Paul's Passing Thoughts

           Well, well, it seems that we have struck a nerve with our Furry series. In the two part introduction we outline the likely deflections used to refute criticism of this group, and guess what? In the roughly 50 comments that followed from Furries and Furry advocates, all of the familiar defenses were used. Those who read our blog will recognize these exact same arguments from our New Calvinist friends. Primarily, these arguments seek to discredit the source of the information through subtle and not so subtle character assassination, and the go-to mainstay of questioning motives for writing the series.

    Likewise, it is said that I only write about Protestantism because I experienced, “church hurt.” In this case, supposedly, I am only writing this series because I lost a custody case. Truly, there is no new thing under the sun. Note that credentials are really important to the detractors, but the credentials of firsthand experience don’t count because that involves “motives.” The issue being brought to your attention by coming into your life disqualifies you, and you must also be a world-renowned author to be taken seriously. Oh, and of course, we need to footnote every obvious observation. Don’t worry, plenty of referencing is forthcoming. And, as it turns out, we are totally in our venue because Furries have a strong presence in the church. Fursure, church wouldn’t want to miss out on anything trending in the culture. However, it did surprise me in regard to the zeal with which Churchians defended Furryism.

Be sure of this: whether cults or predatory subcultures, their worst nightmare is the internet and the way it empowers individuals.

    As stated in the introductions, parts one and two, Fandom fulfills various and sundry personal needs which draws people into the movement. Our focus is the WHY, not the WHAT, but the WHAT will be focused on later in the series as a way of showing how ideology always leads to some sort of action. Keep in mind: Fandom is a way of life and an identity that takes no prisoners; it is a hardcore ideology rivaled by no religion whatsoever. Whether 911 Truthers, Never Trumpers, NOW (National Organization of Women), or Planned Parenthood, zeal for their ideology can’t hold a candle to the Furries.

So, why all of the shame in their game? 

    You want a reference? Here it is: in the, at least 9 years that we know of, that is, Susan and I, maybe longer, the family member involved in this group kept it from us. Also, his Furry family—that is, those living with him deemed family (we will be looking at the Furry family concept)—also kept it from us. Said family member was also involved in Larping and is a Trekker, but was always very open about those hobbies. Susan even made the uniforms for the Larping. But why was the Fandom kept from us?

Because it’s not a hobby; that’s a lie.  Fandom is a lifestyle and contra-reality deemed superior to normative reality complete with things like its very own English language ( http://www.furcen.org/fgc/glossary.html#S ). 

    That’s why there is shame in their game. Fandom is a hardcore sect off the beaten path of reality. Older people join this sect to fulfill personal needs resulting from shortcomings, but the recruitment of adolescents is a major concern because those shortcomings are then projected onto children who would not necessarily develop those shortcomings. The big one is low self-esteem. Obviously, if you think highly of yourself for good reasons that are true, you don’t need to be something else, least of all an animal. Furthermore, self-esteem is earned in reality, but in the Fandom reality, you can purchase your self-esteem through a contra-reality. Secondly, as with all contra-realities, you can dismiss your guilt by being someone else or something else. Adolescents need to be encouraged to esteem themselves highly and to engage in personal building, not an endeavor to be something else that implies lack of individual worth by default. Person-building is hard work, choosing a contra-reality to identify with is easy.

    No shame in the game because it’s just a hobby? Then why do Furries need hundreds of instruction videos and articles on how to tell people you are a Furry? Do you really need an instruction video on how to tell your friends you have taken up golf as a hobby? So, here comes the criticism;

I am not citing references…

…as if you couldn’t simply google it and have hundreds of references inside of 5 seconds.  Nevertheless, here you go:

And, if you are a teen, or younger, you need an instruction video on how to tell your parents you want to join the 4H club? Or the Drama club, or the Debate club? Nevertheless, here you go:

Furries have to keep secret who they are because it’s not merely a hobby; a hobby is something you do for entertainment, a lifestyle identity is who you are which is an ideology that leads to living a certain way, and people know it. That’s why a city councilman had to resign when his “secret life” as a Furry was discovered.

    The following posts will be categorized by the Furry reality, acceptance, and coping, and how these relate to the Furry philosophy leading to its behavior.

paul

By Paul Dohse, TANC Publishing

    In this second part, we are still focusing on the basics. The Fandom, at least according to what we can ascertain presently, is not a cult. A cult is the combination of religion and authority. Any spiritual movement that claims authority from God is a cult. The Fandom is not a cult.

    The following pertains to the Fandom’s arsenal of red herrings: it’s not a fun tradition, like say, Halloween. Neither is it a hobby, another Fandom red herring. Being a Trekker or Trekking involves dressing up, but that’s a hobby. The Furry Fandom is a lifestyle known as “fursuiting” or being a “fursuiter.” It is a subculture with its own lifestyle. It is thousands of people worldwide (if not millions) united and connected by an idea that involves a modus operandi lifestyle.

It is a lifestyle that serves various personal needs. That’s the key to remember; what personal needs are being served? This is a defining question that ultimately defines the Fandom.

    In addition, Fandom is not an institution which also involves authority. Fursuiters are united and follow suit (no pun intended) according to its lifestyle principles, but after that, pretty much anything goes. These liberties also fall under various perceived personal needs. There are cottage businesses that profit from Fandom, like those who make the costumes, but there is no central authority. Organizing is through volunteers and event driven. The fulfilment of personal need is everyone’s payment.

    That is a Segway into the cardinal point of this particular post. Many who research this movement as detractors refer to it as the perfect storm of deception. Let’s start with the costumes. In defense of Fandom against a CSI television episode, one Fursuiter complained about the style of fursuits represented by the TV episode. The complaint is valid. Fandom uses a mascot style costume. The image projected by this particular suit is that of a harmless happy-go-lucky fun lover who wants to give everyone a hug and is inherently INNOCENT. The characters portrayed by the costumes are Disney-like. Even clown costumes can be creepy, but not these. Due to this, many argue that the main thrust of the movement is child-grooming, but much more on that later.

    Secondly, initial exposure to the group will usually result in it being dismissed as some sort of fun tradition like Halloween—Halloween is not a lifestyle. Other deflections are, “It’s a little weird, but oh well, a lot of people are a little weird, but there is nothing harmful here” and the idea that it is merely a “hobby.” When suspicion rises above that, deep investigation is thwarted by, “There is a bad apple in every bunch” and opinions about the movement being, “all over the map, so who knows?”

    Lastly on that point, even in the discussion of Fandom’s dark issues, the language by its advocates belittle the concerns with a frivolous Dukes of Hazard worldview. For example, criticism concerning the group’s decadent behavior at a 2015 conference was described as “fursecution.”

    The fact is, Fandom is a lifestyle that fulfills personal needs, and the movement must be evaluated according to the fulfillment of those needs. Future posts will begin to paint the picture of Fandom according to that criteria.

paul

By Paul Dohse, TANC Publishing 

    TANC Publishing is a research organization that focuses on religious issues. My wife, Susan, and I founded TANC in 2011. Recently, we crossed paths with a movement known as the “Furry Fandom.” What is this movement, and why should we care to know about it?

    Wikipedia is often criticized for not being a credible source for information along with the internet in general, but here, we have another example of something we wouldn’t know much about, if at all, without Wikipedia. In addition, we presently find ourselves in the Information Age which is a wonderful thing because information equals individual empowerment and freedom. Information is not the friend of those who oppose an open society. The idea of “experts,” and individuals considered to be an “authority” on any given subject has far less credence than it did in the past, and that’s a very good thing. In our day, expertism has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

    Hence, TANC seeks to compile information about a subject in one place and learn more about the subject through collective contributions by other individuals. The individual has the final word on what they will believe or not believe. No one should believe anything just because someone said it is true.

According to Wikipedia,

The furry fandom is a subculture interested in anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics. Examples of anthropomorphic attributes include exhibiting human intelligence and facial expressions, speaking, walking on two legs, and wearing clothes. The term “furry fandom” is also used to refer to the community of people who gather on the internet and at furry conventions.

    Two things should be mentioned to start: this is no small fringe movement; activities and conventions are ample and thousands attend. Secondly, Furries aggressively and tirelessly defend their movement. This got my attention; if Furry Fandom is just a bunch of adults dressing up for fun every now and then like a yearly Halloween party, why all the fuss? Furry Fandom is much more than an excuse to throw a party; it is a culture complete with its own formal elements such as fursona, plushies, Yiff, etc.

    ALL Christians should be aware of what Furry Fandom is for the following reasons: it confirms what we believe about human behavior and wellbeing in general, and it is, in fact, an imminent danger while its “fursona” conveys images that are disarming and seem harmless. And, the ramifications for children are absolutely huge. If 2 plus 2 equals 4, and it does, this movement poses a huge danger for children. Secondly, Furry Fandom relies heavily on playing the “misunderstood” card. In our (Susan and I) recent brush with the Fandom, our attorney said the following: “People are all over the map in regard to this movement.” Exactly. It’s like indicting Jell-O by nailing it to the wall. And frankly, that’s by design. Fandom gets a pass through a disarming persona and confusion of information.

But, the best judge of anything is what it does. We are going to look at what Fandom is, and what it does. A bear doesn’t eat honey 100% of the time, and not all bears eat honey, but that doesn’t mean they are not guilty of being bears, and that you probably shouldn’t have one for a pet.

    Sure, there are Furries who look at their participation as a fun “hobby,” as Dr. Phil McGraw categorizes the Fandom, but that not only pertains to a very small segment of Fandom, but is an eggregiously misinformed perspective, if not outright ignorant. We will look at what the Fandom is basically, and how its ideology leads to other behaviors, and why we should be aware of those behaviors.

paul

Live Link: The Potter’s House Sunday Fellowship: Galatians 9/15/2019 @ 11am

Yes, I have worked very hard to distance myself from the under-law crowd; specifically, church. According to church, under-law and under-grace are not two different realities; under-grace is the saved version of being under-law, but you are yet under-law. This is an overt denial of the new birth which transforms you from under-law to under-grace.

Now, under-grace according to justification by new birth doesn’t mean you are not under any law; it means the law serves a different purpose for the new creature in Christ. There are two uses of the law: the Spirit’s use of the law to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come, and the Spirit’s use of the law to sanctify (set apart) born-again believers. They are not set apart with a greater amount of salvation, they are set apart with a greater amount of obedience to God’s law. It’s important to qualify that according to motive. The believer doesn’t obey to avert punishment from God because in under-grace ALL condemnation has been removed from the law. The only motive for obedience in under-grace is love, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” So, the born-again believer does not obey out of fear, but out of a desire to love God and others. The goal is not…to not sin, the goal is to love. The goal is to do something (love), not some agonizing struggle to not sin. While the believer will fail to love perfectly because of mortality’s weakness, the believer need not fear the judgement to come or God’s condemnation.

Because of this truth, my inclination has been to avoid under-law thinking at any cost. What is that, exactly? It is the focus on failure and sin to “magnify the cross.” According to church orthodoxy, the goal of church is condemnation for enhancing a return to the cross for more Jesus. In case you haven’t noticed, Church is all about sin. This orthodoxy leads to a, as Jesus put it, “relaxing of the law.” Stated another way, the relaxing of love. Why? Because while stating that it is impossible for any person, lost or saved, to obey the law in a way that pleases God, the sole purpose of the law is to self-condemn for aiding one in returning to the cross over and over again for more salvation or “re-justification.” Obviously, the goal isn’t any attempt to keep the law or use the law to love God and others, but rather using the law to find more and more sin for purposes of perpetual repentance. Again, the goal isn’t using the law to love God and others, the goal is using the law to self-condemn. This makes you, “humble” and acceptable before God.  It also leads to a relaxing of the law regarding the obedience of love.

Nevertheless, my ratcheting back on the judgment issue has always been in response to rampant condemnation and I didn’t want to pile on. “Don’t make me a condemner, what you do is between you and God.” What I have missed follows: under-law soteriology is absolutely synonymous with antinomianism because its use of the law is errant while circumventing the law’s use for love. This is why sin is rampant in the church. Actually, the more sin, the better, because that magnifies the cross. If you are looking for justice in the church, don’t try holding your breath while you wait; justice implies sin prevention and a deserving of something other than hell.

But there is a problem with sin in general: it will eventually bring down the unfettered wrath of God upon the world. When this wrath comes, according to the Bible, people’s hearts will fail from fear, and others will beg to be buried alive to hide from God’s wrath. In our day, people in general are inoculated from the repugnance of sin. Abortion is a debate topic, not something that horrifies us. Homosexuality is now a societal norm.

Some large pillars define sin, and one I emphasize a lot follows: sin seeks to use the law to condemn for purposes of controlling people. Sin is a slave master. But sin has another large pillar, or, if you will, a major attribute: it loves to malign what God has created by distorting it or calling it evil. Homosexuality is a distortion of God’s created order, not normal, or a preference, and abortion is not a choice, it’s murder. And, overall, whether in the secular realm, or the religious realm, there seems to be an overall indifference to sin in general.

I would suggest that those of us involved in the ekklesia of God would make a conscious effort to once again hate sin in the same way God hates sin. We must give serious thought to God’s attitude toward sin. While He is the God of love, and the Bible says He IS love, what shall we think of sin knowing that the full force of His wrath will break out against it?

paul