What Is In a Name? The Lake Family

I recently got a message from someone who, the last time I talked to, I had to give the gravest of news. It was a call less than a minute long. I think it was a week or two from when it happened, “Can I talk to Jim?” “I’m sorry, he has passed away. Who is this?” My heart sunk when I heard the name. Dad had been caring for this kid off-and-on for at least a year or two. He was a troubled junior higher when my dad started to come alongside and help his family both through his capacity as a deacon at church, but with this family, this kid, Dad went further than others who helped. They didn’t live close or on the way to church. That didn’t matter. There were problems at home that didn’t matter. There were problems at school, didn’t matter. He knew that going in. Dad devoted himself to helping this family.

This wasn’t particularly new to our family. Over the years, my earliest memories were filled with us moving single moms to new apartments or doing work projects for disabled people seeking help from our church. We had a generous benevolence fund, but the church’s financial support was often coupled with some Lake sweat. It was not uncommon to hear my dad on the phone with this utility or that insurance company working on behalf of someone seeking help at our church. Our family was at the vanguard of the Church’s hands and feet.

I got a message today. I wasn’t expecting it. I have not heard from him since that hard call almost 15 years ago. Shared with permission, of course.

My first thought was the recall of a staff meeting at a youth camp in Slovakia. In the meeting, we were reminded that the fruit of our labor in youth ministry is often never seen, often not manifested for years afterward. I don’t know when you were able to right the path in your life, but I am privileged to have been a part of it, even as an observer. My second thought was the privilege it was to come from a family who has taught such a creed. My family is one of Christians. It is an important part of who we are and what that means. There are many movies and books where a fatherless child must find his way and figure out who he is and who he will become. Dad told us when we were 12; his job was to prepare us to be men. I didn’t know that job would come to a halt days before my 19th birthday, but there was never a question of what it meant to be a Lake man. That was modeled a day in and day out for years. It was not perfect, as none of us are or were perfect, but it was always clear who we were.

I am grateful for those countless hours we spent working in the backyard and around the house. We were taught everything from falling a tree and installing a sidewalk to the proper way to make a grilled cheese sandwich. I am grateful for the work ethic instilled in us at such an early age. We didn’t have money, nice clothes, or grand vacations. We had a family. Thank you for this reminder.

Be a Good Soldier: A Valentine’s Day Post

And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics[b] is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.”Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” - Luke 3:10-14 (ESV)

For those of us who have served, this passage has fair literal value as it does general value. On this day of days what comes to mind is the broader message Jesus had to his followers. Do your job and do it well. In the recent weeks I have had several conversation in-real-life as well as digitally concerning the place singles have in the Church, particularly for the post-college pre-marriage stage, perhaps even moreso for those who are *gasp* not even in a relationship. Some of us look to the structures our local churches provide, or don’t. Some of us question the micro-culture of modern evangelicalism if it has a place for singles. According to Pew, the age of marriage among my generation is the oldest it has been in decades, perhaps in modern history. Even with these attainable benchmarks, I still exceed these with a healthy margin. What is one to do?

Allow me to segue to another reoccurring discussion I recently had. I promise to connect the dots. A disgruntled veteran was lamenting the sense of unfulfilled purpose he had, because though he answered the call to war, he did not engage in combat. For those unfamiliar with the indoctrination phase of military training, a fair amount of dehumanization must take place in order to make us comfortable with the concept of taking human life. This ranges from our enthusiastic chants of making the “green grass grow”, to the more calm and concentrated exercises of practicing marksmanship on human silhouettes. This was in response to an important report by Brigadier General SLA Marshall’s study of WWI and Civil War soldiers which he found no more than 15-20% of soldiers in combat fired their weapons at their enemies in battle. There has been much discussion since then, but the point remains, the indoctrination phase of military training focuses on “socializing” us in a foreign culture. The most basic aspect of that culture is to follow lawful orders. This is often summarized that a junior enlisted has only three tasks to accomplish. “Be in the right place, at the right time, in the right uniform.” All else their superiors will instruct them as needed. I take this universal principle and apply it to those service members who have been left with the sense of longing. One of the best portrayals of this attitude in film was from this scene in Jarhead (NSFW Language). My response to the distraught brother-in-arms comes from King David.

Then David came to the two hundred men who had been too exhausted to follow David, and who had been left at the brook Besor. And they went out to meet David and to meet the people who were with him. And when David came near to the people he greeted them. Then all the wicked and worthless fellows among the men who had gone with David said, “Because they did not go with us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we have recovered, except that each man may lead away his wife and children, and depart.” But David said, “You shall not do so, my brothers, with what the Lord has given us. He has preserved us and given into our hand the band that came against us. Who would listen to you in this matter? For as his share is who goes down into the battle, so shall his share be who stays by the baggage. They shall share alike.” And he made it a statute and a rule for Israel from that day forward to this day. - 1 Samuel 30:21-25 (ESV)

If you are unfamiliar with the story begin with verse 1. Anyways, the example provided by David and echoed in the military’s own ethic, our job is to follow orders. Those orders might provide opportunity for valor, but the chances are they won’t. In fact, the vast majority of military service consists of mundane tasks and orders, such that if one ever gets such an opportunity they are outside the norm, even those at war. Even then, to many men of valor, the conditions that provided that opportunity for valor have been frequently described as their worst day ever. Actually, this view appears to be rather common among our nation’s most honored.

I have lived as a soldier and as a single Christian. Through those years some points of isolation were worse than others. As I stand back with a view of God’s great mercies, grace, and love, I am reminded of the simple task we have been asked to do. To pick up our cross and follow him. The simplicity of what it means to b a Christian doesn’t fade, but the depth of those simple instructions only grows with our obedience. In that light, enjoy these Valentine’s Day cards.

Providence Verified Pt. VI - A New Community

It was decided then. After two weeks at Biola, the additional unexpected costs would be worth it. The descending digits in my bank account were worth the experience and education I would recieve here. Once settled, I knew it was imperative to find community in a local church. Because of my time Jessup I was already familiar with the intentional posture necessary to build community on campus when one does not reside on campus. Even then, community is not an overnight thing, it takes time. I found myself in a new community, new school, with little to know contacts in the area, but I was certain God brought me here for his purpose.

The first semester was a struggle. Unlike Jessup, Biola had a much smaller veteran population and a near non-existent veteran community on campus. That veteran community at Jessup was instrumental to my reintegration into society following Afghanistan. I recall reading one article that expressed the type of sentiments veterans have amidst their younger academic peers. In that particular article, a veteran described how his classmates were homesick after the first month of class, he on the other hand had spent over a year in combat in Iraq prior to being discharged and going to college. The lack of common ground and unparalleled life experiences within only a few years often feels like an ocean apart. I empathized with that veteran but was entirely grateful for having a band of brothers to guide me back to civilization. When I left Jessup, I also left them. There were an equal number of veterans at Jessup as Biola, but Biola’s undergraduate population was over 7x that of Jessup. The community I enjoyed did not and could not exist at Biola.

There were some clear practical reasons why so few veterans attend Biola. Between the Code of Conduct and the out of pocket expense in addition to Post 9/11 GI Bill, only the most motivated individual would consider Biola over other Christian schools like Azusa Pacific or California Baptist which did not have as strict code and came with no out of pocket expense. At the same time, as much as I love Biola, whenever I encounter potential students I make certain that they consider the costs. In many ways the consideration one makes to select a college should be similar to the considerations before one joins the military. Both experiences provide wide ranges of opportunity but can also carry considerable consequences.

I found a new church home in for a lack of cliche’ reasons at this point, providential manner. When I moved down south, I knew I had to find a local church to be a part of. I attended a large church with one of my housemates and it had all the flash and dazzle of a megachurch, I just sensed among the sea of congregants a long path to building relationships. The second week, I went to this church I heard about from Hume, which was where my theology professor taught. I knew from the moment I walked in that I was supposed to be there. The opening worship song was To God Be The Glory, a song I probably had not heard nor sung in over a decade. This was the song Dad, brother, and I sang every morning as he drove us to school. I was at home.

In the most immediate fashions, God brought me to Southern California, confirmed the school I was to attend, and even got me into the classes that I would enjoy. By then I thought God’s clear guiding hand on me was for the most part finished for a good bit of time. I was checking the formal education box in order to meet the qualifications to be a High School Social Science teacher. Little did I know where I would find myself after graduation to the present stage which I work.

SB1146, Are Religious Colleges Under Attack?

Biola Pressroom released this letter to Biolans and Biola supporters. According to this list there are 12 Religious Colleges and Universities which could lose Cal Grant funding if SB1146 becomes law. The original text of the bill has been recently changed to only provide the religious exemption to schools not affiliated with a denomination.

This bill would limit the religious exemption from the Equity in Higher Education Act to certain educational programs and activities of a postsecondary educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization….The bill would make the provisions of the Equity in Higher Education Act severable… This chapter shall not apply to educational programs or activities offered by an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to prepare students to become ministers of the religion, to enter upon some other vocation of the religion, or to teach theological subjects pertaining to the religion, if the application of this chapter would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.

Between the 12 listed institutions just over 21,000 students may be directly impacted. Take Biola and Azusa Pacific for example, these two schools are easily the largest on the list of affected schools if this bill becomes law. If 68% and 74% of the students from Biola and APU respectively graduate with borrowed funds, it is reasonable to believe most of them receive funds from Cal Grant. For the sake of argument suppose only half actually get Cal Grant, but without it they would not be able to attend. Can any institution survive a decline of 34-39% of their students? Because there is no date found in the text and this amends an already active law, this is assess if the law is signed this summer the changes will go into effect this coming Fall.

Between the original text (see the red strikethrough) this appears to be a state response following the apparent lead by the Department of Education. In my blog from earlier today I pointed to a helpful article by a Harvard Law Professor on the Title IX bind where schools are forced to accommodate LGBT students while simultaneously sexually offending other students. By all accounts if this bill becomes a law, we will have a new version of Bob Jones v. United States (1983). Instead of racially motivated restrictive admission policies that cost the school federal student aid, it will be discriminatory policies against the LGBT community. Although the text of the bill at current has struck through that text, to me, this only means better lawyers have made alterations to target religious institutions progressively. If the original text remained there would have been active support from our Roman Catholic brethren. If the whole of the religious community does not come together to mobilize their supporters I very easily see this bill being like a poem from a German pastor during WWII.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Allegedly the author of the bill claimed this was not to target religious institutions but, based on the amended text, who was this supposed to affect? This bill only affects religious institutions. Did Senator Lara, a Los Angeles native and member of the LGBT community, have in mind that California debt was too much and college aid was fiscally important? I think it is fair that the original text of the bill does not target religious institutions specifically but it would still greatly impact them. It is the duty of a legislator to consider the effects of all parties involved, not just their particular interest group.

When I analyzed the original text, I found it to be a clear violation of the Lemon Test, brought to you by Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). The Lemon Test has three parts which must be acceptable in order for a law to be constitutional and nondiscriminatory towards an establishment of religion. These criteria are:

1. "the statute must have a secular legislative purpose"
2. "its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion"
3. "the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.””

Based on these three criteria I am having trouble seeing any of these passing muster.

Then again if one looks to the 7th Court of Appeals Wheaton College v. Burwell (2014). This was Wheaton’s suit against Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) on the same grounds as Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby. It should be sadly noted that in the 8-0 judgement more or less in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Court explicitly said that case was not to be used as a guide to other cases, specifically Wheaton College v. Burwell. In this case, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Wheaton College. The important question following Hobby Lobby’s victory, which many institutions hoped would be answered by Zubik (Little Sisters of the Poor), was if the religious exemption eligibility could be applied to nonprofit institutions. After all, if it could apply to for-profit businesses, why would it not apply to non-profit religious organizations. The primary argument against the Little Sisters of the Poor, was the claim that they were not a religious organization...Let that sink in for a minute.

If SB1146 becomes law, then all the affected institutions should file an immediate suit challenging the constitutionality of the law. In order for it to not go into immediate effect, a judge would have to declare an injunction to prevent the change until the courts processes the challenge. Depending on the sensibilities of the judge it could go one way or another. If the injunction does not occur, then there is a real possibility the schools would go bankrupt before the courts workout the challenges.

This is a state law, therefore the challenge would have to begin at the state courts. It would not be wise to look immediately to the Supreme Court as such a case would likely take at least 4 years to even be submitted to be heard by the Supreme Court. Between this case potentially being a constitutional one and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals having ruled on this, if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the colleges (if you believe in miracles, such a ruling by that court would definitely qualify) that would bring the probability of the Supreme Court to hear the case up to maybe 5% chance. Oh, being that we don’t know who will be the 9th Justice to replace Justice Scalia, whoever becomes President would most definitely impact this decision. Therefore, if we have a hope in democracy or more importantly that God can intervene, in addition to praying for the affected schools use this link for a form letter to send to your representative.

Update: Here is a response from a far better informed friend concerning my arguments and the claims of the initial letter.

Pardon me if I ignore all normative arguments about the wisdom of the law, the existence of God, and the relative merits of organized religion for a moment, and just talk about the law.

A few minor points: 1) while the bill would narrow the exception only to schools and programs offering training in the ministry specifically, it does not require that the school also be denominational. "Controlled by a religious organization" simply means that the charter of whatever organization controls the school be explicitly religious. That language appears in the Ed Code as it currently exists. 2) the bill has been amended to read that no school which currently receives the Cal Grant will lose Cal Grant eligibility. Therefore, schools like Biola and APU are in no immediate danger on that front.

Now the major point: The Lemon Test is irrelevant. You cannot raise an Establishment Clause claim against government inaction (i.e. the failure to exempt). Also, though I did not read all of the comments and replies previously made, I wanted to address something in the ones I did read: viewpoint neutrality is also irrelevant, since there is no Free Speech claim here. Any constitutional challenge that could be raised to this bill would be under the Free Exercise Clause.

The apposite cases for the Free Exercise Clause are Employment Div. v. Smith (1990) and Locke v. Davey (2004). Smith states that any neutral law of general applicability does not violate the Free Exercise clause, unless the Free Exercise right is combined with some other right (typically in practice this means the right to Freedom of Association). For you court-counters out there, Smith was a 6-3 decision written by the late Justice Scalia, with O'Connor concurring in the judgment, but arguing for the use of the compelling interest test.

In Locke, a pastoral ministries major sued the state of Washington under the Free Exercise clause for withholding a state scholarship which the student was otherwise qualified for. The scholarship program specifically excluded studies in theology. The High Court held, 7-2, that the state of Washington could withhold the scholarship on the basis of the student's religious studies. The Court ruled that states have a "historic and substantial interest" in withholding state funding from religion. Any case involving this bill would be controlled by Locke, and the state's interest in non-discrimination could easily support the state's failure to grant an exemption from its law for programs that are not directly and explicitly theological. Therefore, the bill as it stands is constitutional.

Providence Verified Pt. V - Leaving Home

Between Providence Verified and Hard Lessons Simple Truths series we left off at my Afghanistan deployment and return to Hume Lake. I would consider the crossing paths with Charlie at Hume to be another example of God’s guiding hand. He is one of the people whom I heavy his words and council. The summer of 2012 was a blessing. The spiritual healing I experienced in the opening week and the privilege to be a part of such a ministry throughout the summer have only reinforced the place Hume has held in my heart.

During the course of the summer I had time to catch up with friends from across the state. Many of whom I grew up with and God has carried them to other places in ministry. I am constantly surprised how small the Church can feel sometimes. For more years than I can remember, my notion of “home” was equally referencing my family and church. I was anxious to return. Much of that community I have known since at least 3rd grade. Moving through life together for almost two decades has built inseparable bonds. During those years away I continued to grow in my knowledge of faith and theology. It was wonderful to return to my church home but there was a nagging feeling that I no longer belonged at that church. Summer at Hume provided time to consider the conversations and figure out what I should do when I returned home. Although my reasons for leaving my previous church were based on my theological convictions, none of the issues were concerning orthodoxy. I have no doubts they were and remain a Christ-following Church.

The following Fall I had a talk with one of the pastors concerning my sense of belonging. It was in that meeting that I was confirmed I no longer belonged at my home church. I was at William Jessup for the simple reason to be near my home church. If I was no longer to be at my home church should I necessarily continue at William Jessup? After one of the required Bible courses it was clear to me they held scripture in a different place than I did. In some classes students would openly mock Reformed and/or Complementarian theologies in class. I did not get the sense that such topics were to be engaged. Furthermore, there was only one theology class available and the reports from friends left something to be desired.

On the flip side, during Summer I was reminded of the buffet of Christian colleges in Southern California. Of the 300+ summer staff at Hume each year there are significant numbers of students from Azusa Pacific, Biola, and California Baptist. Point Loma Nazarene, Westmont, and William Jessup students are usually found on staff as well, but they usually have only a handful of students from the other schools. I spent the summer talking to friends who attended the different schools to gain perspective. Hume also has a Summer Preaching series each year, which often has a fair number of speakers from Biola. Biola was already on my radar because I had read a number of books by Biola professors such as William Lane Craig and JP Moreland. I was introduced to another theologian that summer, Erik Thoennes.

I knew I no longer belonged at the place I called home. By the Fall of 2012, I had endured 8 years of moving somewhere new each year. I thought when I returned from Afghanistan I would live out the rest of my years in Citrus Heights. God had a different plan. While at Jessup, I attended a nearby church for their college ministry. It was robust and active, but only attending for a portion of it made obvious gaps in forming clear community. My attentions were divided. I was still devoted to the Youth Ministry throughout these months. It was arguably equally difficult to leave my community and students for a new endeavor.

I completed my application to Biola University in the last week it would have been accepted. I was not accepted to Biola until less than a week from when classes started. In one of the more stressful periods of life and with the assistance of my housemate/best friend I packed up everything I owned in a moving truck. My friend drove my car behind me and I made a full scale move in 4 days. Did I mention I really don’t like moving? I’ve done it far too many times. My gypsy-like pattern for about 10 years would appear to contradict that but do not be deceived.

When I arrived to Biola I skipped much of the Orientation process to unload the moving truck. Prior to my application I checked to see the financial aid status at Biola. They were advertised as a Yellow Ribbon school which generally means they match the tuition contribution from GI Bill. Pretty much every private school takes part, the purpose is so Veterans can attend private colleges which cost way more than public colleges. Biola did not accept 18 of my 108 credits. As a transfer from a university there was no 70 unit cap. It was then I also found out the limited nature of Biola’s Yellow Ribbon participation which would cost me about 5k per semester out of pocket. Had I known this, I would’ve applied to Azusa Pacific or Cal Baptist who would not have charged me anything out of pocket. That week I contacted their admissions to survey how many units I could transfer to one of them. At most I was able to transfer 90 credits to either school.

At that point, I was frustrated why I came to Biola. Alas, God must have brought me here for a reason, I had two weeks to take classes before I could withdraw for a full refund. I could eat the cost of living for a semester to sit on my hands and transfer the following Fall. Such a move would have saved me around 10K. The money wasn’t a make or break issue. My deployment in Afghanistan was… well paid. Regardless, it was still a significant sum of money I would have to accept departing from when I previously did not. When I initially returned from Afghanistan I invested most of my bounty and kept the remains for a down payment on a house in Sacramento. Now I looked at that egg and started to chip away at it. I might credit my skills with getting classes to the lessons I learned from junior college but the decisive factor was God’s grace. My familiarity with Dr. Thoennes was based on my experience with him at Hume. I didn’t realize his classes are among the hardest to get. After an impassioned request, I was number 76 on the class waitlist for a class of 40. The first day of class, 5 of us on the waitlist showed up, 5 us got in the class. In the 200 level Theology Course every student was at least a Junior. Everyone in the class waited to take this sophomore level required class with this professor.

Over the next two weeks, sitting under the instruction of Dr. Thoennes and the other professors at Biola, I realized why God brought me there. The importance of money was dwarfed by the quality and rigor of the theological training and faith modelling I experienced at Biola. Little did I know or recognize, God’s providence was still in guiding my path even in my undergraduate years.

Women in Combat: Theological Considerations

Gender has become a rather contentious issue in recent years. From the Obergefell v. Hodges decision on marriage, to the transition of celebrity’s gender identity, to the bathroom issues within the private and public realm, it appears to be a defining time in our social history. Within the military community changes have also been made and achieved. Most recently women almost had to register for the draft.  There are several military cultural factors that contribute to the discussion which have not been articulated well. I will attempt to address them as best as I can. In this part, I’ll consider the theological implications.

A brief summary of Complementarianism. It is a theological view that gender roles exist for men and women. This takes place in the home and church. As a single guy, I have never had to work out the exact details of what that will look like for the family I hope to have. I have had amazing demonstrations of what this looks like in practice with a number of families in my church. Of particular influence has been the example of the family I have lived with for the last several years. Their godly example has added numerous practical examples to a theology I embraced from a predominantly scholastic understanding. Men and women are of equal value as image bearers of God, but they are not the same. Based on my observations, outside of churches who make this position a distinctive, complementarianism is a minority view within the Christian community.

Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of complementarianism is the confusion with chauvinism. Gender roles are not about ability or fitness. Given the whole of the Christian life is not about our abilities or anything we do but depends on who God is and what he has done, this understanding should not be difficult to receive. This probably makes more sense coming from a Reformed theological position concerning salvation.

How does a theologically conservative Christian integrate his somewhat libertarian political beliefs within this political discussion? Yes, I am a “combat veteran” according to the Department of Veteran Affairs. Excluding the infrequent basic combat training, my time in the  Army were all as staff positions. Every level of training and every unit I was assigned was integrated. Throughout the totality of both my deployments I worked alongside of and was subordinate to women.

Being subordinate to women in those roles did not challenge my complementarian view of gender because Complementarianism concerns itself with the order of the home and church. I do not see it necessarily applying outside those institutions. I do not see a conflict between women in secular supervisory positions and a complementarianism. I do not see a clear theologically based teaching that would prohibit women from operating in combat roles.

Even in the designation of men as protector, the context is between a husband and wife. The Genesis account of the Fall makes certain implications that the man should be the protector, but again, that was a husband and wife context. The argument is “Why did God call to Adam even though Eve sinned first?” I think this implied that Adam should have protected his wife, he failed to protect her in that instance. The purpose of the text was not to articulate a firm position on gender roles, at best I have to insert my understandings to find that conclusion. The examples throughout the Old Testament where only men were designated as soldiers were descriptive over prescriptive. I think there are certain practical and strategic reasons why the armies in the ancient world were almost exclusively for men. Those reasons are not based in a theological understanding.

The best biblical instance of men being designated as the protectors come from the analogy of husband and wife to Christ and the Church. Once again, this is limited within the husband and wife relationship. This is where I derive that the man is to be the protector. To be the protector he does not have to have a disposition towards violence. In fact, I have known many women, Christ followers and not, who had better dispositions to physical hostility than men. Half jokingly even as ushers we have coined the emergency exit in the sanctuary adjacent to childcare as the “mama bear door.” Given the instance of an emergency evacuation, there is no question many moms will attain what might be superhuman strength and will to get to their children.

Whether one is predisposed to address physical hostility or not on a theological level is irrelevant. Remember, the basis of the Christian faith is to do things through God’s power and ability, not our own. Therefore the sacrificial husband needs only to sacrifice himself in obedience to God. Whether that means engaging in the fight he may or may not win, or he will pick up the extra shifts of work to provide, all of it is in obedience to Christ from the example he provided. To be the head means to set himself aside for the good of others. When there is a sacrifice to be made, it first comes from the man. Depending on the day, this may look like a burden or a joy, hopefully it will be a joy more than a burden.

Within the secular context, the sacrificial nature of the relationship tends to only exert itself in the dire circumstances. There is certainly a predominant view that men are natural protectors, whether this comes from an evolutionary understanding of society and social constructs or is an example of biblical masculinity, I would argue the popular understanding is a result of all the influences. Anecdotally, I have encountered many agnostic and non-theist men who held a “traditional” view of women and children especially when the issue relates to self defense. Especially in this nation of immigrants there are innumerable stories of poor families with hard working parents who provided opportunity for their kids they could not achieve. This is perhaps the most common and still compelling example of sacrifice in American society.

I do not see a clear biblical teaching which men ought to be generally postured towards violence. I know between my years in the military and working in numerous security capacities, I am not apprehensive to the idea of physical altercation. There is clear teaching that we ought to be Peacemakers. In the months that working as a Bouncer I have yet to get into a fight. Every opportunity so far, I have been able to de-escalate the tensions to prevent the fight that likely would have occurred. In contrast to the methods of my coworkers, the more I approach Security with an apprehension towards violence the more often the altercations are resolved peacefully. Throughout the process of conflict resolution one must be willing to recognize the real possibilities of harm, but one ought not look forward to it. Any violent action should only be done with the most reluctance. This is the same manner I approach my philosophy of self-defense. I have spent thousands of dollars in equipment and supplies. I’ve spent countless hours practicing at ranges and at home. These exercises are fun in their own right, but the purpose for which I train, I hope with the utmost sincerity will never be needed.