A Good Conversation

10 May 2025

I was invited to join last night’s live session at The Laymen’s Seminary, laughingly titled — I am not making this up — “Regeneration and Human Ontology: A Free Grace View on the Believer’s Position, Experience, and Ultimate Promises, and How the Pneumatological Dominion Affects God’s Salvific Plan.” (Tongue firmly in cheek, as you’ll hear.)

The discussion ranged widely around the central theme of how sanctification works and what changes in you when you come into God’s family. Give it a listen if you care to.

Comments Off on A Good Conversation | News | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

In the Company of Badasses

6 May 2025

One of my daughters sent me Aaron Renn’s interview with David Murrow a while back. The subject of the interview is “Why Men Hate Going to Church,” which is also Murrow’s book title. There’s a lot to unpack there, and I encourage you to listen to it, but one particular thing jumped out at both of us: safety.

Murrow talks about how virtually every Christian radio station has a tagline that’s something like “listening that’s safe for the whole family,” which is obviously designed to appeal to Christian moms. That makes good business sense for the stations, since mom is the one who decides what to listen to in the car. Murrow points out that at the same time Mom is getting her safe listening option, little Johnny in the back of the minivan is getting catechized that Christianity is the safe option that appeals to his mom. By age 11 or so, testosterone is flooding his body and he’s looking for danger and adventure and the opportunity for hijinks…and we’ve spent his whole life teaching him that Christianity is safe. Then we wonder why he’s turned away!

My daughter is a teacher and youth minister, so kids abandoning the faith is something of a preoccupation for her, as it should be. “You were raised on Christian music,” she said to me. “How did you avoid this trap?”

As it happens, part of the answer is that I wasn’t really raised on Christian music the way she was thinking, not like Murrow is talking about. I grew up on a lot of old music: everything from old cowboy songs to bluegrass to classical to native American chants recorded on the reservations to the soundtracks of Victory at Sea and Hatari! (Yes, on vinyl, but not because it was cool; it was just all we had.) Contemporary Christian music wasn’t really in the mix much at home, although I certainly heard plenty of it at church.

But there’s a much more significant answer: I grew up around people on mission. I never thought Christianity was safe.

My parents weren’t missionaries (although they tried, to the point of attending candidate school once upon a time). My pastor wasn’t a missionary either, but he’d tried, hard. After getting rejected by around 30 mission boards, he concluded that the Lord was telling him to stay stateside, and accepted a pastorate. My pastor’s brother, however, founded a little mission agency called World Evangelical Outreach. WEO (pronounced “wee-oh”) was headquartered in my hometown, first on the church grounds and then in the same little office building as my dentist. I still remember walking into the office and hearing the secretaries answer the phone “Wee-oh, how can I help you?” (Later on they changed their name and moved to a bigger location, then ultimately to a KOA property outside Orlando. You would know them today as Pioneers International. They’re, ah, a little bigger these days.) A lot of their missionaries passed through our church, along with others with New Tribes, Sudan Interior Mission, Arctic Missions, China Inland Mission, Baptist Mid-Missions, Greater Europe Mission, Missionary Aviation Fellowship, and many more.

These people were not safe; they were badasses. Men who smuggled Bibles into Communist countries and evangelized whole villages on their way back out, who made contact with reclusive tribes in deep jungle, seeking to save them from extermination by loggers and oil workers, who spent nights on an Albanian warehouse roof with an AK-47 to protect the winter’s food supply for an orphanage, who flew in and out of tiny jungle airstrips to get someone to life-saving medical care. Women who saved abandoned twins in sub-Saharan Africa, brought girls out of sexual slavery in Saigon, defied apartheid to bring the gospel into villages that would never otherwise hear. Couples who travelled the Sahara together to find nomadic Tuareg camps, built houses in the New Guinea highlands to bring medicine, literacy, and Jesus to remote villages, ate and shared Jesus with Hezbollah fighters, their wives, and their children.

Of course we didn’t stay stuck in our own century either: we read tons of missionary biographies and all kinds of Christian history, too. I learned about Mary Slessor, David Livingston, Amy Carmichael, Corrie Ten Boom, Brother Andrew, John Wyclif, William Tyndale, Polycarp, the Forty Soldiers. So as I write these paragraphs, I have names and grainy photographs and artists’ renditions in my head for some, but I also have memories of men and women around my dinner table. One of them taught me how to play dominos; I showed another how my Transformer worked; a third explained to me how he lost his ring finger. The stories from centuries ago are real to me, part of an unbroken legacy that stretches from the Old Testament prophets through Jesus and the apostles and right on down to the guy sitting next to me at the kitchen table, asking me to pass another of Mom’s sourdough muffins (which are in fact delicious).

Some of them came back every four or five years to tell us how things were going. Some of them came back on medical evac flights. Some of them came back on medical evac flights and then went back again, and again, and again. (Ralph and Maridee Sauers, I’m looking at you.) Some of them didn’t come back at all; we’ll see them again in glory.

Obviously their Christianity wasn’t the safe, Mom-approved path. It was the biggest adventure in the world, far superior even to joining the Peace Corps or the military (which some of them had also done, before). Tourist travel was childish and self-indulgent by comparison — not even in the same league. For the longest time, I thought I was going to join them overseas. I did short-term hitches doing child evangelism in Spain, a building project in Trinidad & Tobago, teaching English and computer skills in central Russia. Closer to home, I served on street evangelism teams in the Atlantic Provinces of Canada, various locations in metro DC, and a series of places in the southeastern US, especially Florida. I knew that God could call me anywhere, and I was ready to go!

Imagine my surprise when He called me to California, of all places. We had a long argument about that, and I lost. After all, I did tell Him I would go anywhere! So I went. After I finished seminary, He took me into the desert for six years, and from there to the heathen wilds of Denver, where I’ve been ever since. I’ve been overseas, training pastors in Australia and such, but it seems likely that the majority of my calling is stateside.

These folks’ legacy of following Jesus anywhere He leads has informed my decisions my whole life, is with me today, and I’m pleased to pass it on in turn to my students, my daughters, my disciples. There’s another little kid I ate with last week, and I’m the guy at his kitchen table, asking him to pass another muffin while he shows me his Lego model. (And because God’s fun like that, his name is Timothy too. Wild.)

I’m not surprised when God calls me somewhere surprising, if I may put it that way. The darker the corner, the more it needs light. Some of the corners have been pretty dark, but that’s another post. The point for today is, your kids don’t need more vapid CCM; they need time with Christians doing dangerous things for Jesus.

Comments Off on In the Company of Badasses | Autobiography, Love of Generous Fruitfulness, Mentoring/Disciple-Making, New Fundamentals | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

“I’m just reading the verse, man!”

30 April 2025

“Preaching” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Pastor” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Church” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Household” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Ministry” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

All of those are perfectly fine biblical words, but in modern English, these words and many others have been radically redefined away from their biblical meaning (“preaching,” “pastor,” and “church”), narrowed to a much smaller scope than their biblical meaning (“ministry”), or very nearly emptied of all meaning whatever (“household”).

So when you say “I’m just reading the verse, man!” — No, you’re not. At least not usually. Usually, you’re imposing the accrued ecclesiastical traditions of the West and the definitions of our post-industrial consumer society on a text that knows absolutely nothing of those things. You’re reading a first-century text with a twenty-first century dictionary, and then pretending that what you hear is what the original authors meant. That’s just not so.

What to do about it? Bridge the contextual gap. Learn what the biblical authors meant by the words that they use, and remember that when you read them. Ask yourself, “What did obedience actually look like for them?” and be sure to flesh that answer out before you start thinking about how to apply the same truths to yourself today.

Comments Off on “I’m just reading the verse, man!” | Speaking as God Speaks | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Empathy, Hammers, and Handguns

22 April 2025

Much has been said in certain quarters about the sin of empathy. How ought we to think about this?

Back in the seventies and eighties, Francis Schaeffer used to get criticized for oversimplifying the philosophers he spoke about — Hegel, for example. Professional philosophers would complain that Hegel was actually quite a bit more nuanced than Schaeffer was letting on, and not necessarily vulnerable to the criticisms Schaeffer would level against him. I can’t really discuss the validity of the criticism; I’m no expert on Hegel either. But for the sake of discussion, let’s grant that the professionals are right, and Schaeffer really was oversimplifying Hegel.

Where did that oversimplification come from? Was Schaeffer just straw-manning Hegel? No indeed, and here we need to remember Schaeffer’s actual ministry context. He wasn’t ministering to Hegel himself, nor to professional philosophers. Overwhelmingly, he was serving college students. When you’re working with a college sophomore who has misread (and oversimplified) Hegel and thinks he has hold of a profound truth, what’s the task at hand? Do we try to make him a better Hegelian? Or do we just start from where he actually is and minister the gospel to him?

Obviously the latter, which is what Schaeffer did. It might be fair to say that Schaeffer’s treatment isn’t up to dealing with all the nuances of Hegel’s actual views, but it his work deals admirably with Hegel as portrayed in popular culture of the time. He dealt with the actual beliefs of the people in front of him, as well he should.

So when my brothers to the northwest wax eloquent on the sin of empathy, I can see their point. They are not (as we will see) addressing what empathy actually means, but the sin they are expertly skewering is a real sin, it is rampant in our culture, and the people who are committing it often call that sin “empathy.”

Why is it that the popular definition so diverges from the real one? For the same reason that we misuse “depressed,” “triggered,” or “autistic.” Psychotherapy is our culture’s unofficial religion. Religious terms with specific meanings always get debased, usually in a quest to apply a virtuous gloss to whatever the adherent wanted to do anyway. (Hence, for example, one of the most intemperate displays of modern times calling itself the “temperance movement” in the early 20th century. In contemporary usage, someone who’s triggered (the real definition) should be treated with compassion, so people describe themselves as “triggered” when they’re just mad, so as to garner more sympathy than they deserve.) The clergy and theologians — psychotherapists and counselors, in the case before us today — always object: “That’s not what the word means!” But people go on abusing the terms anyway. It’s an unfortunate trend, and clearly psychotherapy is not immune to the term-debasing trend that has long afflicted other religions.

Whether our brothers ought to cede the term “empathy” is a separate question. As it is not a biblical word, they are under no obligation to fight for it if they don’t want to. On the other hand, there’s no sin in fighting for the proper definition, either. Since the actual meaning of empathy is both a biblical concept and a necessary spiritual discipline, that’s what I’m going to do below.

Properly defined, empathy is not a virtue and it is not a vice. It is a tool, like a claw hammer, a chef’s knife, or a handgun. That tool can be used to build or destroy, to nourish or injure, to save life or to kill. So what does the word “empathy” actually mean?

Empathy: n. understanding a person from their frame of reference rather than one’s own, or vicariously experiencing that person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts. Empathy does not, of itself, entail motivation to be of assistance, although it may turn into sympathy or personal distress, which may result in action. In psychotherapy, therapist empathy for the client can be a path to comprehension of the client’s cognitions, affects, motivations, or behaviors.

APA Dictionary of Psychology

A seasoned psychotherapist I know put it this way: empathy and compassion are two fundamentally different things. The best con artists have perfect empathy, but zero compassion. They can see the world through your eyes so well that they can manipulate you into giving them everything you have. (See also Chris Voss on “Tactical Empathy.” Click over and just listen to the first minute of the video; he gives a good definition.) So it’s fair to say that seeing things from another person’s point of view is not inevitably a virtue.

On the other hand, some virtues are impossible without it. In Chris Voss’ case, he’s using his ability to see from another’s point of view to rescue hostages from criminals. In a more everyday setting, husbands are commanded to exercise this ability where their wives are concerned: “Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Pet. 3:7)

The Golden Rule requires similar insight. The proverbial young husband who buys his wife a drill for her birthday because that’s what he would want is obviously not applying the Golden Rule correctly. He would like a birthday present that he wants; therefore he should buy her a birthday present that she wants. But he can’t really do that without seeing the world from her point of view, can he?

Empathy is a component of wise love, a necessary but not a sufficient condition. You can’t love another person well if you refuse to see things from their perspective; that way lies well-intentioned cluelessness. Neither can you love love another person well if you get so pulled into their perspective that you fail to exercise sound moral judgment and good sense. You should not believe everything you think or feel; you should not allow empathy to suck you into believing everything someone else thinks or feels either. Discernment and emotionally sober judgment is required: love well, and love wisely.

So what are we to say about the “sin of empathy?” Well, our brothers would defend their position by pointing out that the behavior they are criticizing really is a sinful use of empathy. Yes and amen!!! These same brothers would likewise criticize the sinful use of handguns in murders and robberies, but something tells me we won’t be seeing a book titled The Sin of Handguns from them anytime soon. Why not?

This to say, the phrase “sin of empathy” is clickbait, ragebait, copping a rhetorical pose. I don’t really mean that as a criticism. They’re copping that pose in service of taking down a real sin and making the takedown memorable—excellent work to be doing, and I’m glad they’re doing it. But we shouldn’t pretend that rhetorical pose is anything more than it is. Equal weights and measures, if they mean anything, mean that we can’t pretend anybody who approvingly mentions “empathy” has necessarily endorsed a subchristian morality, any more than we would pretend that somebody who approvingly mentions handguns has necessarily endorsed murder.

Maybe the guy’s just not ignorant of the word’s actual meaning.

Comments Off on Empathy, Hammers, and Handguns | Controversies | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Don’t Miss the Confession

16 April 2025

One of the basics of good shepherding is to remember what you don’t know. When they say “We had a fight last night,” you don’t know if it was a minor argument, a shouting match, or a physical brawl. You have to ask more questions if you need to find out. But there’s also another key mistake you can make: missing what they are telling you.

Jack and Jill have been dating for a while, and things are starting to turn a bit more serious. Then one day, Jill breaks it off. “I just don’t think we can have a good relationship if we’re not honest with each other,” she says.

Jack is baffled. Over a beer with his buddy Eli, he vents: “I don’t know what she’s talking about! I’ve worked so hard to communicate clearly and listen well! I’ve been as honest as I know how to be! I just don’t get it!”

Eli nods. “She thinks you’re dishonest with each other, but you’ve been honest with her.”

“Yes!” says Jack.

Eli sips his beer and steeples his fingers. “So what does she know that you don’t?”

Obviously, when Jill tells Jack that they’re not being honest with each other, she’s confessing that she hasn’t been honest with him. She thinks it’s mutual; she may be right or she may be projecting. But she’s wildly unlikely to be wrong about herself.

When people say things like this, don’t get so caught up in defending yourself from the embedded accusation that you miss what they’re telling you about themselves.

Comments Off on Don’t Miss the Confession | Mentoring/Disciple-Making | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Drawn in the Wrong Place

15 April 2025

Framing eschatology as ‘optimistic’ or ‘pessimistic’ is deliberately tactical; it’s a postmil recruiting tool, and a really useful one, too! (At least for Americans; we are an optimistic people.) As an accurate descriptor of anybody’s Christian eschatology, ‘optimistic’ and ‘pessimistic’ are lazy oversimplifications. We are surrounded by pagan eschatologies from Ragnarok to heat death; all Christian eschatologies are wildly optimistic.

When we’re talking about prophecy, I often recommend that we go back and look at prophecy that’s already been fulfilled in order to get our bearings. As a test case for the labels ‘optimistic’ and ‘pessimistic’ within the biblical milieu, let’s consider the first advent. There’s a raft of prophecies that the coming Messiah would conquer and reign; this is what Peter, et al., expected Jesus was going to be about — an optimistic eschatology if ever there was one! There’s also prophecies that the coming Messiah would suffer and die. How pessimistic! But it turns out that both of those things are true, and it didn’t look how anybody expected.

Anyone who thinks that we win in the end, and knowledge of the glory of Yahweh covers the earth like water covers the sea — all those people are expecting victory, and have reason to live like it.

Of course, if you think that victory to be inaccessible now…I wonder. But that’s not a premil/postmil thing; it’s a “Is the Kingdom of God a present reality?” thing.

But that isn’t a package deal with your eschatology. I’m a convinced premil, because as far as I can tell that’s what the Bible says, and I know that the Kingdom is a present reality, because — wait for it — that’s what the Bible says. Jesus wasn’t embarrassed to talk about the Kingdom coming in the present; can’t think why I would be. If the Kingdom came when He cast out a demon, then it’s coming when we cast out a demon. It’s coming when an addiction gets broken. It’s coming every time we face a temptation and say no, and it’s coming every time God gives us an opportunity to serve and we say yes. We pray for it — “Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” — and God is pleased to answer our prayers.

Premillennialism’s critics frequently characterize us as thinking that “we lose now, but we win in the end.” Unfortunately, there are actual premillennialists who really think that. But none of them — neither the shallow premil guys nor our critics — have thought about it deeply enough. If Jesus dying on the cross was losing, if Stephen being stoned was losing, then sure, premil means “we lose now.” What nonsense. God never wastes anything; every good deed done here lives forever, one way or another, and God is brilliant at victories that don’t seem like victories as the world reckons things. The final destruction of the world is one more such death, and it will be followed by one more such resurrection! It may be the case that every paper copy and recording of Handel’s Messiah is going to melt with a fervent heat, but do we seriously think we won’t have Handel’s Messiah — with a rousing polyrhythmic djembe section that’s not been written yet — in the Kingdom? And knowing that, is there any reason why we shouldn’t go ahead and write that bit today?

People who think the bright lines in eschatology are between amil, postmil, and premil are fundamentally mistaken about the discipline. It’s a common misconception bred by the fact that far too many of our theologians never get out of the classroom. Here’s what matters far more: When we wake up in the morning to a headline that tells us the kings of the earth have taken counsel against the Lord and His Anointed, what do we do? We know what God is doing — He’s laughing. Psalm 2 says so! He thinks it’s hilarious, mock-worthy. The question is whether we laugh with Him, or whether we go out in the yard and do our best Chicken Little imitation. THAT is the bright line in eschatology, and people who think it tracks with a-, post-, or pre-mil need to get out more. I’ve known postmil folk to fall apart at a headline, and my people here are overwhelmingly premil folk who join in the mockery.

1 Comment | Chicken Bones, Kingdom of God | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Don’t Poison Yourself

8 April 2025

Overrealized eschatology is poison. I recently found myself in a couple of conversations about the way in which “pessimistic” premillennial eschatology is said to create people who don’t care about the material conditions in which their neighbors live, because fixing this world is “polishing the brass on a sinking ship.” That kind of premillennialism is trash, and I say that as a premil guy.

I’d love to say that description is a caricature, a straw man. It’s not, quite. Evangelists for other eschatological positions certainly overplay it (and they’ll answer to their Maker for slandering their brethren when the time comes), but these people really do exist. The antidote to that sort of nonsense is simple and biblical. Here are four key pieces:

1) The Dominion Mandate was given to Adam and Eve, repeated to Noah and his descendants, and is still in force for Noah’s descendants today. So live fruitfully in every direction; fill the earth and subdue it. Exercise godly dominion over whatever God has placed within your reach. This is God’s will for your life, and no eschatological position relieves you of your duty.

2) Seek first the kingdom of God, *and His righteousness.* The consummated kingdom may be future, but God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel in this age, and realized every time we obey Him. Premillennialism does not give anyone in government an excuse for promoting policies that Jesus doesn’t like. If you’re a voter, that applies to you. Dealing in reality means making trade-offs, and that’s fine, but you should be aiming for God’s righteousness.

3) Psalm 2. When the headlines tell us that the kings of the earth are taking counsel against the Lord and His Anointed, God thinks it’s hilarious. We can do our best Chicken Little imitation, or we can join Him in laughter. We should, and the psalms give us the vocabulary for that. Sing them, pray them, read them, get them deep into you.

4) Love your neighbor. If you love your neighbor, then you can’t be indifferent about a war that kills a bunch of your neighbors. If you love your neighbor, then you want his sewers to keep working. And so on — yes, the elements will melt with a fervent heat, but until they do, love your neighbor already!

It’s not really that hard. However you think this all ends, you don’t get to ignore how God told you to live today. That’s true for the impatient postmillennials who are smuggling crates of AKs for the theocracy they’re hoping to usher in next Tuesday, and it’s true for impatient premillennials who want to ignore the Dominion Mandate and the Greatest Commandment because God chose to make the world out of flammable ingredients. People like that are idiots, and we shouldn’t pick either our ethics or our eschatology based on idiots.

Comments Off on Don’t Poison Yourself | Mere Obedience | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

On Becoming a Mentor

1 April 2025

In Part 1 of this series, we considered finding a mentor. Now, let’s talk about the other half of the equation: finding an apprentice.

Lack of mentorship is of the biggest problems the West faces today, in and out of the Church. The Boomers as a generation shrugged off mentoring. When they were young, they were famous for saying “Never trust anybody over 30.” (I think it was Joe Queenan who observed that as they aged, they have done their part to ensure that it remains good advice!) As a result most of them were never mentored themselves, and then didn’t know how to mentor when it was their turn to give back. Mostly, they assumed every generation behind them would want to be neglected, which explains most of what you need to know about how Gen X was parented. This assumption was highly convenient for the Boomers, who as a generation were focused on enjoying life and couldn’t be bothered with the inconveniences of legacy. (Yeah, I know, not all of them. But a critical mass, easily enough to create a crisis of mentorship.)

But let’s assume, Gentle Reader, that you’re willing to embrace the hard work of mentoring. Probably the most common question I get from would-be mentors is, “Where did your apprentices come from? Where do you find these people?” Here’s what you need to know about that.

(1) They’re everywhere. People are desperate for what a mentor can provide, young adults especially. I can almost guarantee that you talked with someone I’d consider a candidate in the last couple days. It’s not about where you look, it’s about how you look. You need to learn to see what’s in front of you.

(2) Mostly they don’t walk up and ask for mentoring. But they definitely signal need:

  • “I guess I don’t really have a dad.”
  • “It must have been great to have had someone to show you how to do these things.”
  • “I just don’t understand those people!”
  • “I don’t really know what else to do.”

In a hundred little ways, people signal that they need what mentoring can provide, and that they are aware of the need. They often don’t know that mentoring can meet that need, but they have something going on where they’d be happy to hear “I think I might be able to help with that.” That’s where it starts. Don’t wait to be asked; go fishing for men!

3) Since you’re not waiting to be asked, you’re going to do some work up front. You know the white-bearded master that pupils climb a mountain to find? Being that guy is a cool little fantasy, but most of the time that’s what it is–a fantasy. In real life, they’ll show you a need, and you’ll respond with blessing and service, demonstrating that you can help meet that need, and that there’s more where that solution came from. They might jump over hurdles later after you’ve demonstrated what you can offer as a mentor, but they aren’t going to do it to start with. Expect to be generous with your time, money, effort, attention. If you’re not willing to do that, you shouldn’t be mentoring.

3b) One of the other common things I hear is “I’m investing everywhere I can, but nobody’s taking my advice!” If you’re having that problem, reconsider the nature of your investment. Invest your gratitude, your praise, your effort, your connections, your money. If there is anything virtuous, if there is anything praiseworthy, invest in it! Bless what can be blessed. If you can’t see what’s good, nobody will listen to you about what needs correcting, and nobody should. Quit pontificating and do some actual work.

4) The most straightforward way to “fish for men” is to make the initial overture and invest in the people around you, and then pay attention to what happens next. Most people won’t reward the investment. That’s fine; plenty of people didn’t reward Jesus’ investment either. Think “Parable of the Sower” here: some never start, some are drawn away by shiny objects, some quit when it gets hard, but some pay off –some just okay, some well, and some handsomely. But none of that happens if you don’t sow the seed. Start the ball rolling. Notice the need and do something about it; at least make an offer. When you see a return, invest more, and let the relationship grow organically from there.

When that works, congratulations! You’re a mentor. How do you do it well? Stay tuned.

Comments Off on On Becoming a Mentor | Love of Generous Fruitfulness, Mentoring/Disciple-Making, Real Ministry Training | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

An Overview of Hebrews

26 March 2025

Most of you are aware of the series I’ve been doing with Chris Morrison of Gulfside Ministries. The overview episode is now available. Check it out!

Comments Off on An Overview of Hebrews | Exegesis | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Hate Fake Virtue

25 March 2025

Have you seen this meme? Don’t say “I don’t like DEI,” it exhorts us. What, exactly, don’t you like? Is it diversity? Then say “I don’t like diversity.” Own it, man. Don’t hide behind an acronym.

Before I step up to the pinata, allow me a moment to point and laugh: have we all forgotten that the DEI acronym (like the ill-fated term “social justice warrior”) was invented by its proponents? You know you’re in a bad way when you start complaining that people are “hiding behind” your own term. If you wonder why it’s acquired unfortunate connotations, check the mirror. 

Ahem…as to the DEI pinata: as St. Orwell taught us, newspeak is doubleplusungood, and it’s always reasonable to hate it. As Orwell also taught us, always, always look to the definitions. In DEI discourse, the words “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” are used in ways only vaguely related to the actual meanings of those words, and therein lies their motte-and-bailey utility. Suppose you oppose a hiring quota wherein you can’t accept qualified candidates from already “overrepresented” groups. “How could you be against diversity?” they say. The invocation of “diversity” in that (DEI) context is not an invitation to thoughtful discourse; it’s meant to throw you into a rhetorical hole wherein you now have to prove that you’re not “against diversity.” In other words, it is a thought-terminating cliche. Same goes for “equity” and “inclusion.” These words were always meant to be thought-terminating cliches; their proponents are just upset because people began to notice.  

Let’s break it down: 

In DEI discourse, “diversity” means people who look different in a picture but think the same, which is why, in a workplace as allegedly “diverse” as NPR, even Uri Berliner couldn’t generate any interest in viewpoint diversity – got run out of the organization for trying, in fact. That kind of “diversity”…isn’t anything of the kind. I dislike it for the same reason I dislike counterfeit money.  

“Equity” in DEI terms means poo-pooing equal opportunity in favor of trying to guarantee a favored outcome. In practice, that means you’re going to indulge in a series of transparent manipulations in order to advantage some and handicap others in pursuit of some idealized vision which is, ex hypothesi, The Way The World Should Be (cf. complaints about Asian “overrepresentation” at certain colleges). In other words, you’re committing to a visibly unjust process today in hopes of achieving a just result in a distant future. “Let us do evil that good may come” has always been morally bankrupt; suggesting that these folks, of all people, possess special insight into The Way The World Should Be…jeepers, it would be laugh-til-you-pee funny except that people actually mean it.  

“Inclusion” in DEI terms plays on your good desire to make someone feel welcome, but that’s not what “inclusion” means in this context. “Inclusion” gets used as a cover for rushing people into situations for which they’re not prepared, in order to make everybody else feel righteous about themselves. For example, “inclusion” in education has frequently meant mainstreaming students with special needs (lest they be stigmatized), with the result that they don’t get the specialized support that they need, the classroom environment is constantly disrupted, and teachers aren’t able to do their actual job for either group of students. (Then the school district blames declining test stores on the teachers, and funds more DEI initiatives in hopes of improving things. Lather, rinse, repeat.) 

The DEI discourse versions of diversity, equity, and inclusion set forth a regime that every good, discerning human ought to hate. As Reagan once said of communism, the only places such a regime could work are heaven, where they don’t need it, and hell, where they already have it. 

Be kind. Tell the truth, even when it’s hard. Don’t be a douche to your neighbors. Love the actual humans that are within your reach. And because you love what is good, true, and beautiful, hate fake virtue dressed up in swanky-sounding abstract nouns. 

Comments Off on Hate Fake Virtue | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »