Diversity=disunity. Rediscovering the American Dream is our only hope.

dream

We become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams. ~Jimmy Carter

Let’s talk about the dream that once made our nation strong. This vision has nothing to do with differing anything. Where once our differences were incidental; they’re now monumental. What can we do to overcome our obstacles and achieve real unity? Rediscover our shared American Dream.

The American Dream once beckoned hopeful immigrants to come for the chance to build new lives through opportunity and freedom. If they could only get to our shores, they reasoned, they could work hard to become citizens in a nation that, far from perfect, afforded them the best chance to build new and better lives.

What happened to the American Dream? It’s been lost to the limiting, shaming and militant god of cultural diversity. If my grandfather had arrived in 2021 instead of 1909, he would find a once promising and relatively united country torn and tugged by division and a glorification of all things different.

Building barriers, not bridges

Instead of discovering a diverse nation of fellow immigrants and new citizens united by a shared dream, he’d be encouraged to cling to his cultural heritage and to resist embracing American culture—the very culture his family had scrimped and saved and sacrificed everything to join.

My grandfather would be confronted by his supposed “white privilege” even though he was more olive than white. America’s diversity dealers would demand he accept his white guilt and embrace his tribe. They don’t build bridges; they build barriers by glorifying differences.

Our once shared American Dream has been trampled and trumped by a small, but vocal minority who decry its legitimacy. A dream that galvanized generations of immigrants has been replaced by a glorification of cultural diversity.

There’s nothing wrong with cultural diversity per se—but there’s everything wrong with it when it divides rather than unites us. Diversity, with the right perspective and emphasis, makes us uniquely American.

Diversity as America

What began as a rekindling of interest in our rich ethnic and cultural origins has become an elevation of all things diverse. And by making diversity an obsession, proponents have denigrated the idea of conforming to a shared national identity.

Here’s a fun factoid:

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word “diversity” only acquired a positive connotation as recently as 1992. Since then, diversity means so much more than … well, what it actually means.

Contrary to our leaders in education, politics and the spirit of the age, diversity does not make for a Utopian paradise of differing and self-contained, yet somehow cohesive mini-cultures. Neither does it weave a strong national tapestry or create a beautiful mosaic. What did diversity mean before its meaning was co-opted?

Diversity is rooted in a Latin word for disagreement, which naturally occurs when people of differing cultures, ethnicities, religions and worldviews come together. Diversity is a close cousin to discord, which is inevitable—just as my words will create discord. Worthwhile diversity is about commitment, not division.

Commitment is constitutional

In America, what unites people with differences is a commitment to a common dream: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is a central tenet of our Constitution, which, by the way, immigrants swear by before they become citizens.

The oath, in part, is this: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America … that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Renounce allegiance … bear true faith? These words confirm a commitment to a uniquely American way of thinking, an embrace of uniquely American values and dreams. The words of the oath are a commitment to … dun dun DUN … assimilation.

Assimilation good, tribalism bad

Sadly, assimilation has been made a dirty word just as “melting pot” has been made a dirty phrase. Here’s the truth—an immigrant cannot truly commit to becoming an American nor fulfill his or her oath without assimilating.

The idea that successful immigration can occur without assimilation is a relatively new construct—and it’s naturally illogical. A foolish, mouthy minority has convinced a generation of young minds that a culture with differing beliefs, yearnings, hopes and dreams makes for a stronger society and nation. This is nonsense.

Here’s more truth: A culture with different people with differing beliefs and points of origin can be strong—but only if its people are united by a common dream.

Consider the world-changing actions of our “Greatest Generation.” Ask an elderly American what made his or her country great. They certainly don’t cringe at the mention of a melting pot. If they’re honest—and most are—they’ll tell you Jimmy Carter is full of it.

Issue of the heart

This quote by a much more effective president make much more sense: “Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections.” ~George Washington

This seems like “nationalism” because it is. Is nationalism also a dirty word? It is now. Somehow, to be a nationalistic nation is to be a racist one—even though our country have been its strongest, wisest and best when we’ve been the most nationalistic. Is it wrong to be a nationalistic superpower? Not when a nation balances its greatness with goodness.

The greatest nations in history were powerful, altruistic and influential in their time. And they were nationalistic … without being Nazi. Take this test: Think about the word nationalism. Does Nazi or Alt Right come to mind? If so, have you been influenced by an ideology?

Conversely, if nationalism makes you think about our nation coming together after Pearl Harbor or 9-11, maybe your mind is still free and historically sensitive and unencumbered by propaganda.

Logic over lunacy

Let’s look at this logically. Allow me to ask some penetrating questions regarding this diversity-as-virtue motif:

When athletes on a sports team hold differing beliefs about how to reach their goal of winning a championship, will they be as likely to become champions? If soldiers in an army have different ideas about how to win a battle and aren’t willing to follow the battle plan, will the army be as effective a fighting force?

When employees of a company don’t conform to a singular business model to achieve profitability, will the company stand the best chance to succeed? If we hold differing beliefs, yearnings, hopes and dreams, can we be strong as a nation?

Never too late

Yes, we can, but only if we lose the hyphen and see ourselves as Americans first and foremost. We desperately need to re-examine this infatuation with elevating and glorifying cultural differences. If you want to appreciate other cultures, please do so, but don’t do it at the expense of a shared American culture.

The opportunity to pursue happiness and the American Dream can be as inviting, accepting and amazing for us and our children and grandchildren as it was for our great-grandparents and their parents.

We’re different, but let’s be different together—as Americans. Let’s resist the diversity despots who create barriers between us by glorifying our differences. By coming together, we can recapture what Americans do best—excel by pursuing a shared dream of freedom, opportunity and goodness through commitment.

Cali Crazy: A Texan’s take on the Golden State—part 4—Speed humps, crosswalks and men at work

Californians

The way Californians see traffic and pedestrians is a funny thing. It’s like the way they look at guns and people—instead of teaching humans to handle cars and firearms with care and common sense, they discriminate against the very things that can’t learn a thing—vehicles.

Take this crosswalk conundrum, for instance. What makes more sense—requiring a driver to stop a 7,000-plus pound pickup truck for a lone pedestrian waiting at a crosswalk or for the pedestrian to wait ’til the coast is clear and cross without the danger of another driver in the far lane running ’em over?

It’s about momentum … and physics

Is it me, or don’t it seem like human nature to wanna keep the momentum going in a vehicle rather than stopping for someone who should have sense enough to cross when it’s safe? Humans can stop on a dime, but vehicles take a lot more coin to come to a halt.

By now, you where this is going … things are done a whole lot different in Texas.

It’s more like the Old West there than it is in the Old West here. Texans decide for themselves when to cross the road based on their trusty eyeballs. In California, people rely on laws that establish bipedal supremacy instead of using their noggins.

Californians

Speed humps? Follow me, Californians.

Then there are these silly California “speed humps.” Speed humps? Those are what you see at a dog park. Where I come from, speed humps are called speed BUMPS. But either way, they’re just as annoying. These pesky little mounds of asphalt not only slow you down, they really exercise your pedal patience.

In Texas, you might find a couple of ’em in a strip mall parking lot. But in some parts of California, they’re placed every 30 feet or so. I dunno—maybe the powers that be think the more you annoy drivers, the safer they drive.

And then you got the “Follow Me” escort trucks that state lawmakers think are necessary to “Pilot” people safely past men (and women) at work on roads, bridges and, in the Sierra Nevada, piles of fallen rock. Here’s a Texas tip—use a few traffic cones and put the guys or girls holding STOP signs to work to make things go faster.

Californians
I can see this road work system making sense on two-lane roads, but they seem to employ it for just about any road. And most times, there are four or five workers loitering around watching two people do the work, anyways. They must be unionized.

Too much of a good thing

Public safety is paramount around here. It takes precedence over—like so many other things in California—good sense and personal responsibility. Maybe this stuff is another way the smart folks in Sacramento protect us from ourselves.

Where I come from, people protect themselves by making smart pedestrian and traffic decisions. It’s like how we teach our kids: “Wait ’til there are no cars comin’, Tommy, then cross the road.” The only laws we need are the laws of physics—big, heavy machines take a lot longer to stop than itty-bitty people.

So, let ’em blow by, and go when it’s clear.

The Shack: A rickety Emerging Church construct concealed in a stirring story of spiritual discovery

God

You know the feeling when someone describes you as someone you’re not? I do. I don’t like it. At all. I wonder how God feels about being misrepresented in The Shack?

Emotion and identification are powerful components of good fiction. William P. Young uses both effectively to craft a readable and powerful yarn that’s inspiring to many, confusing to others, and disheartening to me.

And now comes the movie version and another round of fresh emotions. Thanks, Hollywood.

What does The Shack have to do with the emerging church? Everything.

But first, what IS the emerging church? It’s a movement started by disaffected evangelical Christians who initially sought to make church more relevant in our postmodern age. In doing so, like Young with The Shack, they recreated a god, Christ-figure and spirit they can live with.

Young’s god in The Shack is a portly African-American woman named Papa who is warm, loving and accommodating in contrast with the cold, distant and demanding deity Young claims is the God of the Protestant Bible.

In a 2013 interview, Young said this:

“I’m a missionary kid and a preacher’s kid—evangelical, fundamental Protestant … You know, that’s about as distant from relationship with God as you can get. And it’s always been you know, religion that has been the primary impediment to actual relationship with God, because it creates a mythology about performance—that you can perform your way into the appeasement of the deity.”

God

Not to invalidate Young’s personal experience,

But don’t fundamental Protestants believe the Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches that there is nothing anyone can do to appease God? Hence the necessity of Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross? If Jesus’ life and death removes “the impediment to actual relationship with God,” what does Young mean by a “mythology” about performance?

What I think Young means is this:

Many emerging church adherents believe that evangelical Christianity’s teaching about sin and our response to it in light of Christ’s sacrifice is a performance-based appeasement strategy. This is because they believe God is only love, like Papa, and does not require a response to Christ’s atoning death.

And because emerging churchers do not consider the Bible reliable, they can dismiss its teachings that God is a holy and sometimes angry God. Just as they dismiss the existence of Hell and believe that God will forgive all, no matter their lifelong rejection of him. In the end, you see, love wins. And justice loses.

God

Lost in translation?

There are no examples of performance-based mythologies in the Protestant Bible. It has always been about Grace. But many in or sympathetic to the emerging church say they never felt like they fit in with evangelical churches. Or they decry evangelical pastors’ preaching about heaven and hell and the response to each for the Christian.

Perhaps they refer to Jesus’ Gospel teachings like this one in John 3:36 as a performance-based myth: “He who believes the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Ah. So perhaps this is the hang-up: People like Young have a problem with Protestant beliefs that call for obedience—or using their translation—performance. Can you imagine Young’s Jesus in The Shack uttering such absolute and intolerant words?

God’s word?

Young, like other adherents of his belief system, reject or affirm Jesus’ words based on what they choose to believe about him. When many in the emerging church do not believe the Bible is God’s word and cherry-pick it to build their construct, anything and everything is on or off the table.

In depicting God as a black woman, the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman and Jesus as a Jewish carpenter—all of which are all love all the time—Young covers many progressive bases—feminism and the anti-paternal God, universalism and the humanization of Christ.

God

Papa is no Aslan

Some will point out Young’s Papa is merely an allegorical device as, they say, is C.S. Lewis’ Aslan. This comparison is faulty for two reasons: Lewis’ Narnia is allegory, and Aslan is an alternate-world Christ-like figure; Young’s The Shack is didactic (meant to teach) and his Papa and Sarayu are depictions of God and the Holy Spirit, not allegorical devices.

For a better discussion of the differences between Papa and Aslan, feel free to read Tim Challies’ Why Papa of The Shack Is not Aslan of Narnia.

For an accurate description of Aslan, I leave it to the characters of C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia:

“Is—is he a man?” asked Lucy.

“Aslan a man!” said Mr. Beaver sternly. “Certainly not. I tell you he is King of the wood and the son of the great Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea. Don’t you know who is the King of Beasts? Aslan is a lion—the Lion, the great Lion.”

“Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”

“That you will, dearie, and no mistake” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”

“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.

“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”

God

Young’s Trinity is a triad of his own creation

Granted, many will find encouragement in a safe, passive Papa, a mousy and mysterious Sarayu and a bumbling, comical Jesus. I know that some feel burned by fellow sinners and pastors of traditional American Protestant churches, and I realize that The Shack is a balm to many.

I recently exchanged emails with my former pastor who thinks the movie version of The Shack can spiritually help “millions of people.” I certainly hope not. If helping millions requires misrepresenting God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus, please William P. Young and those behind The Shack film, don’t help us.

Stripping God and the other members of the Trinity of their purity and holiness and “dangerousness” while denigrating and dismissing the beauty and sufficiency of the Gospel and Christ’s atonement, as The Shack does, is no help at all.

This will help grow the emerging church; and it will help grow Young’s and the movie makers’ bank accounts. But it won’t help grow genuine faith in a loving, holy and just God.

The Shack distracts and confuses people from seeing God as he is and seeks to depict him as Young and others want him to be. This is a shame and a sham. It’s also a foolish misrepresentation.

Give me a dangerous Warrior-God who’s also the ultimate loving father over a passive Papa any day of the week and twice on Sunday.