Vaccine Safety and Skepticism: A Father’s Perspective

Up until a few years ago, I basically trusted the medical establishment. Sure, even then I would question—like I do with everything else—and then make my own analysis the risks, costs and benefits. My mom’s rule of thumb “everything in moderation” seems to be reasonable in most circumstances. But I’ve grown more skeptical and not because I believe there is a conspiracy to make us all unhealthy either. I just think hubris can be blinding and institutions compromised.

So when it came time to decide whether or not to vaccinate my newborn daughter, my feelings were mixed. She is too precious to gamble. It is my job to protect her. And for that reason I needed to take another look at the question of childhood vaccines. This is my analysis as someone who is not trained in biology, I’m not a medical professional or an expert in any way, shape or form. This is merely the thought process of a concerned father wanting to do what is right and didn’t like the answers he was getting from those ‘credible’ sources.

So join me in a critical look at the topic of childhood vaccines and some things that raised my eyebrows as far as the science, some ethical questions raised recently and the online testimonials versus professional advice. It would take a book to properly cover a topic of this magnitude, but this is an overview and give some reasons for the decision I’ve made. This is a reach into the barrel to examine a few apples and get a little better picture of what else we may find upon further review.

Science: Ingestion… Injection… What Difference Does It Make?

One of my “does their own research” friends reposted a chart posted by Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) showing the safe amounts of aluminum versus the amount injected with the hepB vaccine—according to their post, 250mcg is an amount 75x more than what is considered safe to be in the bloodstream of a 7.3lb infant. That sounds bad. But this information does beg a few questions.

First, why is aluminum toxic over a certain amount?

Second, does an injection go into the bloodstream?

And, third, why is this in the shot?

What was disconcerting is when I went CDC and WebMD sites and found that they were making an inaccurate comparison. In their defense of aluminum in vaccines they made a case based on the safe amounts to ingest and yet vaccines are injected. This is that kind of presentation that would leads fact-checkers to declare it misleading if it was in a Trump speech. Maybe my neighbor with the “believe science” placard in their yard isn’t going to notice this sleight of hand, but I certainly did. It certainly didn’t assure me much about their actual authority when they tried to pass to different means of entering the body as one and the same.

However, the PIC information is equally as misleading. And they know it. The post is talking about safe amounts of aluminum in the bloodstream. And yet vaccines are not injected directly into blood vessels. No, the shot goes into soft tissue and the aluminum is slowly dissolved from there. So clearly it is not aiding a mission of informed consent anymore than the drug company sponsored content. It’s just propaganda. It is put out to feed the confirmation bias of anti-vaxxers and muddies the waters. The freaked out #protectyourkids mothers are not going to ask further questions.

The bigger question is what aluminum does in large amounts. Words like “toxic” can be tossed around in the same manner of Nazi or racist. But slapping a label of something does not make it accurate description nor is it equal to comprehension of the topic. The same authority establishing a “safe” versus “unsafe” levels of aluminum also tells us to get vaccinated. The whole point of adding aluminum is as an adjuvant, it is supposed to provoke an immune response and only is bad when it begins to build up—typically it is just expelled from the body without doing any damage.

Practically speaking one would need to be an expert on toxicology to truly know what ‘the science’ is and give informed consent, the rest of us are merely picking which side we want to trust. For me, I lean towards the consensus over the outliers, what it means is generally not ranking a relatively group—like PIC—over the larger group of physicians (who have children themselves) and believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. Yes, professionals have blindspots, they are more married to the system too as bigger beneficiaries, but they’re also smart people trying to help and heal.

Ethics: Myth of the Abstaining Amish and Abortion Cells

One of those claims that come up over and over again online is that Amish are healthier because they don’t get the vaccines. Given what I know, working with Amish, I’ll put this somewhere between “96% of statistics are made up on the spot” and “Amish don’t pay taxes,” because it is just plain untrue. Back in 2011 my sister, a medical doctor, worked on a survey of 1000 Amish people and their attitudes towards vaccines. 85% of those surveyed had vaccinated at least some of their children. Sure, Amish lag behind the general population, and uptake varies as they’re not a monolith, and attitudes have likely shifted in the post-Covid era, but they aren’t totally abstinent—just hesitant.

To get into the complexity of the picture, in my brief survey of my office co-workers (I work for an Amish-owned company) there was an interesting anecdote. Apparently, his mother contracted measles while she was carrying one of his older sisters. The result were complications and his sister’s lifelong health issues. Needless to say, his mom became more in favor of vaccines after this and that has been the story for some time. The discomfort of subjecting our children to shots looms larger until we get a first-hand experience with the actual disease. A day or two of soreness and high temperatures is better than measles, polio, or other preventable diseases. The ethics shift towards the risk of intervention.

Speaking of ethics, another coworker—not Amish—piped up about how vaccines use aborted fetuses. This is technically true in the case of some vaccines, I’ll let Grok give a brief explanation:

Certain vaccines—like those for rubella, chickenpox, and some hepatitis strains—rely on cell lines originally derived from fetal tissue decades ago. These aren’t “aborted embryos” in the sense of fresh tissue being scooped up and tossed into a vat. Instead, we’re talking about two specific cell lines: WI-38 and MRC-5. WI-38 came from a fetus aborted in the 1960s in Sweden (elective, legal termination), and MRC-5 from a similar case in the UK. Scientists took lung cells from those fetuses, grew them in labs, and kept them replicating ever since. These cell lines are immortalized—meaning they’ve been dividing for generations, far removed from the original source.

Why use them? Viruses for vaccines (like rubella or varicella) often need human cells to grow, and these lines are stable, well-studied, and safe for producing big batches. The cells aren’t in the vaccine itself—they’re like a factory. The virus is grown in them, then harvested, purified, and processed so the final shot has no fetal cells, just the viral bits needed to trigger immunity. Think of it like using yeast to make beer—the yeast doesn’t end up in your bottle.

This longer explanation does not have the same punch as “they use aborted fetuses to make vaccines.” But, for me, it answers the ethical question. This use of these two cell lines to save lives is basically equivalent to planting of a flower garden over the grave of a murder victim. I’m no more guilty of that than I am for the land under my feet being soaked in the blood of conquered people. It is just what is. What was done is done and refusing to use vaccines derived from those cell lines is not going to restore the life that was taken. I have more of a problem with the characterization of this being too vague to give proper understanding.

The soil under our feet is soaked in blood, but not an ethical dilemma to put to good use.

In the end, both sides of this debate peddle their myths, misinformation and deception, calling those mRNA Covid jabs “safe and effective” one of those establishment lines that fell flat in the test of time. But, for me the ethics of putting my children at risk of preventable disease outweighs misgivings about something done over 50 years ago. We can’t bring back those killed, but we can make their lives worthwhile and honor the legacy they’ve created for us. My opinion would be vastly different if they were still harvesting fetal tissue to grow viruses.

It is more important that we are honest than we win a debate. There’s no excuse for the repeated and easily debunked claims about Amish or aborted cells to be shared. Those in the “do their own research” crowd need to do better. When I see people share videos made by a chiropractor, in a lab coat, going only by doctor, it makes me question their judgement more than anything else. Being an expert in doing bone adjustments is one thing, biology is completely another. People aren’t very good about picking their sources, let alone producing coherent ethics.

Tragedy Testimonials Versus Professional Recommendations

Another thing I’ve come across, on social media, is that case of a child that died very shortly after the vaccine was administered. The grieving parents, one of them a nurse, disagree with the autopsy report, that cited SIDS, and put blame on the shots. First off, the pain of losing a child is beyond anything else I’ve ever experienced (you can read my personal account, “The Day My Little Hope Died“) and always will leave many questions for those left behind. Second, in this case, it may feel better to externalize blame.

I’ll admit, I was a little put off by my medical provider (a Physician’s Assistant) who just brushed off my concerns about too much—too soon. This is my little darling, and it is my job to protect her, so at least entertain my anxieties a little. So that part where of her worry about her son’s sickness prior to getting a dose of vaccines being dismissed does resonate. That doctor should have shown a little more respect for a mother’s intuition and a nurse’s instincts. That said, we’re only getting one side of the story and from the perspective of someone not really in a good state of mind.

Just taking the testimonial at face value—not verifying any of the claims—they give a clue about what really happened with their own choice of words:

Melissa, who worked remotely, heard the baby fussing around 6:15 p.m. Her husband went in to check on him. He readjusted him, and rubbed his back as Fathers do. Baby Sawyer fell back to sleep.

When we were in the hospital for the birth of our daughter, before we took her home, they pounded it into our heads not to put loose items in her crib with her and never to allow her to sleep belly down. This is about SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) when a perfectly healthy baby is put to bed, often laying on their belly, suffers from positional asphyxia and dies. Infants are completely helpless, they can’t readjust their position if their airway is somehow restricted and they could be gone in a matter of minutes.

So that particular paragraph really jumped out at me. I’m very sensitive to how people structure their thoughts, the phrases, and I have even identified a false accuser once only on the basis of the use of words that were conveyed through another person in a paraphrase. When I saw “as Fathers do” it came off as a slightly defensive posture—most especially next to “rubbed his back” in the context of a sleeping infant. One hand they’re being as honest as they are able to be in the circumstances. On the other hand they’ve just given corroborating evidence for the official autopsy report.

They can be forgiven for their blame game. It is hard enough to lose a child, but totally unthinkable to believe something you did may have contributed. When Sanyiah died I stopped speaking to two of my siblings (not that they noticed as busy as they were) for a year or two. Why? Well, they both were not at the funeral, in my mind they did not care enough about the little people in their lives (that meaning my ex-fiance who had personal ties to them) and were, in a round about way, part of the problem that caused the child’s death.

The real reason my anger was taken out on them, however, was that psychological need we have to find a scapegoat. And Melissa, rather than pile on her husband, which won’t help, has pointed somewhere else instead—which is better than their negative feelings being turned in on the marriage. It is a way of coping with tragedy. As far as testimonials go, three of my cousins had a seizure disorder, one of them died and two of them are severely disabled. After their issues with the first child, they decided not to vaccinate. But this made no difference in the end. The impulse to blame intervention is strong, yet correlation isn’t causation and often the truth is messier than those simple narratives we prefer.

In the case of baby Sawyer, it doesn’t have to be one thing or another. The risk factors for SIDS include both second hand smoke and overheating. It seems quite possible a bunch of vaccines, on top of being already sick, and then possibly being on their belly, all contributed to the end result. Medical professionals face big liabilities if they are at fault. There is a tendency to circle the wagons or become tight lipped rather than speculate when million dollar lawsuits can be the result. So maybe in a perfect world vaccines would be a bigger part of the SIDS discussion?

Still, aluminum in the bloodstream does not cause suffocation and 34 hours later is not description of a biological mechanism that links the injection to the outcome.

A Respectful Conclusion, My Final Risk Analysis…

No parent ever wants to be responsible for the suffering or death of their child. When I see my daughter’s eyes looking up at me it melts my heart. She already has me totally wrapped around her finger and I would not do anything that put her at an unnecessary risk. There is a temptation to take the “If it isn’t broke don’t fix it” approach to vaccines or basically do nothing. At least this way an intervention you signed off on didn’t directly cause the harm. Without the nudge of the doctor’s office I might fall off the schedule they have simply because it feels better.

But the body of evidence points to benefits that outweigh the risks. That is to say there are risks, vaccine injury is real, but there are risks to everything we do or don’t do. Would anyone have stepped on board the Titanic if they knew the icy ordeal that awaited them in the middle of the night? In 2022, motor vehicle accidents took the lives of 42,514 people. And yet we don’t see emotional testimonials online about the “mistake” it was to drive to Kansas or trying to caution us against this dangerous activity. This is because we have normalized the risk and tune it out—that and we think that only the bad drivers die when any of us could.

What could be improved is a little respect all around.

First off, this advice applies to the medical establishment. From Fauci on down there has been this attitude of near contempt for those who question their authority. A prime example is the statement of Dr Fauci when faced with scrutiny:

So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous. To me, that’s more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me. I’m not going to be around here forever, but science is going to be here forever. And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave. And that’s what I worry about.

Beyond hybris. Beyond martyr complex and a misdiagnosis of the situation. No, Fauci, you cannot say “I am the law” like a rouge police officer. That’s not science, that is just a delusion. Sure, it sucks to be questioned in your own area of expertise. I think this is why some physicians do sometimes gloss over concerns of patients. But this is what damages the credibility of the institutions of science more than anything else. When the top doctor confuses “the science” with his own position he’s dangerous.

Second, those of us self-educated people, who have not gone through that rigorous process of medical school or taken any kind of advanced biology course should remain humble. No, my lack of proper terminology does not make me an idiot. Nor should a nurse and mother’s concerns about her sick baby getting shots be dismissed. But “did your own research,” while in the lobby of the chiropractor, does not make you an expert or unbiased.

In the end, no parent wants to gamble with their child’s life. Staring into my daughter’s trusting eyes, I feel the weight of that responsibility—and the pull to do nothing, to avoid any chance of harm through action. Yet, after sifting through the science, wrestling with ethical dilemmas, and listening to both heartbreaking stories and professional guidance, I’ve landed on this: the evidence tilts toward vaccines’ benefits outweighing their risks. It’s not a perfect system—vaccine injuries happen, and the medical establishment could stand to listen better—but the data holds up against the diseases they prevent. We all deserve more humility and respect in this conversation, from doctors to doubters like me. For my little girl, I’m choosing the path that keeps her safest, not just from needles, but from what they guard against.

Hit me up in the comments section below with your most powerful arguments for or against childhood vaccines.

Do you vaccinate your children, why or why not?

Never Meet Your Heros

I have lost all of my heroes. The expression, “Never meet your heroes, because they’re sure to disappoint you,” describes the painful realization that those great people you imagined are not as special as you believed they were. It could be the letdown a friend had when he heard Matt Walsh speak. It could be a family that learned their eldest brother was cheating on his wife for many years and was not some image of virtue. For me it was a process and a very long grinding away of faith in these figures.

I was never one for human idols. I never put posters of celebrity faces on my bedroom wall and would never be as impressed with figures like Ravi Zacharias as some of my friends. It wasn’t a religious thing nor something just to be ornery. I simply didn’t have a feeling of awe about these personalities that were mid. The people I most admired tended to be local—my blue collar dad, my missionary cousin, or that perfect girl I would marry some day. But time has removed all from the pedestals.

Those women of my youth would end up as the cheating wife or more interested in status than my sincerity. My dad no longer looks like that man I remember who could carry me on his shoulders (with me hanging on for death life) up a silo ladder, and that zealousness of the ‘compassionate’ types tends to morph into a noxious ideological alignment that is really anything but they profess. They say that they want the Kingdom, but have replaced faith in God with fraudulent human institutions.

And I’m not just talking about the apologists for CAM in the wake of the Jeriah Mast and years of coverup aftermath. “Oh, but this is an organization that does such good!” What I’m talking about is something fully revealed since the DOGE ax has fallen on USAID. I grew up believing in the strict separation of church and state—that a colonial expansion of Christianity was tainted and this at completely odds with the teachings of Jesus about His kingdom not being of this world.

My views have certainly evolved—having left my religious cloister—but I’m still appalled by the thoughtlessness of people who I had once thought were smart and uncompromised.

Banality of Evil: When Ends Justify the Means

The Anabaptists, after the disaster of Münster, had committed to a quiet life of separation. It is why those in Old Order groups have refused participation in Social Security and other kinds of government benefits. Mutual aid should be voluntary and Christian charity is not obtained through coercion. Sure, the power of the state is alluring, that temptation (driven by our ego) to rule over others because we know what is best or they are undeserving of the resources they have—I have had many of those “if I were king” moments—but there is no stopping point when you fail to resist the siren song.

Left-wing politics always clothe themselves in a kind of compassion. Surely you will not oppose helping these children, right? And I am pragmatic to the extent I’m glad starving children are fed by any means. But opening the Pandora’s box of leftist means is always a slippery-slope to more use of state power and, inevitably, to leftist utopian cost-benefit analysis where everyone who opposes us is a literal Nazi and, therefore, we’re justified to stop them with violence. When coercion is allowed as a means of obtaining the ends we desire there is no stopping point.

The worst form of evil has good intentions. It is that of those who imagine themselves as the hero of their own narrative and thus allowed to bend the rules. This explains the extreme narcissism of Luigi Mangione who saw himself as a worthy judge of a father of two and a husband to a practicing physical therapist. There was no need for this leftist murderer to look inward, he had completely externalized evil and turned other men into caricature representatives of truly complex multi-faceted problems. When the ends can justify the means we’ll justify any means.

Pastor Jim Jones preaches his counterfeit Gospel before being abandoned by the US government and having to free his cult from bondage with some poison laced Kool-aid.

Seeing someone I thought was a Christian missionary lament how the United States had “abandoned” them was a reminder of how the great have fallen. There was not a shred of gratitude expressed towards the American taxpayers who financed them nor acknowledgement of the misappropriation of funds that has wearied voters to foreign aid. But more stunning to me was unholy alliance between this person of faith and agencies of US imperialism. Since when has the love of Jesus become an extension of the US regime abroad? Are they of the kingdom, as they proclaim, or agents of empire?

USAID, despite the name, is certainly not a charitable organization and was formed in 1961, at the height of the Cold War, with an aim of promoting the interests of the US political regime. That’s fine. But it has long ago gone off the rails even as far as what it was originally imagined. The Soviet Union had fallen and the Federal agency created to oppose it morphed from something most would support into a beacon of wokeness—pushing transgenderism and abortion.

Break the Yoke of Fraudulence

The reason why USAID is being dismantled is because we can’t sort the legitimate from illegitimate function of the agency. Sure, it may help people in need, but funding it also is enabling of evil and maintained through a system of coercion we call taxes. Anything good that it did can be done through other means. This functional fixedness of those who depend of government, especially on the part of those professing Christ, makes me wonder where their faith lies and what their actual mission is.

The merger of a Christian charitable cause with government doesn’t purify government—it taints the witness:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17 NIV)

The accusations of “Christian nationalism” against those who want a government that performs basic functions were always just a smear by those in alliance with imperialism and Godless globalism. While I’m not a fan of God and country, at least the flag waving religious patriot knows there is a difference between their Christian mission and secular state. The left, by contrast, confuses these categories and would have social program replace true charity and community aid. In one case you have those who may tend to overreverence nation, but in the other there are those who truly represent empire and yet tell us they their only citizenship is the kingdom of heaven.

The truth is that the ‘Christian’ left is simply the left merely wearing the words of Christ as a disguise for ideological agenda. Those decrying the reduction of empire and return to responsible governance never said thank you to those funding their do-gooderism. It was, for them, all about holding those “chief seats in the synagogue” and their own glory as humanitarians. They may speak against Trump, but then have never uttered a word against the waste, fraud and abuse that has made these broad sweeping cuts popular with common people.

The true Christian spirit is that of a Federal employee who told me about the enormous amount of inefficiency and waste in his own agency and—while making no profession of faith—supports the effort of DOGE knowing it may impact his employment. That, to me, is someone who understands self-sacrifial love more than someone feeding the poor on another person’s dime and then going to social media to complain when their funds are cut. They’re grandstanding. While my Federal employee friend is a truly humble public servant who is grateful and not biting the hand that feeds him.

None of this to say this “abandoned” former hero of mine is a bad person. They clearly are using their abilities to help other people in desperate need. I applaud that. And yet their public statement betrays. There is an attitude or spirit there that is different from Christ. I would much rather they just be a secular humanist—subscribed to partisan leftist politics—and own it. They should just admit that they’ve abandoned faith in Jesus and are looking for a worldly system. Judas Iscariot is the patron saint of faithless social justice, guilt trips and envy—when you betray your calling just own it.

JD Vance’s Theological Take: Directionally Right, Semantically Shaky

Great theology is not something I expect out of our politicians. Or at least not in the manner of a Western theologian. Theology, in the Protestant West, where Christianity is more about the mental exercise than about practical application. Unfortunately there are many great moral thinkers who are not good people. For example, John Howard Yoder, once the go-to Anabaptist pacifism explainer later disgraced by the many credible allegations of sexual abuse. Our theology is what we practice, not what we preach.

Needless to say, we won’t be reviewing “The Politics of Jesus” any time soon (although it may be fun at some point) and what we will do instead is parse a curious statement that was made by Vice-president JD Vance:

There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritise the rest of the world.

My first impression is mixed. Vance should probably stick to politics rather than delving into theology. I’m not sure he has a perfect understanding of what “neighbor” actually means in the Gospel sense. But his point that love starts local has merit. It is also important to note that the context of this is a moment of history where the second term of Trump administration, his America-first doctrine, and the dismantling of USAID and other arms of US imperialism.

Rather than disagree or agree with Vance, it is my intention to go through his statement line by line and, after that determine if he’s directionally right even if a bit wrong about semantic details. Where does Christianity (or the Gospel) teach us to love first?

“There is a Christian concept that you love your family…”

Objection, your honor! Jesus specifically taught us to hate our family (Luke 14:26) and, therefore, this JD Vance guy is just another Christian nationalist. Crucify him, crucify him! Oh, wait, you mean Jesus, on the cross no less, was assigning care for his mother (John 19:25-29) and had bashed the religious elites who neglected their own parents (Mark 7:11-12) claiming that their money was being set aside for God?

If there is any uncertainty left, the Epistle makes clear:

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8 NIV)

Care for our families is a first and foremost priority and should be. What Vance did not make clear is what my high school coaches summarized better, in regards to priorities as, “Faith, family and then football.” Jesus, in saying to “hate” our family was employing a bit of hyperbole, his point was that we first follow him and after that put everything else in our lives. It is not one or the other, but it is getting the correct order.

“…and then you love your neighbour…”

This probably is the weakest part, in terms of rhetoric, that the Vice-president said and it is because of how Jesus so radically had reframed the Jewish discussion of his day and broadened the term “neighbor” to pretty much mean anyone we cross paths with. I am talking about his story which involved a good Samaritan and an immediate need.

When asked by a religious law expert, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus, sensing the man was trying to justify himself (or his lack of compassion for those outside the Jewish tradition) changes the question. Instead of asking who to love, Jesus reframed to make it about how to love. The punch of using a Samaritan as the good guy of the account would be similar to telling a story, in Israel today, about a good Palestinian or going to the DNC and using an example of a good MAGA hat wearing redneck.

Vance appears to be using “neighbor” in the more conventional sense. He’s not talking about the stranger, in need of help, that we meet along the road. Nor how to be a good neighbor, as Jesus did in response to a man trying to justify his own narrow exclusionary take on who is a neighbor, which is actually reflective of the Jewish law:

“‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. “ ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:17-18 NIV)

Neighbor is clearly qualified, by context, as a “fellow Israelite” or “your people” and not the broader use. Nevertheless, what Jesus does is turn the question around on the one asking for sake of an exemption. The true message is that we correct our own heart and fix our attitude towards those we hold in low regard. Americans should learn to love their neighbors no matter who they’ve voted for last election. Love starts local, it isn’t about ethnicity, race or politics, and is all about what we personally are doing for those whom we meet along the way.

“…and then you love your community…”

Community, in the Biblical sense, would be the community of believers. A Christian is supposed to be devoted to fellowship (Acts 2:42, 1 John 1:7) carry each other’s burdens (Gal 6:2), maintain unity (Eph 4:3) and love one another so that the world knows that you follow after Christ (John 13:5), which is local and also not ahead of obligation to our own families. Charity is a provision for both Godly widows and orphans. It doesn’t make mention of free condoms for foreigners nor giving to those outside the Church:

Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

[…]

No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. (1 Timothy 5:3-4;9-10 NIV)

As we see above, Christian community aid is conditional. No, this does not mean we cannot extend compassion to the broader community beyond the Church—only that it is an obligation within the body of believers first—starts with our brothers and sisters in Christ (James 2:15-16) before it goes out to the community beyond. As St Paul told the church in Galatia, we should “do good for all people,” but “especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” (Gal 6:10)

So, God, family, church community, and then…

“…and then you love your fellow citizens…”

This is probably the concept that is most difficult to find. On one hand the Church did send missionaries from Judea throughout the Roman Empire. But, probably drawing on my Anabaptist roots (where there is this tendency to over-literalize everything but the body and blood of Christ), we are told we’re “citizens of heaven” and so loving citizens is not necessarily about the country, state or nation. However, we are told to submit to our human authorities and institutions:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17 NIV)

Where many from my religious background go wrong is by putting worldly government and citizenship at odds with the heavenly kingdom. This is wrong. No early Christian renounced their citizenship. St Paul did not and there are many places where they tell us to respect even secular government as being ordained by God. A Christian should not opposed to the punishment of evil (Rom 13:17) and should be a model citizen.

So it does make sense that this expanding bubble of love, from God to family to church to community would continue to growing to also include our fellow citizens. No, nation should never come before obedience to our moral conscience. But it is important that we respect institutions and the people they represent. It is appropriate to show a little respect to the flag, to remember those who died to fighting for an ideal, and to love the people of our own nation—like Jesus who spent his entire ministry amongst his own people that he loved first and foremost.

“…and then after that, prioritise the rest of the world.”

So now we’ve come to the final part of the expanding arc Vance described. Once we have fulfilled our commitment to our other priorities, then we should go beyond these borders to save the world.

The Great Commission is probably better described as the great omission the way it is used by those who fail to read carefully and miss the “wait, then” at heart of this—they rush forward, so full of answers, full of themselves and feelings of being superior to their peers. They can be Evangelicals or they can be young Marxists, but they have been indoctrinated and do not realize what they’ve missed while running out to prove their phony virtue has no bounds.

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

[…]

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:4-8 NIV)

First in Jerusalem, their own city or people, then to Judea their state and neighbors—then on to Samaria, a region inhabitated by their enemies and then, finally they were to go to the whole world. That order is not a mistake. And those who ignore it are going on their own power, their own authority, and often contribute to hell more than they ever do salvation. Grandiose visions are so nice, such a comfort for the delusional, we want to believe we are better for our having more stamps on our passports and these global ambitions.

So, maybe Vance didn’t articulate it well or use terms in the same exact manner of as a doctor of theology, but lets not nitpick him or play semantic games, his concept of our help starting local (the need along our path or a Lazarus lying literally at our front gate), before going out from there, has very solid basis in Biblical texts. That is the pattern we see in the disciples Jesus taught. They didn’t travel the world trying to find greater needs—they started with their own people and worked out from there.

Jesus, the ultimate Christian example, never went beyond Judea, Samaria and Galilee.

Telescopic Philanthropy and Liberal Elites

Charles Dickens describes a phenomenon of globally-minded do-gooders who missed the needs right in front of their noses. This is a way the modern elites try to distinguish themselves from common people. And the same thing that religious elites did and was rebuked very severely by Jesus (Matt 23) as hypocrisy. Running an NGO certainly gets more attention than helping your neighbor across the street, but the latter better fits with a “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matt 6:3) ethic of the Gospel. Telescopic philanthropy is the opposite of what a Christian does.

Rory Stewart, attacking Vance’s perspective as being tribal pagan, decrying a million in additional funding being cut off from his wife’s NGO is a prime example of disconnect between the globalist elites and those forced to support their efforts. They’re good people, in their own minds, for using piles of our tax dollars to teach modern art to Afghani villagers. To them Vance is a rube. But I seriously doubt their massive virtue-signals are of much or any practical long-term value. Charity does not take from one to give to another. It truly makes no sense that British socialites get a dime of our money for their pet projects. It makes even less sense that any professing Christians would defend USAID.

JD Vance’s commentary, for all its semantic stumbles, offers a grounded counterpoint to this telescopic philanthropy. His emphasis on starting with family, neighbors, and citizens before tackling the world’s woes challenges the elite obsession with grand, distant causes that often serve more as status symbols than solutions. While the globalist set may scoff at his provincial framing, they’d do well to heed the Gospel’s call to tend first to the needs at hand—quietly, humbly, and without fanfare. Vance may not be a theologian, but his instinct to root love in the local cuts through the hypocrisy of those who’d rather save the world on someone else’s dime than lift a finger for the suffering next door. In a culture dazzled by far-off heroics, his words remind us that genuine charity begins where our feet are planted.

And Jesus Had Compassion…

I’ve frequently been appalled and dismayed by the things I see coming from my former religious peers. It is very well-meaning, but so horribly misguided. And recently I saw a post like that, and imagined an incredulous Jesus: “You are Israel’s teacher, and do you not understand these things?”

What I’m talking about is the intellectuals of the conservative Mennonite cloister, those who teach the Gospel of Niceness and side with Judas and Social Justice who confuse Jesus with a political figure who is seeking to install a Marxist regime. They ride on the leftist bandwagon, believing it makes them countercultural—when they’re simply going along with the powerful elites of our time. Hypocritical elites who have mandates for us and exceptions for themselves.

The offending post was one of such glaring false equivalency that I can hardly fathom a thinking person would come up with it. The misleading commentary is that Elon Musk resharing a meme in support of his efforts to remove waste, fraud, and abuse from the government is the same as Hillary Clinton applying a nasty label to those who dared to vote against her. This is the statement:

Clinton called millions of ordinary Americans a “basket of deplorables.”

Musk called millions of ordinary Americans “the Parasite Class.”

When Jesus saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. (Matthew 9:36)

First of all, the first part is true, Clinton did indeed call ordinary Americans a “basket of deplorables” saying that half of those who were voting against her were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.” It is to say that over thirty-one million people who got tired of the glib “We came, we saw, he died” imperial-lib establishment that she represents are just horrible people.

Not only is she punching down, attacking a bunch of ordinary people for voting against her, but the reason she is demonizing then is to terrify vulnerable people. It is a cynical divide and conquer strategy, purely for sake of securing political power for herself, and part of a campaign to turn Trump’s simple effective “Make America Great Again” into something divisive and scary rather than an inclusive unifying message.

Elon Musk, by contrast, merely reshared a post. He did not say half of the Democrat party support is parasites. What he did say is “90% of America loves @DOGE.” In other words, he is speaking for the crowd rather than against it. Furthermore, the meme is not about legitimate social programs and those who benefit. Nobody in the Trump administration is calling for slashing the rightful entitlements of Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid.

Name calling! Accusing elites of exploitation! Jesus would never do that, right?

What DOGE has taken aim at is the totally ridiculous and absurd, obviously fraudulent use of public funds, which 90% of America (if properly informed) supports. The ‘crowd’ would be fully on Musk’s side if they weren’t being lied to or blinded by partisan bias. It is compassion for those truly “harassed and helpless” that is drives the effort to increase government efficiency—and the social elites who willfully take advantage of taxpayers should be called out.

To those doing apologetics for waste, fraud and abuse, who are pushing this dishonesty take and misrepresentation: I would find it so much more tolerable if it was a forthright endorsement of sending money for far-left causes. Just come out with it and say that you want money funnelled through USAID to pay for global promotion of transgenderism and pro-imperialist propaganda—you want this, be honest.

Compassion for the Brood of Vipers?

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matthew 23:33 NIV)

Jesus had compassion for the crowds, but he spoke very condemningly of social elites who used their positions of influence to put heavy burdens on the shoulders of others—while not offering a finger to help.

Jesus pretty much describes the telescopic philanthropy, the virtue-signaling and pearl-clutching of modern social justice.

Jesus did not show compassion for these moralizing frauds.

Nice Jesus is upset about mean Tweets calling out social elites. Real Jesus was killed because he wouldn’t stop insulting the people who thought they were above the ‘deplorable’ unwashed crowds. Nice Jesus only would affirm and accepts everyone without ever requiring a change. Real Jesus once compelled a tax collector (and cheat) to give back his ill-gotten gains—he greeted the promise of restoration by pronouncing salvation had come to this house.

If Jesus walked the streets of Manhattan today he would be accused of being very meanspirited, labeled as hateful, and likely cancelled by the woke elites. They would whip up the crowd by taking things he said out of context, by calling him a homophobe, sexist or racist. After all, he used the word “dog” to describe a foreign woman. That is what the critics of Jesus did, he called them out and they false accused him. He would most certainly be diagnosed as being a cult leader and narcissist for his claims.

Not saying a pair of trolling billionaires are the same as Jesus. But they certainly do take after the character of that man who was overturning the tables of the money changers and chasing out of the temple. Lest we forget, the money changers were those who took advantage of the poor who were obligated to pay the tax. This money was supposed to go to the upkeep of the temple and yet teams of grifters, offering a service, were being parasites:

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’” (Matthew 21:12-13 NIV)

The Gospels contain differing accounts of this event, some scholars believe it may be about two separate times when Jesus went charging in on a little ‘insurrection’ rampage, but interestingly his explanation of authority to do this cleansing was later misconstrued and used at his trial.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The corporate media has taken fabricated tales and normal diplomacy with a foreign power—and they spun it into an incredible “Russian collusion” narrative. Trump talked about the “very fine people” on both sides of the Charlottesville statue controversy, and he took great pains to qualify his statement—by very specifically condemning the white nationalists and Nazis in the crowd. But it didn’t stop the media from running the story “Trump Calls Nazis ‘Fine People'” and Joe Biden, along with many other Democrat partisans, have continued to repeat this lie.

Where Trump, and MAGA, clearly delineate between legal and illegal immigration, their detractors muddy the waters. The left takes Trump’s desire to keep America safe from the flow of Fentanyl and of unvetted foreign nationals and twists it into xenophobia and a threat to legal immigration. It is deliberate deception. The far-left wants to keep brown and black people terrified that’s how they’ve always won—by fear-mongering the crowd, they deceive the sheep and, when that does not work, they will imprison or assassinate their opponents.

Remember ‘kindness is everything’ my leftist friends, right?

Evil doesn’t like to have a light shown on it and when you see all of the screeching in response to DOGE taking a look behind the walls of bureaucracy you do really start to wonder why. Why are they treating Musk as if he’s just some Nigerian scammer trying to get our information? Is it because he’s from Africa? It is totally ridiculous. Lawmakers circle the wagons and tell us we have no right to know how our money is spent! It’s time to drive out those who have used us to enrich themselves.

There is always a spy versus spy aspect to this where accusation is met with a recrimination. Both Jesus and those elites questioning his authority claimed that their counterpart was demon possessed or of the Devil. It would require some wisdom and discernment to know which of the two sides to believe. But the religious frauds of our day still side with the elites against the crowd. They defend the status quo and the corrupted established system. It is always the beneficiaries of fraud that fight against the reform.

‘Masculine’ Orthodox Growth

I awoke this morning to a message from Fr. Siewers. He shared a NY Post article, “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine’ Orthodox Christianity in droves,” which I read with my coffee. This is a trend within Orthodoxy, and arguably I’m part of it, where (relatively) young men are leaving the consumerist ‘Big Box’ and the compromised traditional churches for a weird alternative that feels foreign to most Americans.

I know, in past blogs, about Orthodox growth, I’ve done a sort of victory lap about Orthodoxy and in doing so left out valid counterpoints. Yes, indeed, many young men are finding Orthodoxy. But it may not be as big a trend as articles like this NY Post story or the Orthodox faithful make it out to be. The growth from fundamentalist reactionaries is limited—most especially if it is only drawing in males. It is difficult to sustain this if no accompanying young women are willing to procreate with these transplanted men.

The truth is that Orthodox, in the United States of America, only number around 6-7 million. Who knows how many show up on Sunday? For sake of reference, that is less than the estimates for illegal immigrants who currently live in this country, around 11.7 million, and basically makes the Orthodox contingent a demographic drop in the bucket. Yes, growth is good, but is this sustainable? Or is it just a blip driven by those desperate to do something a little different from everyone else and destined to fade like Hipster fashion after a decade?

My own conversion to Orthodoxy was not the same as the template laid out in the NY Post article. I wasn’t running from a church with a ‘woke’ or social justice agenda that replaced the Gospel. Yes, maybe I was a bit disgruntled with a feminized church culture where marriage and family were sacrificed for impossible ideals and visible missions. But it wasn’t in reaction to liberalization. I had done it from a conservative Mennonite church and was attracted to Orthodoxy as it was different from fundamentalism.

Ironically, this new flow of reactionary men to Orthodoxy may come at the expense of the attitude of the church that had initially drawn me. While adopting the Orthodox worship ritual, some bring their Protestant or Catholic baggage with them, there are too many Ortho-bros or those simply trying to be edgelords and unique. It is part of the Alt-right vibe, those who have rejected the far-left’s absurdity on one hand and yet are still looking for a reaction more than they are serious about their faith.

There will always be that small percentage of people who will buy a Tesla Cybertruck to be strange. Those who do things to piss off everyone else with normal tastes. And the growth of Orthodoxy is as much a rejection of the political mainstream as it is about seeking God. It feels more like cosplay, in my experience, than it is something born of a repentant spirit and desire to truly submit to the authority of Christ vested in the church. It is a bunch of dressed-up Protestants.

Case and point? The parish I left has an old Baptist convert as a priest who offended a couple (very fragile extremely idealistic homeschoolers) and the mom of this union made it her personal mission to pull as many people away as possible through lies and attacks. That’s where much of the new growth in the ROCOR parish down the road has come from and why I’ve been inclined to stay home on Sunday to be away from all of it. Not all growth is good growth.

As a postscript, my wife and I do not share the same perspective as far as worship and what church is ideal. She got along with the folks at Holy Cross. But didn’t get much out of the preaching (which was fundamentalist in flavor more than Orthodox) and practice. We sometimes attend a generic Protestant consumerist church, with a rock band and a coffee shop, because it is what reminds her most of her own generic Evangelicalism in the Philippines. My son and new daughter remain unbaptized.

Saved In Childbearing

My own views have migrated from spiritual imagination to sustainable compared to the unsustainable. Civilization was built by the participation of many who assumed roles that fit their qualifications and now is on the brink of collapse as we deny nature. We’re on a path that is unsustainable because we deny nature.

What is nature?

Nature is that, as we mature beyond the age of childhood, inborn sexual desires lead us to seek a partner. And, when successful, “A man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24 NIV) The purpose of this joining of man and woman? A multiplication from two to three, four, five, or more. That is to say that in marriage we’re fruitful.

The point of this blog is not to be preachy or tell anyone what to do, rather it is to outline a problem and share a few Bible references for fun. Scripture is part of the tradition and foundation of our civilization and could help us to diagnose where things are possibly going wrong as we stumble. All across the developed world population collapse looms and it will be a disaster for little old you.

This is a topic even more important if you’re irreligious, think this is all there is, and aren’t aiming for “treasures in heaven,” because it could impact your retirement plans. This is purely a numbers game how it plays out, if there aren’t enough people to make stuff or provide services, there is nothing for you to buy—your current lifestyle might be the high point of your life.

But even if you are ‘heavenly-minded’ there is still plenty of reason to reconsider some of the attitudes that I’ve witnessed within conservative groups. Truly, fundamentalists need to fix their courtship gambit more than anyone else. There are plenty of women in those circles who are ‘married to Jesus’ and are really only married to themselves, their idealistic visions—and in total denial of the real cause of their lack of success.

I call out women, in particular, because they are the true gatekeepers of romance. If you are a half-ambitious guy you just know this, I’ve been turned down so many times that I have lost count. There were some, basically average, girls who would sooner get cancer and die than go on a first date with me or a man who did not fit a long list of superficial or social status requirements.

Yeah, it worked out for some of them, but a great many wasted their fertile years trying for unattainable perfection.

What does the Bible say?

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:1-7 KJV)

I don’t think this is the end of all, but it might be the end of us. Typically verses like those above get applied to those who are outside the group. It is “the world” that is full of narcissistic self-seeking types. And indeed the secular-minded have led the way as far as being unbound to any natural responsibility. But the church is often guilty of the same things albeit covertly and wearing a righteous disguise—in the manner of the Pharisees:

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” (Mark 7:9-13 NIV)

What Jesus is addressing is how the most pious of his day would use sanctimonious claims to override practical commands. In the example he gives they were claiming to be saving their resources to give to God and thus not able to take care of their parents. It was an excuse. They used the missional as a cover for their big neglects closer to home and, likewise, many today say that they are fully dedicated to God’s kingdom by doing fun projects in Uganda—but are they loving their brothers and sisters in Christ?

I suppose we could blame St Paul for being seemingly all over the map on marriage and if we should pursue it. Then again, maybe the point of 1 Corinthians 7 where he makes singleness a higher calling is simply for the sake of encouraging those who did not find that special person and basically reminding them they have greater freedom to do God’s work while not married. But it is abundantly clear that church growth comes through the production of children. And women, those most likely to be led astray, play the most vital role in this:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Timothy 2:12-15 NIV)

Again, I don’t expect anyone to believe this, this could simply be the misogynistic blathering of an entitled Jewish guy who found Jesus as a means to advance his social agenda. But, if you’re a Christian, then what exactly does “Women will be saved through childbearing” mean so far as the church today?

First, this is an allusion to Mary and her role in the salvation of the world. According to the Gospel, God chose to come into the world through the natural means of pregnancy and birth. Second, it tells us something about the vital role of women in the church and matches or supersedes any speaking role. This absurdity that shaping the world comes only through opening our mouths is why many women sacrifice their potential as the literal creators of the future.

Motherhood Is Most Important

Feminism measures value in only the most masculine terms. It tells us that the natural and traditional role of women is worthless and that women need to compete with men for money and political power. But the core of this ideology is an attack on motherhood and doing that one thing no man could ever do—only a woman can give birth.

But the degrading of motherhood is not only a matter of women being told that they need to be toxically independent of men economically, but also in turning children into a burden, a parasite and something to be exterminated before they have a chance to say, “Momma.” Birth control and abortion send a message that the next generation is not important, that it is a liability rather than an asset, and there is nothing further from the truth.

During COVID the same people who told us to mask up or we’re killing Grandma or had made shrines to George Floyd continued to lead the assault on the youngest and most vulnerable population. It makes no sense, old people will die no matter what we do to protect them. Black women terminate their pregnancies five times the rate that other women do, but the topic of the day is black lives matter and protecting others through our own self-sacrifice?

The reality is that the war on motherhood is sacrificing our own future. We really should be thinking of our Grandma and what the world will be like if we don’t follow in her footsteps by raising the next generation. The reality is that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and can only be sustained through population growth. Even if it were paid for, money has no value unless there is someone to offer their labor in exchange for it. That savings of dollars is useless without any qualified people to fill positions.

Our narcissism will catch up to us one way or another. The short-sighted pursuit of a career will have consequences. Taking the pleasures while denying the responsibilities that nature has intended will inevitably lead to a snapback. We can artificially cheat the system for only so long before nature starts to push back to eliminate a threat. History is littered with those who thought themselves to be gods only to be humbled.

The Sustainable Church

Evangelicalism, in particular the focus on conversionism, the Bible out of context of the religious tradition that formed it, and a focus on activism, has eroded communities and put the primary conduit of the Gospel (children of Christians) in second place to information distribution efforts. The true Church is about Communion, about bringing a little of the heavenly kingdom to Earth, it is about households being saved. And that is where a woman’s role of bringing new life into the world—which is what sustains any ‘spiritual’ movement.

We need less talk. Rather than push more speaking roles or more of those glamorous foreign adventures, as if this wasn’t only what St. Paul and a handful of others did in the early Church, there should be a move to what has been most effective for centuries and truly where grows a community of the faith. We need to give the men who wish to be married and provide for their wives and families the opportunity to be fathers. We do it by normalizing the natural good again.

There is an overabundance of glory-seeking men and women, desperate for higher social rank and more attention. They love to have their name on a prayer card while living on the dime of others. They’re too busy with information warfare to realize that the most powerful witness of Christ is love closer to home. It was the ‘important’ people who Jesus had condemned for ignoring the bloodied man left for dead along their path or stepping over Lazarus as they went about their business—they thought themselves righteous and were on the road to hell.

There are many reasons why the Christian West is dying and declining birthrates are the biggest contributing factor. This is partly due to the emphasis on missionary work rather than the ministry of motherhood. We would save more people—save even our own future—if we shifted back to fruitfulness and being multiplied. If you have a worldview to spread you don’t do it with tracts shoved in faces. No, you do it by doing it or good old-fashioned procreation. So get married young, have many babies, and you’ll be blessed in your old age.

The role of mothers is as important as any man in the church and most will find out too late why that is. Don’t be one of those who has only regret to accompany them in their twilight years. You’ll need to decide if holding out for Mr Right is truly worth postponing your greatest calling. Many men, currently banished to singleness, would make good husbands and fathers if given a chance.

Watching Gran Torino With My Asian Son

After reading a review of Gran Torino, a Clint Eastwood movie from 2008, that dismissed it as shallow in its exploration of racism, I’ve decided to explore some of the depth of the movie that was missed. It was a great story about finding common ground, that takes a bit of twist at the end from the typical Clint Eastwood film. My family (mixed race and culture) could appreciate the themes more than the average viewer—yet is a beautiful redemption story that all people can enjoy as well.

“Get off my lawn!'”

The story is about an angry old man who is not dealing well with change. Walter ‘Walt’ Kowalski, a Polish-American retired auto worker, Korean War veteran, and recent widower—his beloved wife passing right before the start of the narrative.

In the opening frame, he fits a stereotype of an elderly homeowner defending their patch of turf from an encroaching world. It seems every small town has one. That guy who trims his front lawn with scissors and does not deal well with the trespasses of the younger generation, the snarling “get off my lawn” line from the movie became an instant meme.

Why?

It is just too familiar.

The expression captures the essence of a fading dream. The American middle class values property ownership. A lawn, once a complete luxury and exclusively for wealthy estates, had become the mark of post-WW2 affluence. Walt was the beneficiary of this period of economic growth. He had lived a quintessential suburban life.

But now it had become a nightmare. It is not the same neighborhood anymore. The once tidy little homes, owned by people like him, had fallen into disrepair as a new group of immigrants took over. The woman who he built a home with was gone. His sons bought foreign brand vehicles and betrayed the legacy their father had built working at Ford. The world Walt had known was falling apart and he was bitter.

That patch of land, other than the ghosts of his past, was all Walt really had left. To set foot on it was to violate his sacred space. It was a shrine. And his 1972 Gran Torino in the garage likely represented the pinnacle of his productive career. Since the Korean War ended in 1953, this would put this car purchase around two decades into civilian life with a young family and point when the future looked bright. So he was clinging to what was left of his identity and willing to defend it with deadly force.

Demons of the Past

Early on we see Walt, the tough guy, who is playing a part. His racist language is a part of the facade—a barrier he puts up—because the alternative is to be vulnerable—or a victim. He is still haunted by his war experience, in the beginning using it as a threat, saying he could kill without remorse:

“Yeah? I blow a hole in your face and then I go in the house… and I sleep like a baby. You can count on that. We used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea… use ya for sandbags.”

However, later, when it comes to stopping the neighbor boy from taking revenge, we see the reality under the surface:

“You wanna know what it’s like to kill a man? Well, it’s goddamn awful, that’s what it is. The only thing worse is getting a medal… for killing some poor kid that wanted to just give up, that’s all. Yeah, some scared little gook just like you. I shot him in the face with that rifle you were holding in there a while ago. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about it, and you don’t want that on your soul.“

Just like today, where Russians are called “Orcs” and portrayed as subhuman by propagandists, racial and ethnic slurs were used against various Asian enemies of US policy in the region. But for Walt, he knew better, he knew that it was not a demon at the receiving end of his rifle. He had murdered a human child and he felt immense regret. Note how he says “poor kid” rather than all of the racist terms he used freely throughout his conversations. It is almost as if, up to this point, he had to reinforce the dehumanizing descriptions to keep ahead of his shame. The truth is Walt didn’t sleep like a baby. No, he was running his sins his entire life and exhausted.

War propaganda then and now. Enemies are always portrayed as evil and subhuman.

Walt’s racism was part of his pretty much equal-opportunity disdain for other people, including the young parish priest, and his own family. He was a broken and hurting man, who had driven away his children and was hiding his own terminal illness. What he needed was some compassion, a safe place where he could finally let his guard down, and it was the persistent effort of a young Hmong neighbor that finally broke through his wall of insults.

Finding Common Ground

The review, that sparked my response, tried to overlay a “white savior” trope on the story and completely missed that it was Walt who was being saved!

*spoiler alert*

Yes, ultimately, Walt sacrificed himself for the sake of the Asian family next door. But this only after Sue, played by an actual Hmong actress (some critics panned the amateurism, others praised), went above and beyond to disrupt his dismal world.

She was his savior.

It was by her effort that he would face the demons of his past and could be at peace with his Creator. It was a redemption story, a story of an old man who had lost his wife, lost his children, lost his religion and even lost his neighborhood, but finds life again by learning to love his enemies.

I can feel this character. My own life didn’t go as planned. I had to leave the religious culture where my hopes had been built. I had a beautiful Asian woman who was patient with me while I was still lost in delusion and did not give up when times were difficult. Now we have a blended-culture home. Yes, my Filipino wife and son are different from me in many regards. However, after seven years of knowing each other and now over a year of being married, our love has only continued to grow. Some of my happiest moments were with her family in the Philippines and recently while visiting her relatives in Canada.

I am Walt.

My ‘Sue’ did save me.

The real story of Gran Torino is an old man who finds more common ground with those he had thought were strange than he does with his own children. Once Walt had got past the superficial differences he realized he had more connection to these Hmong people than many who looked like him. Unlike the war, he was now defending real people and not political ideologies. He was fighting for the local community, against those within who are destroying it, and not gunning down random boys thrown into a conflict not truly their own. The storyline is a comparison between perspectives and shows us what really matters in the end.

It is about relationships, not race.

It is about building bridges.

The ongoing dialogue between Walt and his priest demonstrates this. The priest, who is of European descent based on appearance, is at first scoffed at by the grizzled military veteran for his youthfulness. The baby-faced “Padre” is bluntly rejected by him:

“I think you’re an overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life.“

But, despite this insult, Father Janovich will not go away. And eventually, with his persistence, he does earn the respect of Walt. The bond, built over a few beers, culminates with Confession and Walt is finally able to have the guilt that had plagued him since Korea absolved. Now he is free and at peace, ready for a last act that goes contrary to expectations and confirms the redemptive arc.

It was faith that saved Walt, both that of the young woman who withheld judgment and didn’t allow his wall of nastiness to stop her and finally of the persistent outreach of the Church. And it is only because of this concerted effort that we get to see the protagonist do what is right. By the end of the film, Walt has overcome those demons driving his anti-social behavior and also has gained a son worthy of his prized Gran Torino.

Now To Review the Reviewer…

Why did the critic miss the obvious?

The reviewer who inspired me to write my own was projecting their own worldview onto the script. Eastwood is a rare conservative Hollywood producer. In fact, so conservative he spoke at a Republican National Convention and gave a mock interview with an empty chair, used to represent Obama, and he calls Biden “a grin with a body behind it.” Perhaps it is this that the review is responding to? But I think it goes a bit deeper than that.

The Marxist left sees the world as being a zero-sum game, or that for some people to gain others must lose, and thus everything is a competition for power. But, not only this, but everything is divided up into strictly bounded categories based on their skin color, financial status, or sexual classification. If someone cooperates across these lines then they are an “Uncle Tom” or traitor. So the themes of Gran Torino just do not compute. Asians are collaborators. Walt is an irredeemable privileged white man, he needs to be canceled—not humanized.

So, since we can’t have everyone come out as a winner, the only thing the woke reviewer has left is to hallucinate something color-coded and negative. Thus they see a movie that tells us to reach across lines of age, culture, and race as just another “white savior” trope. It is bizarre, such a narrow and distorted perspective, to entirely miss everything and then to insert what is not actually there. Yes, Walt saves, but in the context of others saving him, and that’s not even the point. The point of is that color (or age) doesn’t matter, finding our common ground and community does.

Gran Torino isn’t a perfect movie. It may go a bit overboard with ethnic slurs at times. But, then again, the comedic relief of the barber and Walt exchanging these insults as terms of endearment is also great commentary. Why do we let words be “violence” when the same utterances can be laughed at in another context? It is because these words have the power we give them. What this is suggesting is that we can go further when we reframe the conversation.

The left wants to believe that our behavior is determined by what others have done to us—Eastwood says we can be free to live above their rules.

Politics may be all about power, in-group and out-group, but love overcomes all.

Playing Church

One of those fun things to do after church, as a child, when the adults had left the auditorium, was to go up and play preacher. We could mimic the motions of our elders in a convincing enough way to be funny and yet really had no idea what we were doing. And this reality would be quite obvious the moment we were asked a serious question.

Part of becoming an adult is the realization that many don’t really know what they are doing. Sure, some might enthusiastically perform their roles, and they have the necessary qualifications, but they either lack practical experience or simple aptitude. Not every doctor or engineer is equal, for example, some are more competent, and others—not so much. But none of these ‘professionals’ have an authority that should be unchallenged.

Reflecting on the priorities, and performative religion, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that some are really only concerned about looking the part and lack any real spiritual substance. It is disheartening when getting customs right is of greater importance than welcoming children. When leaders can answer on matters of trivia but are unable to offer any real wisdom or direction when it comes to the practical application of the clichés they preach, they’re phonies.

I’ve concluded that many participate in church as a sort of social club. And it goes all the way to the top. They have clout in the organization. They can wear the costumes and get the recognition that they so desperately need. But, in the end, they are empty vessels, a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. It would be better to be a child going through the motions, in play, than to take yourself seriously and offend the little ones in the faith. Jesus wasn’t talking about pedophiles in Matthew 18:6.

What Do We Do with the Freaks?

I ran across two stories the other day, one of them about a mixed race man who looks like a female and another about a child with ‘werewolf syndrome’ who looks like the missing link—in both cases I thought about the negative attention this brings. In the later case, given the current awareness push, a young man who looks very feminine faces presumptuous comments about his ‘transitioning’ and I wondered at what age this happy kid would realize that he was a genetic freak? School children don’t need to be taught cruelty.

While I’m certainly not on board with the current “I identify as” phase, I also am not for alienating or adding to pain others have from being odd. What I’m talking about is the exceptions who are the exceptions by no fault of their own. Starting with those who are visibly different, dwarfs, albinos, Down Syndrome, conjoined twins, chimeras, Klinefelter syndrome (boys and men with extra X chromosomes), intersex people (born with ambiguous genitalia) or Turner syndrome. There are many chromosomal abnormalities and many issues that do put some in a “none of the above” category that is apart from what is most common.

We accept that physical abnormalities exist, it is pretty much impossible to deny, but the controversy begins when someone who has all of the physical characteristics of a man demands that other people use a female pronoun to describe them or competes as a woman. Genitals don’t tell me what goes on in someone’s head. My wife says that I’m “like a woman” in how I am expressive and emotional. My little sister was a “tomboy” growing up. I suppose today that would be proof that we deserve special protection or rights? How far can we tolerate people who do not meet expectations for their gender?

You don’t need a biologist to tell you that men tend to have a very distinct advantage over women in strength and size. It is not fair or safe for women to be in competition with those born with an XY chromosome no matter how they identify. I mean, isn’t that why women’s sports were created in the first place?

And, contrary to what the “Muh rights! You can’t make me wear a stupid mask in your private establishment.” people think, it is perfectly okay for groups to exclude those who have willfully refused to conform to the established standards. Try to walk into any church naked. They probably won’t even let you get to your explanation about material making you itchy or how Biblical prophets ran around butt naked. We set rules. We define categories. We decide if those with Swyer Syndrome are men or women. Click the link and give me your own answer in the comments.

Include or exclude?

It is our cultural bent to be more inclusive of the exceptions. We are taught that we must show empathy and understanding for those who are “born eunuchs” as part of Christian love. Then again, the Gospels are a sort of square peg being fit in the round hole of Scripture and it is easy to comprehend why the ‘chosen people’ rejected Jesus given how he mingled with the impure.

Biblical Exclusion

One reason why to be sympathetic towards those Jews who rejected the message of a teacher who ate with sinners is the Biblical tradition itself and the system it established to exclude those deemed defective:

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’ ”
(‭Leviticus 21:16-23 NIV‬)

And repeated:

No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord. No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
(Deuteronomy ‭ 23:1-3 NIV)

Discrimination against the abnormal wasn’t only suggested or caught in a round about way be misinterpretation, but a command from God. Talk about a kick in the nuts (or lack thereof) for those already suffering an undesirable condition. Be born the ‘wrong’ ethnicity or suffer an unfortunate accident and you’re out. Not much of this is actually explained, giving opportunity for apologists to explain around it, but Christian religion (along with modern science) has certainly taken things in a very different direction.

If a woman is ‘barren’ nowadays we try to treat the condition rather than assume it is a curse from God. I mean, yes, the woman in the Philippines who had the hair covered son with ‘werewolf syndrome’ may believe that it had something to do with eating a cat during pregnancy, the popular notion of “you are what you eat” manifesting, but we’re not as likely to see it as punishment from God—we do not tend to attribute things blindness or misfortune to sin. It is harder to exclude those who are imperfect when you realize it could’ve been you.

Any more than I need to know why Islam is different from Christianity, where someone was clearly copying some else’s notes, I’m not going to attempt to theologically explain the transition from Old to New Covenant. It is clear enough that those who had lawfully been excluded, the leprose, lame and blind, Jesus healed. The result of his ministry two millennia ago was a wave of tolerance that started with his Jewish converts. Peter had his pigs in a blanket vision (while hungry out on the road) and now we eat bacon despite Biblical command:

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
(‭Acts 10:9-16 NIV)

This, along with the Jerusalem Council, is a huge departure from Jewish Biblical religion and, again, it is no big surprise this new cult was rejected by the faithful. Even today some observant Jews continue the tradition, like that Orthodox chaplain who declared loudly as he took a seat (next to me) on a crowded airliner with mixed races, “I’m a racist and don’t care what you think!” My own cringe at this statement is born of an indoctrinated sensitivity, years of Christian influence, and not values arising naturally from thin air. Or, rather at least not without a sheet to carry it down from heaven.

Bacon To Bisexuals

The other day I saw a post, from a Muslim friend, and it listed the problems with eating pork meat, their unique parasites, what pigs eat, etc. Of course the winning comment was “but fried bacon is so delicious” and it basically for this reason why no Baptist will ever depart from pork consumption. If it is pleasurable to us, we do it. However, don’t dare use that reasoning with these same Biblical fundamentalists when it comes to things they’ve not be acculturated to. And not at all to say that bisexuality is now in that big blanket of tolerance coming down.

No, it is just interesting to me how Biblical law is largely ignored except where it makes sense to us. Don’t like tattoos? Well then it is okay to misapply those laws that pertain to specific ancient pagan practices. But if you like shellfish, then “freedom in Christ” exempts you from having to obey these outdated and irrelevant laws. The energy in the room is completely different when it comes to the violations of Scripture we’re unaccustomed to or don’t apply to our own circumstances. Sexual deviation is a whole can of worms that I’ll avoid until or at least until a good explanation of Swyer Syndrome is given to me.

One eyebrow raising moment, during a Bible study, while being brought into Orthodoxy, was when the topic of veiling (1 Corinthians 11) came up for discussion and how the old ethnic Russian priest dismissed it as being custom or cultural. I never had the chance to ask him about the explicit quotes of Saint John Chrysostom on the topic. But, like all things, what is important is a matter of our perspective. The cradle Orthodox follow after the mainstream of Protestantism as much as anyone else, whereas the converts from Protestantism are more strict about preserving Orthodox tradition. It’s amazing how culture influences our applications of Scripture.

All this to say that I don’t know where the precise dividing line is between pure and impure, acceptable or unacceptable. But believe there is much more value in being merciful as our Father is merciful. That is to apply the Golden Rule to those who struggle in ways that we can’t fathom or begin to understand. Where it was once okay to stigmatize and treat left-handed people as second-class or evil we now accept them and think it is strange it was a problem for past generations. There are many things that aren’t an identity we choose or a matter of “feel this way” (like a man who claims to be transracial) that require that us to show some grace.

“Ew, Brother Ew”

You’ve probably seen the meme. A Muslim preacher lamenting those who abandon the Islamic practices of eating on the floor and growing a beard. His comical expression of their disgust gets to the heart of what most of these religious do and don’t rules come from. There is a continuum when it comes to gender and normalcy, taboos change, as do ideas of what real men do. It’s funny to see how these standards have evolved over time. From the time pulpits had spittoons to the current time of rainbow flags, we are not the same as our ancestors.

There are natural aversions. We’re naturally disgusted by bodily fluids and it is for good reason. Disease travels in blood, saliva and waste. We are also attracted to beauty, the healthy form or good hygiene, this is about instinct and survival. Sexual promiscuity is also risk as well. So being grossed out can be beneficial if it protects us from negative outcomes. However, this can malfunction, sort of like an autoimmune disorder, where we can overreact and exclude on the basis of things that aren’t a danger to us. Bigotry and prejudice, like middle school fears of cooties, are often as sign of immaturity or lack of self-awareness. Attributing every unfortunate condition to a moral failure is not sound judgment.

Just because something is strange or ugly to us is not a reason to recoil. If a person is not trying to draw attention to themselves it is important to acknowledge their humanity rather than their odd appearance. We didn’t choose to be ‘normal’ anymore than it was a decision they made to be different. We do not need to pretend everyone is beautiful or affirm every exception as glorious. There is healthy, there is deformity and disorder, we can love the person who overcomes or does not give up for their character. It is possible for inner beauty to shine when we truly get to know the person rather than only see the outward appearance.

The First Anabaptist Identity Conference

Over the past couple of decades the liberal end of the conservative Mennonites and a few others get together to navel gaze about what it means to be them. This “Anabaptist Identity Conference” (an annual event which some of us have dubbed the identity crisis) is truly a product of this time where nobody is sure of who they are as they once were. There is a strong urge to seek out others, like us, as to bolster our shaking foundations.

In this year’s event there is a line up of many meme worthy topics, like “The Anabaptists: Continuation of the Ancient Faith,” where ol’ David Bercot, a man who truly knows where his meal ticket comes from, will try to make the case that Anabaptism (as they define it) is somehow a direct lineage to the Apostle’s church. This connecting the dots to make it fit narrative, of course, will play right into the confirmation bias of his audience who fawn over an educated outsider. Maybe this year he’ll have pictures of whoopie pies painted in the catacombs?

Anyhow, some may believe that the first Anabaptist Identity Conference was held in 2007, in the Amish vacation Mecca called Sarasota, but there was one before this way back in 1536. It occurred in the aftermath of an event that left Anabaptists then trying to find a path forward. This is the Bocholt meeting that brought together survivors of the Münster rebellion and other factions in the Anabaptist movement:

In August 1536, the leaders of Anabaptist groups influenced by Melchior Hoffman met in Bocholt in an attempt to maintain unity. The meeting included followers of Batenburg, survivors of Münster, David Joris and his sympathisers, and the nonresistant Anabaptists.[4] At this meeting, the major areas of dispute between the sects were polygamous marriage and the use of force against non-believers. Joris proposed compromise by declaring the time had not yet come to fight against the authorities, and that it would be unwise to kill any non-Anabaptists. The gathered Anabaptists agreed to the compromise of no more force,[5] but the meeting did not prevent the fragmentation of Anabaptism.

No discussion of Anabaptism is complete without a little discussion about this crazy polygamous uprising. Sure, the revisionist historians of the denomination may tell you otherwise, but the association is definitely there and the Wikipedia summary is accurate. Menno Simons, in his 1539 Foundation Book, called the Münsterites “dear brethren” rather than claim they weren’t truly Anabaptists. So are we really in a better position today to decide who is truly representative of the Anabaptist identity? No, we’re not.

What is the Anabaptist identity?

In America it is mostly an ethnic group with a similar religious lineage. Some within this category have openly lesbian pastors while others cling to traditional dress and buggies for transportation. Unlike in the first 1536 identity conference, when their big debate was over use of violence, now the surviving Anabaptist groups agree on that and really not a whole lot other than that. Even those who organize and attend the conference in the current year only represent a subset of the conservative Anabaptist groups. The ‘spiritual’ lineage, while all claim it as their own, is too vague to put a finger on.

Men like Bercot and their ilk may want to declare the boundary lines even stricter than the early Anabaptists did, but that is just adding delusion upon a delusion. No, I am not saying they aren’t Christians, that’s not my purveiw, but for one to claim they’re some kind of special remnant of the remnant is just plain grandiose. And what comes to mind, at this juncture, is the “Stop It, Get Some Help” meme.

Newsflash: You’re not even representative of the early Anabaptist —let alone the ancient church.

This conference can’t speak for the plurality of the groups today who trace their roots the so-called “radical reformation” and do not have a voice in this identity rumination project. What is hard to miss, for those outside looking in, is that this is an effort to preserve their distinction and not to seek the the unity in Christ that St Paul commanded (1 Corinthians 3) when some in the early church were busy commending themselves for their special identities.

I don’t have a problem with having an ethnic identity that is cherished. I’m German, still Mennonite in many regards, and absolutely adore Old Order people. I have no problem with having our own culture or celebrating our heritage. It is why I encourage my son to keep his Igorot language and ways rather than have it all be erased in the American monoculture. But there’s a vast difference between that and those basically arguing that they’re saved through heritage.

Saying that Anabaptists are a “continuation of ancient faith” is only a half step away from being as crazy as the Schizophrenic who thinks they’re the second coming of Jesus. The denominational ground you’re standing on is not sacred simply because you currently stand on it. It is spiritually equivalent those Anabaptists in Münster declaring their own project to be the New Jerusalem. We should know better than to live in that kind of self-delusion. We should not condone or encourage it.

	radre4m on Shifting Sands of Sacred: How…
	Joel on The End of the Run
	Adriana McAtee on A Conservative Mennonite and F…
	Joel on By Way of Deception
	Michael on By Way of Deception

Irregular Ideation

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein

Christianity