“The Bible was WRONG”… or Not; Religious Illiteracy in West Reaches New Low

Drouais Caananite Woman

Letter IImagine for a moment being told that your history book is wrong because archaeologists digging in Georgia have discovered evidence that the United States previously allowed slavery. You would rightly scratch your head, because anybody who knows anything about U.S. history knows that slavery has always been one of its defining features. A similar scenario recently played out in headlines across the web.

As background, the above painting is an oil on canvas by the eighteenth century French painter Jean-Germain Drouais. It currently hangs at the Louvre in Paris and is entitled ‘The Woman of Canaan at the Feet of Christ.’

For anyone who’s been paying attention to the recent headlines this painting should come as quite a shock. Sources from USA Today to The Telegraph and Science and Daily Mail all rushed to the presses in recent weeks to report that “The Bible was WRONG,” “DNA vs the Bible,“The Bible got in wrong,” “New DNA study casts doubt on Bible claim,” “Was The Bible Wrong?,” amongst others.

TARDIS small icon

Continue reading


Assessing the ‘X-Plan’ – Giving Your Kids a [Better] Way Out


letter-oOver the past few months a well-meaning article suggesting a way for parents to help their children escape peer pressure has become moderately popular. The article is called “X-Plan: Giving your kids a way out (#xplan).”

The goal of the article is offer aid to the many teenagers who are faced with uncomfortable situations that they can’t see a way out of. They’re at a party, friends are offering them alcohol or drugs, and they don’t know how to respond without – as Mr. Fulks would say – castrating themselves socially. They want to keep their friends, but they don’t want to give in. This is the dilemma the X-Plan has been fashioned to resolve, a “simple, but powerful tool” that is a “lifeline” the author’s kids are free to use at any time.

The way it works is basically this: Brian (hypothetical name) is at a party and feels uncomfortable or pressured to do something he doesn’t want to do. All Brian has to do is text ‘X’ to a family member, and they will call him and pretend an emergency has come up. Brian can then tell his friends that he has to leave to tend to said emergency, and thereby gets to leave the party while at the same time saving face.
Win-win, everybody goes home happy. He can tell his parents what happened or not, no pressure, no judgement, no further questions.
Originally, that’s where the article left it. It received some criticism – rightfully so – and has since been edited to give cursory answers to those objections: doesn’t this teach the kid not to be able to stand up to others? what if it becomes habitual? if it isn’t talked about how are they to learn? shouldn’t there be consequences?

Should a D.Min be called ‘Doctor’?

duke divinity.png
letter-lLast month we talked about what a DMin is, and we ended that article with the question of whether or not someone who has earned a DMin should be referred to as ‘Doctor’.

So let’s talk about that.

At a glance the obvious answer would be “well of course they should be called doctor, it’s right there in the degree: Doctor of Ministry.” For many, though, this is not an adequate response, mainly because it is seen as giving the DMin too much credit, as putting in on par with a PhD.

Others say that neither of those should really be called doctor, that we should reserve the term for those in the medical profession (think Tim Allen’s character in The Santa Clause not wanting Neil to be referred to as a doctor since he’s just a psychiatrist).


Continue reading

Does Your Vote Matter, Statistically? Yes, It Does.

Batman voting slap.pngLetter IIf you do a Google search, ask a friend, or simply exist on Facebook, you’ll find a whole host of voices telling you that – statistically – your individual vote doesn’t matter in the grander scheme.

For instance, this article asserts that your vote making a difference is statistically “very improbable, because for your vote to affect an election, the two candidates have to be within one vote of each other without you. If Trump earns 2,000,000 votes in a given state without your vote and Clinton earns 2,000,002, then it doesn’t matter whether or not you voted. The outcome wouldn’t change.”

Now, there are a few problems with this argument:

1) It assumes that yours is the only vote that doesn’t matter.

Yes, if everybody but you votes, and there is a 2 point margin, then your vote doesn’t matter. True. The issue is that this logic only works if we restrict it to only referring to one specific person. We can say “If everybody votes except Steve Rogers, and the totals are 200 to 202, then Steve’s vote wouldn’t have mattered anyway.”

But, and this is key, it only works if we restrict our field to just one specific person”Steve Rogers.” If we shift the field to refer to a different specific person, say, Barbara Gordon, then we can then say “If everybody votes except Barbara Gordon, and the totals are 200 to 202, then Barbara’s vote wouldn’t have mattered anyway.” BUT, in that case Steve’s vote does matter, because we’ve shifted our field to somebody else.

In order for the argument that Barbara’s vote doesn’t matter to work, Steve’s vote has to matter.

So the logic of this argument from statistics can’t be applied across the board. We can’t say “Regardless of who votes, Barbara’s vote doesn’t matter.” The whole argument rests on the fact that everybody else voted and all of their votes mattered. 

2) It commits equivocation.

 But why does it sound so convincing at a glance? Because of equivocation. Equivocation is a fallacy where one word is used that has multiple meanings without specifying which meaning is being used.

Thus, if we say that Captain Hook is a codfish, it does not then imply that Captain Hook can breath underwater. We have to make a logical distinction between the pejorative term and the literal animal.

In the instance of voting, the term being equivocated is ‘you’. “You” in the English language can be singular or plural, “you specifically” or “you all”/”ya’ll.” 

When we say “If Trump earns 2,000,000 votes in a given state without your vote and Clinton earns 2,000,002, then it doesn’t matter whether or not you voted” the ‘you’ in that sentence can be taken two ways. First, it can refer to ‘you’ in the general, collective sense: “All ya’ll who read this.” Second, it can refer to the specific you reading the article at this very moment: you-and-only-you Steve Rogers or you-and-only-you Barbara Gordon.

It is in this you-and-only-you sense that the argument from statistics works, when ‘you’ refers to one specific individual at a time.

The problem is that when we read it, we tend to confuse these senses in our minds. We say “well it’s clearly true when it refers to me, so it must be true for you too.” And it is true for them too, but only when it’s not true for you. It can only be true for one person at a time.

The logic only holds if our ‘you’ in the scenario is really just one individual person, you-in-particular-and-only-you; it falls apart if our ‘you’ is a corporate you, ie, everybody who might be voting.

3) It results in a literal contradiction in terms.

If we take out the equivocation, the result is a literal contradiction in terms. The argument amounts to saying “it doesn’t matter if any of you vote, because the rest of you will.”  But if the rest of you will then each of those has to matter for the argument to work, which contradicts the initial statement.captain-america-wants-you-to-vote

So yes, your vote does matter. The argument from statistics is a fallacy ridden load of hogwash, because the only way we could say your vote doesn’t matter is if we assume that every vote except yours matters.

Tell the statisticians to go back to logic class and try again.

Statistically, your vote matters. It has also been shown voter turnout also reflects how likely politicians are to work towards policies that enact the will of their constituents (we might address other arguments – such as those based on the setup of the electoral college – at another time).

Caveat: I do agree with the central thesis of the quoted article that you should vote your conscience, however, the reason that you should vote your conscience is not because your vote doesn’t matter anyway, but because it does.

It’s the same logic that these folks use try to use to say your vote doesn’t matter that others use to say that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. It’s the same equivocation. If you-and-only-you vote for a third party candidate, then of course they have no chance of winning. But that logic cannot be spread to the collective ‘you’; if the collective “ya’ll” vote for a third party candidate then they will necessarily win, because who you vote for does count.

This is what happens when our schools don’t have mandatory logic classes.

Don’t just trust me, trust Captain America. He wouldn’t tell you to vote if your vote didn’t matter.

What is a D.Min (Doctor of Ministry)?

asbury theological seminary dmin.png


Letter WWithin the past 40 years or so a [relatively] new type of program has cropped up in education, that of the DMin, the Doctor of Ministry. The degree surged in popularity for a few decades, began to fall to the wayside (so much so that Princeton discontinued its DMin program), but has kept a somewhat steady pace amongst evangelicals.

The DMin may sometimes get a bad rap in academia as being a ‘fluff degree’ or a ‘watered-down doctorate’, but with more schools offering DMin programs and more ministers entering into those programs, it’s helpful for us to have an idea of what we’re dealing with.

In short, the DMin is a degree program designed to fill the learning vacuum present for ministers who have completed their Master of Divinity (MDiv) and have been serving in ministry for a while. Ministers who stop cultivating their knowledge will inevitably stunt their maturation as leaders, and so the DMin is a practical doctoral-level degree designed to integrate scholarship with practice and push those in ministry towards further growth.

Thus, the DMin is the highest professional degree for those in the field of ministry – the terminal degree for ministerial studies – with the goal of increasing the minister’s effectiveness in their area of the church.

It is a professional degree – as opposed to an academic degree – which means that the focus of the curriculum is geared more towards practical application than research.

A DMin program usually takes around 3-4 years (2 years of coursework and another for the final project/thesis) and most programs work to have a flexible schedule by combining short on-campus residential seminars with distance learning (this isn’t unique to the DMin, many schools across the pond have a similar setup). The goal of this is to help those in the program to earn the degree without leaving their ministry to do so.

Most DMin programs require their applicants to hold a MDiv from an accredited theological school (some allow applicants to substitute other ~72 hr master’s level degrees provided they include Greek and Hebrew), and between three and five years of active ministry experience.

So it is a fluff degree or a watered-down doctorate? Well, no. The DMin is not merely an lighter version of an academic doctoral degree (PhD); rather, it has a completely different goal. The DMin – like the MDiv – is a professional degree rather than a research degree; in that respect it is more like a Medical Doctorate. The DMin is a degree in action, where as a PhD is a degree in intellectual rigor.

So is what the DMin? the terminal degree for those in the field of ministry – a practical professional degree geared towards growing ministers in their field of expertise, whether that be expository preaching, reformed theology, pastoral ministry, counseling, apologetics, ministry leadership, or many others.

Given that a DMin is a degree completed after a master degree and has the word ‘doctor’ right there in the title, there is some debate as to whether somebody with a DMin should be referred to as Doctor (as we do with those with a PhD). We’ll tackle that question next time…



Eugene Lilley (MDiv, MA) is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the American Chesterton Society.

He may or may not be a Time Lord.

The Breaking of the Wall – Alienation and [Racial] Reconciliation in Christ

Reconcile (1)‘Alienation’ is a word that has become common parlance over the past hundred years, a familiarity that was perhaps bolstered most by the writings of Karl Marx, who truly popularized the word.

Alienation can come in many forms. For Marx it was primarily economic and political; as John Stott noted, alienation is partly a “sense of disaffection with what is” and partly “a sense of powerlessness to change it,” a feeling that is widespread in the present day.

Yet alienation was a viable concept long before the writings of Marx, so much so that it is this idea which is the focus of the second chapter of the apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. This chapter of the letter focuses on two even more radical sorts of alienation, that is, alienation from the God who created us, and alienation from our fellow creatures.

The opposite of alienation, it might be said, is reconciliation. In turn, the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians focuses on these ideas of alienation and reconciliation; the first half focuses on the idea of reconciliation between God and man, the second half on the idea of reconciliation between man and his fellow man. Thus it could be said that the first half focuses upon vertical reconciliation and the second on horizontal reconciliation, two vitally linked reversals of the overall alienation that is present in the world.

In order to properly analyze the way in which this reconciliation plays out – with special focus upon the reconciliation of man with his fellow man in the form of racial reconciliation – it will be necessary to look at the context of the passage, at Paul’s purpose in writing this passage, and at what Paul’s meaning with certain images conveys (such as the “wall of hostility” being broken down). With this done, one may then analyze what the implications of this message are for Christians today, what it communicates in regards to reconciliation in such realms as race relations, and how the truths presented here by Paul may be useful to the individual.

Context and Purpose

In order to get a proper understanding of the truths being conveyed by Paul to the Ephesians, one must first develop an understanding of the context and of the purposes which envelop this text. First, there is the broader context of Paul’s letter.

The broader context here is that Paul is writing to the Ephesians, who were by the old Jewish system considered Gentiles. In the old Jewish system, the religious world-view had become one of exclusion, one of placing the chosen people of God – the Jews – above all of those around them. They were a group who were deemed to be set apart, to be holy; what this idea devolved into in the religious life of the Jews is what T. N. Lee suggests be described as “covenantal ethnocentrism.” John Stott perhaps best sums up this idea when he states that Israel had “forgot her vocation,” that they had forgotten that they were supposed to be a light to the nations and had instead twisted their place of privilege into a sort of favoritism which resulted in them despising those who were not of their ethnicity, “detesting the heathen as ‘dogs.'”

The Gentiles, on the other hand – that is, all those who were not Jews – had neither “part or lot in the Messianic people.” The Gentiles were alienated from the people of God, and they had never been anything other than alienated; they were considered by the Jews to be outcasts and objects of derision. This alienation was both social and spiritual; on the one hand they were alienated from the people of God, and on the other they were alienated from God himself. They were without a messiah, without part in Jewish commonwealth, strangers to the covenants of God, without any divine promise, and without the true God (Ephesians 2:12).

Even mmiddle-wall-partitionore, this division had a physical representation in the ancient world, a literal wall of separation. In Jerusalem the temple constructed by Herod the Great was built upon a platform, with individual courts for the priests, the lay men, and the lay women. Five steps below this platform was a walled platform, on the other side of which was another even lower walled platform, beyond which was the court of the Gentiles.

The Gentiles were not allowed beyond this wall into the upper courts on pain of death; for a Gentile to pass the wall was to forfeit their life. This wall was still present at the time Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians, as it was not destroyed until 70 A.D. when the temple itself was destroyed by the Romans. The presence of this division – of this alienation – is the essential background of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

In turning from this background of alienation, one may observe that the central message of the letter to the Ephesians is one of the need for unity and reconciliation, due to the already accomplished reality of that unity in Christ; that is, for the visible characteristics of the church to coincide with its invisible characteristics, namely, unity and oneness in Christ. Therefore, the grand theme of this portion of text is that Christ has destroyed both of the divisions which had previously existed, vertical and horizontal.

This can be easily seen in that Paul begins his letter detailing how all mankind has been reconciled to God, progresses through discussing how Jew has been reconciled to Gentile, continues in how we are all members of one body, and then elaborates upon this in the particular ways and relationships in which we should therefore walk in love. Paul’s purpose is to remind his readers of where they once were – residing in alienation – and then to encourage and instruct them in unity; they were once “alienated” but Christ has “reconciled us both God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility” (Ephesians 2:16).

The Wall of Hostility

As has been noted, the central theme of this passage of Ephesians is of moving from alienation to reconciliation. One of the key images that Paul uses to describe this movement is that Christ “has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (Ephesians 2:15). There are various possible meanings which one can attribute to this image. For instance, if one were a Gnostic, one might interpret the wall as referring to the comic barrier separating heaven from earth.

Most directly, the verse itself makes reference of the “commandments expressed in ordinances,” that is, the ceremonial law; thus John Calvin concisely asserts “this obstacle was the in the ceremonies.” From this approach, the vertical and horizontal reconciliation is best summed up by Charles Hodge when he states that: “The abolition of the law as a covenant of works reconciles us to God; the abolition of the Mosaic law removes the wall between the Jews and Gentiles.”

Yet further still, the ceremonial laws found their power in the Jewish temple, and in turn, one might easily draw a connection from the “wall of hostility” to the wall of the temple which literally kept the Gentiles out, the wall which kept them from accessing the Jewish ceremonies. As was previously stated, this wall did not fall until after Paul wrote this letter; this creates a parallel of sorts to the way in which the temple itself did not fall until this time, despite Christ assertion that he would rebuild it in three days (John 2:19). This means that the wall being referenced is not merely the literal wall, but rather it is being used as a literary image. When this literal wall is used as a literary image, it becomes more clear that when Paul referred to the wall he was referring to the “the wall as symbolic of the social, religious, and spiritual separation that kept Jews and Gentiles apart.”

The breaking down of this wall, therefore, refers to social, religious, and spiritual reconciliation of the Jews and the Gentiles, as exemplified in the removal of the ceremonial laws and the eventual destruction of the literal wall of the temple. Whereas before there was division, Christ removed the wall, and brought everyone together in unity, the result of which was the creation of “one new man in the place of the two, so making peace” (Ephesians 2:15). Thus, as John MacArthur puts it “spiritually, a new person in Christ is no longer Jew or Gentile, only Christian.”

The two groups were reconciled, where to ‘reconcile’ is defined as effecting “peace and union between parties previously at variance.” In reconciling the two groups Christ created in himself a common identity, a new group which would not be defined by ethnic features but by faith in Christ, and he did this through “his flesh,” through his death. Yet further still, when Paul speaks of “one man” and “one body,” he is in fact referring to an entirely new humanity; it is much broader than merely a breaking down of the barrier between Jew and Gentile, it is a breaking down of all barriers which divide the people of God from one another: divides of class, of sex, of nationality, of race. This much can be seen when this passage is taken in the light of such verses as Galatians 3:28, which asserts that there is “neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Contemporary Implications

While the removal of the distinction between Jew and Gentile does have enormous consequence in and of itself for us as contemporary Christians – for otherwise the vast majority of us could not count ourselves amongst the people of God – it also has implications beyond the mere (yet glorious) fact that it allows for our salvation. As was shown above, Christ not only broke down the barrier between Jew and Gentile, but broke down all divisions which attempt to establish themselves in the body of Christ, divisions which still seek to establish themselves today. One of the most notable contemporary examples of this is the racial division which has so long plagued the modern world, yet as has been and will be shown, Paul speaks to the healing of this divide.

Looking back at the context of what was being written, if any group seemingly had the right to be ethnocentric, it was the Jews. They were the chosen people of God, the one He had made His promises to and set His covenant with. Douglas Sharp notes that sociologists and anthropologists define ethnicity as “a sizable group of people who share a common history, geography, language, religious tradition and way of life that are transmitted as learned behaviors from generation to generation”; the Jews had their own pure version of all of this.

As Bryan Chapell points out, from the Jewish point of view there were only two races of people: the Jews and everybody else. That is to say, no division of nationality or skin color, no class distinction or cultural barrier has ever been “more absolute than the cleavage between Jew and Gentile was in antiquity.” The alienation between the Jew and the Gentile was the division par excellence. Thus, in breaking the barrier between Jew and Gentile, Christ broke the strongest earthly division there was to break, and in doing so both set an example and demonstrated that such divisions have no place in the body of Christ.

In response to this, it is our duty in the modern world to work towards casting down these barriers where they might present themselves, such as in the great need for racial reconciliation. We have become one body – one humanity, one family – in Christ, and thus we must love one another as brothers; yet one cannot love somebody and restrict them, oppress them, or treat them differently. Instead we must work to build up our fellow brothers in Christ, to remove the barriers that our ancestors put in place and that a great number of us now benefit from and even in some cases perpetuate (if only through our self-sustained ignorance). As Chapell states: “Paul will no longer allow any sense of ‘you’ versus ‘us’; it’s all ‘we’ and ‘us.'” This means that our shared identity in Christ must take precedence over all else, and in turn, racial prejudice cannot be tolerated, for as we draw closer to God we necessarily draw closer to one another.

Thus, Paul’s words are of eminent relevance to us today, for in addressing the widest distinction – that between Jew and Gentile – all other distinctions are included. Yet not only are Paul’s words a motivation to work for the social justice of racial reconciliation, but it is also of practical benefit in guiding the believer. For one, passages such as this can be used in order to show that they cannot consistently live as a Christian in hostility towards their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ; thus, if they are living in hate or prejudice, they can be called to accountability by the Word of God. They can be shown their sin to be what it is.

If the individual is needing guidance in understanding what to make of the divisions in the world around them, this can be used to show what God’s final will is for those divisions, namely, their destruction. Perhaps most importantly, this passage can be used to convey to the individual where their ultimate identity resides. If one is to live a fulfilled life it is imperative that one know where one’s identity resides, and as Paul shows here, that identity resides with Christ. Yet it doesn’t reside there on its own, it resides there with that of the of the person who is of a different nationality, of a different race, of a different gender. Salvation is a group affair; the individual cannot exist in isolation nor can they find their identity in isolation. This is not to say that we have no other identity, but that those identities cannot take precedence over our shared identity in Christ.


There is much work to be done in the task of racial reconciliation, yet the first step towards that end is the realization that working for said reconciliation is a necessary part of our life as believers as commanded by God. Racial reconciliation – as well as other forms – are not an option in the Christian life, they are a duty; the invisible church is unified, thus it is inconsistent for us to promulgate disunity within its visible representation. As was stated by John Stott “Men still build walls of partition and division like the terrible Berlin wall, or erect invisible curtains of iron or bamboo, or construct barriers of race, color, caste, tribe or class,” which means that “divisiveness is a constant characteristic of every community without Christ.” Note, that they are a characteristic of every community without Christ; they must not be part of a community with Christ, and we must work to make it so.

These issues of alienation from our fellow man, of divisiveness and of pride, of not being reconciled to one another, are still very present today, and the place that we must begin doing away with them is in the Christian community, for if they cannot be dispelled there then they cannot be dispelled anywhere. We must not let ourselves become like the early Jews in their ethnocentrism, but must fight for the unity of the body of Christ. There are some things that the Scriptures tell us to forget, such as when somebody hurts us, but one of the things that we are commanded to remember is that we were once alienated and have been reconciled (thus Ephesians 2:11 begins “Therefore remember”); we cannot forget what and where we were before God’s love reached us.

We have been reconciled to Him, yet if we are to draw closer to him we must necessarily draw closer to one another, for these two types of reconciliation happen together and inseparably through our faith in Christ. If reconciling alienated groups from one another was one of the things accomplished by Christ’s death on the cross, this being “brought near by the blood of Christ” of Ephesians 2:13, then we will wonderfully exalt the Lord when we strive for a greater ethnic diversity and harmony in our personal lives, in our church communities, and in society at large.

Working through the vice of not seeing color


The idea of contending with racism in the present day can seem somewhat paradoxical. Growing up we were taught that everybody was equal, that black people and white people and Hispanic people were all the same, and that the racists were the people who said that they weren’t the same. Our generation grew up with the mindset “so long as we act as if black people are not different than white people, so long as we treat them equally, then we’re doing our part of not being racist.”

We call this ‘colorblindness’, and we think it’s a great thing. “I don’t see color”/”I don’t see race” is our slogan; if you see color it must mean you’re a racist.

Because of this, when we hear people wanting us to acknowledge how black people have it different than white people, when they say we need special laws to help African Americans or Hispanics, some of us are confused. Isn’t it racist to say that? Isn’t that ‘seeing color’? But aren’t we not supposed to see color? Aren’t we supposed to be acting on the assumption that they have it the same? Rather than thinking about ‘race’, shouldn’t the ultimate goal be to think of humanity as just that, humanity? And so some of us don’t understand how making things a race issue instead of an humanity issue is productive to anything but more racism, to treating one group as if it’s different than the other.

Understand, we were raised to think this ‘colorblindness’ to be a virtue, and that is probably the biggest obstacle those of us raised this way have to overcome.

We don’t realize that claiming to be colorblind is ultimately a cop-out. It’s not that we want to avoid doing the hard work of examining our own internal schema and racial identity, it’s not that we would rather lazily look outward and pronounce others as “without color.” It’s not primarily out of avoidance or lazyness, it’s out of misplaced virtue – we’ve been trained to think it’s the proper way to beat racism.

We have no comprehension that in claiming this ‘colorblindness’ we are stripping others of their racial identity and making it match our own; we think we’re offering dignity, and we’re too unaware to realize that we’re doing so through the prideful motive of making them the same us, as if we are of a higher quality.

We were raised to see this ‘colorblindness’ as a virtue, and breaking that misconception is one of the biggest obstacle we face in educating people about racism. We have to learn that equating black with white is not the goal, that it in fact impedes the goal.

We have to learn that no matter how much we may act as if all people are the same, that they aren’t being treated the same, as equal. One group is being treated as a lesser group, and unless we acknowledge that they are being treated differently we’ll never work toward the goal of them being treated the same.

What we have to acknowledge is that seeing color does not degrade the color being seen, but that it frees it to be itself, frees it to not be defined by your own limitations. We have to learn that what we should want isn’t for black people to be white or to be seen as if they were white; we want them to be seen with dignity for who they are, without being defined by us.

And we have to learn that our entire concept of race and racism is faulty. This is a massive shift, because nobody is ever ready to learn that everything they know about something, that everything they were raised to believe about something, is actually wrong from the ground up.

So don’t hate them, don’t think they’re lazy or don’t want to change or just don’t want to learn how to fight against racism. They may very well want all of that, but they are hopelessly lost if nobody comes alongside them and shows them that they’ve been seeing the world through tinted glasses (and not for the better).