
**This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**


**This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

**This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**
Join me in celebrating my 43rd birthday! I woke up this morning feeling so energetic and fit that I decided that is what I am—43 years old.
Never mind that I have some numbers and words written on a birth certificate that says I am in my 71st year. Those are just scribbles on paper. I choose to self-identify myself 43 because that is what I feel. I haven’t had any heart arrhythmia issues for 6 months, my energy levels are up and I feel great. I am really grateful for that, so I would like everybody to join in with me to celebrate my 43rd birthday.
You may think that I am just making a feeble joke here and perhaps I am. On the other hand I was thinking about the 69 year old who has been in the papers recently. He is taking legal action to get his original birth date changed so that he can legally be 49 on his tinder profile, because he is not attracting young enough women to his site. He figures if he is 49 then more younger women will read his profile. Good luck with that, Mister!
AM I JUST BEING SILLY?
The thing is, most people read that in the newspaper or online and they think it’s silly and dismiss it. But is it that easy?
Here is the big question: why do we not take that seriously, but we feel we must take it seriously when a person, who is male, self-identifies as female or a female identifying as male.
What is the reasonable basis for making a distinction? I am not trying to alienate anybody here; I just want to know how we, as a society based upon law, can make a distinction. Is it because one seems frivolous, superficial and self-interested but the other must be sincere? How can we know who is sincere and who is not. More importantly, how can the law decide that. How can society decide that? What is the basis?
I am really serious about this; it is an issue of great importance to those of us who live in Western democracies. Do we have any grounds for over-ruling feelings that are sincere and deeply held without doubt? Why do we feel we must take gender dysphoria seriously but not age dysphoria? On what basis do we think that?
I’M NOT INTENDING TO OFFEND
I know that writing about this is going to seem offensive for some people, but the trouble is we have been assuming feelings are more important than more objective reality for a long time. I can say that my birthday was assigned to me by the medical profession, so it’s only a date when they say I was born. Or I can say that my biological gender was assigned to me at birth. But actually both my date of birth and my sex are objective realities. There were many people who could witness that I was born a male on April 14, 1948.
Some people claim that the sex of a baby is often not clear, but that is not true. There may be one child in 5000 where gender is not clear at birth. Even then, the chromosomes are almost always clear one way or another. Gender, or more accurately sex, is not assigned at birth, it is observed.
IF I AM SUFFICIENTLY SINCERE, IS IT TRUE?
Let me hasten to say that I am not suggesting here that we don’t take it seriously and compassionately when a person feels their body sexual identity does not match their feelings about their gender. But neither can we simply agree that the greater truth will always be in their self-identity. This purely subjective approach to truth will not work for us. We won’t be able to live with it. If we decide that deeply-held beliefs trump observed reality, we will unleash chaos. Such an approach would require our courts to decide whether or not someone holds a particular belief about themselves deeply enough to let it take precedence over objective realities. And that would be entirely unworkable.
Many humanities courses in our Universities have promoted this subjective approach to truth for several decades and now we are experiencing consequences. It is based on the philosophical idea that objects cannot generate truth; truth “is in the eye of the beholder”. In other words, reality is what we perceive it to be. There is some truth in that, but by carrying that idea to the extreme we end up with an unlivable world. When each person decides what is true for themselves, nothing is true.
HOW CAN WE KNOW?
Is there a way out of this? Of course! There was a time when it was assumed that all truth came only by revelation, so art and philosophy centered round revelation from God. There is some truth in that too, but it is insufficient.
Then we gradually transitioned into a new epoch in which people decided that all reality has to be determined by the scientific method. That is, anything that is true must be verifiable by objective means: experiments must be possible and the resulting data will prove or disprove the proposed truth. That method is also insufficient. It can often tell us “what or how” but it cannot tell us “why”.
As a Biblical Christian, I believe in revelation and I also believe in the great value of the scientific method. When we put those two together, we have a means of knowing what is true. Human beings can still receive revelation from God. As the philosopher, Dr Francis Schaeffer said in the title of one of his books, “He is There and He is Not Silent”. We have also expanded our knowledge hugely over the past two centuries by using the scientific method. We put those two together and we have a basis for truth that we can live with.
TRUTH IS LIVEABLE
All philosophies for life, or presuppositions, have to be evaluated by living them. Post-modern, relativistic thinking leads to chaos. Religious tyranny springs from claims that all truth comes only by divine revelation. The scientific method alone provides no answers to the really big issues of life. We must regain confidence in the idea that there are universal truths and then live by them.
So am I 43? Well, on another day I might feel like I am 78, so I will just go with the numbers on my birth certificate. I’m nearer 71 than 70 and I’m just very grateful for the health and energy I am experiencing.
Lynn Green.

**This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**
We are excited to share with you a new video series with Lynn Green, which has been produced in partnership with YWAM Harpenden. He has been part of YWAM for more than 45 years and is the former Executive Chairman of YWAM. In this first video, he will be discussing with Clare Mulrooney, leadership in YWAM and some of our changes around eldership.

**This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**
You might be relieved to learn that this blog is not about Brexit.
This is about pot, weed, cannabis, marijuana, hashish, bhang, kif, Mary Jane, dope, skunk….My goodness, there are so many names for this stuff!
SOFTENING US UP FOR CHANGE IN THE LAW? My wife, Marti, and I are just back from a visit to Colorado, where cannabis has been approved for medical and recreational use for quite a few years, so we have some recent experience with the results of legalization. In the few days since we got back, I see that a number of national newspapers and several TV programs have focused on the pros and cons of legalizing cannabis. It is quite obvious that they usually lean towards the positives, especially since Canada just decided it was in the best interests of the nation to make it legal. When this kind of media onslaught appears, my experience tells me that it usually implies some measure of government and media coordination. Someone with quite a lot of clout has decided to change the law, so first they aim to change public opinion.
THE FIRST ARGUMENT The most common argument is summarized by this quote from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau saying that it had become, “too easy for our kids to get marijuana – and for criminals to reap the profits.” So we asked around our friends and family in Colorado to see if legalizing stopped illegal dealing in the state. The answer was;
“No, there are always people who will grow and sell illegally because they want to avoid the state tax and the regulations which were the inevitable result of legalization. They can undercut the legal pot shops and make bigger profit.” So that seems to be one argument shot down, or at least seriously holed.
Since my home state, Colorado, led the USA in legalizing pot, it would be good to know what the Governor thinks now. In a recent interview with CNN, he explained that the crime rate has been rising since pot was made legal six years ago and he has not ruled out making it illegal again. He said:
“Trust me, if the data was coming back and we saw spikes in violent crime, we saw spikes in overall crime, there would be a lot of people looking for that bottle and figuring out how we get the genie back in. It doesn’t seem likely to me, but I’m not ruling it out.”
MY CANNABIS STORYAt this point, I should make a confession. In the year before I committed my life to the lordship of Christ, I smoked hashish (cannabis resin) at least a couple of times a week. I was attending the University of Colorado at the time. I enjoyed it a lot and wanted to smoke whenever it was possible. Although I was in my third year of a four-year electrical engineering degree, it was my first year completely away from home, as I had done the first two years at a junior college in my home town. When I got to the home of CU in Boulder, I joined in the party atmosphere.
I then proceeded to demonstrate an obvious truism; partying, drunkenness and pot smoking don’t contribute to an engineering degree! It wasn’t long before I was experiencing anxieties and there was a reason for that. It’s not much fun to go to a math class, having missed the two previous ones, only to realize that you can’t begin to understand what the professor is talking about. In those circumstances I could see two choices: I could stop partying and study with the “nerds” who understood, or I could reduce my anxieties with hashish. I smoked more.
The problem was I was only anxiety free when I was high. Every high was followed by ever more excruciating anxieties. Back to the young man who was prescribed cannabis to reduce anxiety: I notice that he is not addressing the reasons for his anxiety. He is still avoiding the hard choices required to make his life better, but the smoking makes him feel less anxious–at least temporarily. It seems quite clear to me that his prescription cannabis is not helping him lead a better, more fulfilling and satisfying life. All he gets is a temporary delusion that things aren’t as bad as he feels they are.
A BETTER CURE There are much better cures for anxiety. Since my conversion, I have aimed to live clear-conscience Christianity and that has given me the key to anxiety management. Where there are reasons for me to feel anxious, I should never avoid the circumstances causing the anxiety or attempt to anesthetize my conscience; I must face the reasons and make the choices that reduce my anxieties. However, sometimes anxieties arise for no identifiable reason. In those cases, once again, a clear Christian faith provides a pathway to overcoming. I have access to God’s presence, His promises and His reassuring love for me as an individual. When I focus on those realities, anxiety begins to shrivel.
I conclude that substance use, whether alcohol or cannabis or another something else, is no way to manage anxiety or fear. It is so much better to change the way I think and live and thus increase relational harmony and whole-person peace—shalom.
REVENUE FOR GOVERNMENTS I think the only obvious case for legalizing pot is the case for revenue. When a government legalizes and taxes pot, they will certainly increase their tax income. How much of that will have to go on extra policing is hard to say because it is so difficult to say that certain crimes are the result of pot use and others are not. But it’s not just a matter of policing. Some people will be able to use pot recreationally without it apparently affecting their behavior, but others will lose more time from work, withdraw from relationships, become less industrious and make more mistakes at work. Some of those mistakes can result in injury or death. How do we calculate the cost of that?
Driving under the influence of cannabis can be as dangerous as driving drunk. Note the following quote from a Canadian news service earlier this year,
As Canada prepares for legal pot, the federal government plans to spend as much as $80-million to train 750 police officers to smoke out high drivers. But how sound is the test? A Fifth Estate investigation raises serious questions, showing it can lead to false arrests, is prone to police bias and, according to one scientific expert, is no better at detecting high drivers than “flipping a coin”
The same article states that the Canadian government has spent as much as $80 million to train 750 police officers to “smoke out high drivers”. So where does all this leave the equation that all governments have to work out? (Revenue minus costs equals the overall financial benefit.) The answer is not clear, but it is not likely to be an overall positive income.
We become used to governments presenting this sort of decision in purely financial terms, but they are always more than that. This one is certainly about more than mammon. What impact will legalization have on the character of our nation? Will it be a help or a hindrance to young people as they grow up? Will it help develop more reliable and responsible citizens? The answer to that one is self-evident.
So is there a case for legalizing pot? Should Britain go the same way some other liberal western democracies have gone? Now that it seems many other nations will follow suit, so should we be among them?
A few months ago I watched a BBC documentary in which about half a dozen British TV celebrities were taken to Colorado where they talked to lots of people about pot. They toured pot farms and went to the specialist shops where they tried many different kinds of smokes and eats. They were older celebrities—I would say the average age was middle fifties—so their giggling and fooling around was quite entertaining. After their fascinating and picturesque tour was over, they were asked the big question:
I was sure their answer would be yes. But to my amazement, each one had exactly the same answer. “After all we have seen and experienced on this trip—the answer is no.”
I agree.
Lynn Green.