The People vs. The People

I can't pretend to have read up adequately to address all the issues going on with protests over state budgets and public unions. However, I believe a few remarks on conceptual issues related to public unions are needed.

A labor contract in a private business is essentially a partnership arrangement between two businesses. Think of it this way: Business #1 produces product X. Business #2 provides laborers to produce product X. #1 can negotiate for #2's product, the same way they can negotiate for the other factors of production, such as raw materials, equipment, and capital finance. For example, the Coca-cola company has to negotiate with one source to purchase sugar, with another source to purchase bottles, another source to purchase mixing equipment. If they were unionized, all that means is they now have to negotiate to purchase hours of needed to operate the equipment and produce Cokes. In fact, even without a union, they still have to negotiate to purchase labor, they just do it on an individual basis, rather than with a single collective representing all the laborers. So, the purpose of the union is to leverage greater negotiating power by monopolizing the sources of one factor of production.

Without getting into whether that is good, bad or indifferent, I want to point out what is fundamentally different about a public union. Where a private business union is one private business negotiating with another, the Government is not a business. It is a sovereign political power. It can only negotiate apples to apples with another sovereign entity. When it negotiates with a private entity, it is inherently unequal. Thus, constitutional protections are required to ensure that the public entity respects the rights of the private entity, such as the rules surrounding eminent domain. We take for granted in the U.S. that if the State purchases goods, they have to pay for them. Throughout much of history, and even today in much of the world, that is not necessarily the case; often, what the government wants, it simply takes.

Why do I point this out? Because with the inherent inequality between the Government and any private business entity, the only way to give a public union true negotiating power is to cede governmental authority. Remember, a union exists to produce a monopoly on something that a business needs to produce a product. But how can their be a monopoly on something necessary to govern the state? It is impossible that a private right could exist that is more fundamental than the right of the government to govern. Therefore the only way to give a public union rights to monopoly is to give it, not private bargaining power, but government bargaining power. It must become, in effect, another branch of the government.

The problem is, we thus produce a new branch of government that is not elected, not appointed, and not subject to constitutional limitations, because it does not derive from the constitution, it simply is. The public union must have government-like power in order to negotiate with the government, but it has none of the government's own limits to power. It is autonomous.

Let me come at this another way. When the government hires labor, whether at the federal, state, or local level, it is really the People who hire them. Lest we forget, we have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." The 'government' is really just a proxy for the people. As a consequence, all the members of the potential labor force (the legal labor force, anyway) are already members of a 'union' of sorts: the Voters. Unlike the labor force of a private enterprise, the employees of the government actually already possess the highest power over their employer. Are you a federal employee who doesn't like your pay? Vote for a new president and congress. State employee who doesn't like your benefits? Vote for a new governor and legislature. You already have that power.

What the union confers, then, is not control over the government (the People already have that). Instead, it confers an added, extra measure of control over the government for only some of the people. In other words, it produces a special class of people who have more rights than all the other people. It denies the equality of the electorate. Like the old days when voting rights were restricted only to free people (not slaves), or only to property owners, or only men, or only whites, the public union creates a privileged class who has the power to dictate what the government can do above and beyond what all other people are able to do through the right to vote and the constitutional protections of due process.

Am I exaggerating? Doesn't the government negotiate with private entities all the time without producing privileged classes or new branches of government? No. When the government negotiates with private industry to purchase medical services, or textbooks, or road construction, they don't deal with a monopoly. There are multiple providers. And if there were not--if there truly were only one possible source of a product, and if that product were truly essential to the functioning of government, the State would have the power to take it by force without negotiation.

For the clearest example, consider the quintessential government employee: the soldier. Suppose that the members of the armed services determine that they have insufficient pay. They can negotiate privately; they can ask for a raise or promotion. They can threaten to not renew their enlistment if not given what they demand. But more than private negotiation, they also have public rights: as citizens, they may lobby their legislators for a pay increase, and failing that, they can vote for new legislators. But suppose that is not enough. Suppose they decide that they can leverage the negotiating power of every soldier, sailor, airman and marine if they can simply form a union. If they can convince everyone to join, they will have a monopoly, and with that collective bargaining power they will be able to force the issue.

What would the outcome be? De facto, a new branch of government. An entity within the government, providing an essential function of the government, but not under the control of the government, nor the constitutional courts, nor answerable to the people. It would, in fact, be a form of military coup, even if no violence was used. An army that does not answer to the government is a rebellion.

Obvious enough when talking about the army. Why isn't it obvious when talking about public school teachers? Maybe because we don't consider teachers as essential to the function of the government as soldiers. Or maybe, because we've decided to accept rebellion.

The Abuse of a Thing, the Law, and the Bathwater

I made a statement in my last post that I want to elaborate on, because it is the source of so much misunderstanding: "The abuse of a thing is not the thing itself."

For example, the abuse of freedom is not freedom. The abuse of parental authority is not parental authority. The abuse of marriage is not marriage. The abuse of church is not the church, and so on.

In a great many cases where we see this issue cause misunderstanding, it is deliberate. The enemies of a certain idea search out the abuses of that idea and magnify them to create a "straw man" opponent, in contrast to which they hope their own ideas will seem better. For example, the constant harping on sexual scandals in the priesthood by those who only pretend to care about the children involved, when in fact their real goal is to completely tear down the church. Or those who search high and low for examples of a child treated poorly in a charter school or private school situation in order to defend the public school monopoly. The mark of this approach is a willful blindness to the overwhelming majority of cases--a reliance on anecdotal evidence to counter statistical evidence, and/or a skewing of statistical evidence through manipulative presentation. Thus, in my first example, ignoring the overwhelming number of priests and pastors who are not abusive, and all the good they bring to the world; or in the latter case, ignoring the overall performance of private and charter schools, and/or ignoring the converse evidence of abuses within the public school system.

The most egregious examples recently have come from certain Muslim clerics who proclaim the United States to be the enemy of democracy, human rights, and opportunity for women. No doubt the U.S. has had failures in our striving for the ideals liberty and justice for all, but such statements deliberately ignore the overwhelming good done by America, and they are doubly disingenuous because their own alternative (Sharia law) does not even purport to provide democracy, human rights, freedom for women, etc. It is as though PETA were to come to a McDonald's that had accidentally run out of hamburgers and criticize them for being the "greatest cause of beef shortage in the world." It's both patently false, and entirely hypocritical.

Within the church, perhaps the greatest example of this misunderstanding has been the use of the Law. In the "grace debates" that shaped much modern theological dialog, the Law is used not only in the strict sense of the Torah law given to Israel, but in the much looser sense of any system of religion constructed on laws, rules, regulations, "check lists" for righteousness, or even general expectations of decency and propriety. The "grace" camp seem to have won this battle, although Francis Chan, David Platt and others who are calling for "radical" discipleship or "crazy" love could be construed as the descendants in this debate of John McArthur and the "lordship salvation" position.

My goal here is not to pick a side in that discussion, as much as to note the methods used to communicate and argue. Some are careful to preserve the distinction between the abuse of the Law, as represented by the Pharisees, and the original intent of the Law. Unfortunately, others have not been so cautious. The speak of the Old Testament as a completely different religion of laws and rules, which was entirely replaced by Jesus with a religion of grace and faith (they would say, not a religion at all, but a relationship). They even go so far as to speak of God himself as though He had somehow changed between Malachi and Matthew from a God of judgment and wrath into a God of mercy and love.

The latter group ignore the express teachings of both Jesus and Paul. Jesus said he did not come to put aside the law, but to fulfill it. When he says, the first command is to love God, and the second is like it, to love your neighbor, and upon these the whole law and prophets depend, he is not saying we can now cut loose the whole law and prophets and simply "love." He is saying, we must interpret the whole law and prophets on the basis of love. Any usage of the law that is not in accordance with love is an abuse, but we should not be so bold as to think that in our understanding and application of "love" we can learn nothing from the law. 

Paul is even more explicit in his explanation of the "righteousness of God through faith" in Romans chapter seven. Through the law, death ruled over us, he says, and then he asks: does this mean the law was evil? The emphatic answer is, absolutely not, the law is and always was good. The problem is our sin nature, that takes advantage of the commandments as opportunities to rebel. It's worth noting that even in his strongest contrast between the "spirit" and the law in Galatians, he does not say that the way of the spirit is contrary to the way of the law, but rather that "against such things" (the fruit of the spirit) "there is no law."

I am not here arguing as a Judaizer who wants to put Christians (especially Gentile Christians) under the full yoke of the Mosaic covenant. There are broad implications to Peter's vision to "take and eat" non-kosher foods, and to Paul's insistence, supported by the Jerusalem council, that Gentiles need not be circumcised to be saved. I don't have the space to go into a full discussion of the ceremonial law vs. the moral law.

Indeed, my goal, so far from making the New Testament more "legal," is actually to make the Old Testament more "loving." The point is that God always was a God of love. He describes himself first and foremost to Moses as "gracious and kind, showing mercy." The great refrain of the Psalms is the enduring mercy of God, whose "loving kindness endures forever." The character of God did not change between Malachi and Matthew. He is Love, and He was love, for He does not change, and properly understood, the Torah was the way of Love for Israel for it was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, the ultimate source of all love.

I think too often we fail to comprehend the historical context when we read the scriptures today. We liberally quote from the Psalms, where David, the Man After God's Own Heart, and certainly no "Pharisee," makes statement after statement proclaiming his love for God's Word. We interpret that to mean "the Bible" and it is acceptable to do so for God's revelation is ultimately one unified Word; however, we ought not forget that to David, the "word" that was a lamp to his feet and a light to his path was the Torah; the law that the blessed man of Psalm 1 delights in is the Law, the Torah. Again, we should not interpret from that that we should add to the Law of Christ with the Jewish regulations, but rather begin to see how the Law of Love was always embedded in and given expression through the Torah law.

Perhaps if we keep this in mind we can avoid some of the abuses of the anti-abusers: the parents unwilling to give their children any rules because they want to teach "grace"; the school that won't teach any content because they want students to be "self-discoverers"; or the preachers who never unequivocally proclaim sin to be sin (or least not any specific, concrete, practical example of sin) for fear of creating a new "list of rules" that would replace "relationship." The abuse of a thing is not the thing itself. Or to use the more old-fashioned phrasing, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

In Shining Armor: In Defense of the Princess, part 2

In my last post I argued that the Princess Culture is a two-edged sword, with potential to lead girls down a path of materialism, narcissism and sexualization; but also carrying tremendous emotional leverage, if properly shepherded, to motivate young women toward servant-leadership, self-sacrifice, and the cultivation of inner strength and beauty. Here I wish to outline the possible benefits of Princess Culture for the development of boys. Through a difficult, generations long process of evolution, trial and error, our forebears in Europe developed the system and values of knighthood and chivalry, largely to answer one question: in a Christian culture that values non-violence and respects all human life, how do we as a practical matter channel the "warrior instincts" of boys to serve good rather than evil? The answer, in a nutshell, was to elevate women, especially the Princess.

Anticipating the Objections
How this works I will delve into more fully, but first I am constrained by our present rhetorical situation of political correctness to put aside some objections that leap forth to silence me before I can begin to speak. No doubt 1,001 doctoral dissertations and master's theses have by now been written in Women's Studies documenting the evils of chivalry, the subjugation of women in patriarchal society, and the need to liberate girls' independence and self-assertiveness from the shackles of the knight-in-shining-armor myth. To which we can only reply, as traditionalists of all sorts find themselves replying so often that we despair of ever being heard, but nonetheless must repeat: the abuse of a thing is not the thing itself, and to tear down a thing, it is not sufficient to know the possible abuses it lends itself to; one must also know the possible abuses that the alternatives would lend themselves to. 

A great deal of the problem is lack of realism; those who fancy themselves the hard-nosed modern mythbusters, cutting through the lofty rhetoric of the past, prove themselves in fact to be the pie-in-the-sky naive optimists, living in a dream world disconnected from the truth: ours is a fallen world. With tunnel vision they look only at the abuses of patriarchy and declare "western Christian culture has been demeaning to women and must be changed." When asked to take into account the context--the vastly more abusive culture that western Christendom evolved to replace, and indeed the climate of misogyny the permeates the world outside the postmodern shell of Christendom to this day--they reply with great confidence, "we must tell them not to do that." 

Education is their watchword. Do boys tend to harass and bully girls? We will teach them not to. How, you ask? We will tell them it is bad. How will you tame their instinctive bent towards aggression and dominance? Oh, that is not instinctive, that is culturally constructed. We will remove it. How will you remove it? We will tell them it is bad.Words are their weapons! No thought is given to the emotional pull needed to give a boy some alternative vision. No thought is given to the need for iconic images to redirect his imagination. No thought is given to the passions, the desires, the lusts, that rage within him and must be somehow contained. No, education, the savior of all, will simply paint over the blank slate of the boy with respect for women. But the tools, the traditions, the time-honored rituals and ceremonies developed to motivate boys to honor women, these will be trashed without a second thought because they are the products of a patriarchal culture that prefers women to be barefoot, uneducated and pregnant in the kitchen.

Thus the modern system that gives us rappers who rhyme about their "ho's." Thus the new economy of the  "sex worker" instead of that restricted Victorian concept of "prostitution." Thus the explosion in date rape and domestic violence by live-in boyfriends. Thus the culture that gives us human trafficking markets where men shop online for a 12 year old girl to have her flown from Southeast Asia right into Atlanta to be a personal sex slave. Who can honestly say that, having cast aside chivalry, the system we have now is working better to restrain the evil in men? It is only fear--some legitimate fear of going back to the abuses of the traditional ways, but in greater part that more selfish fear of having to admit you were wrong--that keeps radical feminism's eyes closed to the far greater abuses of women in the post-Christian, post-Western Civilization world we inhabit.

Working with the Grain
Which brings me at last back to the benefits of Princess Culture for boys. Boys are stronger than girls, and generally more aggressive. The beauty of glorifying the value of women is that it allows us to work with these attributes in boys rather than against them. Rather than give boys only the negative message that using their strength against women is wrong, we show them the positive message that their strength is a gift, a sacred trust: they are called by God to be the protectors of women, the defenders of their honor. Rather than the untenable proposition of teaching boys not to fight, we instead channel them toward a noble cause worth fighting for. Men will fight over women: the only question is, will the fight as aggressive conquerors, to possess, own, and trample women, or will they fight as defenders, to preserve, protect, and honor women? Men will admire the beauty of women: the only question is, will it be a degrading, lustful, perverted gaze that seeks to strip them more and more into abject pornographic nakedness, or will it be a respectful, sanctified, pure gaze that seeks to dress her in the finest dress, honor her with the finest jewels and crown her with love and devotion?
Which of the two our boys will choose depends much on the images we give them to feast on. The image of the Princess is the answer to the image of the porn star.

I think of Aragorn facing the dark lord in part for love of Arwen, or little Sam staying with the Ring all the way to Mount Doom, sustained not only by friendship with Frodo but also by love of Rosie Cotton. I think of David who slew 300 Philistines for love of Saul's daughter, Michael. I think of Arthur's great dream of justice and equality, the Round Table, that rises and falls around the honor of Guenivere. I think of the Beast transformed by love for Belle, of Wesley overcoming being "almost dead" and defeating Humperdink for love of Buttercup. I think of Luke and Han taking on the Death Star and the whole of the evil Empire out of that initial prompting, "the princess is here!" I think of Philip charging through the forest of thorns to defeat the fire-breathing dragon for love of sleeping Aurora.

Spreading the Love
What these stories tell us in varying degrees is that there is a three-fold effect, in ever-widening concentric circles, to the properly formed love for the Princess: first, that a man can be transformed by love of a woman. He can become disciplined and gentle and kind and true where before he was beastly and unmotivated and uncouth. Second, that a woman can be rescued by a man in love. No, she doesn't always need rescuing. Yes, she should learn some assertiveness, some self-agency, some self defense. But there are greater evils out there than she can face alone, or should have to face alone. If I meet a dragon, with all due respect I'd rather have a heavily armored, well trained, fiercely courageous warrior with a long bow and broad sword by my side, than the feather weight girl with a determined look and a dagger, no matter how smart and fiesty and full of pluck a modern heroine she may be. And I'm realistic enough to believe I will meet some dragons out there. And third, the entire community can benefit from the greater accomplishments men can have when motivated by the love and honor of women. We may have lost in our day the fine threads that connect Romance to Justice, Beauty to Peace and Prosperity, Love for the One to Love for All Mankind, but they are there nonetheless, and we the poorer for having blindly cut them while running with our scissors of reform.

My Warrior
This is all extremely practical to me, for I have a little warrior in my house. Both of my sons share my love for Fantasy, for the realms of the Knight and the Jedi, the Dragon and the Wizard. But my younger son in particular seems to embody the aggressiveness of boys. Every L-shaped object in the world is a gun to him, and every stick or straw or pencil is a sword. And not because I've trained him such. I'm not much of a jock myself: I didn't play team sports past sixth or seventh grade. I never work out with weights. I've never been in a fight. My loves are books, art, and philosophy. The reader has only my word for it, but I can assure you Andrew is intrinsically war-like, not because of some ideal of patriarchal manhood I have imposed on him.

What this led me to early on was a decision: I could work against the grain with Andrew, and try to teach him to be a pacifist. Or, I could try to channel his aggression for good. As this post makes obvious, I've chosen the latter. I don't take away the guns and swords (he would simply make more) or shame him for wanting to do battle. Instead, I tell him that the only proper use for the guns and swords is to protect the princess. Shoot the bad guys, not your sister or your mother, is our refrain. And a big part of that process is telling him: your sister is a princess. Your mother is a princess, a queen. God made you strong to keep the safe. Don't let anything happen to them, and certainly don't ever, ever use your strength to hurt them.

I don't exactly want my daughter to be a sleeping beauty. I don't want her to define herself strictly by a man, or disbelieve in her own ability to contribute to the world and be a servant leader. But I firmly believe it enriches both her and my son when I tell him, not to disarm, but to take up the shield of justice and the sword of truth, and fly into battle for the sake of the Princess.

After all, it was to rescue a princess from a dragon that the Prince of Peace left his kingdom and endured a cross, defeating death. And it will be to gain a bride that He will return, with white horse and drawn sword, and set the whole world again to rights.

In Defense of the Princess

I'll be honest: I tell my daughter she is a princess. A lot. Is that a good thing?

I recently heard a speaker on talk radio recently critiquing what she referred to as the "Princess Culture." The short version of the argument is that the marketers of Princessdom lay the early foundations for the four cultural distortions perpetrated on American girls: narcissism (the Diva), aggressiveness (the Mean Girl), materialism (the Material Girl), and hyper-sexualization (the Hot Girl).

Actually, I agree with most of her critique. I can see the pathway from Disney Princess, to Barbie doll, to Bratz doll, to Kardashian sister; from Brittany of the Mickey Mouse Club to Brittany of Oops I Did it Again and I'm Back in Rehab; from the bejeweled t-shirt with a tiara on it, to the obnoxious t-shirt that proclaims "You say I'm a b---- like that's a bad thing."

However, there is another side to the Princess phenomenon; another pathway that starts in the same place but leads to a radically different destination. I'd like to explore that pathway.

Royalty as Servant-Leadership

A "princess," like a "prince," literally means a first, the first among her people, the "line leader." It can imply rulership, but in our simplified American understanding of royalty we often forget that there can be princes and princesses who will never be kings or queens. We are perhaps unknowingly using the same root concept when we refer to the president or governors spouse and children as the "first family." Like the first-born child in any family, the first family is a leader by virtue of natural order, not by holding an office or having positional authority. They lead, for good or ill, by being an example to those who come behind.

The best examples of real-world royalty in the modern era have emphasized this role of leading by example. One thinks of Diana's campaign against land mines, or prince Harry's insistence on serving in the military, even in a potentially dangerous role. 

A Brief Survey of Princess Movie History

The original three Disney princesses supported these positive characteristics of servant-leadership. Snow White is marked by a caring heart, first for woodland creatures and then for the seven dwarves, for whom she gladly cooks and cleans. Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) is characteristically joyful and willing to serve her foster mothers, the good fairies. Cinderella is a willing, forgiving servant to her step sisters.

The "New Classics" Disney princesses are notably more self-assertive and independent, but still model servant-leadership. Belle (technically a commoner) rejects a role as Gaston's uneducated "little wife," but is devoted to her father and later to the Beast. Ariel rebels against her king-father's authority, with little thought to the consequences to anyone but herself, but in later incarnations (such as the animated TV series) she is both a loyal friend, and a protector of her undersea realm. Nala serves the good of the Pride Lands and calls Simba back to do the same. Jasmine rejects the patriarchal system of arranged marriage primarily because of her own desire for freedom, but there is some implication that following her own path will be good for the kingdom (Sultanate?) as well, and both she and Alladin again become more clearly "defenders of the realm" in the TV series. Pocohantes is perhaps the best example; her whole character journey centers around bringing the "wisdom of her mother" to serve her people and prevent war.

The most recent Disney fare follows similar themes. Tiana has a dream to build a restaurant, not simply for her own sake but to bring together her whole community. Giselle (of Enchanted) has less concern for the community, but she does return to the earlier Cinderella model of glad-hearted service to the needs of others. The Princess Diaries series puts a clear focus on how Mia must not only become polished and poised, but equipped for the serious responsibility of leading her people. Rapunzel (Tangled) is like Jasmine, primarily a story of personal freedom, but she does demonstrate a servant's heart toward her stepmother and even the ruffians of the local bar.

What about outside of Disney? Danielle of Ever After and Ella of Charmed follow variations of the Cinderella story line, playing out the tensions between her willing servant's heart and an independent spirit. Buttercup (The Princess Bride) moves from self-centeredness, to devotion towards Westley. Better examples come from the Star Wars universe, where both Princess Leia and Queen Amidala are strong leaders  subjugating their own comfort and safety to the good of the people. Galadriel and Arwen in The Lord of the Rings are servant-leaders of their people, standing strong against evil, and Queens Lucy and Susan of the Chronicles of Narnia have a depth of internal character based on a faith relationship with Aslan.

Unintended Consequences

So where do things go wrong? With so many examples of the Princess as servant to others and leader by example, how do many go down the path of Narcissism, Aggressiveness, Materialism and Sensuality?

With regard to Narcissism and Materialism, the disconnect begins in the Marketing. The story line of the movie, and the essence of the character, are often forgotten in the rush to produce every possible branded product to capitalize on movie popularity. In the movie, the wealth and beauty of the princess serve as expressions of the nation: the princess is wealthy because her land is peaceful and prosperous. She is beautiful because she and her people are good and righteous, and these invisible qualities need visible expression in the film medium. But after the movie, those connections are lost. The makeup, the tresses of meticulously brushed hair, the purses, the fancy dresses, the tiaras and fake diamond necklaces and rings, lose their symbolic value and deteriorate into the message, "look at me, look how pretty I am, look how rich I am, dress me up and give me more stuff."

The aggressiveness and sexualization, on the other hand, come more form the modernizing trend already mentioned that parallels the rise of the Feminist movement. In order to assert her independence and distinct personhood, the protagonists rebel against the perceived excesses of patriarchy. They become more assertive, stronger, better able to defend themselves without the help of Prince Charming. Sexual codes are a particular target: rather than be the passive object of a prince's desire, the princess begins to either reject romance altogether to focus on "career" in some form, which may play out in dress as an adaption of masculinity (e.g. Mulan); or more likely, she turns the tables and becomes an active player in the romance, seeking out her own desires, often played out in dress by a rejection of traditional conceptions of modesty (Jasmine, for a very subtle example, does not normally wear a veil).

Again, the subtle undertones of the story are lost in translation. Where the movie character is assertive, but ultimately respectful, the cultural momentum carries it on into aggressive, bossy, sassy, mean-spirited, disrespectful, defiant bully. Where the movie character becomes a more active participant in her own romantic journey, the ultimate expression is brazen sexualization, manipulation of men, contempt for all modesty, embrace of perversion and glorification of self-prostitution.

(As a side note, the Hannah Montana series uses "Rock Star" as a proxy for "Princess." It's "best of both worlds" core message is the importance of staying grounded in family and friends, and developing strong inner character, while at the same time enjoying the prestige, popularity and perks of a privileged position. The series has its flaws, but at least it is recognizing and working against the possible distortions that can result from the Princess Culture.)

Motives and Meanings

Parents of daughters, then, have two paths before them when they expose their children to the "princess culture." One is the core value of servant-leadership; the other, the unintended consequences of distorted and perverted femininity. To stay on the right path, we need to examine our motives and our meanings.

I think the key motivations that drive a father like me to call his daughter a "princess" include conveying to her that she is special, valued and admired. We want her to see herself as beautiful, esteemed and respected, so she will treat herself accordingly and expect others (especially young men) to treat her likewise. Where I must guard my motives is when they become tainted by pride. Comparison is the main enemy here. I want my daughter to think of herself as beautiful and valuable, but not to think of herself as more beautiful than other girls, or more valuable than them (or boys). Whether she picks up this attitude of superiority will depend much on my motivations: do I need my daughter to be better than other people's daughters in order to validate myself in some way? Selfishness on my part (or her mother's) will very likely transfer over to her.

Second, I must manage meanings. This means being more explicit about what the role of a princess should be--in other words, what my expectations are from a woman of excellence and character. If I leave it to my daughter and the culture around her to interpret the meaning of the dresses, the tiaras, etc., I leave her open to the distortions described above. Imaginative play is a great way to do this. Create stories with your daughter in which the princess acts to serve others, or to help people in need, rather than allowing only play in which the princess is served and pampered, or in which she barks out orders that everyone quickly obeys. Especially as she gets older, discuss the good and bad sides of the princess concept with her, and help her learn to distinguish between positive and negative portrayals. Talk about how trashy dress, disrespectful talk, love of money, etc. do not reflect what a "real princess" should do. 

The Bottom Line

The good news is that the image of the Princess is powerful emotional leverage to guide your daughter toward right attitudes and choices, provided you help her to apply it in a discerning manner.

However, the most important reason for valuing the Princess icon may have nothing to do with your daughter. In my next post, how the Princess motif can be used to help form rowdy boys into godly young men.

The Light and the Knight

Our town hall meeting to raise awareness about bullying is complete, and we move now to the more difficult work of implementing a strategy to reduce bullying. In my previous post, I endeavored to sketch a theology of bullying based on the Justice of God, managing the tension between the Realism of a fallen world with the Responsibility of God-given authority.

As I move into the realm of practical solutions, I will proceed by dividing bullying up into two categories: heirarchical and social. This division is not based on the types of bullying behavior (physical, verbal, emotional, etc.) but rather on the purpose or motivation of the behavior. Hierarchical bullying is any behavior that functions to establish an alternative structure of power, a "pecking order."  Social bullying, in contrast, is less concerned with vertical organization and more concerned with horizontal uniformity. That is, bullying that operates either to force conformity with a standard of behavior, or else to reinforce a behavior within a group by choosing a scapegoat to punish with exclusion from the group.

Hierarchical Bullying takes place in a vacuum of power. We have a built in response to authority, and a natural instinct to seize power. The weaker the official structure of power, or the less respected, the greater the opportunity for alternative power structures. Gangs establish alternative power, as does the Mafia and other forms of organized crime, as do warlords. Hierarchical Bullies operate on much the same lines on a smaller scale. There are incentives to power: the classic example being the confiscation of lunch money, or other favors and services from the bullied. However, those incentives are probably not the primary force in action. In most cases, it works the other way around: bullies don't take power to get lunch money, they take lunch money to establish and confirm power. 


If I'm correct, that this form of bullying gravitates to a vacuum in official power, then the first solution is to eliminate as much as possible that vacuum. Think about the contexts of bullying: hallways, bathrooms, locker rooms, school buses, recess fields, lunchrooms. These are contexts where adult supervision is reduced, or absent. What is needed in those cases is Light. Bullying thrives in the dark, the places where their actions are not seen, or are perceived not to be seen because the legitimate authorities take no preventative action. Strategies for spreading light include:

1. Redistributing adult supervision (teachers, or other staff, or even volunteers) into the hidden places of darkness where bullies thrive, along with assertive behaviors intended to proactively put bullies on notice they are being observed and will be confronted.
2. Virtual supervision, in the form of video cameras. Less effective than a live presence, but can have the same effect provided an environment is set up early on that communicates to clearly that someone is indeed watching what is on the cameras and that swift action will be taken as a result.
3. Literal light. My guess is that even the act of putting up brighter lighting and bright colors in a facility has some effect to reduce bullying and deviant behavior in general. Again, evil loves darkness.

We're balancing Responsible authority with Realism, so we have to recognize we can't completely remove the darkness. Bullies will develop creative ways around supervision, especially virtual supervision. Thus, the second source of response are empowered students who have been trained to become, neither victims, nor bystanders, but voices for justice. I call these Knights.


The development of the Christian Knight and the code of chivalry has its roots in the same problem as modern bullying: how do you take raw power or force, and turn it into a force for good rather than evil? In the literature, the imagery, the social customs and rituals surrounding Knighthood we have a tremendous cultural treasure to tap into to address bullying. These include:

• Physical training in self-defense and the neutralization of foes.
• Deeply ingrained codes that value the protection of the weak, particularly women, children, and those unable to defend themselves.
• A culture of honor against attacking the defenseless or using force for personal gain. This is particularly important so that the investment in the training of the "knight" does not simply turn into a way to make even more effective bullies.

Imagine a school with an effectively trained order of knighthood. Instead of finding a vacuum of power wherever adult supervision drops off, the potential bully finds a widespread extension of legitimate authority. Instead of the majority passively accepting bullying as inactive bystanders, they spontaneously organize to protect the weak.


Any number of factors could be called up to facilitate the return to a culture of knighthood. Perhaps two of the most important are rehabilitating the concept of the law-and-order hero, and breaking up age grading.


Since the 60's, authority has been portrayed as bad and heroes as those who stand up against abusive authority. The lone crusader, the outsider, the rebel are the archetypes. When a hero is cast as a traditional authority--a policeman for instance--rarely is he set in opposition to pure criminals; instead, he is set in opposition to corrupt, or at best inept, police commissioners or politicians. In short, we have embraced a culture that destabilizes legitimate authority and turns the heroic instinct away from supporting law and order. Schools and communities that wish to stop the slide into unmitigated bullying and return to a culture of knighthood must rehabilitate, through education, through media, through stories and images, the value of the straight forward hero, the hero that stands up for legitimate authority against the forces of chaos. There is still a place for those stories that celebrate freedom fighters who oppose legitimate authority gone bad. But much greater weight must be given to those cultural markers that celebrate the value of the rule of law if we are to return to balance.


A more practical matter is the breaking up of age-grading. Family structures are inherently age diverse. Older brothers naturally look out for and protect younger brothers, even if they fight amongst one another. In the one room schoolhouse, or the community k-12 school, a similar dynamic could develop. In an age of strict age division, however, that natural tie is lost. Schools should experiment with creating "houses" or "family groups" that integrate a variety of ages and inculcate a strong sense that it is dishonorable and even shameful for the older members of a house to allow the younger or weaker members of their group to be harassed. Better to deal with the possible abuses of a house system in the case of rivalries gone amuck, than allow illegitimate gang-type systems to develop in their vacuum.


Light and Knights. A first step toward dealing more effectively but realistically with hierarchical bullying. Next post, a look at horizontal, social bullying.

Toward a theology of bullying

In my previous post I touched on some of the factors that are putting bullying in the headlines today, and why bullying may be worse now than ever. In this post, I want to hone in one what scripture says that might be applicable to bullying in order to formulate a specifically Christian response to the problem. In a future post I'll elaborate on potential solutions.

I'd like to take Matthew 18:6-7 as a starting point. In order to demonstrate to his disciples the upside-down nature of power in the Kingdom of God, Jesus brings a small child into their midst and proclaims that they can not enter the kingdom unless they become like him. Then he adds: 

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

Jesus likely has broader theological issues in mind than bullying, but simply taking the text at face value, we can see how seriously God takes the issue of bringing harm to children. Whatever their fate will be when they face the justice of God, we are told it will be worse than being drowned under the crushing weight of a millstone. Jesus does not laugh and take this issue lightly. 

Just as importantly we can see a note of realism: stumbling blocks will come. Parents cannot devise a system in this age, no matter how hard they strive to protect them, in which no harm ever comes to their child. We live in a flawed world and life will not be easy. Nonetheless, there is accountability. Woe to him through whom the hardships come.

Between these two poles we can manage the tension of an appropriate response to bullying. We cannot expect a perfect system in which no child ever suffers emotionally, and we could very well do more harm in the process of trying to create such a system. On the other hand, we must take threats to the well-being of children with the same seriousness which Christ does, and be willing to hold accountable those who cause others to stumble. Realism with responsibility. 

It is important that we start here for another reason. The teaching of Jesus might be misinterpreted as too soft on bullying, namely the passages related to loving your enemies and turning the other cheek. Properly understood, that teaching would actually be much stricter on bullies. "You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," Jesus says in context; "but I say unto you, if someone...strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also." Note the logic: the Torah passage he is elucidating specifies a limit on the amount of punishment a criminal can receive. In the situation of bullying, we could render it this way: you have heard that it was said, if you punch someone, they can do no more than punch you back, and if you steal someone's lunch money, they can do no more than take your lunch money in return. But I say unto you, (if you punch someone and get caught and face punishment), let them punch you twice. And (if you steal someone's lunch money and get caught and must repay it), pay back two day's worth of lunch money.

In other words, far from tolerating bullying and urging children to accept bullying, Jesus says that those who bully should voluntarily accept a harsher punishment. First, because it is better for their eternal souls to take more discipline now, and so be taught a lesson that may save them in the future; and second, because by giving back to those they have harmed even more than they owe, they can go beyond fulfilling the law and enter the realm of love and grace.

This is not to say that Christian children should not be taught to love and forgive even those who bully them. It is at the heart of the gospel to respond to unjust suffering with forgiveness, for in this we follow the example of Jesus, who having committed no sin was crucified by ungodly men, but responded "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." 

But such teachings have been wrongly understood to mean that God is now interested solely in grace, not justice. Note how I Peter speaks of the suffering of Jesus:

When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. (2:23)

And again later of the Christian's suffering:

For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good. (4:17-19)

In both cases their is an ultimate appeal, not to the "love" of God, but to his justice. Jesus did not retaliate because he trusted God to judge justly on his behalf, and the Christian is called to commit their cause to the same God who we are assured will bring justice.

In this manner a Christian child may be instructed that where there is no earthly remedy, justice has not been foiled, only delayed. For example, those who face persecution whether in Communist China or some Muslim nation can be assured that God will judge justly, and there will be great reward that more than compensates for any suffering undergone for the name of Christ. The forgiveness of the persecutor is not a condoning or accepting of their action; rather it is a "transfer of venue," a placing of the matter in the jurisdiction of God rather than in the jurisdiction of any earthly court or our own hearts.

By no means does this ultimate appeal to eternal justice mitigate the responsibility to do everything in our power to bring about earthly justice. Romans 13 is instructive:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (vs. 1-7)

Paul here echoes the foundational charter for all human government in Genesis 9:5-6:

And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."

God establishes human authority and gives it the sword--the power of punishment--with an expectation that the authorities will hold accountable those who do evil. Note the tone: wrong doers should experience fear, even terror. It is perhaps unlikely that we would have the problems with bullying in America's schools that we do if the authority of the school was managed in a manner that produced "fear and terror" for wrongdoers, but this is precisely what Christian doctrine not only allows of human government, but expects from it.

The mention in Romans of the wrath of God brings us into the heart of the matter. That God has anger has been the brunt of an atheist attack that seeks to depict Christianity as a primitive, ugly religion. Indeed, Christians have been complicit in downplaying the wrath of God recently, with a form of embarrassment unknown to men of God in former generations, like Jonathan Edwards whose sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was a critical part of the first Great Awakening. "Wrath" in this context is typically equated with a doctrine of Hell. I don't propose here to enter into a discussion on the afterlife. Instead, we need to rehabilitate the doctrine of the wrath of God in this life as an expression of God's response to injustice.

Consider:

• God's wrath is poured out (literally) on the antedeluvian world because the whole of mankind are engaged in murderous oppression of one another.
• The scriptural reason given for the wrath poured out on Sodom and Gomorrah is not homosexuality per se but that the cry of oppression and injustice has come before God.
• God acts in wrath against Pharaoh in Egypt because of the unjust oppression of his people who have been enslaved, murdered and forced into hard labor.
• The prophets repeatedly indicate that the captivity of Israel is the result, not only of idolatry against God, but injustice by the rulers of the nation against the poor and weak
• The same prophets promise future wrath against the enemies of Israel, not simply because they have made war with God's people, but because they have exceeded the discipline God mandated and acted with injustice and oppression

In short, the wrath of God is His response, not to unbelief, but to injustice. He is incredibly moved by the plight of the weak being taken advantage of by the strong. In short, bullies make God very, very angry.

I first became awakened to this attribute of God through the work of International Justice Mission. IJM works to investigate and prosecute cases of child slavery and sex trafficking. Thousands of women, many just girls, are today being held in abject slavery and subjected to serial rape until they die. I have daughters, and my response to this information so visceral, so emotional, it challenged my understanding of God and the Bible. I searched scripture afresh, and for the first time saw how much of the Bible is written about issues of justice and injustice. I had allowed a theological disposition to blind me: because I interpreted everything through the lense of "God in the Old Testament was full of wrath, but that wrath has been taken away through the death of Christ," I failed to see that God, the God of both Old and New Testaments, is supremely concerned with justice. The cross is the answer to God's wrath for our sin; however, the resurrection is also God's answer to injustice. It says, sin will not triumph. Evil will not endure. The righteous judge has overcome death, and our hope is certain that he will come again to establish his kingdom with justice.

Which takes us back to Matthew 18. We want a theology of bullying that takes into account both realism and responsibility. Realism tells us that not all bullying can be eliminated in this world, and our teaching of our children must equip them to deal with this through an understanding that there is another world to come in which all things wrong will be set right. Responsibility tells us that God has provided government to restrain evil through a degree of justice, and we will give an account to him if we fail to use the sword he has put in our hands to rescue the oppressed and put terror into the wrongdoers. Finally, we want a response that sums all things up into the cross of Christ: bully and bullied alike finding the opportunity to experience grace, not through some kind of soft God who winks at our sin, but in the consuming fire of the One who delays ultimate justice to leave room for repentance, but will not be slack regarding his promise. 

In my next post, a look at some practical strategies for parents, children, and school officials in light of this theology.

Why bullying is an issue today

A string of suicides by school aged children linked to bullying has spawned a new word--"bullycide"--and given impetus to a national movement to provide awareness and education about bullying to students, parents, teachers and school administrators.

Our church will host a town hall meeting on the subject in a couple of months, and I recently had the opportunity to sit down with anti-bullying activists who will be speaking at the event. (While much of the national attention to the subject is being driven by gay-rights groups seeking to leverage the emotion associated with teen suicide to advance their policy goals of normalizing gay sex and protecting it from all moral criticism, this particular speaker has refused to be co-opted into that agenda). She has eye-opening stories to tell about bullying in today's world, which is largely driven by the same factors that have always driven bullying--taunting students who are overweight, or otherwise deemed physically unattractive--but have become more intense in at least three ways.

First, cyber-bullying has extended the reach and scope of a bully's action, and taken away the safe-zone students used to experience when they left school. Technology is being used in ingenious ways to harass 24/7 in front of the entire world through social media and texting combined with ubiquitous digital cameras and photo manipulation software to capture and/or manufacture embarrassing moments and broadcast them.

Second, there seems to be a more strategic, malicious turn of mind among some bullies. The stereotypical bully of yesterday was the biggest but stupidest kid. He could beat you up, call you names, and take your lunch money, but he lacked the intellectual resources to analyze and exploit your psychological weaknesses. In contrast, the stereotypical bully of today is wealthy, female and intelligent, typified by the movie "Mean Girls." She is insidious in her attack and seems driven by the goal of the complete psychological breakdown of the target person rather than simple physical intimidation.

Third, the complicity of parents seems to be at an all time high. However, the rise of helicopter parents who see it as their mission not to form their children morally, but to live vicariously through them and act as a constant protector for them has two down sides. On the target side, over-protective parents may be failing to psychologically equip their children to stand strong against bullying and refuse to be intimidated. On the bully side, school administrators are finding that rather than have an ally in the bully's parents to try to control their child's behavior, in many cases the parent is an even worse bully, willing to act out in public and actually join their child in the bullying behavior. Of course it has always been true that a bully child likely had a bully parent. I think of the Ewell clan so brilliantly portrayed in To Kill a Mockingbird.We just seem to have a society that is producing a lot more Ewell clans.

Ultimately, the whole situation is a product of the same cultural forces causing so many other problems today: the loss of moral standards, and the breakdown of the family. We've removed from our schools the ability to pray together which is the foundation of both accountability to a higher power, and connection to the community of my fellow man, and then wondered why there is no humility and no compassion. We've taken down the ten commandments that establish absolute standards of right and wrong and then wondered why we seem to have a generation with no conscience and no self-restraint. We've embraced serial divorce and out-of-wedlock birth that produce an epidemic of fatherlessness, and then wondered why our children feel insecure and act out anger.

So what does scripture say about bullying? What should a Christian student's response be to observing bullying occur? To being bullied? What should a Christian parent teach their child about not being a bully, and about how to respond to a bully? And what does the gospel offer in the way of hope for reconciliation and restoration for bully and victim alike? These inquiries will form the basis of my next post.