Who Should We Fight Today?
(Reminds me of the old Casting Crowns line, “Nobody knows what we’re for, only what we’re against”)
I had an interesting conversation with a coworker the other day. A bit of background—I knew moving to North GA would be a challenge on the political/social issues front. I don’t really belong in any camp, and the last several years have only escalated tension among certain groups, including those which I have historically claimed. And I don’t love stereotyping, but this individual has lived in North GA their entire life. Owns hundreds of guns. Loves Trump. Professes some type of church background. Knows everyone in all surrounding towns. So we are friendly, and make daily conversations. We joke and have a good time. But if we had serious conversation about modern issues, I’m sure we couldn’t find 15 things where we agree.
So they enter the office area and say, “So I heard…” And I immediately cringe, cause I knew there were only a handful of topics that could follow such an opening. Gender debates. Presidential candidates. Foreign enemies. Or it could be something about the job. I was already planning my conversational escape.
“I heard that BudLight /Annheuser Busch have lost 27 billion dollars since all this started happening.” —All this obviously being their advertisement with a transgender individual.
So I took a second.
Do I want to dive into the intricacies of transgenderism today? Do I want to listen to monologue on how awful people are and how the nation is going down the drain? Is there a “pebble” I can put in the shoe, just to allow someone to chew on something later on?
I said, “Well, that may not be the statement you think it is. Labels really don’t matter today, and I try to avoid them (I was trying to avoid political vs. evangelical “conservatives”). But there’s a group of people, apparently, that disagree with what BudLight is doing. You can call them whatever you want. At the same time, that group of people used to drink 27 billion dollars worth of beer.”
Their response: “So the moral compass is off.”
“Something like that. Compass or foundation for what / why we are making decisions. Either truth/ tradition/ community beliefs.”
And that’s where we sort of ended.
I lose track of all the things “we” are supposed to be boycotting. I remember when it was Netflix, Starbucks (of course, cause of their “holiday” cups), Disney’s always an easy shoo-in, Target’s big right now, Google and Amazon. Shoot—now people are even doing Chick-fil-a because they have a DEI page on their website. (O, and don’t forget the public school system in general, depending on where you live).
So what I’m about to say doesn’t mean that I agree with some decisions that all companies or schools make. It also doesn’t mean that refusing to use the services provided by these companies is stupid. If I don’t want to shop somewhere because of their company decisions, that’s fine. But being bold and proud about my boycott doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Someone pointed me to the list of 147 companies that have monopoly, and that can probably be narrowed down to a handful that really affect me. I may want to cancel my ESPN + subscription, but a higher company is still going to get money from other purchases I make, so what’s the point. And in the food world, there’s only like 4 or 5 companies that own nearly everything.
The point???
A. I could become a farmer, buy some land, go live in the hills, and abandon everything.
B. I could not care about what anyone else does and blindly go through life without any discernment whatsoever.
I think I’m getting the hang of this polarized positions thing.
Most who argue about CRT in schools or enter gender debates/ drag queens, or more/less gun laws use children as the focus of their conversation. We don’t want them to be mindlessly influenced one way or another before they can think. And we don’t want their future to be ruined by …well…us.
So I guess we could use the boycott route. The culture war route. The argue with people about pretty much everything route. Cancel things we don’t like and then get offended when we are not allowed to speak our mind.
I am settling into a different perspective, though. When it comes to culture, I want to listen and engage. I want to speak on an individual level rather than attack “them” as a group. Getting to know personal stories and learning why people do what they do is more informative and effective than talking about/against them online or in my own circle of friends.
And when it comes to my children, sure I want to shield and protect them. I’m a dad. I never want them to get hurt in any sense. But they have, and they will. Physically, emotionally, socially. So when it comes to culture, do I want to cut them off from the discussions? Remove them from any dangerous influence—so that when they’re 13-18 they become so curious and stubborn that I not only see them make foolish decisions but perhaps lose the relationship?
No. Of course, there’s no guarantee of the kids making any great decisions or of the relationship remaining in tact. It takes great effort (and I have no experience in those later years, yet). I know tremendous parents whose relationship with older children is strained—so I know there’s no guarantee.
My conclusion is that I simply choose to disciple family rather than ban the world altogether. We can ask questions of things and discern together rather than remove everything from the house. We can seek a biblical worldview of things rather than snip ties with anything cultural. And the more they see us navigating these decisions as a family, they will be prepared to make those decisions on their own.
Discipleship is a parent’s call and purpose. I want to be the one to do it, not a school or government, or church, or social club anyway. And hopefully, some of the things we discuss and learn together will impact them for their whole lives.
And then we can go eat at Chick-fil-a.
No comments:
Post a Comment