a bit of Pharisaical sleight of hand. The one saying it sounds noble and places the blame squarely on the one who does not reciprocate. I'm not suggesting that I have never wanted to "give up on people." I certainly have, but that is a sin for which I must repent--not a sin for which I must give a self-righteous justification. This idea leaves its speaker on a higher moral plane than the one spoken of, a concept that is foreign to the Scriptures. Even the Apostle Paul, one of the greatest Christians to live declared himself, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "the chief of sinners."

The Scriptures call us to love the world that hates us. Jesus said to follow him is to "take a up your cross." Through the prophet Hosea, God modeled his relationship to his own people. Hosea was told to take a prostitute as a wife and to pursue her with his deepest love and devotion all days of his life even if she continually committed adultery. God, forgive us if we "give up" on anyone.

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? 

Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 

(1 Corinthians 1:20, ESV)

Please, comment below with the worldly wisdom that you find on the Internet.