I had the amazing experience of attending a four-year theological studies program through Sewanee: The University of the South and sponsored by The Episcopal Church. It was a non-accredited, non-degree program and the studies were intense, eye-opening, and life changing. Among the most fascinating things I learned was how the Bible, as we know it today, came to be. I had always been taught that the Bible was the inspired, infallible, and inerrant “Word of God.” That may very well be, but defining those terms are important and something we can look at in a future post. For now, it suffices to say that the birth and evolution of the Bible was a little more messy, and convoluted, than I was first taught. The New Testament books were “canonized” right around 400AD, but how was it decided which writings would be considered “Biblical Canon”? And therefore, established as holy writ?

Apostalicity

Apostalicity means that the writings came directly from the disciples of Jesus. The gospels of Matthew and John are great examples of this. Both Matthew and John reportedly hung out with Jesus, so they are considered witnesses worthy of contributing to Biblical canon. (“Canon” means “officialized” or “accepted” Biblical writings). Even though Mark wasn’t a direct apostle, he was affiliated with Peter (who was a direct disciple of Jesus), so Mark’s writings were also considered worthy. This one degree of separation concept is how Luke was able to make a cameo appearance as well, but Luke’s connection was through Paul, and Paul wasn’t a direct disciple. And this is where we start to see that the “apostalicity rule” wasn’t really a firm rule; Paul was a major contributor to the New Testament as we know it today, but never hung with Jesus. It’s relevant to note that the books of Hebrews and Revelation also defy a connection to the apostles. So, given the blurry rule of apostalicity, let’s examine the other criteria that were used to determine the New Testament Canon.

Catholicity

Most of us, when we see this term, probably think of the Catholic Church, however in this context catholicity simply means “universal”. This particular criterion would have been looking for the universally accepted, or most used and time-tested, writings. There was a 350-year separation between the apostles and the gathering of the New Testament canon, and the writings that had survived this time test were heavily considered for canonization. In today’s terms we might consider the writings of Shakespeare, John Bunyan, or Dante Alighieri simply because they were written centuries ago and are still relatively popular today. This method of popularity is not without its challenges. The most popular isn’t always the best option. We learn this at a young age with our classmates, and we have seen the effects of choosing the popular politician in American politics. Sometimes it is the dissenting, or less popular, voice that carries the real wisdom. How are we to decide what is wisdom and what is folly? This leads us, and the those that formed the New Testament, to the third criterion of canonicity, which is orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy

The term “orthodox” comes from the Greek language and means, “of the right opinion”. This is troublesome right from the start, isn’t it? Who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? The most popular? The most powerful? You can be certain that it was men. There were many writings of the time that were studied and determined to be orthodox and yet did not appear in the New Testament canon. Many Christians at the time considered works such as the Didache, The Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermes, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene to be orthodoxy and yet none of these made the cut to New Testament canon. For me, this brings to question the motives of those making these decisions. Considering the place of women in society, it’s obvious why The Gospel of Mary Magdalene didn’t make it in, but I wonder what other political and power-driven motives might have influenced the decision-making processes.

To be sure, the entire process wasn’t wrought with deception. For the most part, the determination of New Testament canon was probably done by very intelligent, deeply caring, wanting-to-do-the-right-thing, men. But we can see that the process was not without flaws. It was a somewhat subjective and arbitrary process even when done with the best of intentions. 

What do we do with this knowledge? I think we approach the New Testament as books of wisdom and not of absolute truth, (I know- that makes me a heretic by most standards), and I think we recognize that New Testament “scripture” is bigger than just the 27 books placed before us today (again- heretical). Certainly, the 27 books handed down to us are worthy of consideration and study, but we can also realize that there are other writings that can be profitable for gaining wisdom, and understanding, of the enormity of God.

Some of the most troublesome questions I hear start out with, “Is it Biblical to…”. I find questions that start out this way to be troubling for several reasons. One is that it’s fallacious, circular reasoning. Secondly, I can make the Bible say anything you want. And thirdly, the Bible was never intended to be a rulebook, guidebook perhaps, but not rulebook. I understand the need for certainty that is behind these questions. I lived in that certainty for most of my life. It wasn’t until I entered that period of life that society has currently dubbed as “deconstruction” that the walls of certainty started to fall down around me. The more I studied the Bible, the more I realized that certainty wasn’t one of its strong characteristics. As such, it became evident to me that the Bible could be downright dangerous to use as a rulebook.

Circular Reasoning

It’s in the Bible so it’s true, it true because it’s in the Bible. Round and round we go. A lengthy discussion could be had regarding the “infallibility” of the Biblical texts, but perhaps that is better addressed as its own topic in a separate post. For now, we can find guidance in the words of Jeremiah 8:8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” If you are inclined to “proof-text” the Bible, this one verse should cause you to be cautious about using it as a source of absolute truth and morality.

What do you want it to say

The Bible has been used to justify many of humanities most violent moments of history. During the reign of Hitler, pro-Nazi Protestant pastors quoted from Romans 13: “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.” Former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions invoked this same scripture in 2018 to bolster support for the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies. 

The travesty of U.S. slavery was justified by proof-texting Biblical passages to suggest that slavery was God-ordained. Biblical texts are rife with verses that were used to justify the horrors of slavery, one of the favorites that was used is from Ephesians 6:5-8, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ.” 

The genocide and oppression of the North American indigenous population was driven, in large part, by three verses in the book of Matthew, “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Amen.”

The list is long and could fill volumes of text, but perhaps we have enough to recognize the danger of starting out questions with “Is it Biblical to…”    

Guidebook, but not Rulebook

To be sure, questions that starts out with, “Is it Biblical to…” don’t always focus on genocidal events. Sometimes one is simply asking the question in regard to tithing, skipping church that week, or getting a tattoo. The quagmire with doing this, at any level, is that the Bible becomes a mechanical checklist, and when our relationship with the divine becomes a checklist of dos and don’ts, we miss out on a deeper connection with God. There is certainly wisdom to be gleaned from the Bible, and understanding the context of the whole story from Genesis to Revelation is key to appropriately gathering those bits of wisdom. 

The Bible, as we have it today, has been written and rewritten through several languages, by hundreds of authors and editors, over thousands of years. It is, to quote Bible scholar and author Pete Enns, “an ancient, ambiguous, and diverse text”. When considering whether or not something is Biblical, it is important that we use the Bible wisely, contextually, through the lens of love, and in ways that build up ourselves and others.

What if I fail? What if I’m no good? What about the hurtful critiques and reviews? To be sure, these are questions that can plague any writer; for a writer with Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (RSD), these questions can be debilitating and can lead to the demise of their writing career, and mental health trauma, if not mitigated appropriately. Blessed as I am with ADHD, I also have a healthy dose of RSD. Research shows that nearly 100% of people with ADHD experience some level of RSD; a common link in brain chemistry is suspected to be the cause.

What is RSD?

In a 2019 Psychology Today article by Clinical Psychologist Dr. Andrea Bonier, the following definition is given, “People with Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (RSD) have an emotional reaction to negative judgments, exclusion, or criticism beyond what most people feel.” Beyond what most people feel is the key. Sometimes it can be very much beyond, and it can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Dr. Bonier, identifies common characteristics of RSD reactions as being: 

• High sensitivity about the possibility of rejection
• Overly high standards for yourself
• Feeling easily triggered toward guilt or shame
• Isolating yourself in a preemptive strike not to be rejected
• Aggressive or rageful behavior toward those who have been perceived to have slighted you
• Frequently feeling an uncomfortable physical reaction due to “not fitting in” or being misunderstood
• Self-esteem that is entirely dependent on what others think, and rises and falls accordingly
• Frequent and intense ruminating after an interaction about how you did or said something wrong

How does RSD affect writers?

As you might imagine, those characteristics could be debilitating for any faction of society, and writers are no exception. Writers, by the very nature of their work, tend to experience high levels of criticism and rejection. In 2012, NPR.org  published an article stating, “Dr. Seuss got his start ‘On Mulberry Street’ and Theodor Geisel’s first book for kids was rejected 27 times before it was finally published in 1937.” Most writers, famous or not, have similar stories to tell. Imagine now if those writers experienced the reactions listed above. How difficult it must be to continue to pour one’s heart and soul into their literary works knowing that those reactions and emotional experiences are going to happen. At the same time, it might very well be this connection to deeper feelings and emotions that gives the writers their content. If a writer, or really any content creator or artist, recognizes characteristics of RSD in themselves are they destined for a different career path? Not necessarily. There are steps that people with RSD can do to manage their symptoms.

Managing RSD

One of the most effective methods to manage the emotional reactions of RSD is through Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). CBT can be custom tailored to each person’s needs, but it can also induce anxiety during the treatment process, and as such, it is best practiced under the care and supervision of a mental health professional. Some people have found relief through medications. If RSD symptoms are mild, the emotional responses may be able to be managed through techniques such as mindfulness and mediation, positive self-talk, and socio-emotional language skills. 

Being aware of RSD is a giant first step. If you recognize emotional responses like RSD in yourself, and are unsure what to do, consult a mental heath professional to determine the best path for you. In the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) writers and artists, civilization needs the human touch now more than ever. Write on!

Pink is very “manly”, and it has been for a very long time. Valerie Steele, fashion scholar, author, and director of The Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology remarks, “In the 18^th century, it was perfectly masculine for a man to wear a pink silk suit with floral embroidery.” In fact, it wasn’t until 20^th century America that the palimpsest of gendered colors began to unfold. Some surmise that it was capitalism that drove the change, others claim it was the rise of the religious right and the toxic masculinity that typically rides the coattails of those theological systems. What happens when our society, especially the children of society are taught that colors define who they are? Rejection, depression, and anxiety is what happens. We get children that, at a very young age, learn to discriminate and segregate. And we get boys that grow up to be men that are marinated in toxic masculinity.

Toxic Masculinity

So what? What’s the problem with masculinity? Nothing if held in moderation and in equality with femininity. But it isn’t. According to a 2002 U.S. Department of Justice Report, over 95% of domestic violence, and 99% of sexual assault perpetrators are men. These numbers are astounding and very telling. We should be doing everything in our power to change this trajectory. American society is just now starting to realize the importance of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) skills. When masculinity is elevated to toxic levels, and the SEL skills aren’t present to mitigate the toxicity, we experience tragic results. We need to continue to advocate for SEL in our schools. We need to fight for equality in wage rates. We need to vote for political representatives that will promote egalitarian policies. We need to address theological systems that consider women to be less valuable than men. We must stop telling children that pink isn’t “manly”.

Childhood Bullying

Childhood bullying is nothing new, but the tragedy of it has become painfully obvious in American society as firearms are more available than ever. Rather than “duking it out” on the playground, the bullied are now acquiring high-powered weapons and unleashing hellfire bloodbaths on their peers. What is at the root of these events (other than the high-powered weapons)? Shaming, othering, rejection. More information on the causes, effects, and mitigations of bullying can be found at www.StopBullying.gov.

Childhood Rejection

What effects does rejection have on the child? We’ve discussed the extreme end of mass murder, but to be sure, the majority of children don’t end up presenting such extreme behaviors. Most will quietly bottle up their confusion, frustration, and shame. Some will express these emotions through depression, anxiety, behavioral outbursts or bullying of others. All will suffer, at some level, cognitive and social delays. According to a 2006 research study published in the European Journal of Developmental Psychology, a child that is rejected by their peers will experience a significant increase in risk-taking behaviors. Risk-taking behaviors can linger in a person’s life into and throughout adulthood, and those risk-taking behaviors come with high financial and psychological costs. 

In summary, if you, as an adult, want to equate pink as a girly color, that’s fine. You be you. But please don’t project your ignorant and toxic beliefs onto children. Please don’t steal their joy of a color that makes them smile. Perhaps instead, you could revisit your definition of “manly”? When I think of “manly” men. I think of men that are caring, supportive, encouraging, kind, loving, self-controlled, generous. What I don’t think of is the color of their shirt. The next time my 7-year-old son says that he wants to wear a pink kilt for the upcoming dance performance, I hope that you’ll keep your toxic ideologies to yourself and let him wear the pink. 

I feel like I might be getting the cart before the horse. Sometimes though, when you have an itch to create, you just need to get the cart built and worry about the horse later. So here I am. Writing. For you and for me. I don’t know our destination, and I’m uncertain of our trajectory, but I welcome you to come with me on this journey of discovery. Pack your bags and bring your friends, we ride at dawn!

I can write. I can spell. I can edit. I can use plain or ostentatious vocabulary.