Here’s the premise of the conversation.
Previously in the conversation: Hesediah is not obliged to please anyone, he is only concerned with what he can discern to be true in a given situation. This is abundantly apparent in his consideration of the gym and health issue that I put to him. He wasn’t primarily concerned about writing what would appease me, he was primarily concerned with what he could get that was true in that situation. I appreciate a great deal his honest assessment of his approach both to possibly being involved in his own business as well as one that I’d consider. The tour de force, though, is his recorded opinion on Her Royal Highness, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom. It was such an emotional reading and deeply moving to read a tribute to the figurehead monarch of this country. I cannot do justice to just what a remarkable feat of writing it was and cannot encourage you enough to check out his breathtaking consideration of the woman who celebrates 70 years on the throne this month. Trust me, you won’t forget it when you read what my brother has to say about her. (Massive Cheshire Cat Grin) Tuck into all the good stuff by clicking this link and then go share it with your friends – especially those who are ardent royalists, they’ll love you for it. (Massive Cheshire Cat Grin).
I often imagine that Hesediah concocts these questions in a laboratory and primes them to test my mental and intellectual ability to the maximum and beyond. I get that impression with this set questions: how will I do? Here goes:
Q – Dissect the term “hate crime.”
What is it? Well, we’re told that hate crime has to do with those protected characteristics listed in the equality act. Those characteristics being around transgender, sexuality, race, disability and religion. Incidents that are deemed to reflect hostility to those in these groups can be construed to breach a legal standard and incur the remedies afforded the judicial services.
The Crown Prosecution Service – responsible for pursuing criminal cases in England, defines a hate crime as:
Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.
The Crown Prosecution Service
Tellingly the definition goes onto say:
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
The Crown Prosecution Service
Stop Hate UK notes,
Anyone can be affected by Hate Crime. You don’t have to be a member of the group to which the hostility is targeted at. You don’t have to be gay to have had homophobic abuse shouted at you. You may not be part of a religion and still have someone target you because they think you are.
Some police forces also record hate incidents based on other personal characteristics such as age or alternative subculture. Alternative subcultures include Goths, Emos, Punks, and other similar groups.
Stop Hate UK
At first glance to me, it’s a bit of an odd term. It is illegal to hate. We are criminalising hate. We can assess it when it expresses itself and as soon as it does, we’ll be on it and ensure the force of justice meets it.
Why it’s odd to me is that crime is usually about what people do rather than what people feel. I’m right in saying that hatred is a feeling rather than an action, right? The thought of a hate crime reminds me of something Orwellian like a thought-crime. By all means take the necessary judicial remedy for crimes like theft, assault, murder and supporting Manchester United – these are heinous acts that clearly need to be addressed.
There’s something mildly sinister that’s being suggested with a hate crime. It gives the impression that such feelings can truly legislated as though they can. Just as there’s the thought that such things can be educated.
Sounds admirable on the surface until you consider where this will lead. Someone might view someone expressing their religious view on transgender as an expression of hostility to them. Someone might view someone expressing their faith view on homosexuality as an expression of hostility to them. This is not a speculative hypothetical situation. Preachers of the gospel who came over to the UK were heavily criticised for coming to the country and those in political authority expressed regret that they were allowed to use facilities part owned by them because it was encouraging those who were perpetrators of hate speech which could be classed as the sort of hate crime that would prevent someone getting in the country.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t condone and applaud people who hate people because of their gender transition or sexuality. There should be enough, however, in the law to address people who express hostility in ways and means that stop people from living in the way that assault, theft and lying or fraud would cover. I am not convinced that the cause of justice is served by the establishment of “hate crimes”.
The problem with hate crimes as well is that it’s dependent on the cultural trend and nuance of the day. It talks about equality and diversity, but it’s not really about equality is it? Neither can it really be about the pursuit of equality. Treating people fairly and with justice is one thing, but this is about an agenda that allows certain groups of people to pursue their life-choices without criticism. It’s an agenda that looks to give the thumbs up to pursue whatever lifestyle you wish without judgement … unless that lifestyle goes against the set values of the day. This issue is particularly seen in the thorny area of the transgender debate which takes another chink out of what is perceived to be biological truth by blurring the lines of definition and embracing the ambiguity as a valid life pursuit.
The effort is to impose a conformity that suggests that people are the same and it’s important to respect the sameness and not acknowledge differences or suggest that the differences are important to establish beyond what society deems apt. It’s a pursuit of something chaotic and nebulous rather than going with a position where God defines what’s right.
Dissecting the term further, I can see the desire to address the matter of hate. The remedy for hate, though, does not appear to be found in judicial measures or awareness raising sessions. Hate crimes set up to support a political narrative dilutes any of those sentiments that might have made the desire commendable.
The big thought I have in my head based on the love I have for God and for what I perceive to be His expressed will for humanity and what justice and righteousness looks like is would that include legislation for hate crimes – especially the ones pushed hard in this country? Is the equality and diversity agenda that drives it something that’s in harmony with what God establishes as justice and righteousness? I’m not convinced that positive responses fit either question.
Q – How does a husband be sensitive to his wife’s needs and wants without becoming a sucker himself? How do you believe a man shows himself to be a pillar of his home and community without becoming too hard, inflexible and callous?
Anyone who finds this question “easy” to answer clearly hasn’t paid attention the question. I’ll allow myself this opportunity to unpack what makes it far from “easy” as well as one of the most important questions for men and males to consider in life today.
Growing up in England in the 1980’s and 1990’s there were quite a few depictions of masculinity that did the rounds.
There was a view of being man that was regarded as “macho” and that held a man as someone who was tough and aggressive, didn’t need to do much in the way of being wide in his emotional expression, knew what he wanted and would go and grab it – that it would include relationships, so women and children were trophies to parade as proof of his manhood and conquest.
There was then a view that men needed to be “more in touch with their feminine side”. That was an effort to get men to be softer and more sensitive and given to things like crying and hugging in settings that weren’t football/rugby/cricket matches.
There was a thing about the “patriarchy” that painted a picture of oppression and suppression and brutality physically, emotionally and mentally. Something needed to be done about that picture and great lengths were taken to provide plenty of alternatives for men to choose as to how to express themselves. In all that disruption some were given to sticking to a version of manhood that they took to be more “traditional” however ill-considered that tradition was.
Where did that leave a husband? Where did that leave a man in his home and community? It left him confused. It left him at the whims of whatever his peer group were doing or whatever he got from significant male examples in his sphere of influence.
Into this, some, like me, would introduce what the Bible and Christianity has to say on the matter. That is important. It is important, however, only in as much as it actively engages with life as it is and how it addresses the issue of men in their marriage and men in their homes. That’s worth mentioning because there’s a lot of thought that gives itself the name Christian but is more a reflection of the cultural trends and fads of the day – that goes for the “traditional” views as it does for the “progressive” perspectives.
It’s particularly pertinent to me because my story is that I had a good example of manhood from my Dad both in what it is to be a good husband and what it is to at least maintain a modicum of integrity in a society given to duplicity, dishonest and destructive behaviours. Yet, despite that example, my journey of development was a tough one involving a lot of mistakes that affected key relationships including the marriage and role as a father. I’m not sure why I say “was”, but it’s probably a reflection that the capacity that I answer the question now is more cognisant of how the wisdom of God applies to life and relationships now than it did before I got married.
(That’s quite a prelude to answering the question, right?)
It is a privilege and an honour to be given the massive responsibility of being a husband. It is the greatest responsibility in life. The responsibility of being a father is a great one too, no doubt about it, but I edge it to being a husband, because the dynamic between parent and child should be relatively clear from the outset. Whereas the dynamic between a husband and wife is one in which to a degree both parties are coming in with heavy baggage of expectation, experience as well as their foibles, idiosyncrasies and tendencies to aggravate and annoy. Into this the man as the husband has the responsibility to love his wife with understanding (see 1 Peter 3:7). He has to exercise the patient investigation of his wife to discover her and appreciate her and attend to her as the husband should. He’s doing this, however, as he’s also establishing the project of life that his wife has the privilege of being the help-mate. Thus, to the best of his ability, the husband is to look to exhibit a character of patience, consideration, delight and joy as well as an assertive mindset that he knows where he’s going and sharing that with his wife to get her input on that so the journey shared can be as fruitful as possible.
Easier said than done. Particularly because he could be prone to bouts of frustration and pride, he could be susceptible to mounting irritation that leads to unhealthy outbursts or worse still physical ailments because he cannot properly express himself. That’s the challenge, though. The husband must channel those expressions sensibly either through the good counsel he has around him or in prayer or through putting those energies into productive physical outlets like walking, running, swimming or, of course, chess. He’s got to discipline himself before anyone else.
It’s this discipline that will enable him to exercise the wisdom he needs to answer appropriately and engage as such with his wife in a way that displays his concern and consideration but not capitulate into being a walkover for his wife. These are not words I’m saying from a textbook. I am very much aware of what it is like to be a doormat because I lacked the self-discipline and assertive character to engage in the marriage responsibly.
Thus as the husband sets both courses out – understanding his wife and helping her see the journey she’s joining him on – that can do wonders to the relationship … but of course I appreciate that this also depends a lot on the character of the wife. I say that, yet at the same time I can say that as long as the husband does what he is responsible to do he can cultivate the character to engage. That’s not a promise for getting on in all circumstances. It’s not a roadmap to being the perfect husband. It’s helpful, though, to hold bot responsibilities of being a husband carefully so you have the base from which to operate.
When it comes to the issue of how to avoid hardened and callous inflexibility in the home and community that’s the even greater responsibility of the pursuit of being a wise man. I think that pursuit of being a wise man is what should ground the man in his engagement of relating to others. That pursuit of wisdom will give him the appropriate input and response to matters of life. He’ll be grounded in the values that make for a life that’s worth living – truth, love, peace and righteousness. If he operates on these values in his relations with others then he can never be truly considered callous. He’ll present himself as being flexible on the given occasion but even that flexibility would be rooted in godly wisdom. Callous inflexibility tends to reflect a pride in man that refuses to suggest anything of the humble and meek character that is in line with what God looks for and knows to be reflective of what He had in mind for humanity.
Being a man, being a husband, being a father – all are a matter of character and one that we have ample reference points to learn from as well as instruction from God that can point us in the right direction so that whatever we face – and we’re scheduled to face quite something in these aspects of life – we can remain rooted in something that will give life and help us endure.
Q – How does one enjoy life as opposed to just living it?
Enjoying as opposed to just living – interesting opposing states.
What does it mean to enjoy life? Take joy in life. What do I mean by joy? After all someone will say that they take joy in going on holiday and seeing the sights or catching up with friends, etc. It’s worth exploring what joy means. And exploring that will lead to the ways in which joy can be found in life.
That quest has to be honest though and grounded in truth. Some genuinely think they’re enjoying life by getting drunk or taking drugs and being loud. Some think they’re enjoying life by ridding themselves of any earthly distraction at all. Some think they’re enjoying life when they indulge in excess. These are delusions.
The journey to joy is a worthwhile one. The relationships that enrich you because of that intentional thing of engaging with purpose and that purpose is to draw closer to truth and appreciate it in all its aspects including the beauty. That’s a way to enjoy life rather than going through it. The activities that enable you to realise the wonders of wisdom and the truths of the beauty in the world – those are the kind of activities that can help to enjoy life. Those activities are as much about what’s done in play and in fun as what’s done in contemplation and service.
Life can be enjoyed where there’s the mindset to pursue what makes for peace in the given situation.
This may not appear to be a long response to the question, but the invitation to take a journey to joy and truly discovering that as it comes about in life is a long endeavour in itself.
I am not looking for everything to come easy to me and you clearly got that sentiment with the questions in this episode. It’s something I love to get into and the questions are good at bringing the work in the words. This was a tough set of questions and I’m open to acknowledging that thoughts might change over time, but I’m glad I had the opportunity to do this. Many thanks for that, bro.
Here are some questions for you:
Q – What is your understanding of the concepts of materialism and consumerism. Do these hold a moral value to you (that is to say, do they lend themselves to being seen as being bad/good for humans to pursue)? Please, as ever, explain your thinking.
Q – The armed forces are a necessary evil. Discuss.
Optional Question – Choose one of the following – the others will be noted for future reference
PQ –“The cashless society is coming, but it will advance an agenda that will only make matters worse for people across the world.” What are your views on this comment?
OR
PQ – “Travelling to different countries/cultures is an overrated experience and not essential to lead a fulfilling life.” What are your thoughts on this perspective?
Well, this is a wonderful opportunity to engage in good conversation with you, dear Hesediah. Thanks for your time.
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
C. L. J. Dryden
Life With CD 
One thought on “ADBC: 43 – Hate Crimes, Husbands, And Have Joy”