In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

Just a Spell Too Far

9/12/2001

The Nuclear Family

Fathers Are Coming Home

Count Me Out

I absolutely love this song. Their performance is incredible. I have no problem with anyone, including gay people singing Christian music. This article is in response to a specific statement made by one of the singers of this song.

Spending my first 15 adult years in the music business in Nashville, I encountered many things I thought I’d never see. Of those remains to be the number of Christian music artists that were closeted homosexual. Keep in mind, to those of us in the industry, it wasn’t that closeted. On 16th and 17th Avenue in Nashville, they wore their identity without apology. But the instant they stepped beyond that sanctuary, they slipped into a disguise, pretending to be someone they weren’t.

Realities of the Music Industry

The reasons are clear. If the rest of the world, especially the Christian music listeners, were to learn of their favorite singer’s homosexuality, they would stop listening. This affects the financial bottom line. As a result, there was an unwritten code that artists were to keep their homosexuality on the down-low and everyone made money. If their homosexuality were to become common knowledge, sales would go down, managers would get less, publishers would get less, the artists would get less, there would be no tour. It’s financial ruin.

There has typically been the same unwritten code in country music. So when Ty Herndon was discovered by law enforcement committing a homosexual act in public, his label did their best to cover it up, minimize, and even alter the narrative surrounding the events. This couldn’t get out. But for different, yet similar, reasons. Those buying records were conservative, God-fearing, country boys and girls who did not want their favorite singer to be gay. Again, the fairness of this can be debated.

You could make the argument as to whether this is fair or not. For Christian singers, they adhere to what the Bible says. For country music, the clientele buys the records. If they don’t buy, you don’t have a job. In both cases, it was mostly economic.

New Take On an Old Song

Insert the new single by Ty Herndon, Michael Passons, and Melissa Greene. The song, “Testify to Love”, is a cover from the Chrisitan group Avalon, of whom Michael was a member of at one time. Michael left the group in 2003, citing other opportunities. Then in 2020, Passons came out as gay, recanting that leaving the group was involuntary due to his sexual orientation.

When the song comes out (no pun intended), it quickly becomes a hit. The initial reason is clear, they are amazing vocalists. Quickly, this begins to stir the airwaves, claiming this is “the first hit by an openly gay Christian artist.” For this reason, they received criticism.

Melissa Greene and Michael Passons took another step. Their claim was that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people.” This is the statement that got my attention.

Exploitation vs. Good Business

By their statement, they are saying that there were/are many gay people in Christian music and that it was exploitative to demand they keep this knowledge a secret. There are a few problems with this thought.

First, if they are going to go by the Bible, they should not be engaged in a homosexual relationship. They have abandoned that reality. Now, they choose to sing in the Christian music industry. It’s worth nothing that many in Nashville believe some people enter the Christian music industry because they can’t get signed in Country or Pop. Essentially, that’s unfair. However, there have been many cases where that was the clear truth.

Therefore, they should know that if they don’t abide by the rules of the industry, they will not have a job. This is no different than the Dixie Chicks debacle. In 2003, The lead singer, Natalie Maines, said she was “ashamed that the President of the United States was from Texas.” Outrage ensued. People were literally burning their records, t-shirts, and pictures. Their tour sales suffered greatly. They virtually tanked, dissolved, and were ostracized by the entire industry. But why? Because their clientele were the ones buying the records and going to the shows. And their clientele didn’t want to hear disrespectful things about their president. It’s free market capitalism 101.

This is why the statement by Greene and Passons that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people”, hasn’t landed well. If it were to get out that a Christian singer was gay, that group would no longer have a career.

The other problem is this remake has usurped the meaning, slapped a concept creep on it, and decided they know what’s best, rather than the God they so lovingly sing about knowing what’s best.

True Meaning Behind the Song

If the song is to champion the idea that God loves gay people and you should too, then I’m totally on board with this. The message Jesus taught wasn’t a heterosexual or homosexual message, it was a God message. “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35). In that context, I will testify to love too. Because in testifying to love, I’m testifying to God.

If they are attempting to make the claim that God is perfectly accepting and happy that they are engaged in homosexual relationships, this would be directly against what God has said, and those in the industry knew that, thus the request for secrecy. In that context, I would ask, what is love? If God is love, then the literal translation of the song is, “I will testify to God.” And if we’re doing that, we are asking for grace, mercy, and forgiveness for missing the mark, and noting that homosexuality would be considered missing the mark.

There was no exploitation. There was a business model. And in order to have a career in Christian music, that model needed to be followed. One would either need to find a different path, or “deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). But expecting an entire industry to bow to your ill-informed opinion of what the text of the Bible says about homosexuality isn’t reasonable.

There will be a follow up about homosexuals in the church, and it will not be easy to read if you’re a Christian. I’m taking the gloves off for that one. For now…

Stay Classy GP (God’s People)!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

9/12/2001

The Nuclear Family

Fathers Are Coming Home

Count Me Out

What Identity is Not

Should a pastor be throwing hands? What do we expect of him? Is he allowed to be human? How far is too far? All questions I searched to answer.

When I was a kid, I remember grandfathers and uncles saying, “That dog was gone for a spell.” As a young child, I had no idea what they meant by that. After a while, I learned. A “spell” meant a significant amount of time. So, by that logic, I’ve been writing for a spell.

Recently, my social media feed was inundated with a pastor named Tony Spell who gave a young man a beatdown. I mean, he laid hands on him. As the story goes, the young man repeatedly antagonized the pastor by stating, according to Spell, when Spell leaves his house, the young man is going to rape his wife and children. After many occurrences of this nature, the pastor had enough. He approached the young man to address the situation verbally when the young man took a swing at Spell. The pastor promptly defended himself by swinging back. If that were the end of the story, there would be no article written.

As it turns out, the pastor, after engaging the young provocateur, beat the young man to the ground. Once on the ground, the young man curled up into the fetal position to protect his head from the beatdown he was receiving. From this point, the pastor continued to lay his hands on him, several times.

As you can imagine, this made national headlines. But for the wrong reasons. The repeated issues were:

• Was the pastor using self-defense?

• Should a pastor be fighting at all?

• Did he go too far in the fight?

• Was he being prideful and arrogant?

Self-defense

First, was he entitled to defend himself? Absolutely. Was he justified in defending the honor of his family and sending the message that words have consequences? I believe so. The fact that this pastor gave this big-mouthed kid a beating he’ll likely never forget didn’t bother me at all. Chances are, that kid has never been told “no.” He’s never been smacked in the back of the head with a flip-flop, and it shows. This kid clearly hasn’t learned the reality of consequences. It’s likely his father shielded him from consequences, thinking that was right path in fatherhood. Most know, this is far from the truth. If they don’t learn consequences at home, they will learn them in a much harsher fashion out in the real world.

Meekness

Then there are those that simply don’t like the idea of a pastor swinging at all. I take issue with this. First, this pastor is no Jesus. To expect him to be is quite unreasonable. He is a human with a family. He defended he and his family. He let the social media fame go to his head. But he is still a human being. He has every right, within both the law and biblical precedent to defend himself and mitigate any future altercations by sending a clear message.

At the end of the day, this pastor is allowed to defend himself. But make no mistake, meekness is strength under control. It’s the power to choose restraint, when necessary. There’s nothing weak about being meek. They merely rhyme. That’s the end of their commonality.

Too Far?

The young man was in submission. He was in the fetal position. This is universally recognized as a position of surrender. Beyond this point, the pastor continued to pummel the young man. This leaves the arena of “coming in with a whip”, as many chose to cite from the Bible concerning Jesus clearing the temple. This traveled into the arena of taking out his unresolved cumulative anger on the young man in front of him. This left righteous anger and dove headfirst into the sin of anger. They are not the same. There simply was nothing constructive about continuing the batter the young man after he’d been defeated, other than to release some bottled-up emotion. Did the pastor take it too far? I believe he did.

Pride Before Fall

Following the initial event, the father of this young man called the police to protest the pastor mowing the yard of the church at 4AM. The officer informed the angry neighbor that no one has the right to tell a man when he can mow his yard. The officer also stated that the cars driving by were louder than the mower. It was clear this was personal. This had very little to do with a mower or the time of morning. This was war.

The officer went to the pastor and stated that he was simply responding to a noise complaint. When the officer asked for his name, his response was, “Everyone in the world knows my name. What do you need?” This is reminiscent of Zsa Zsa Gabor slapping a police officer after being pulled over in 1989, or Reese Witherspoon telling an officer in 2013, “Don’t you know who I am? Well, you’re about to find out who I am.” The problem here is, this pastor is not Reese Witherspoon, and even if he was, the arrogance was off-putting when Witherspoon said it, and comical when the pastor said it. Again, he crossed into the realm of arrogance. And pride always comes before a fall.

Conclusion

He’s a man. He defended himself. However, his unmanaged rage and arrogance need addressing if he plans to truly successfully shepherd God’s local flock. He simply took it a Spell too far. And for that, he has God to answer to. Yet make no mistake, pastors are absolutely within their biblical and legal right to lay hands on someone in defense. Some of these pastors are country boys. So you may not want to let your ego write a check your body can’t cash.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

The Nuclear Family: The Standard We Stopped Defending

Father Are Coming Home

Count Me Out

What Identity Is Not

What Forgiveness is Not

This is an excerpt from my first book, “America’s Greatest Threat: America.” I’ve updated it to fit more appropriately into today’s zeitgeist.

I grew up an LSU fan and a New Orleans Saints fan. They were my teams. Even when the Saints were bad, they were my team. I pulled for them when they were bad, terrible, when players got in trouble. It didn’t matter. I pulled for them every Sunday.

When they were wearing bags on their heads, I was pulling for them. Unfortunately, we’ve decided as a nation to join a fan club of one of two teams, Donkey or Elephant, and love them no matter what…except they truly do not care about you, only your vote. And it’s not a football game, it’s life.

Let’s play our own game. I’ll give you four quotes. Then I’ll give you four political leaders. You match them up without using any help, such as google or AI. Then see if you’re correct. You will see the answers at the end, so don’t cheat. Give it your best shot. Think about what you think each leader has said and guess accordingly.

Read on to see how you did.

Over time, our society has grown into this dark, blinded place where we accept anything and everything that is delivered by our team, regardless of factual efficacy. We just accept it. We gravitate towards the emotion of anger and betrayal long before the emotion of love and understanding. Here’s a smoother and more compelling rewrite:

We’ve somehow forgotten that we’re Americans first. Too often, we lose sight of the basic decency and goodwill that exists in most of our fellow citizens.

Part of the problem is that the media is built to highlight the extremes, because conflict, outrage, and division make headlines. Ordinary people treating each other with respect, helping their neighbors, or having thoughtful civil discussion simply isn’t considered newsworthy. As a result, we’re constantly shown the exceptions instead of the rule, and it distorts how we see one another.

The story of the catholic schoolboys and the Native American is a perfect example. The first story that hits is that the boys are taunting and antagonizing the Indian gentleman, Nathan Stanard-also known as Phillips (I choose to call him by the name he used to enlist into the military). Everyone on the elephant team says, “He did nothing wrong!” Everyone on the donkey team says, “Punch that smirk off his face!”

One story, from one camera and one very unreliable news source comes out. No one knows the facts yet, but their team is under attack. Then the facts come out. Turns out, Mr. Stanard was first attempting to get between the Black Hebrew Israelites and the boys. He then began walking towards the kids and began beating the drum in the face of one of the boys. When that particular boy wouldn’t move out of the way of Mr. Stanard, the incident took form. We now know that there were no ill words spoken by any of the boys. None spoken by Mr. Stanard either. Only the foul language and hate-filled words by the BHI, who appeared nowhere in the first version of the story. We also now know that Mr. Stanard was NOT a Vietnam War veteran as was originally claimed.

So now with all the facts, we should be able to properly assess what went right and what went wrong. But there are two huge problems.

1. The first problem is that we ran to judgment in the first place without researching facts. That’s the biggest problem we face as a nation. Delivering opinions soaked in vitriol without even knowing what the facts are. Someone attacked our team so we must defend. We’ve subscribed to the notion that our team is right, regardless of the facts. That’s a GINORMOUS problem!

2. The second problem could be viewed as worse. After the facts come out, we either ignore them or we’re so angry from what we first believed that we continue to spew hate towards “the other team” anyway. Facts are just that. Facts. They don’t have emotions tied to them. We cannot simply ignore the facts in order to justify our feelings about something.

This is a problem on BOTH sides. Neither is better than the other. As a self-proclaimed Republicratitarian (yes that’s a combination of 3 political parties), I’m urging you towards a revolution. One that requires you to be honest with the facts. If you are typically conservative, then don’t give Trump or Fox News a pass when they report stupid ideology just because they represent your team. Don’t give conservative leaders and commentaries a free pass when they are wrong. If they are wrong, then they should be called wrong. If you are typically liberal, then call the liberal leaders out when they are wrong. Don’t give Maxine Waters a free pass when she’s clearly inciting violence.

My request is that we stop blindly following a team and start looking at our fellow Americans as Americans and not just on a team. Start calling foolish rhetoric foolish, regardless of which team it came from.

One thing I’ve learned about all of this over time is that, if we really step back and look, we all want the same thing. We simply have different fundamental ideas of how to get there. Some think the government is the answer, some don’t. Some think all religions should be allowed. Some think none should be allowed. Some believe more laws are the answer to certain problems, some don’t. But what we all want is usually fundamentally the same. A thriving, peaceful country where people take care of each other and flourish in a healthy economy. No one would argue that. But we seem to argue how to get there as if someone slapped our child in the face. It’s just policies. Some work. Some don’t. It’s ok to disagree.

Civilly agreeing to disagree… It’s possible to get back to that, but it’s going to take work… starting with the man in the mirror. What would that look like?

Remember the day after 9/11? Remember how there were no Republicans, Democrats, LGBTQ, Pretty people, ugly people, rich people, poor people…NONE of that existed on 9/11. We were defined by one thing that day. We were ALL AMERICANS. Nothing more and definitely nothing less.

On 9/12/01, the entire country came together. People were hugging strangers at random. There were virtually no fights on subways. Random acts of kindness were rampant that day. Churches that Sunday were overfilled everywhere. No one cared who won in football. The only thing that mattered was that we were Americans and that we were not going to let this tear us down as a nation. We were going to stand together no matter which team you were on. We were Americans and Americans don’t back down.

I’m fully convinced that if you knew how little your team leaders thought about your actual well-being, you’d be less inclined to just follow what they say and defend them without facts.

Leave your current team and go home, look at your family and choose to protect and love the only team that matters. Now, let’s see how you did…

How did your team do?

Two of those leaders are known as eloquent speakers (Obama and Reagan) and two are known for bizarre rhetoric (Pelosi and Trump). You just never know.

As we celebrate our Nation’s 250th anniversary of cessation from Great Britain, let’s try to remember that we are Americans. Let everything else fall where it may.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

What Identity is Not

Capitalism Didn’t Create Human Nature

What Forgiveness is Not

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Education Paradox

In Tennessee, the Governor declared June “Tennessee Nuclear Family Month.” Immediately, the boo-birds came out. To an extent, I understand why. The nuclear family appears to be dissipating before our eyes.

More and more people every year do not raise their children in such environments. Therefore, when you raise the question of what is the ideal way to raise children, the answer is usually, “The way I’m doing it right now!”

• In 1960s, the prevalence of the nuclear family was around 73% of households

• In 1980s, the prevalence of the nuclear family was around 61% of households

• In 2020s, the prevalence of the nuclear family has been around 46% of households

Moreover…

• In 1970, 67% lived with a spouse and at least one child under 18.

• By 2023, that number had fallen to 37%.

As controversial of a question it is to consider the nuclear family ideal, the only real question should be an empirical one.

First, this is not meant to hurt anyone, make anyone feel inferior, or suggest that families and children can’t recover from being raised in a disrupted family home structure. My own children were not raised in a nuclear family. Therefore, that is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article has two missions:

1. To set the standard by which we should all aspire.

2. Debunk the idea that the nuclear family is no better than the other family systems

Research

• One major study concluded that children not living with both biological parents fared worse than others across domains such as psychological well-being, education, health, and carrying into adult outcomes like employment longevity and family formation.1

• Researchers at Ohio State University conducted research that was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.2 In this study, they looked at six different family formations. They found that academically, non-disrupted stepparent homes performed better than non-disrupted single parent homes. They also found that non-disrupted two biological parent homes outperformed all disrupted household types in every category.²

Therefore, it is statistically proven that the best possible environment for a child to be raised is in a non-disrupted two-biological parent home. This is the goal to attain. The standard to measure society against. And yet another study came to the same conclusion:

• In another study, they showed measurements of higher emotional and behavior problems as well as chronic disease and overall physical issues among those in single parent homes as compared to two-parent homes.3

• Another study discovered that the only scientifically proven conclusion that has been reached on raising children is that children who are raised by their two biological parents are given the best possible opportunity to achieve the healthiest developmental outcomes.4

This does not state a guarantee of sorts, just that they have the highest chance for the healthiest developmental outcomes. They also concluded that there is zero evidence supporting the claim that there is no difference in the developmental outcomes of children from same-sex parents or two biological parents.

Children from nuclear families show higher academic achievement compared to single-parent homes and blended families. Again, my children grew up in a blended family.

One group, after looking across 39 studies, found children from nuclear families had superior outcomes in emotional well-being, psychological well-being, behavioral outcomes, parent-child relationships, physical health, academic performance, and cognitive ability.6

Conclusion

Economic resources matter. Community conditions matter. Parenting quality matters. But family structure matters as well because it sets the course for outcomes in various domains.

None of this should be interpreted as condemnation of single parents or divorced families. Many are making extraordinary sacrifices under difficult circumstances. Rather, the evidence points toward a practical conclusion. Whenever possible, children benefit from stable family environments that preserve strong relationships with two biological parents.

In a culture that is driven by ideology, rewards immorality, and celebrates dysfunction to the tune of “Misery Loves Company”, this empirical insight paints a clear picture that evidence matters when it comes to our children. And the evidence says children are better off in a non-disrupted two-biological parent home than any alternative available.

This won’t fit the cultural narrative, some won’t like the conclusion, and many will begin to dissuade the findings here with tactics explained with precision in Thomas Sowell’s book, “The Vision of the Anointed.” But the facts point in one direction. And so should we.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

What Identity is Not

Capitalism Didn’t Create Human Nature

What Forgiveness is Not

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Education Paradox

To the fathers out there, we see you, and we’re seeing more of you!

Every year around this time, pastors all over the country walk up to the pulpit and deliver a scathing state of the union address concerning current fatherlessness in America. And rightfully so. Men get dressed up, sit next to their wife (who just four short weeks ago was being praised for holding the world together) and get the tongue-lashing society believes they deserve. For a while, it seemed to make sense why. Fathers had checked out. But there was a reason. They were asked to leave.

History of Fatherlessness

Following President Johnson’s overreaction to the Moynihan Report, single mothers were incentivized to remain single, or at least without a man in the home. Prior to this great degenerative incentivization, 5% of white babies were born to single mothers and 22% of black babies were born to single mothers. By 2020, both numbers more than tripled, showing that this policy did not affect one race more than another. It was equal opportunity disaster.

The Greeting Card Experiment

Author Gary Smalley wrote in his book, “Making Love Last Forever” about an event that took place in prisons. There was a lady who volunteered at the local prison who wanted to help prisoners reconnect with family. She requested donations of greeting cards from a card company and they agreed. When Mother’s Day came, she brought them out to give away to the prisoners. They went so fast that not everyone was able to get one. So she ordered more.

Following such success, she decided to do the same for Father’s Day. She collected her cards, set them up, and anxiously awaited. The smile slowly turned to disappointment on the volunteer’s face. Not one single prisoner came to get a free father’s day card.

The message: Human beings are formed as much by what is missing as by what is present. The void left by absent fathers became an unfortunate formation in the lives of many of these men, and it is willful blindness to ignore the possibility that the same absence helped chart the course that eventually led them to incarceration.

Historically, fathers have a pretty poor track record. During the 1960s, roughly 88% of children lived with two parents. By the 1980s, that figure decreased to around 77%. By the late 1990s, that number had, yet again, decreased to around 69%.

How the Turn Tables

Somewhere around the turn of the century, people looked around and decided to invite men back into their homes. In some cases, men began to fight for the right to see their children after being separated from them against their will. Whatever the method, the tide was turning. Before you knew it, men were showing up to all their kids’ practices and games. Men were spending more time with the family and began requesting less work hours. They were becoming more likely to share in caregiving and see themselves as more than financial provision, but an integral part of their children’s development, as well as finding joy in their marriage.

I had a good father, so I never desired to be anything except a great father. I didn’t quite achieve that, but I tried. I was always thinking about my children and what I could do to both love them where they are and also urge them towards what they could become. My suspicion is this isn’t uncommon.

The Good News

Here is where the good news comes in. Since the early 2000s, those numbers of fathers in the home have increased, steadily. See for yourself:

But the greatest increase comes from the black father. Where there was a 6% increase in overall fathers, there’s an almost 13% increase in black fathers in the home. There are more black fathers in the home than in 1980. And there have been for 10 years! See for yourself:

Conclusion

So, on Father’s Day, while there will likely be a large number of pastors pointing their finger at men and smiling at women, I will be thanking the fathers for doing their part.

You, sir, are being saluted. The numbers are in! And more fathers in the last 45 years are taking their rightful place in the home and being the man the moment demands. Do we have work to do? Yes. The struggle isn’t over. But the numbers show that with each passing year, more men are choosing their family over their selfish ambition. And that’s worth celebrating. Happy Father’s Day Gents!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

There’s a story out there that a young black adolescent male was with his teammates under a tent at a track meet when a white adolescent male walks into their tent, something you simply don’t do at track meets. The white kid was asked to leave by everyone there. He refused and began antagonizing the black kid. The black kid eventually gave into the threats and pushed the white kid. The white kid then stabbed the black kid to death.

Wait… Sorry. I got the races backwards. How did you feel reading that? Did that piss you off? Did it make you angrier when the races reversed, or no different?

I had no intention weighing in on this case because it seemed quite simple if looking through human lenses. When looking through colored lenses, you’ll only see the color of your lens. If your wall is white and you put on blue lens glasses, the wall looks blue, but it’s not. It’s still white. Therefore, you’re viewing a false reality.

This is in response to an article written concerning the newest rage bait over lack of accountability, culture of violence, response matching the infraction, and insisting on viewing everything through a racial lens. It just doesn’t have good outcomes in life.

The writer of this piece, among many others like her, simply can’t see the world unless they’re looking through the false reality of a colored lens. It’s disheartening because I thought we were better than this as the human race. But apparently, in criminology, the human race takes a back seat to other races.

This writer is #17 in culture on Substack. Apparently what culture readers are in search for are:

• Comparisons between apples and oranges.

• For everything to be seen through a colored lens.

• Emotionality trumps social adherence to rules of engagement for all mankind.

“You, sir, told us that Austin learned early how to hold a weapon, how to aim, how to take down a living thing, how to be proud of the kill, how to have that moment folded into the mythology of father and son. This tells us something about the values and emotional curriculum being cultivated around him and about what kind of white masculinity was being celebrated.”

First, what is “white masculinity?” Next, he apparently learned a lot about weapons, including when to not have one on your person. Part of learning weapons is learning to be responsible with them. Which Austin apparently learned and Melo did not.

“YOU failed to teach your boy that Black children have boundaries. YOU failed teach humility, restraint, or the sacred fact that another person’s body is not your jurisdiction.”

Are we still talking to Austin here? Because it sounds like something that needs to be said to Melo’s dad. And did she really just say Austin wasn’t taught boundaries… about a man who violated the ultimate boundary?

The Reality of Boys

Boys are born with innate aggression. Aggression by itself is not bad. Boys are also status seekers. They are hierarchical. This is what boys do. Every single day a boy pushes another boy and doesn’t get stabbed to death in return. There is simply no chance that you can justify one push deserving a knife to the heart in return. They’re simply not the same. A push has one consequence. Stabbing has another. This is a reality as old as time.

Justification as Tribalism

Attempting to justify this is tribalistic and racist at its very core. It’s the attitude that justifies rioting, looting, and violent revenge as necessary means to make right what was wrong. Think to yourself, reverse the races, do you feel the exact same way? I do. A push doesn’t deserve a stabbing death. Period. Regardless of your race.

Apparently, this is what Substack culture readers desire, emotions over fact, tribalism to a fault, and the dissolution of societal standards as long as my team is in peril.

Count me out. I want nothing to do with being popular if that’s what it takes to be popular.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Educational Paradox

What If She Walks In

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

I recently wrote about what forgiveness is not. We talk a lot about identity. It is helpful to know what identity is not so we can discover what identity is. We often confuse many aspects of our lives with identity, when in reality, they’re not identity at all.

Identity Is Not Your Vocation

Vocation is an assignment, not an identity. A job can change overnight. Careers rise and fall. A title may impress people for a season, but titles are temporary. If your sense of self is rooted in what you do, then failure, retirement, unemployment, or success itself can destabilize you. Many people lose themselves because they built their identity around productivity rather than personhood. Work matters, but work is a tool, not the foundation of the self. Your vocation is meant to express something deeper already established within you. It serves your identity, not create it. You are not a teacher, writer, pastor, mechanic, or executive first. Those are functions.

Vocation is what you do, not who you are.

Identity is Not Your Belief System

Beliefs are important, but beliefs are still capable of change. Rigidity of beliefs hinder. Human beings grow through correction, learning, suffering, and experience. It’s the stretching that produces positive change. Such malleability fluctuates. A person may hold one worldview at 20 years old and another at age 40. If identity is fused completely to a belief system, then every challenge to those beliefs feels like a threat to agency itself. That elicits a defensive and fearful reaction coupled with intellectual rigidity. Proper growth requires the ability to change without losing yourself. Truth should refine us, not destroy us. A mature person allows better information to reshape flawed understanding while remaining grounded in something deeper than opinion. Identity is deeper than opinion, beliefs are not. Beliefs should serve identity, not become identity. Your beliefs can evolve while your core self remains steady, rooted, stable, and anchored beyond shifting ideas and perspectives.

Beliefs are what you hold, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Who You Marry

Marriage is sacred and meaningful, but it is still a relationship between two changing human beings. People grow, drift, mature, fail, and sometimes leave. Death itself inevitably culminates in separation of marriage. If your identity depends entirely upon another person remaining beside you, then your foundation is fragile. Many people lose themselves inside relationships because they confuse companionship with identity. A spouse is meant to walk with you, not define your existence. Marriage can enrich life, strengthen character, and deepen love, but it cannot bear the full scope of your identity. Your value existed before marriage and remains after loss.

A spouse helps you navigate, they’re not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Being a Parent

Parenthood is one of the most meaningful responsibilities a person can experience, but yet again, a role rather than identity. Children grow older, move away, develop independence, and eventually build lives of their own. Genesis 2:24 discusses leaving one’s mother and father to join to a spouse. They will leave eventually. Some parents lose themselves (and their marriage) because their entire sense of worth becomes attached to their children’s success, affection, or need for them. When that season changes, they feel empty and disoriented. Parenting should flow from identity, not replace it. A healthy parent guides, nurtures, disciplines, and loves from a stable center rather than using children to create personal meaning. Your existence does not begin with your children, nor does it end when they leave home.

Parenting is what you do, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Your Political Affiliation

Political systems change constantly. Parties evolve, ideologies shift, leaders disappoint, and cultural movements rise and fall. When identity becomes fused with politics, disagreement begins to feel personal and opposing views feel like attacks on internal agency. This produces hostility, tribalism, pride, and even fear. A political affiliation may reflect values or priorities, but it cannot define the eternal nature of a person. Human beings are deeper than voting patterns or ideological categories. If your identity rests in politics, then every election becomes an emotional crisis and every shift in culture threatens stability. Politics should remain a tool for engaging society rather than the foundation of self.

Politics is a malleable mechanism for interacting with broader society, not who you are.

Your Identity Comprises Your Past, Present, and Future Self

True identity must remain consistent across time. If something can disappear, change, or be taken away, then it cannot be the deepest definition of who you are. Identity is the thread connecting your past, present, and future self into one continuous reality. Careers change, beliefs mature, relationships shift, and societal expectations and affiliations evolve, but identity remains stable beneath each movement. This understanding creates humility and flexibility because the ego no longer depends on always being correct. New information does not threaten existence, it simply refines understanding. A secure identity allows growth without collapse. We can admit error, abandon false ideas, and become wiser versions of ourselves because our core self is not built upon temporary external realities that constantly shift and change.

My Identity

This is not aimed to proselytize, only to share my sense of identity. My identity is that I am a child of God the Father. While you may ascertain this as a belief, a belief about ultimate reality is different from ideological attachment because it concerns ontology rather than opinion. I’m not arguing against convictions. I’m arguing against grounding the self in temporary or contingent things that possess the capacity to remove the ground from under us. Therefore, my identity rests in an immovable and unchangeable target.

This is the foundation beneath every other part of my life. I cannot be the ultimate reality in my life. I must gaze, with focus, on the ineffable telos. It’s in that upward aim that I can relinquish the need for being perfect, yet aim for such perfection, given that it only makes my life better. Because of such aim, as life flows, my identity remains untouched. It existed in my past, stands firm in my present, and extends into my future.

Consequently, I do not need temporary things to define me. Anything I do serves the purpose of being a child of the living God. My marriage serves that purpose. My children, convictions, relationships, and responsibilities all flow from that singular reality. This identity cannot be threatened by change because it is rooted beyond circumstance. Everything else in life is secondary and exists to support that eternal truth.

This is how we avoid identity crises. By rooting them in an eternal, unmoved, mover.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

What Forgiveness is Not

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Educational Paradox

What If She Walks In

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I stumbled on an article that I won’t link because I don’t want him digitally doxed. But the summation of his piece was that couples’ issues and the rise of Mankeeping as a burden is because of capitalism’s insistence on very different definitions of normal workloads for male and female.

Here we are again, telling the same, tired story. If you’re exhausted reading about it, imagine being the one who feels the need to write about it. Oh well, here I am writing anyway. There still exists individuals who insist on blame-shifting and placing total causation on one entity for the issues that plague men, as if that one aspect of male plight will solve all social ills. News flash, there is no single solution, because there is no single problem. The problem varies, as do the solutions.

Excerpts

“I think the biggest factor behind Mankeeping is capitalism’s gendered division of labor. That’s where our so-called traditional ideas about what’s natural about men and women come from.”

So-called? So, thousands of years of evolutionary psychology means nothing? Studies on gender preferences being biological mean nothing?

Let’s take a look at such meaninglessness:

Biology determines much of what we like, do, and pursue. But we don’t want to let facts get in the way of a good heart-string story.

Another excerpt:

“Women were told that they’re naturally caring, relational, soft, and feminine. Men were told that we’re naturally stoic, tough, action-oriented, competitive, and masculine. These ideas were aimed at putting women in their place: in the home.”

I’m struggling to see the connection between stating biological fact and an attempt at control. But let’s review the data:

Maybe, just maybe, this is why women were told this. Because it is verifiably, biologically and psychologically true.

He Turns to Marx

Where it seemed to take a comical turn was when the writer was criticized for tying capitalism to relational strain. He then said that he uses Marx’s original definition of capitalism and then adds a modern Marxist Feminist’s assessment to complete his formulation.

I… I don’t even know what to say. Like… speechless. Ok, maybe not totally.

The argument isn’t rational, coherent, linear in any way. His ideas don’t even connect to one another. The closest his argument came to some form of actual reality was the unfounded fear porn of “returning to gender norms.” But even then, evolutionary psychology debunks that along with half of his article. I’ve still yet to encounter a man who wishes to return to the norms of yesteryear that place men psychologically and physically abusing women.

When I see a great writer drink ideological Kool-Aid without attempting to do his own research, it doesn’t anger me. It saddens me. This writer has talent.

But he has been told that if he feels it, it’s true. I could give 25 examples in 15 seconds that would completely debunk that notion.

Anti-capitalists fail to recognize that they’re enjoying the right to be misinformed with great confidence because some capitalist created that possibility. No socialist did it. A socialist would have already been tyrannized by his own promises. The very system he would have been supporting would have ensured he, along with everyone else under the systemic corruptive power machine were equal— equally poor and miserable.

But here, a very talented writer is almost babbling. The argument is so incoherent. I wanted to get excited about a new or different viewpoint. Instead, I was left with the fairy tale style utopian delusion that permeates the feeling > fact crowd.

I’m sorry to burst bubbles, but no economic system, nor a vile, malevolent way of viewing successful people are to blame for couple’s issues. The couple is.

We’ll get a lot further talking about a lack of third spaces than shifting blame to an inanimate economic structure. More on that in a later post. For now…

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Archer, J. (2004). Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899

Feingold A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

Herlitz, A., Hönig, I., Hedebrant, K., & Asperholm, M. (2025). A systematic review and new analyses of the gender-equality paradox. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(3), 503–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231202685

Kuhn, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2022). Things versus people: Gender differences in vocational interests and in occupational preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 203(203), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.09.003

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719

Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and Things, Women and People. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364

Weisberg, Y. J., Deyoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

I. A. B. P.

Tennessee’s Educational Paradox

What If She Walks In

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

If you know anything about me, you know I talk often about forgiveness and its benefits. There are many studies detailing the physiological benefits of forgiveness. I cover some of it in this article…

Recently, after writing about what forgiveness looks like, I received some feedback regarding what forgiveness is not. I collected my thoughts on the validity of this idea, and this is what landed.

Forgiveness is Not Restoration

Restoration is the reunification of two people. Someone does you wrong, you want to forgive them and reignite friendship with each other. This requires both parties’ consent. Forgiveness can be involved in this transaction, but restoration is not required for forgiveness. Forgiveness only requires one person. That’s because unforgiveness only affects one. We should not feel obligated to restore to someone while forgiving them..

Forgiveness is Not Transforming Into a Doormat

Forgiveness does not give the offender the right to inflict further abuse. He slips up one night and after too many beers, he smacks her. He is visibly upset and remorseful. He apologizes. She says she forgives him. He thinks, “Good, then I can do it again.” Absolutely not. Forgiveness is not a license to continue damage. One can forgive, standing strong in their conviction that they have done nothing wrong and will not stand for such calamity any longer.

Forgiveness is Not Manipulation

Forgiveness cannot be coerced. It must be voluntary. Often, a child is the target of physical or verbal abuse and the parent cries and asks for forgiveness. When the parent commits such an action later, they remind the child, “You forgave me, remember? So you have to forgive me again!” This is nothing short of manipulation. Remember, restoration and forgiveness are not the same. Yes, you could forgive the parent again, but you will feel much less inclined to restore that relationship. This maneuver also involves a bit of vulnerable narcissism (different from grandiose narcissism).

In vulnerable narcissism, the subject must be the center of attention, and in order to get this attention, they draw attention to the negativity in their life. Even (and especially) if they are the instigators of such dysfunction. This is what some parents do.

Forgiveness Doesn’t Justify the Infraction

Erica Kirk publicly forgave her husband’s killer. This does not make the murder acceptable. There still remains consequence. Moses needed forgiveness from God for placing himself too high on the spiritual ladder. God forgave, but Moses did not enter the promised land.

• Justice = getting what you deserve

• Mercy = not getting what you deserve

• Grace = getting what you don’t deserve

True forgiveness typically stems from the recognition of grace extended to me, through mercy, while remaining entangled in the justice I invited.

Forgiveness is Not Forgetting

The idea to “forgive and forget” is absolute nonsense; not tangible, reasonable or, in many cases, possible. Forgetting may seem insurmountable, but the sting doesn’t have to linger. How does one remove the sting? By shaping the mindset from “you did this to me so I hope you get what you deserve” to “I feel sad for you and what your decisions have cost you.” It’s seeing the humanity in people. Remember, victims perpetrate, survivors heal. Victims say, “Now it’s your turn to get what you deserve.” Survivors say, “I hope you get the help you need. But I forgive you.”

Keep in mind there is an amount of determinism involved in certain malevolent actions. They got here through a series of events they had no control over, leading them to make decisions that were mostly in their control, but heavily influenced by what they could not control.

Example: A young man doesn’t have a father. Mother is an addict. Raises himself. Gets connected with people who are addicts and in gangs. His grandfather was also an addict and stayed in trouble. And his grandfather’s father was in and out of prison. This young man literally has no example of what normality or proper functioning looks like. One could even include the man that had parents in the home but threw money at their son so he’d go away. He wasn’t parented. He doesn’t have an example of how to act either. So he turns to nature’s way, which is hungry for acceptance through power, greed, and tyranny.

Forgiveness is Not Emotional Numbness

Some people believe forgiveness means becoming unaffected by what happened. It does not. Forgiveness is not the absence of pain, anger, grief, or disappointment. In fact, attempting to forgive too quickly often results in emotional suppression rather than genuine healing. A person says, “I’m over it,” while resentment quietly festers underneath the surface. Avoidance helps no one and paralyzes the progress of forgiveness.

Healthy forgiveness allows room for emotion. Jesus wept. David lamented. Job grieved. Emotional pain is not evidence of spiritual failure. It is evidence that something meaningful was damaged. The goal of forgiveness is not to become cold or indifferent, but to prevent pain from transforming into hatred, bitterness, or revenge.

A scar may remain tender long after the wound closes. That does not mean healing has failed. It means you are human. Forgiveness says, “This hurt me deeply, but I refuse to let the injury harden my heart or define my future.” Forgiveness doesn’t mean being conformed, it’s means not being consumed.

What It Comes Down To

Forgiveness is release without denial. Mercy without delusion. Compassion without sacrificing truth. Freedom from hatred without freedom from consequence. Should you forgive? Absolutely. Should you relinquish all agency over it? Absolutely not. That’s what forgiveness is not.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles

Tennessee’s Educational Paradox

What If She Walks In?

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I Forgive You

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

There’s a strange paradox at the heart of human intelligence. We are capable of learning almost anything while being highly skilled at refusing to learn. This is less about intellectual fervor and more about protective adaptation. I call it Identity Anchoring Belief Persistence. It’s the tendency to connect our previously held beliefs so tightly to who we are that new information feels like an attack. When that happens, the goal of critical thinking shifts. It’s no longer about getting smarter. It’s about keeping it together.

When Being Wrong Feels Dangerous

Imagine someone presents you with solid evidence that contradicts something you’ve believed for years. You attempt to simply process it cognitively, yet you find that you actually feel this information. Your chest gets tight. Defensiveness rises up, at times, evidenced by an increase in your blood pressure. There’s an urge to push back or at least retreat. That reaction is pure psychological self-defense.

Research on what’s called the backfire effect shows that when people encounter evidence that challenges deeply held beliefs, they don’t always correct their thinking. In some cases, they double down, becoming more convinced they were right all along (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010).

Why? Because beliefs are more than ideas. They’re part of the value-system makeup inculcated into our very fabric, often defining our existence. It’s the rooted internal dialogue calibrated to be right. One way of putting it is our belief systems function like a “house” that our identity lives in. Threaten one piece, and the whole structure gets shaky. So we defend it with everything we’ve got.

Protective Cognition

Most of you reading this are educated, or at least intelligent. This is where things get a bit surprising. You might assume that more intelligent or more educated people would be less vulnerable to this. They’re not.

Research on identity-protective cognition shows that people often use their reasoning abilities to defend the beliefs of their group or identity regardless of truth being presented. In fact, those with higher analytical capabilities can be better at rationalizing their existing beliefs. They dismantle new information like an angry lover with a baseball bat, ridding themselves of acute pain. At times, they reinterpret new information, find flaws in it. Selectively accept parts of it, while feeling completely objective.

This is what psychologists call motivated reasoning. The tendency to process information in a way that aligns with what we want to be true, as opposed to cognitive bias where we search for what we already believe (van Doorn, 2024). In other words, intelligence doesn’t guarantee openness. It often simply equips us with better defenses.

It’s Possible I Might Be Inadequate

Jordan Peterson describes this fear as the “specter of possible cataclysmic characterological inadequacy.” It’s a mouthful, but the idea is simple:

• If I’m wrong about this, what else am I wrong about?

• And if enough of what I believe is wrong, what does that say about me?

• Am I broken, delusional, or just severely misguided?

That’s the real threat. The limitless implications. So instead of integrating the new information, we reject it completely. Because accepting it feels like it would unravel us, even and especially if it’s true.

Why Some Grow and Others Don’t

To be fair, not everyone reacts this way. Some people encounter new information and feel curiosity instead of threat. They lean in instead of pushing away. What’s the difference? It’s not raw intelligence, education level, or even exposure to facts. It’s psychological safety.

If your identity is too rigid, built on the need to be right, to belong, to maintain a certain self-image, then new information is destabilizing to say the least. But if your identity is flexible, you have the ability to see yourself as someone who learns, rather than someone who is right. New information looks like an opportunity.

The same fact lands differently depending on the view of the self it encounters. This is often established and developed early in life. It explains why it is so hard for those who didn’t develop this flexibility early to reintegrate a proper view of the self.

The Hidden Cost of Being “Right”

Here’s the uncomfortable truth, the stronger your attachment to being right,
the more difficult it will be to become right. Because learning requires a temporary willingness to be wrong. One of the things I learned in counselor training was that I needed to accept being wrong. I could not hold on to any rigid formation of my ego, as it would devour any therapeutic potential presented in the moment.

If being wrong feels like a threat to your identity, you’ll avoid it, even at the cost of truth. This is why debates often go nowhere. People aren’t exchanging ideas. They’re protecting identities. And when identities are on the line, facts lose their importance.

Why This Matters Now More Than Ever

In a world saturated with information, we enjoy proclaiming the problem is ignorance. It’s not. The problem is our filter by which we accept newness. Information isn’t passively pursued like the church we attend. We actively select information, interpret it, then defend against it the moment we feel rattled by our ego.

According to research on misinformation and belief persistence, even when new, correct information arrives, it often continues to influence our thinking because it’s been integrated into a person’s mental framework, known as the continued influence effect (Ecker et al., 2022). Once something becomes part of your identity, removing it is a full-scale reconstruction project.

A Different Way to Think About Thinking

If you want to become someone who actually learns, updates, adapts, and grows, you have to change nature of the game. Stop asking:

“Is this true?”

Start asking:

“What happens to me if this is true?”

Because that second question reveals the real barrier. And if the answer is:

“I’d feel embarrassed” or

“I’d feel worthless” or

“I wouldn’t know who I am anymore,”

…then you’ve found the real problem. And the problem isn’t the information. It’s the insecurity.

Final Thought

Most people truly believe they’re seeking truth. But more often, they’re seeking stability. And when truth threatens stability, stability wins. Until you consciously take steps to decide otherwise. Because growth requires a radical paradigm shift from defending who you are to becoming who you want to be in the face of a challenged ego. It’s difficult, but possible. You got this.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

van Doorn, M. (2024). The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: A closer look at the evidence. Thinking & Reasoning, 30(4), 548–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2276975

Related Articles:

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

According To Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I Forgive You

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

The Diary of Existing Beliefs

The Dirty “S” Word

My wife is a teacher at a public school as one of her many careers. I get a firsthand account of the state of public school education in Tennessee. So, when this article came out, I dove in. And I heard the same, tired song.

Tennessee’s Rank in Public School Spending

The newest rage in Tennessee is that the state registered lowest in the country in public school spending. This predictably outraged various groups of uninformed, rage-baiters into the playbook manual of feelings of over facts:

• Feel angry

• Call it out

• See evidence-based refutation

• Name-call and scream louder

Rather than look to see why, or if this is even something to be concerned about, how bad it is, they just came out swinging. I dug into it a little. Questions I had were:

1. Where did Tennessee rank in educational outcomes?

2. Does spending correlate to educational outcomes?

Educational Outcomes

What I found- Tennessee is slightly above national average

Tennessee ranks:

• 25^th in combined proficiency

• 24^th in 4^th grade reading

• 21^st in 8^th grade reading

• 13^th in 4^th grade math

• 20^th in 8^th grade math

• One of the fastest improving states in the country.

So let me get this straight. Tennessee ranks lowest in public school spending but above the national average in educational outcomes? This alone indicates a lack of causation between spending and educational outcomes.

By the Numbers

But don’t take my word for it. Let’s actually look at numbers.

Spending

1980: $2300 per student ($9,000 in today’s dollars)

2023: $16,500 per student (National average is now $18,000. Some states exceed $20,000)

Right away, you would expect to see educational output almost double over this same time period. Unfortunately, this isn’t supported by the data.

Educational Outcomes

1980:

NAEP Testing age 13- reading 258, math 266

SAT testing age 13- verbal 421, math 466

2023:

NAEP Testing age 13- reading 256, math 263

SAT testing age 13- verbal 520, math 508

Here’s a graph of what that looks like:

This data is controlling for population changes (SES, racial makeup, neighborhood disparity).

The evidence is clear. Spending has no correlation to educational outcomes. By any reasonable logic, we should expect to see an increase in educational outcomes. There is none. So if money doesn’t matter to educational outcomes, what does?

The Monopoly

Competition. The government has no incentive to produce better outcomes because there is no one to compete with. The other two alternatives to public schools are private schools and home schools. Currently, the average cost per student in Tennessee for a private school education is $13,000 per year. The average cost per student in Tennessee for a homeschool education is $2,000 per year. This means that the public school system is the ONLY FREE education offered in Tennessee. This is the literal definition of a monopoly.

Websters Dictionary: Monopoly- An exclusive privilege to carry on a business or service granted by the government. The market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

Everyone knows that competition drives costs down and quality up. Until government schools have competition, there is no incentive to be more proficient, increase educational outcomes, and reduce teacher inefficiency. You can just keep rolling along with arbitrary teacher tenure, protection for ill-behaved children, and lack of control over violence in schools.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but what I know is spending more money on schools is not the answer, and creating competition is at least one answer.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles:

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

According To Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

I Forgive You

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

The Diary of Existing Beliefs

The Dirty “S” Word

This picture has circulated with the headline, “Can this woman enter the church?” Here, I provide no fancy sentences. No backspaces or rewrites. No thought out linguistical creativity. Just typing as fast as I can, on purpose. This post took me almost the same amount of time to write it as it will for you to read it. Straight from the gut. No glitter. No empiricism. Just raw, lived experience with religion getting directly in the way of good decisions.

At First, Everything is Good

You find your favorite parking spot. You are greeted on the way in. You grab your latte. Hug a neck or two. You go in to find your favorite seat. The one you sit in every Sunday. It’s your comfort zone. From that seat, you look over and there’s the gentleman from the grocery store. Over there is the lady who found your dog after he got out. Right behind you is the family you’ve known since the husband and wife were children. Oh, and on the other side is your kids’ former baseball coach when they played little league. You’re comfortable there. These are your people. Then she walks in.

You know, the girl that you watched get arrested last week outside the grocery store for stealing formula. Or the one who you just knew was a bad apple. You told your daughter to never hang out with that girl. She was trouble. But here she is. By herself. Her face says she’s miserable. Her body says she’s been abused. Her hair says she just doesn’t care. But then there’s a tear. Her tears say she’s had enough.

Enough

Enough of whatever brought about this calamity. Enough of trying it the same way and hoping for different results. Enough of the constant drama. Enough crying herself to sleep, wondering what a peaceful night of sleep would be like. Enough looking over her shoulder for her abuser.

Then she sits down, not near your seat, but in your seat. The one you’ve sat in for 20 years. You can’t believe it. What do you do? What if she walks in and you’re faced with the fact that she knows you?

How Do You Respond?

If your response is anything other than sitting beside her, you need to revaluate where God wants you to grow right now. In this moment, she is fragile. She knows she doesn’t fit in. She was certain the moment she walked in she would get struck by lightning. But somehow, that didn’t happen. If you shun her, her preconceived notions about “church people” will be realized. If no one talks to her, her isolation will increase.

It’s in this very moment you must become the only Jesus she may see that day. You may be the only opportunity she gets to see exactly how Matthew felt when Jesus asked him to have a party at his house. You may be the only representation of what it felt like when Jesus told a fouled-mouthed fisherman named Simon to follow him. You may be the only shot she has to experience what it was like for Jesus to look up at Zacchaeus and ask to hang out with him.

What do you do with that opportunity? Do you squander it because you are uncomfortable? Do you miss out on using what God blessed you with? We are blessed to be a blessing, not to hoard it. Or do you introduce yourself? Maybe you hug her. Tell her it will be alright. Smile at her throughout the service. Tell her you’re glad she came and hopes she comes back.

The Difference May Be You

This small, short, simple interaction may be the difference in her life. How do I know? Years ago, two teenage boys saw something going on in their community and showed up. It happened to be a pop-up church service. As they entered, they quickly realized the place was pretty full. They turned to leave. An unassuming usher asked them if he could take a minute to find them seats. They obliged. Seats were found. By the end of the service, one of the boys surrendered his life to the calling he felt from God. This young man went on to be known as Billy Graham. One usher, a 15-second interaction. It changed everything.

You have no idea if that girl you once were repulsed by is the next worship leader somewhere. You don’t know if her calling is into the mission field to change countless lives. And either your kindness propels her in that direction, or your self-righteous religious dogma sends her the other way, back to how she got here in the first place.

A Call To Action

I urge you to wrestle with this scenario. Place yourself directly in this position. What would you do?

We must remember that we were once broken. Maybe not in the same manner as others, but broken nonetheless. When we count our blessings, they can’t be for bragging rights. They must be for donating.

• We get so that we can give.

• We are loved so we can love.

• We are forgiven so we can forgive.

I once heard a man say, “I looked at God and I looked in the mirror and the two looked nothing alike.” If your response doesn’t look like Jesus, then this is your next step for growth. We all have areas for growth. This just may be yours.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles:

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

I Forgive You

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

Overcorrection

Responsibility: A Solution No Policy Can Write

Don’t Throw Out the Message with the Mess-Ups

The recent “No Kings” protests garnered less attention than previous rallies. While it seems to be dying out, it still got my attention. I spoke with people who attended them, read write-ups on the protests, and watched various clips covering the day’s events. I was curious as to what exactly they were protesting. The results were baffling.

Some of the main points included:

• Executive orders

• Removing illegal aliens

• Ignoring the constitution

I couldn’t help but think, where were these outcries when Biden was in office? These are some of the same things the other side were upset about when Biden was in office. I thought, why are they mad now, but not back then? And why are conservatives not mad now, but were back then?

Executive Orders

It is fair to say Trump has issued the most EOs in recent history. As of this writing, here are the EO numbers to date:

• Trump - 220 in his first term and 255 so far

• Biden issued 150

• Obama issued 276.

All three president’s numbers warrant a tyranny label. For reference, James Madison issued 1 in eight years. One.

Deportations

Where were the “No Kings” rallies during the Obama administration? As of this writing, here are the deportation numbers by president:

• Trump: approximately 1 million

• Biden: approximately 1.5 million

• Obama: approximately 3 million (Garnering the nickname Deporter-in-Chief)

Where was the deportation outrage among liberals from 2008-2024? There should have either been outrage this entire time, or no outrage now. And where are the conservatives now that were outraged during the terms of Obama and Biden?

When asked which constitutional amendment, provision, clause Trump is ignoring, the only answer I got was “All of them!” They simply could not answer it. They had no defense of their own. The binary approach is what is disingenuous. It’s not that they disagree with tyranny, it’s that their team isn’t in office.

There is a current issue with this on the other side. Conservatives are no better. Why aren’t more conservatives speaking out against the number of EOs? I understand the need for them, but the abuse is rampant and every president uses them like tyrannical building blocks. They have no place in a republic.

For the record, I haven’t seen much in the way of ignoring the U.S. Constitution on the part of Obama or Trump. Biden, however, trampled on it, particularly through Covid.

A Call to Action

So why are we only hearing about the president on the “other side?” (Reminder, you don’t have a side. They don’t care about you. And the sooner you realize this, the better off your mental health will be).

We must find a way to bridge this divide. The reality that we cannot see or understand those on the “other side” is quietly dissolving the moral and social fabric upon which our society depends.

Homophily is common. This is the tendency to interact with those similar to ourselves more often than those considered different. You see this every day. Think about who you’re drawn to.

• Frequents the same establishments

• Enjoys the same hobbies

• Has a similar intellect

• Similar familial situation

• Political and religious worldview

What Research Says

Individuals tend to underestimate the extent to which dialogue with those holding opposing views can refine their thinking and enhance their understanding of complex issues. Multiple research studies suggest that individuals may underestimate their level of agreement with a piece of communication from across the political aisle.

• People expect that listening to opposing views will be unpleasant (Dorison et al., 2019). This was found to be a forecasting error. Their assumption stood directly in their way, subsequently affecting information consumption.

• They expect that others who do not share their views will respond negatively to them (Wald et al., 2024). They found that people underestimate the degree of common ground that would emerge in conversation and from failing to appreciate the power of social forces in conversation that create social connection.

• People are afraid they will not feel heard by others during a conversation (Teeny & Petty, 2022). Feeling, in advance, that they will not be heard, they are significantly more reluctant to enter into conversation with anyone with opposing views.

• Brand new research showed that each participant underestimated levels of depolarization after having a conversation with them about various topics: Dogs vs cats, cancel culture, Biden’s performance as president (Kardas et al., 2026). All had the same outcome. Another finding within this study was that if one was told that it’s been shown that polarization reduces after conversations with others with different viewpoints, their own polarization reduced, without the conversation ever having taken place. Just the idea that someone else may have a different view and that previous experiments showed most depolarized after discussions caused a solid shift in their own polarization. Each participant found unexpected areas of agreement when discussing issues typically viewed as polarized.

• proposed that curiosity itself was a driving factor behind reluctance towards political conversation. His team found that people incorrectly assumed others would be closed-minded towards cross-aisle conversations. Yet when they discovered that their political in-group displayed more humility and open-mindedness than originally anticipated, their curiosity increased, leading to more fruitful and willing conversations across the aisle (Kashdan et al., 2025).

Tribalism Must Go

Moral of the story? You’re probably wrong. And so am I. And that’s ok. Let’s change. Tribalism is a cancer. It does no one any good. It becomes evident that we have misjudged the depth of our own intellectual flexibility, as well as that of others, underestimating our shared capacity to adapt, to remain curious, and to reshape our thinking in response to new evidence. I’ve been as guilty as anyone. I get caught up in, “They’re not going to listen to anything I have to say anyway, I’m not going to waste my time.”

Sometimes this is rooted in a quiet but powerful presumption that we already possess the truth, and that the task of the other is merely to recognize it and follow. In such a posture, curiosity is not only diminished but also displaced, though it may be the most essential element of all.

Such curiosity led me to here. Years ago, I decided to learn. Really learn. And the more I learned, the more I understood the premise behind Socrates’ claim, “I am the wisest among you because I know nothing.” He found that the more he learned, the more he realized how much was out there to learn. And he possessed a small, minute fraction of the information available. For me, this led to openness and curiosity. Which led to anti-tribalism.

As stated in my first book, America’s Great Threat: America, America won’t fall from the outside. It will collapse from within, foremost among the causes is a rigid, binary way of thinking that divides people and discourages curiosity.

End Tribalism!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Dorison, C. A., Minson, J. A., & Rogers, T. (2019). Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition, 188, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.010

Kardas, M., Nordgren, L., & Rucker, D. (2026). Unnecessarily divided: Civil conversations reduce attitude polarization more than people expect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000469

Kashdan, T. B., McKnight, P. E., Kelso, K., Craig, L., & Gross, M. (2025). Enhancing curiosity with a wise intervention to improve political conversations and relationships. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 40272–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-24021-8

Teeny, J. D., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Attributions of emotion and reduced attitude openness prevent people from engaging others with opposing views. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104373

Wald, K. A., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2024). Misplaced divides? Discussing political disagreement with strangers can be unexpectedly positive. Psychol Sci, 35(5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241230005

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles:

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

You Can’t Judge Me

Responsibility: A Solution No Policy Can Write

A Real Man Values Marriage

Overcorrection

Comfort For Moms, Chains For Kids

I have written about forgiveness before, but in response to an article and a cultural event that took place. You can see that HERE. This time, I want to make it personal. Because it is. Here’s my story. Try your best to respond to the call to action at the end.

• I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who told me you would place me under investigation so that I would leave the company because you didn’t want any white people there.

• I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who told me I would not get the job though I was most qualified because I was a white male.

• I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who told me that the only way I’d ever be a good therapist was if I were to become a woman.

• I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who went behind me, told outright lies, and got me removed from the band because you wanted full credit for any future success of that artist.

As far as I know, each one of those individuals above are still alive. But if they were deceased, it wouldn’t change the statement. I forgive them. Why?

Forgiveness is an internal dialogue. Though it is expressed externally. Forgiveness is you drawing a hard line in your own mind and body. This wound does not get unlimited access to my life. The injury happened, but it doesn’t get to run the system anymore. You’re telling your nervous system to stand down, telling your thoughts to stop orbiting the damage, and reclaiming the bandwidth that pain once consumed. From that point forward, you’re not drifting in reaction, you’re moving with intention. Focus replaces fixation. Direction replaces rumination. And your future stops being negotiated by your past.

My Experience

I was working at a large corporation. I had risen to the top 5 in the entire company in sales. I was being celebrated by many in the company that were not in my area. Meanwhile, in my area, there was a black woman that sat me down and told me a harsh truth. I had applied for a supervisor position leading a sales team. She said that she did not want me to get the supervisor’s position.

As a result, I did not get it. She told me it was because she wanted her black female friends to get it because we need more “diversity.” Diversity had come to be known as non-white. She said, and I quote, “The last thing this company needs is more white men telling black people what to do.” Another supervisor’s position became available. I applied again. This time, someone above her stated that being top 5 in the company means something and that he was giving me a shot. But I had to work for “her.” As soon as I got the job, she told me that she would see to it that I’m no longer there.

She had opened an investigation into another supervisor, a mixed male. Again stating that we need more females in the company. Shortly thereafter, she opened one on me, completely inventing infractions. My coworker sweat through it and hung on. I did not. I moved on.

I was in another industry. I went to the boss and discussed getting hired for certain positions. He plainly told me that we need more black people and that I would not get the job, “So don’t even bother applying.” I was more qualified and had more experience. It did not matter.

I’ve already written about this, but basically, I was in class and told that in order to be a good therapist, you have to be a woman. If you’re a man, you have to be feminine. You can’t be masculine in any way. But being a straight white Christian male made it impossible to be a good therapist and that I needed to rethink my career choices.

Each of these individuals left a mark on me. It stung. Each of these individuals was in a place of authority and, by default, I looked up to them. Each said what they said because they knew there were no repercussions. Being racist or sexists was perfectly acceptable as long as it was against white males. And I’m not the lawsuit type. I like the path of least resistance.

Fortunately, I’m surrounded by wise men and women. And these wise individuals encouraged me to see it for what it was; a power grab rooted in ideological homogeny centered around group think that has placed blinders over their eyes to the possibility that someone could disagree with them and be right. So I forgave them.

How Do You Know When You’ve Forgiven Them?

You know forgiveness has actually happened when their name stops having power over your nervous system. It comes up, a familiar scenario resurfaces, and there’s no spike. No heat. No internal recoil. Just neutrality.

My wife had to forgive her ex-husband and her father for years of harm. Today, when they’re mentioned, she doesn’t relive the story. She simply says she hopes and prays they’ve changed. That’s the difference. Forgiveness isn’t sentimental, it’s neurological. The person who once hijacked your emotions no longer lives rent free in your head. Their name becomes just a sound, not a trigger. And in that moment, you realize something radical. You’re no longer reacting. You’re choosing

Studies

There are studies showing a link between forgiveness and physical health. One such meta-analysis (Lee & Enright, 2019) showed forgiveness having a positive effect on the sympathetic nervous system, endocrine production, brain activity, blood pressure, cholesterol, and the immune system (N = 58,531, r = 0.14, p < 0.001).

Your Turn

Who do you need to forgive? Your story is likely much worse than mine. Murder. Rape. Molestation. Sex trafficking. Domestic violence. Psychological abuse. Malevolently turning the children against you. The list goes on and on. People do awful things at times.

You may be asking, “Why should I forgive them? They don’t deserve that.” And you would be right. They don’t. I don’t deserve the forgiveness I receive either. And neither do you. That’s why.

So I’ll ask again, who do you need to forgive? Don’t wait. Don’t put it off. Forgive them today, tonight. Even if you don’t have a way to tell them. Forgive them. Tell someone that you’ve done so. You will begin to feel a weight lifted off of your shoulders. Peace is achievable. But not with unforgiveness lurking in the background.

To my Christian brothers and sisters. Forgiving is not an option. It is a command. We are able to forgive others because God forgave us. Remember, we didn’t deserve the forgiveness God extended, no one does. So forgive.

One last time, Who Do You Need to Forgive?

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Lee, Y., & Enright, R. D. (2019). A meta-analysis of the association between forgiveness of others and physical health. Psychology & Health, 34(5), 626–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2018.1554185

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Related Articles:

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

The Lies of Unconstraint

Overcorrection

Responsibility: A Solution No Policy Can Write

Manhood is Broken and the Fix is 500 Years Old

You Can’t Judge Me

I know, I know. I said I wouldn’t write any more religious posts because too many religious people major on minors and miss the forest for the trees. But I saw a piece recently where a writer attempted to show us just how smart he was and exercise a moral authority that apparently he possesses and everyone else just sits in awe, awaiting his every wise word on how centuries of information derived from ancient texts should be viewed the way he says it should, in spite of the historical accuracy of said ancient texts, or you are simply wrong. (I’ve purposely chosen not to include his article, so he doesn’t get unnecessarily digitally doxed).

It always fascinates me how people spend so much time attempting to tear down mountains of archaeological evidence, lived experience, and structure that has clearly benefited society. This happens when people attack religion, and especially Christianity. I say especially, because it is the religion that is the most attacked in America.

I won’t go too deep here on this, but three major discoveries of ancient scrolls surfaced over time, each older than the previous finds. Each time, they were identical. This is almost impossible to achieve outside of authenticity. Scholars who specialize in ancient manuscripts don’t dispute the core documents used to assemble the Bible. The best resource I know for this information is Wes Huff. Moving on.

In this newest hit piece, the first problem I notice is the overwhelming desire to use the word Palestinian yet claim to be giving us a history lesson at the same time. Palestinian wasn’t a word used often in biblical times. It’s not a region. Not an ethnicity. Regardless, let’s glean from his “Four points of brilliance.”

#1. Jesus Wasn’t White.

“What most white Christians conveniently forget is that the real Jesus of Nazareth looked nothing like those Renaissance paintings.”

Who is most? No one believes he was. I literally know of no one that believes for one second that Jesus was “white.” He was Jewish. The idea that some may consider him white is pulling from, very possibly, one of the smallest samples in survey history. The only people claiming others say this are indulging in the very tired race baiting that permeates liberal white women.

#2. Jesus Was Political.

“You have to be especially ignorant of basic historical facts to believe that Jesus—who was literally executed by the state as a political threat under a placard reading ‘King of the Jews’—wasn’t political.”

The crucifixion was illegal. Neither the Romans nor the Jewish authorities actually had a solid legal case against Jesus. Nothing that justified an execution. Many expected him to lead a revolutionary style governmental revolt, but his teachings consistently pushed away from political insurrection. He instructed them to respect the government. His only real intersection with political authority was confronting the Pharisees, who had aligned themselves with Roman power to protect their religious structure, cultural traditions, and the limited individualism and autonomy they still retained.

“He proclaimed good news to the poor and liberation to the oppressed.”

Yes. To the individual.

“He warned the first would be last and the last would be first.”

Calling the individual to humble himself.

“He told parables of masters being overthrown by servants, kings being challenged, wealthy being cast down while hungry were fed.”

The aim was to cultivate humility. To remind the person that, apart from Christ, their standing is no greater than that of the beggar, and that wealth should remain a servant rather than a master.

“He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey in a deliberate parody of Roman imperial processions.”

This was prophesied in Zechariah 9:9 approximately 500 years before Jesus was here.

The four examples given under #2 were all directed to the individual. Never a systemic enterprise. His message challenged hearts, not institutions.

#3 His Message Wasn’t About Heaven or Afterlife.

“Recognize that the Bible is not a historically accurate transcript of what Jesus said

(Admittedly, this is very difficult for most people who have been brainwashed to believe almost from birth that the Bible is “the word of God” with no mistakes and practically a fourth member of the trinity).”

Brainwashed? Brainwashed to believe 2 Timothy 3:16.

Then he says,

“Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, liberate the oppressed, forgive debts, redistribute wealth.”

Nope. Redistributed wealth was never near his lips. And even if it were interpreted that way, His message challenged hearts, not institutions.

Jesus’ message about money wasn’t complicated. Many religious leaders in his time were corrupt, working with Roman authorities to protect their hierarchical power and status. They treated wealth like proof of spiritual favor. Jesus didn’t condemn wealth itself, he warned, either you govern money, or it governs you. His criticism was aimed at people, like the Pharisees, who were controlled by money.

Maybe my favorite part of this segment in the piece was the dismissal of validity due to the fact that John wrote his letters around 70 A.D. (Actually, he said 70 years after Jesus’ death. That’s not true. It was approximaely 35 years after). This was when they knew it had all been completed. Not when they believe he wrote it. But let’s assume “oh wise one” is right. We have texts on Alexander the Great. The first known writings about his life happened over 250 years after his death. But we believe it as undeniable truth. The inconsistency is astounding.

#4 Jesus Wasn’t Divine.

“This is the big one—and is probably most difficult for modern Christians to accept. The historical Jesus, the man who walked the earth 2,000 years—never actually claimed to be divine. That’s an invention of his later followers.”

This is the biggest reach. But it again denies the validity of 2 Timothy 3:16. This is to dismiss the expression of the trinity, the claim that got him killed, and the more than 300 prophecies from the Old Testament that he fulfilled. If Jesus was not divine, we are all doomed. I guess, “I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” just slipped his mind.

Why It Matters

“It made Jesus into an object of worship, a ticket to heaven, a way to escape this world.”

No, it actually drew a line in the sand, called people up, demanded people do not give in to desires, pointed to a narrow road, gave hope to the hopeless, and solidified exactly why Jesus was here.

What this writer did was cherry pick the visions of the anointed, the intellectuals (who surely have no agenda of their own) and justified every carnal move and every principal they think writers in the Bible “just got wrong.”

This is how dangerous it is to be governed by our feelings. We will find things that aren’t there.

“The lies Christians tell about Jesus—that he was white, apolitical, focused on the afterlife, and divine—aren’t innocent mistakes. They’re a systematic reconstruction designed to make Jesus safe for power.”

“This afterlife-obsessed Christianity has served power perfectly throughout history.”

The reduction to power is the part that’s intellectually dishonest. As if the only motivation one could have for staying out of politics was for power. This is truly paradoxical to common sense playing out right in front of us. Many, if not most, get in to politics for power, not avoid it.

Growth Over Feelings

But why would someone take such pride in deconstructing the Christian faith using fallacies and feelings over centuries of fact? Because it doesn’t line up with the way he feels. It doesn’t just say, “Do exactly what you want. Your truth is superior to the truth.”

It calls you toward a peaceful life. Towards delayed gratification. To invest in the next generation. To be a person of moral character. Integrity. Consistency. This fosters personal growth. And that’s difficult and messy. When beliefs clash with personal preference, reinterpretation becomes tempting.

Ok, I’m done with this. It will likely call out every religious zealot that sits around all day thinking about whether Susan went all the way in (because we saw her hand sticking out) or if we need to schedule another baptism. Sheesh. I’m tired thinking about that.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles:

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

Why Therapy is So Hard For Men

The Dirty “S” Word

Don’t Throw the Message Out With the Mess-Ups

The Freedom of Limits

A Real Man Values Marriage- The Brain

Another religious post. Forgive me. But it is part of who I am.

I watched the new Wes Huff interview on Steven Bartlett’s Diary of a CEO. Steven is one of my favorite podcasts to watch. He has the best guests and is genuinely curious. This one, however, had a bit of predetermined readiness for a duel. Steven was welcoming as always and asked questions in good faith, but he could not tolerate the way Wes was answering them. So he cut Wes off many times shortly into Wes’ reply.

This showed me he was looking for predetermined outcomes to the questions he was asking and when it didn’t go as planned, he shifted, as if to refocus the conversation on his own skepticism. Wes masterfully put every question to rest with facts and his overall interpretation of the events in question.

Let’s take a few of Steven’s objections for examples of what I’m referring to.

The Great Leap Backwards

The greatest leap was an early one. Steven comes out swinging concerning the time when the gospels were written. John was written approximately 40 years after Jesus’ death. Steven attempts to make the case that this would be hard to remember. If this is the standard, we must throw out almost every text written in the ancient world as fact.

Throw out all of the Roman Empire. All Greek philosophers. Socrates? Gone. His pupil Plato? Gone. Plato’s pupil Aristotle? Gone. Aristotle’s pupil Alexander the Great? Gone. The earliest manuscripts we have of anything being written about Alexander the Great was approximately 250 years after his death. But we hang on every word of it as the undeniable truth.

It would all have to go. But we would never do that. Why? Because we only want to throw out what challenges us.

Both or Neither

Then Steven suggests that there can’t be a God with all of the evil in the world. Here, Wes delicately handles this objection (much more diplomatically than I would have—realizing this interview was a setup for a duel) by illuminating the often agreed upon philosophy that if we acknowledge there is Evil, then we must agree there is Good. And also agree they have origins and authors. Again, he was trying to prove something false only to feed directly into its philosophical objectivity.

The Unmoved Mover

Steven then gets into the evolutionary debate. They both quickly agree on adaptation. But the idea of a transition from chimpanzee to human has yet to be remotely adequately explained. Beyond this, Steven kept referring to existing realities and variations of the existing realities while dodging the origin argument the entire time.

At one point, Wes begins to say that there must have been a beginning and Steven interrupts, again, to shift into his creative brain making sense of the world outside of the need for a God. Wes even alludes to Aristotle’s claim that while moving things are moved by other movers, it could not have begun by a mover. It had to have begun by an eternal, unmoved mover. There has to have been an origin story. But Steven kept dodging it.

The Holy Vending Machine

Lastly, Steven travels into the arena of prayer. He says what many say, “I have prayed for meaningful things that never came true. If there is a God, why would he not answer that prayer? And if He doesn’t answer prayer, then how great of a God could He possibly be?”

This is assuming…

1. We have asked according to God’s will

2. We already know what God’s will is ahead of time

3. We somehow have an idea of what should happen regardless of how limited we are in our thinking.

God is not the Holy vending machine in the sky. “A4 - new job!” And prayer isn’t solely asking for things, although at times, it involves that.

The Lord’s Prayer

Allow me to briefly break down the Lord’s Prayer as an example:

• Our Father who is in Heaven: This lays out that he is revealed to us as a father (paternal authority) and where he currently is. So when we pray, we know exactly to whom we are praying.

• Holy is your name: This indicates that when we pray, we are speaking to a perfect God.

• Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven: Here we see the idea that when we pray, we are to ask for what He wants, not what we want. We are also to ask God to bring what is in heaven here to earth. Eternal rewards in the afterlife are not enough.

• Give us this day our daily bread: When we do ask, we should ask for what we need, not necessarily what we want.

• Forgive us, as we have forgiven others: This one’s tough. If we haven’t forgiven others very well, we are saying, don’t forgive us either. The opposite is equally true.

It ends with recognition that He is the creator and ruler of all. None of that is easy, nothing suggests indulging the self, and all of it challenge us to aim towards and ineffable telos.

Conclusion

Steven wanted to be right. This is new for him. He usually wants to learn. So why was this different? I think the answer is simple. Christianity calls us towards a better way than the easy path in front of us; the easy path of rejecting notions of delayed gratification. Never mind that delayed gratification is a predictor of economic success. Christianity also rejects the self and requires us to acknowledge the intrinsic deficiencies we all possess. This is often too much for our current self-driven society to handle. Personally, I’m glad I grew up before they invented self-esteem.

Thankfully, Steven eventually gets to a place where he concedes that Wes really is a good guy, knows what he’s talking about, and genuinely means well. It ended better than it started. Maybe next time Steven goes in ready for a fight, he will pick someone less informed so he can win.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles:

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

The Dirty “S” Word

Don’t Throw the Message Out With the Mess-Ups

The Freedom of Limits

A Real Man Values Marriage- The Brain

Manhood is Broken and the Fix is 500 Years Old

Men walking into therapy often feel like they’ve stepped into a room designed for someone else. The reasons are so vast, but here, I’ll address nine of them: Face to face communication, vulnerability is mocked, the zero-sum game, imbalanced topics, the feminine standard, socially constructed lies, therapy lacks humor, pathologizing biology, and men feel like no one cares. I invite you to read this with an open mind. Again, this is not exhaustive, just representative.

Face to Face vs. Side by Side

Men tend to communicate best side by side, not face to face.

That simple difference matters more than most people realize. Face-to-face communication, in male psychology, carries two common meanings: confrontation or vulnerability. Across most of male social life, communication happens while doing something. Driving, fishing, fixing a truck, lifting weights, or watching a game. The conversation happens alongside the activity, not in direct emotional spotlight.

• Put two men shoulder to shoulder and they’ll talk for hours.

• Put them in two chairs staring directly at each other in a quiet office and the everything changes. It can feel interrogative or emotionally exposed in a way that men aren’t accustomed to.

Side-by-side communication lowers the pressure. It creates breathing room. The activity gives the conversation a rhythm. In many cases, men open up more easily when the focus isn’t entirely on them.

Vulnerability is Mocked

Another barrier appears when a man finally does attempt vulnerability.

Often this moment happens awkwardly and without practice. A man who has spent decades learning to contain his emotions suddenly tries to express them. Then it comes out unclear or the timing is confusing to the spouse.

Then comes the worst possible response.

The spouse, not expecting this new approach, reacts with confusion or even mockery. Not necessarily malicious mockery. Often it’s disbelief. Then comes a comment like, “What are you doing? You’re fine. Just grill the steaks!”

To the man, that moment carries enormous psychological weight. He took a risk. The risk was rejected. The brain quickly learns a lesson… vulnerability leads to humiliation.

The defense mechanism that follows is predictable. He shuts down. Not because he refuses growth, but because the interaction signaled danger.

Zero-Sum Game

Discussions about men’s mental health often trigger an odd cultural reflex.

Some people hear “men’s mental health” and interpret it as an attempt to take attention away from women’s issues. The conversation becomes competitive, as if compassion and understanding are limited resources.

But mental health is not a zero-sum game.

Helping men does not harm women. Helping women does not harm men. Human suffering doesn’t require a ranking system. It simply requires attention and care.

Men’s health advocates don’t want the spotlight shifted from women to men, but rather just broadened to cover both. We can think two things at the same time.

Imbalanced Topics

Many therapists sit down with men and immediately ask about their feelings.

That sounds reasonable. Therapy, after all, deals with emotions. But the timing matters. Sometimes a man walks into therapy and only wants to know why Chris didn’t like his new boat.

On the surface that seems trivial. A therapist may quickly assume there’s a deeper emotional wound underneath. Maybe insecurity. Maybe validation issues.

And sometimes that’s true.

But sometimes the man is just thinking about his boat.

Men often process thoughts through practical details before moving into emotional territory. Jumping immediately into emotional analysis can feel intrusive or premature. It creates a sense that everything must be turned into a psychological excavation.

Write the comment down. Let the conversation breathe. If there is deeper meaning, it will surface naturally over time.

Not every statement needs to become a therapeutic breakthrough the moment it’s spoken.

The Feminine Standard

Traditional couples therapy tends to follow a very specific format.

Two partners sit across from each other. They speak calmly. They take turns describing their feelings. The therapist facilitates reflective listening and emotional validation.

• For many women, this format feels natural and productive.

• For many men, it’s exausting and feels like psychological quicksand.

The environment emphasizes emotional articulation, sustained eye contact, and prolonged discussion of feelings. These communication styles generally suit women more often than men.

Many men would rather resolve conflict in a more active setting. Talking loudly over music while shooting pool. Arguing during a long drive. Venting frustration while tossing darts or putting golf balls across the living room/office.

Conversations often become more honest when they’re embedded in action rather than stifled by stillness.

Socially Constructed Lies

For generations, men have been told a story about themselves.

The story says men must have everything together. Real men don’t need help. Real men solve problems alone.

That story is both deeply embedded in culture and deeply false.

Human beings are social creatures by design. Our brains evolved to cooperate, communicate, and share burdens. Isolation is suffocating.

There is nothing weak about asking another person for perspective. Sometimes a man simply wants help understanding why his wife yells so much or why they have a sexless marriage.

Therapy Lacks Humor

Therapists are just too damn serious.

The atmosphere can feel like a funeral for joy. Every comment is analyzed. Every sentence is treated like a symptom. Laughter gets awkward.

But men often process difficult emotions through humor.

Sarcasm, joking, and playful exaggeration are not avoidance mechanisms by default. Sometimes they are emotional pressure valves.

I have a client who laughs when he expresses dissent, frustration, resentment, and he usually does it through humorous sarcasm. I often join him in laughter. Sometimes that’s enough.

Pathologizing Biology

Often couples therapy is led by a woman who knows nothing about what you just read and works solely on how men can be more like women.

Many therapeutic frameworks were developed around communication patterns more common among women. This creates an unconscious bias.

But men and women are not identical creatures psychologically or biologically.

When therapy treats male tendencies, like directness, emotional restraint, and action-oriented thinking, as defects that must be corrected, men understandably resist. The result is more men rejecting the notion that the only solution to their marital problems is if he learns to cry at Hallmark movies. Men do not need to become women in order to become healthy partners.

They Feel No One Cares

After enough experiences like these, many men arrive at a bleak conclusion.

They believe no one truly cares whether they struggle or not.

If society cared, people would try harder to understand how men communicate. Vulnerability would be welcomed rather than mocked. Mental health would not be framed as a competition. Masculine biology would be studied rather than dismissed.

When men feel fundamentally misunderstood, disengagement becomes the logical response. Why participate in a system that feels designed without you in mind?

The tragedy is that this perception reinforces silence. Silence deepens suffering. And suffering, left alone long enough, begins to convince people they are invisible. And this is how we get to the staggering suicide statistics that exist today.

When therapy learns to meet men where they actually are, the resistance often softens, and the conversation that was once impossible becomes tangible. I’ve seen this firsthand. Men can have flourishing lives and fixing the broken therapeutic system is a good step towards this realization.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles:

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

A Real Man Values Marriage

Overcorrection

Responsibility: A Solution No Policy Can Write

Manhood is Broken and the Fix is 500 Years Old

You Can’t Judge Me

Grainger is a free-thinking writer with insights on modern fatherhood, relationships, and raising emotionally healthy kids, at the crossroads of psychology and spirituality. Multiple degrees in Psychology. Husband. Father. Counselor/Therapist.

Kelly Jackson is a Christian, wife, and mother who walked away from corporate success to follow a deeper calling. Through her work, she has supported hundreds of women through career shifts, nervous system stabilization, identity transitions, and the quiet work of legacy-building. Her mission is to help women return to what really matters in life.

Together, they bring you a difficult topic delivered at the intersection of compassionate kindness and unapologetic truth.

Kelly’s Message to the Ladies

Few words trigger a reaction like submission.

Say it out loud and watch shoulders tense. For many women, it conjures images of silence, shrinking, blind obedience, power misused. It sounds like erasure.

And if that’s what submission were, it should be rejected.

But the biblical vision of submission in marriage is not about domination or loss of agency. It is about order rooted in love, strength expressed through trust, and voluntary yielding within covenant.

A brief clarification: biblical submission only makes sense within a Christian worldview. If Scripture is not authoritative to you, we may not land in the same place—and that’s okay. This conversation is for those willing to consider God’s design on its own terms.

The Verse Everyone Quotes — And the Context They Skip

“Wives, submit to your husbands…” (Ephesians 5:22)

That line rarely stands alone in Scripture, though it often does online.

The verse immediately before it reads:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)

Submission in marriage does not begin with wives. It begins with both husband and wife submitting themselves under Christ. Wives are called to submit within a structure where husbands are simultaneously commanded to love as Christ loved the Church.

And Christ did not dominate the Church. He died for her.

The Weight of Headship

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Ephesians 5:25)

Biblical headship is not privilege. It is responsibility. It is leadership under judgment. A husband is called to lay his life down in tangible ways—through protection, provision, humility, and spiritual stewardship.

Any version of submission detached from sacrificial leadership is not biblical. It is distortion.

Scripture never authorizes a husband to demand what he refuses to embody.

What Submission Is

Submission is a posture, not a personality.

It is:

• Trusting your husband’s leadership when he is seeking God

• Choosing cooperation over competition

• Yielding preference for unity

• Respecting the role God designed

• Allowing yourself to be led without disappearing

It is voluntary, not coerced.
Strong, not passive.
Intentional, not automatic.

Take the Proverbs 31 woman. She is not voiceless. She is wise, industrious, discerning, and respected. Her alignment does not make her small—it makes her steady.

What Submission Is Not

I want to be super clear, as I know many will be thinking about the extremes.

Submission is not:

• Enduring abuse

• Obeying sin

• Silencing legitimate concerns

• Abdicating discernment

• Shrinking to protect ego

When commanded to comply with wrongdoing, the apostles responded: “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

Submission never overrides obedience to God. It is not unquestioning compliance. It is not a command to tolerate harm.

Why the Word Offends Modern Culture

In a culture that treats power as something to seize and defend, submission sounds like loss.

But Jesus redefined greatness:
“Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” (Mark 10:43)

Christianity frames strength differently. Voluntary yielding under God is not weakness. Christ submitted to the Father—and commanded storms.

It’s important to distinguish that submission becomes dangerous when demanded. But it becomes life-giving when freely offered within a marriage anchored in Christ.

When a husband leads with humility, a wife can yield without fear. When a wife responds with respect, a husband is strengthened in leadership. Neither weaponizes Scripture. Both submit first to God.

This kind of order removes rivalry. It replaces scorekeeping with trust. Marriage stops resembling a corporate ladder and begins reflecting covenant.

Biblical submission does not erase women. It steadies homes. Properly understood, it does not silence wives—it anchors marriages in something stronger than personal will.

Grainger’s Message to Men

Ok fellas. You’re not off the hook just because she said wives should be better at the “S” word. We need to be better also. First, the scripture Kelly mentioned in Ephesians 5, well, is your spouse worth dying for? Chances are you’d say yes. And if so, then are you worth submitting to? That depends on the aspect of leadership that you employ. If leadership to you looks like ruling, being the boss, and instructing, then no, you’re not worth submitting to. If it’s servant leadership, then maybe.

Reclaiming the Word Submission

The etymology of the word submission closely translates to the words under to send or let go. So I submit my life to the authority of my pastor. I am under him to be sent or to let go of total control. I told him, “If you’re following Jesus, I’m following you.” This doesn’t make me inferior. Weak. Spineless. Quite the opposite. It makes me meek, strong yet in control. So submission doesn’t mean your wife is weak, it means she is strong yet in control. I’m not following my pastor blindly. If he tells me to shave my head and move to Waco, TX, he is on his own. I’m not going. But if he leads biblically, I’ll follow; I’ll submit.

The Verse Everyone Quotes

Kelly said it well. We first submit to each other. And to the men, if you’re not worth submitting to or are leading in a direction not aligned with God’s word, there’s no biblical validity to her staying in such abuse. So please don’t try to use that against her. It won’t work if someone like me, who knows the Bible in and out, is around to debunk your narcissistic tendencies.

The idea here is bilateral submission. The wife submits (follows under to send while strong and in control or restraint) to her husband and the husband simultaneously submits to Christ, so much that he will lay his life down for her. Both must happen to be in alignment with God’s will for our lives. Unilateral submission is the breeding ground for disaster. Submission to Christ looks like chasing God first, then your spouse, then leading your children, in that order. And chasing isn’t passive, it’s intentional.

What It Looks Like to Lead

So what should she submit to? Leadership implies:

• Someone is voluntarily following. If not, you’re dictating.

• You’re taking someone from one place to another. If not, you’re managing.

• Leading from underneath, allowing those you lead to take credit for the everyday wins. If not, you’re bossing.

• Serving first and eating last. If not, you’re insecure.

What It Looks Like in Everyday Life

Initiate, Serve, Follow Through.

Initiate

Initiate getting the kids up in the mornings. Initiate getting the kids’ clothes out. Initiate fixing breakfast. Initiate praying with the kids and with your wife. Initiate being on time to church. Do not wait for her to take control of these situations if you are able to initiate it.

Serve

Serve her. What restaurant does she want to go to? What movie does she want to watch? What would make her evening less stressful? This leads to reciprocity. Women often respond to such initiation and service in the most generous of ways. Sometimes, they don’t even realize this is an innate part of them until they’re given the liberty to inhabit such freedom. It starts with you.

Follow Through

Follow through with what you say you will do. This is true for consequence, reward, or simply showing up. If you tell your children not to touch the TV and they do, and you do nothing, they have learned not to respect you and your word means nothing. Likewise, if you say you will be at their piano recital and you don’t show up, they learn you don’t really mean anything you say. However, if you do provide consequences, and you do show up to the recital, you are teaching them you are a man of your word, which mirrors the God we serve. He is a man of his word.

If I say I’ll meet you for coffee at 9 AM, and 9 AM arrives and I’m not there and you haven’t heard from me, you might as well call the highway patrol. I’m on the side of the road somewhere. I’m a man of my word 100% of the time. This applies to our spouses as well. If I say I’ll get the house ready for guests, I better get it ready (to her satisfaction, not mine).

Final Reflection

Before moving on, consider:

Ladies:

1. What immediate reaction does the word submission stir in you—and why?

2. Where might God be inviting you to release control as an act of trust and obedience?

3. How does viewing submission as a spiritual discipline—not a gender deficiency—shift your understanding?

Men:

1. What areas of your life need improvement in initiating, serving, or following through?

2. Where might God be inviting you to accept responsibility and make internal changes with external and eternal rewards?

3. How does viewing submission as a two-way street that begins with you serving her shift your understanding?

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger & Kelly Jackson

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles:

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

A Real Man Values Marriage- The Brain

Overcorrection

Responsibility: A Solution No Policy Can Write

Manhood is Broken and the Fix is 500 Years Old

A.D.H.D. Another Disorder Habituating Drugs

Do your best to read this with an open mind and an attempt to discover something new.

The Super Bowl halftime show was talked about more than the game. This has been the norm for the last few years. But this year, because of the strong political divide, there were two halftime shows. One for “each side.” This phrase alone is incredibly stupid to say. What’s a side? You have no side. They don’t care about you. And the fact that they’ve duped you into thinking you have a side that resembles any form of allegiance to you is stupefying.

So in come the predictable and tired political slogans and hateful rhetoric aimed at the “other side.”

“All Spanish! Yay diversity!”

“All Spanish?, we speak English!”

“It’s goIng to be sexy and lit!”

“It’s going to be vulgar!”

“Only thing more powerful than hate is love.”

“How many women does he love? His first song suggests too many!”

Leave that man alone. He said his d/ćk is fire. That gives him the right to do whatever he wants. Right?

The next predictability were those praising the other halftime show. It was terrible. Lee Brice was ok. The others were very subpar. Until it got to Dr. Phil’s redneck cousin. Kid Rock was amazing. And I’m not a Kid Rock fan. Overall, it wasn’t a great show. But good luck telling that to MAGA.

“This was the best. Screw Bad Bunny!”

“I ain’t watching no Spanish show. ‘Merca!”

But the not so predictable part was when many turned on Kid Rock for singing about Jesus.

The angle was that he, at one time, was a womanizer, and maybe even pedophile. There’s no evidence for the latter. But he was definitely the former. And wild. And crazy. And redneck. But like all people, we change. He did too, apparently. This takes me to my main point.

Tribalism Enters Center Stage

In one show, you have a man who is clearly currently a total womanizer who blatantly disrespects women and does an entire show about how every woman wants him and he does what he wants to them and leaves. But his most notable message was “The only thing more powerful than hate is love.”

On the other show, you have a character who has also ruffled some feathers, past and present, who ends up with a message saying “You can give your life to Jesus, till you can’t.”

Both artists controversial. Both have disreputable pasts. Both brought a strong positive message. This causes me to ask two questions?

1. Why is one better (or worse) than the other?

2. Why are we dismissing the message because of the messenger?

The only possible answer to the 1st question: Tribalism. And the answer to the 2nd question? See 1st question.

• Solomon gave us the wisest book of the Bible.

• King David gave us the most passionate book in the Bible.

• Moses is the father of Jewish law and a foundational pillar of the Christian faith.

One left his first wife, hopped in bed with every chick this side of the Euphrates, decided to have multiple wives, who, eventually, were his downfall. Another had an affair and killed her husband, who was his most loyal soldier, to cover up the affair. Another killed a man because he got pissed off.

Do we throw their message out because of their mess-ups? I hope not. I have a lot of good things to say to help people live their best lives. But if you knew me in high school, you may not listen. Because I was a jack-wagon. Ernest Hemmingway and Robin Williams had plenty of good to say but ultimately couldn’t live by their own words. There have been many people in places of leadership that have positively altered the course of people’s lives, changing them forever, yet found themselves in a career-ending scandal.

There’s a strong psychological pull to dismiss a message once we discover flaws in the person delivering it. When someone lives inconsistently with what they teach, the instinct is to label everything they said as invalid. That reaction is understandable, but it isn’t always objective. Information can still carry value independent of the character of the person who delivered it. Sometimes the messenger is simply the vehicle. While the insight itself remains useful, constructive, or even transformative.

The tribalism has to end. There’s no real progress until we see through each other’s eyes.

I thank God every day there were no smart phones when I was in school. I thank God I’m forgiven. Thank God I’ve been given a second chance.

Don’t throw the message out with the mess-ups.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Share

Buy Me a Beer 🍺

Related Articles: