The Fundamentalist Argument Clinic. Part 1: Introduction

STOP PRESS 24/12/10: Network Norwich and Norfolk appear to have censored the thread that is the subject of this blog post. I had prepared for this not unexpected eventuality by copying the entire thread and will in due course be presenting it on this blog . NN&N appear to delete forum material regardless of whether or not it breaks their house rules; in fact in this particular connection I saw no violation of the house rules. The underlying and unarticulated policy seems to be one of suppressing contention. Thus my policy is to keep a close watch on NN&N and grab the gems as soon as they make an appearance. This material is too precious to leave in the hands of those who find themselves under pressure to censor it. (Note: The thread seems to have reappeared recently!)

This discussion thread on the local Christian website Network Norwich & Norfolk is noteworthy for reasons that I hope will become clear. I have copied the comments of the main protagonists and I will be reproducing them on this blog over the next few posts. The creator of the thread is someone who signs in as “g.s.” - I shall call him GS. GS is a fundamentalist. He appears to be unwilling or unable to sustain a reasoned argument over more that two or three sentences and instead engages in strong but bald assertions and accusations of wrong doing against God. He is a man of few words, a kind of evangelical terminator who well earns the term “Godbot”. A couple of sensible commentators attempted to redeem the thread from what was basically a cesspit of intellectual debauchery, but to no avail – I will not be publishing their particular comments as the thread is unworthy of their contributions.

The key to understanding the Christian fundamentalist approach to reasoning is their concept of the Holy Spirit. The fundamentalist may make a token effort to back up his assertions with appeals to his proprietary interpretation of the Bible, but in the final analysis the fundamentalist has a low view of reasoning of any kind regardless of whether or not such reasoning employs Biblical references. In fact, as I have said, in the extreme case of GS supporting argument is almost completely absent (even absent of the use of Biblical references). What inclines the Christian fundamentalist to a low view of reasoning is that he believes the Holy Spirit is arguing for the truth of his bald assertions in the privacy of the nonbeliever’s heart. Thus, the fundamentalist is released from the work of arguing – he can just assert his conclusions and leave the rest up to the Holy Spirit if needs be. He can walk out after he has dropped his slanderous spiritual bombshells knowing that those who don’t agree with him are in complete darkness, have bad consciences and at worst are knowingly blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This not only relieves the fundamentalist of the responsibility of making reasonable representations, but it also gives him license to abuse his antagonists with spiritual insults; to him those antagonists must have heard the promptings of the Holy Spirit in their hearts and therefore must be disobeying God. It also allows the fundamentalist to condemn those he has never met or listened to: “If you are not with us you are against us. If you are against us you are against God”; “It’s our way or the blasphemous way”. As with the Islamic Jihadists the world beyond their legalistic sectarian community is thought of as a Satanic domain of war, conflict and contention upon which God’s judgment rests; the fundamentalist therefore has a prerogative to despise it. The tactic of exploiting the name of the Holy Spirit to underwrite a form of gnosto-fideism is common to the whole of the Christian fundamentalist scene – from the wacko charismatic sects through the Mormons and JW’s, to the traditional strict and particular evangelicals, they are all quite capable of asserting black is white if they believe the Holy Spirit is testifying to it!

Anyway, without further ado let me set the scene by reproducing the first two entries of the thread in question. (See italics below) I have added my comments in non-italics underneath the entries. Just one note of caution: The contributor GS has proved such a caricature of fundamentalism that there has been some doubt as to whether he is real or just a troll. I have reason to believe he is the genuine article, but draw your own conclusion.

Believing in evolution is blasphemy against God

To observe the great creation of which we are a part, and then to attribute that to evolution, is a vile form of blasphemy against God.

g.s. (Guest) 04/11/2010 11:10

So we’re off to a flying start, straight in with an accusation of blasphemy, the worst sin any one can commit. Too dull to be subtle GS can’t work up to it in stages but presses the nuclear button right away. Fundamentalist spiritual insults, especially directed toward Christian evolutionists, don’t come much stronger than this. Interesting to note that he conflates “evolution” with the whole of creation and not just biological change. But what makes this thread really notable is the comment that now follows:

geocentric believer (Guest) 04/11/2010 17:22  

You are a hypocrite g.s. How can you claim to be following the word of God when you don't believe the Earth to be stationary?

Wahey! This is going to be exciting! Looks like we’ve got a fundamentalist vs. fundamentalist death match on our hands. Fundamentalists often have huge egos – they will both be assured that the Holy Spirit is especially on their side and this will lead to a classic “immoveable object meeting the irresistible force” altercation.

Pastor Kerney Thomas is a Scream

Here is Pastor Kerney Thomas whose efforts to get God on the move bring down not just the roof but the whole of the heavens with it:



..and if you want the essential Pastor Thomas without the boring bits, the video below is the one for you:

SuperHero WeatherBillZero Saves the World!

In my last blog entry I posted a YouTube video by SuperSoylent on failed prophet Weatherbill7. Weatherbill7 predicted that during August and Early September California would be devastated by a tidal wave and mega earthquake. He had had, he claims, seven warnings of disaster; hence the "7", I assume. But needless to say not one of his warnings have materialized into anything real; that’s why he is better referred to as "WeatherbillZero". I’m not interested in the details, but WeatherBillZero’s prognostication methods involved what he called “casting lots” with a deck of cards. In the video below he appears to be facing up to his abject failure as a prophet by burning his tarot playing cards and admitting that he was just “plain old deceived”.

OK, so having faced the plain old painful truth about himself, does WeatherBillZero go back to being plain old Mr. Small Guy and try to forget all about it all? Not a bit of it. The humble, wimpy, nerdy looking WeatherbillZero doesn’t exactly cut a dash like one of those brash, suave, loud mouthed alpha male evangelists with a Death Star sized ego armoured with 24 inches of high carbon steel; but let’s not underestimate the power of the mythology that WeatherbillZero is tapping into, a mythology that presents the player with an attractive win-win option; in effect a game of "heads I win, tails you lose". For it seems that the above video was not the beginning of a restoration of integrity, but just a blip, a temporary crisis of confidence in an ego that, it now seems, is well back on track, as the commentary WeatherbillZero has added to his video indicates:

This is the deck of cards I've had for sometime now. Through these cards, I had casted lots. I thought, after the September 3rd mega quake did not come to pass, that I had been deceived, but I have come to realize, this was a judgement that was held off by The Call's (thecall.com) 14,000 Christian brethren who had prayed for God's mercy. God had answered and boy, do they not realize what they have done! They have stopped massive devastation on California! Praise God and the proof of this, is the more than 17+ sources at the web site, earthquake2010.org, who were given amazing signs that this was going to take place.

My accusers do not beleive in the power of prayer, so naturally, they are going to mock, ridicule and belittle all of this. To my accusers, I say, MAKE MY DAY! I am a man without reputation! I will preach the gospel in the face of my tormenters. No one is going to stop me! BTW, there is some wonderful worship music here on youtube at weatherbillmusic. Have a blessed day !

So weatherbillZero only thought he had been deceived when in fact he had achieved nothing less than help save America from destruction by getting thousands to pray and stop the catastrophe. In short WeatherbillZero has managed to reinflate his ego! The feel good factor has returned to his life.

The heroic fight against evil continues in WeatherBillZero's fantasies

Don’t you know There’s a (World) War On?

..at least according to self proclaimed "YouTube prophet" William Tapley who runs a “ministry” called “Third Eagle Books”. According to Tapley’s YouTube video  posted this month on 10th October the War started on 13th October. However, I recommend that you actually watch the version of the video below because it contains accompanying comments that help interpret the ministry of Prophet Tapley. Tapley, of course, has irrefutable proof that he is a prophet of God: He reasons that because he attracts opposition this must prove he is God’s prophet under Satanic attack! (See this video for criticism of that claim). This means that any attempt to prove the ministry wrong has the opposite effect of proving it to be right! How many times have we heard that sort of defense from those with an unshakable faith in their faith?

Given that World War III has not exactly started with so much as a single bang, a more likely hypothesis is that Tapley is yet another “prophet” whose over blown delusions and/or bloated ego are inflated by a gullible following. Ministries and prophets like Tapley are two a penny out there, all of them claiming to be the agent of the latest definitive Word of God. The only consolation is that they at least provide us with roars of laughter.


________________________________________________________________
For a bit of perspective it is also worth watching this video on failed prophet "Weatherbill7":

(Acknowledgements: Videos by SuperSoylent)

Healer Dealers

Miraculous Healers: Be careful that no one puts the wool over your eyes.

Christianity magazine (see christianitymagazine.co.uk) specializes in a very candid take on the Christian faith. One of the themes treated frankly in the October issue of Christianity was healing.

Broadcaster and Christianity help page columnist Steve Chalk gives advice to a correspondent “crushed” by the experience of nine months of prayer and fasting by a church for a cancer victim who eventually succumbed and died. Moreover, this wasn’t done in a corner and apparently the local community was aware of the prayer effort. Steve was really only able to offer the correspondent empathy because, to cut a long story short, Steve's been there and got the T-shirt. But he does plead for honesty and points out that as far the public community is concerned openness, vulnerability and the resilience of the fellowship are “compelling”.

The next healing story comes from an ex-tabloid reporter who writes in Christianity pseudonymously under the name of “Ruth Roberts”. Ruth admits to wrestling with questions about healing and miracles. She says that at her (charismatic) church they pray a lot for healings and miracles but in spite of really wanting to believe she doesn’t think she has seen a real, proper cast iron one. She confesses that she (cynically) groaned one day in church when her pastor said he felt there were people in the congregation that God wanted to heal. What's this pastor think he is doing given that week in week out what he claims "God wants" doesn't come about in "a real proper cast iron" way? He must be deluding himself. Ruth ends the article with Lord, please show me a miracle.

My last healing story is provided by Jeff Lucas on the last page of Christianity. He says he believes God heals today, but he then tells us of a case where a claim of miraculous healing certainly proved false. He is also implicitly critical of those who see healing being willed by the power of their belief and those who refuse to concede that healing has not come. He also frankly tells us the story of how gut wrenchingly hard it was when he himself had his own serious health scare.

Well, these columnists get full marks for being honest people and full of faith. You certainly cannot criticize them for lacking faith; their's is the sort of faith that remains in place in spite of…. Anyway, all credit to Christianity magazine for publishing these candid columns. It is worth comparing these ground zero accounts with the accounts coming out of the heady meetings of the healing evangelists who appear to heal on an industrial scale (except amputees). I have to say that I have yet to be a ground zero witness of a genuine miracle - although I do occasionally hear those messages coming out of a healing ministry production line, but more often than not they have travelled a long way through the rumour mill before these accounts reach me! Any attempt to probe these rumors by asking for solid evidence is often greeted at best with askance looks and at worst with less than subtle hints about "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" and questioning the work of the most high God who sits on Heaven's throne and judges us. What these spiritual bullies fail to realize is a) the question mark is not over God, but rather the human ability to provide reliable reports in an exhilarating and intoxicating crowd atmosphere and b) discouraging critical validation actually works against the very claims of healing that this discouragement, in its perverse way, is seeking to support, because it suggests that gullibility rather than criticism is the mode of validation.

Many of the rumours of miraculous healing that have come my way have propagated themselves much like one of those threatening chain letters that we used to get in the post before the days of viral email scams: “Pass this on or else…” was the subtle and sometimes not so subtle subtext, a subtext that on occasions exploited mankind’s instinctual fear of the numinous and the unknown. As Lovecraft said: The oldest and greatest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and greatest type of fear is fear of the unknown.

Do I believe in healing? Of course I do: So far I have been healed of every illness I have had (although not miraculously). But one day I will have my last illness…..

Michael "Hell-Fire" Voris is Back With a Vengeance

Angry Catholic Voris: Just look at the picture top right: Heronymus Bosch would be proud. Need I say more?

After publication of his Catholic Dictatorship video on militant atheist PZ Myers' blog (See my last post)  it seems that Real Catholic Michael Voris is none too pleased with his foul mouthed treatment by PZ Myers' coarse speaking "raiders". But poor PZ will find that he and his raiders' puny anti-superlatives are utterly out classed; after all, they can only resort to an assortment of body parts, excretions and private acts to use as insults. This school boy invective pales compared to the spiritual "invective" the Michael Vorises of this world can muster from a deep supply emanating out of what in some people's books is a terrifying world view. They can call on the gravitas of eternity and presumed knowledge of the human spiritual predicament to insult, condemn and above all curse, really curse. And don't forget that they really mean it and believe it; it therefore carries far more anti-value and is far more cathartic than saying something like "You w*nker!". Here's just some of it transcribed from the above video; it sounds a lot like some of the protestant fundagelical language of spiritual condemnation I have heard, and which I myself have also been on the receiving end of:*

They hate the Catholic church and what she teaches because they hate themselves...They are in love with evil. They are entrapped by it and enslaved by it and rage against the good....adulterous...money worshipping...power hungry, attention crazed, pride filled, promiscious lives...chained by their passions and fears...they will die in their sins...deep down they know the spiritual ship wreck their lives really are or will become...monarchy of hate...who do you prefer for your monarch, Christ or Satan? (and the following is really ironic - ed)... you really need check your hate speech, it is way too revealing...

It's no surprise that in the depths of the Middle Ages the Catholic church, in its dungeons, knew just what to do with some of those body parts that PZ and his raiders speak so lightly of; and, moreover, it "knew" it had the right to do it!

Characters of the Wild Web: PZ Myers dreaded raiders strike again, but when it comes to Real Cursing the Real Catholics provide a much more professional service.

* For reference read the book of Jude.

One Ring to Rule Them All

(Note: 18/8/10: The Real Catholics have pulled the video: Perhaps to spite the people they thought were "wrenching it out of context to try to make a weak point" to use the words of one of my detractors)

When I watched the above video on PZ Myers’ blog my first reaction was that it must be a trolling spoof or at least a tongue in cheek production with the aim of baiting the PZ Myers of this world. But seemingly not: The man in the Video, Michael Voris, a Catholic who talks and sounds very much like a fervent Protestant fundagelical, has a series of YouTube videos promoting Catholic religious hegemony. Nothing unusual about that you might think given that this blog is always criticizing the authoritarian spiritual hegemony of some Protestant sectarians. So what’s new here?

Voris tells us that “Our nature is fallen” and is “self absorbed”. Fair enough, I can go along with that; its core Christian doctrine. But then suddenly out of the blue we get this:

….Only virtuous people should be allowed to vote! … Limit the vote to faithful Catholics…. Only true Catholics look at God. …. When true Catholics vote they cast them with an eye to what God desires not fallen human nature …. Democracy is doomed to failure… The only way to run a country is by benevolent dictatorship – a Catholic monarch.

Surely this man can’t be serious! He must be having us on! The last time I saw a very similar looking manifesto was when I read “Mein Kampf”. It is difficult to credit that anyone, in the light of Western History, can still hold such views.

Isaiah Berlin has made us very conscious of the difficult balancing act between positive and negative liberty that must be maintained in a democracy. Given the human nature that we all share, both extremes of positive and negative liberty have undesirable consequences: Positive liberty can drift toward dictatorship; negative liberty drifts toward market chaos.

The problematical question that never occurs to anti-democrats is this: Just who is going to decide who is virtuous enough to rule autocratically? Who is going the “morally bootstrap” the first virtuous autocratic government? Can fallen beings trust themselves to identify, let alone implement, the absolute government of the virtuous? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Voris ought to learn the main lesson of that famous book by fellow Catholic J. R. R. Tolkien where the tempting and corrupting effects of absolutism find an excellent metaphor in the One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Oliver Cromwell did away with the crypto-catholic dictatorship of Charles I and consolidated parliament. Trouble was, Cromwell himself didn’t understand or know how to handle parliament. He was repulsed by the cacophony of voices of competing (self) interest that was the English parliament and so he effectively dissolved it and became dictator; although credit to Cromwell, true to his beliefs, he was probably a reluctant dictator. Cromwell blew his chance and failed at the test of getting the balance between positive and negative liberty right. The Protestant Cromwell, like the Catholic Voris, was of the opinion that once you’ve got rid of “all them others” somehow the rule of the virtuous and Godly would just emerge. But it didn’t: Parliament became a forum of argument and counter argument expressing the inevitable balance of interest of a democracy; that is what authentic parliament is all about - we must simply accept it and run with it. But the puritanical Cromwell couldn’t accept it. The only solution Cromwell could think of, like Voris, is to enforce the autocracy of a self-righteous and probably self-appointed oligarchy. However, we have to make all due allowance for Cromwell: In the history of Western government Cromwell was breaking entirely new ground without the hindsight of past models to go on. Voris does not have that excuse, and ought to know better.

Ironically, anti-democratic leanings are also a recrudescent phenomenon among Protestants in spite of their Biblio-centric individualism. Hierarchal absolutism is not far under the surface of the mindset of some Protestants as typified by the following quotes taken from a ministry that shall remain nameless:

Some have wrongly taught that the local churches are autonomous, that once an apostle establishes a local church and appoints the elders, he is through with that church and should stay away…..The leaders in the church must take the lead in all things. They must be the leading sheep, the head sheep, in the flock. When the sheep at the head of the flock move, the rest of the sheep follow ….The elders should be regarded, obeyed, and honored by the saints.

The tempting and corrupting effects of the "One Ring" are, alas, as real in church government as they are in society at large (See my last post).

The two faces of English democracy:

Cromwell: The uncompromising face of positive democracy

Walpole: The compromising face of negative democracy

The fact is that truly democratic government will always have to emerge from an ongoing and contradictory tumult of voices, interests, perspectives and viewpoints that tug in different directions; such are the consequences of the ambiguities and sinfulness inherent in our world. Sir Robert Walpole, England’s first prime minister, well understood the underlying self interest that often motivated democratic rule and referred to it as “the natural state of human affairs”.

There is no one party that has a monopoly on righteousness any more than it has a monopoly on sin. As the good book says:

For there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God (Rom 3:23)

****

During the last 'benevolent' Catholic dictatorship even dissenters were given a stake in government.

Disney Land Christianity

Why doesn't Hinn just 'Jacket' in?

Two articles in the August "Christianity" magazine are notable.

The first article is about excess in some churches and is entitled “Money, Sex and Power”. Although the churches concerned are largely American Charismatic churches, it is usually not long before UK churches pick up the baton.

The article starts by dealing with the money and sex scandals that are now all too familiar, but my own opinion is that this is really a distraction from the main problem. Sex and money tempts people in all walks of life and a fall here can happen to anyone. When the Christian showman and “miracle” entertainer Todd Bentley came a cropper over his affair and divorce, some parts of the church reacted as if this was the only problem with his ministry. Some even tried to spin doctor it by making a virtue out of it: It was all down to poor brother Bentley’s “burn out”; poor guy, he was so over worked! Trouble was he was burning himself out peddling junk spirituality egged on by a gullible crowd who were baying for “more Lord, more…”. In fact as far as I’m concerned Bentley’s marital infidelity is the least of his sins and arguably could be excused as having mitigating circumstances. Basically fundagelicalism never learned from the “Bent Oddly” affair and never took the cue to take a good long hard look at itself. In fact by implicating sex and money fundagelicalism could get itself side tracked by putting it all down to a good old fashioned sin that is easily identified. But I’m of the opinion that the real sin is endemic to fundagelicalism itself. The problem will not go away unless fundagelicalism reforms itself.

The article in “Christianity” leaves the subject of power until last. This matter, I suggest, is much closer to the nub of the real issue than is sex and money. Under the subtitle of “The Abuse of Power” the article tells the story of a church where:

The issue was over the pastor’s teaching on a variety of issues including creation, tithing and the nature of spiritual authority. He insisted that these teachings were central to the faith and that dissenters from his line were in serious error that threatened their eternal destiny. It reached a head when one Sunday during a sermon the pastor launched into a personal attack on those in the church who disagreed with him. Naming them – and most were in the congregation that day – he called on them to ‘repent’ and then proceeded to pray for this to happen. During the prayer these people stood up and left the building. Within ten minutes other members of the congregation, some in tears and others heckling the pastor walked out. The meeting ended in chaos.

The article claims that this story is “the tip of the iceberg”, and like all such icebergs it is the “sea of faith” that is keeping it afloat: It is not a case of people occasionally (or even frequently) being tempted by the lure of power as they might also be tempted by sex and money. The problem is to be found in the underlying ethos of fundagelicalism, particularly charismatic and Pentecostal fundagelicalism. That ethos is one of a brash, positively affirming and assertive Christianity flowing naturally out of a culture that, as an affected reaction to its marginalization, is so totally convinced it speaks with the very words and authority of God. I suspect that the pastor referred to in the above quote was less tempted by sheer power per se than he was tempted by the common fundagelical delusion that he was the mouth piece of God. It’s not that this culture is necessarily peopled by the authoritarian, the arrogant, the gullible and the stupid, but the cultural mores of fundgelicalism helps feed authoritarianism, arrogance, gullibility and stupidity.

If the authoritarian, the arrogant, the gullible and the stupid start to populate institutions and sects whose ethos attracts them, then naturally enough one is going find them giving a very hyperbolic explanation of what they are doing. This brings me to the second article in “Christianity” by regular writer Jeff Lucas. In a column entitled “Mind your Language” Lucas acknowledges that many Christians give a fabulous account of their doings using a language of spiritual superlatives that raises the prosaic into an ethereal grandiose realm. Lucas kindly calls it “metaphor and shorthand” but a case could be made out for calling it “spiritual spin”. Lucas, in fact, gives an example that he himself is guilty of:

I used to describe prayer as a conversation, until, decades on, I came to realize that it could be misleading. ‘God spoke to me this morning’ I would announce breathlessly, perhaps suggesting that (a) I awoke to the sound of a booming voice that rattled the alarm clock and (b) I have an ongoing hotline to God and am enjoying happy little chats with him through each and everyday. In truth 99% of my praying is me doing the talking.

Lucas also says:

.. after a while we start to believe in the Magic Kingdom ourselves as I found out when I went to Disney land and actually approached Mickey Mouse and asked for an autograph. Only as I walked away did I realise that I’d just asked a sweating college student togged in furry fancy dress to honour me with a signature. I’d bought in to the myth myself.

Telling, truthful, candid, sobering stuff. But Lucas is taking a big risk: He could be in for some brickbats on “Christianity’s” letters page if the religious fanatics who speak for God decide to mobilize.

The following is an example of the output of one Christian sect very sure that it has an ongoing hotline to God, a line that needs no interpretation:

The all-inclusive Christ, who as the life-giving Spirit indwells our spirit, is everything to us. We must believe the clear Word in a pure way, saying, "Amen," to whatever the Bible says, and we should take care of our experience. There is no need to interpret. Simply take whatever the Bible says and believe it.

No need to interpret: That's right, no need to think about it, just get a direct download from the Almighty Himself and you're away; in fact no need to even bother to get the download as we have it already, so just come to us and we can tell you what to believe. One little problem though: A million and one fundagelical ministries, sects and cults, all with their proprietary and mutually inconsistent authoritative downloads, can't all be right.

Over confidence, over certainty, and spiritual arrogance are the inevitable products of the false belief that Christians somehow speak the very words of God, and this very naturally leads into the abuse of spiritual power and authoritarianism.

The Myth of God Incarnate

Who needs a liberal theologian to interpret the Bible’s message when we’ve got Saint Paul here to do the work for us? (This picture of PZ Myers was taken while he was playing on the rides at the local creationist doctrinal bargain basement)

I was fascinated to see this post by militant atheist blogger PZ Myers. Myers says that he likes the liberal theologian’s metaphorical view of the Bible because:-

The idea that the Bible should be interpreted as a metaphor is a good one — because it melts the superstition away. The metaphor is a powerful tool.

And because (and this may be the chief reason):-

…opening the Bible up to metaphorical interpretation rips the heart right out of Christianity, and makes central dogmas of the faith untenable and painfully ridiculous.

Or does it? I personally might have a vestigial “superstitious” belief in a real God, a real incarnation and a real resurrection, but I would nevertheless go along with PZ’s view that much of what I would call the “Word of God” is compellingly conveyed through metaphor and many of the moral lessons of those metaphors stand regardless of the ontological significance one attaches to them. This means that the profound teachings inherent in those metaphors can be appropriated by theist and non-theist alike. And if these teachings actually constitute the core “central dogmas of the faith” then the heart of the faith remains in place. Moreover, the Good Book itself says:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2:14-16

In other words the “Word of God” reaches the places in (wo)men’s hearts that our religions do not reach. For this reason I have never been at all keen on attacking atheists by suggesting atheist philosophy inclines people toward immorality. This kind of attack is especially rich in the light of the excesses of some very religious people. Believer’s and unbelievers have the same God given conscience that informs them about right and wrong and if unbelievers follow their consciences for good that is something to write home about.

Anyway, in his post PZ precedes to lampoon the literalism of the Ken Ham’s of this world, but then he embarks on a consideration of what is left if the Bible is interpreted metaphorically:

Of course, I'm a right cruel bastard, so when a liberal Christian tells me that Genesis and the sacrifice of Christ are metaphors, I just ask "Metaphors for what?", and then they usually stand there gape-jawed like a fish and flounder trying to figure out what I'm asking. Calling something a metaphor is not a get-out-of-jail free card. It means there's a deeper meaning to extract.

So let’s see what deeper meaning PZ extracts ( *1)

The book of Genesis is telling us that human beings are flawed, that we're all burdened with impulses and desires that are not necessarily good for our society: greed and selfishness, for instance, or violence and deceitfulness. (And also, to a patriarchal society, disobedience — conscientious objections don't seem to have much support in such cultures). The whole of Genesis, not just the creation stories, is about the natural wickedness of human beings, and how we have to be constantly chastised.

You won't find a single rational person who disagrees with that. (but you might find quite a few rational persons - and Christians - who don’t live up to it – ed) We are not angels by nature. We biologists would go even further and say that by nature, we're fractious, squabbling apes. Read that as the lesson of Genesis, and you'll find even us rabid militant atheists in full agreement that it is right. The mythological details are nonsense, of course, but they're just there to make it an interesting and persuasive story.

Excellent! So PZ is admitting that humanity by nature struggles with itself, with its self-centeredness and selfishness; intrinsic traits of human nature that are contrary to good society. That sounds suspiciously like the myth of original sin, yes “sin”, the word with the “I” in middle.

PZ then goes on to consider what he calls the “Jesus myth”. Given that PZ has identified humanity’s problem as being with its intrinsic nature (that is, with its “original sin”) can he now extract the essentials of salvation? This is what he says about the “Jesus myth”:

That's a hero story, a narrative about someone we should emulate, whose greatest virtues are self-sacrifice for the common good. We're wicked deep down as Genesis tells us, but we can also aspire to believe in humanity and give our lives over to charity and justice.

Again, this interpretation is not going to conflict with most godless values (well, unless you're an Ayn Randian, but those are psychopathological aberrations). We're combative apes, but our species also succeeds through cooperation; we have a 'higher' nature to which the best of us can appeal, which has and will help us succeed. Maybe believing in something greater, like sacrifice and hope, can help us be better people.

Not bad, not bad at all! We seem to moving in the right direction. OK, so PZ finds all the suffocating ontological trappings of piety surrounding this basic “myth” repugnant, and he believes these trapping to be dispensable as one would expect of an atheist. And yet look at the comments about Someone we should emulate, about wickedness deep down and above all that last sentence about the transforming power of sacrifice and hope. That’s core Christian values to my mind, or even, if you like, the “central dogma” of Christianity! It is precisely here that the “Jesus myth” is, in my opinion, unparalleled and compelling. That “myth” is about recognizing the “old nature”, repenting of that nature and putting on with hope the “higher nature”, the nature that Christ presents us with. Viz:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7but made himself nothing,

taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself

and became obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father. (Philipians 2:3-11)

This “myth” is a story about the greatest sacrifice imaginable: He who has most to lose voluntarily losing everything; God giving up being God and becoming a humble servant, obedient to the point of humiliation and death. This is the myth of the Grace of God that utterly flaws one’s own superficial morality and shows it up for what it is: Hypocrisy. But if we immerse ourselves in this myth it inspires us and proves to have the power to change our lives. It focuses our minds on the concepts of repentance, forgiveness, love, hope, and above all the Grace Of God. Now, I personally am still superstitious enough to believe that this life transforming myth about the higher nature was acted out for real in some higher plane. But perhaps the story of Christ has power to make us better people whatever our views on its ontological status.

The man from Galilee has one more challenge for us all before I finish. PZ Myers would not doubt regard with angry contempt the views of many Christians on the ontological realities associated with the above myth. Conversely there are many fundagelicals out there who treat PZ Myers as if he is the very distillate of the anti-Christ. These two sides, it seems, are beyond reconciliation. If we now set this implacable stand off against the words of the man from Galilee whilst He hung on The Cross we realise just how high the moral bar has been set:

Father, forgive them for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34 (*2)

Footnotes:

*1 PZ actually says “These are interpretations that liberal theologians make, but surprisingly, they're also perfectly copacetic with atheist and humanist ideals.” So it seems that the Liberal Theologians have achieved something!

*2 Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more: Mythos versus Logos

The following two videos are worth comparing. The first, which I found on PZ Meyers' atheist blog here, shows a passionate evangelical (?) Christian vehemently praying at a graduate congregation. She starts by repenting of the sin of worshiping the intellectual mind. The passion in her prayer increases until it reaches an orgasmic crescendo; she starts quaking, breaks down and faints. Some of the correspondents on PZ's blog think she shows evidence of nevertheless being in control and thus of consciously manufacturing this display of spiritual exhibitionism.

Here is the video:



The second video was linked to from the Intelligent Design blog “Uncommon Descent” (See here; the comments on UD are also very worthy of note too; one correspondent wonders if it is a spoof!). This video shows a group of people that the voice over tells us are an extremist ecology group called “Earth First”. To the Christians of Uncommon Descent these people are worshiping nature, but the activity of the group shown in this video looks all but indistinguishable from the passionate prayer of the fervent evangelical Charismatic. One of their spokespersons speaks of the debilitating effects of hi-tech industrial society on spiritual life. So here is my second video:





It is amusing to think of the atheist PZ Meyers and the theists on Uncommon Descent both triumphantly finding these examples of “kookiness” respectively caricaturing what they despise most.

No doubt the Ontology of God accepted by the two groups in these videos are very different, but ostensively their relationship with the mystical entities they are praying to bear striking resemblances. Both are fine examples of a “mythos” religious reaction against the hi-tech, hi-cerebral “logos” society; both express great diffidence toward the intellect and its products. It is ironic that PZ Meyers and Uncommon Descent should stand together in relation to these similar hi-mythos, hi-passion expressions. And of course both accuse one another’s communities of harboring these irrationally religious elements!

I have written many times on the mythos/logos tension in our society. See here, here and here for example.

a Generous Or+hodoxy: Part 2

Mclaren: Taking the rough with the smooth

I had never read Brian McLaren up until I read “a Generous Or+hodoxy”, therefore given that I found so much in the book echoing my own feelings and thinking (I filled it with underlinings) it is likely that there is some underlying commonality of philosophy, experience and temperament that has caused this concurrence. One commonality seems to be that McLaren has stepped back to look at the Christian scene as whole in all its historical and contemporary messy reality. Moreover, I suspect that McLaren, like me, has secretly asked himself the probing question that, when all is said and done in Christianity are we left with an authentic phenomenon? Towards the end of his book (see chapter 19) he defines the concept of Church Emergence as a process which like tree ring growth includes and embraces what his gone before: In other words McLaren is not one of those many disillusioned Christian sectarians who bin the past, clear the ground, and start rebuilding yet another bespoke realization of Christianity. And yet he is all too aware of the failings of both historical and contemporary Christianity; else why embark on such a deep reappraisal of the phenomenon?

McLaren says he is a post-foundationalist, (see P206) and by implication a postmodernist, and yet he is not a relativist (P324). I do not think of myself as either post-foundationalist or postmodern but nevertheless I think I can run with McLaren here because, as another emerging church leader once put it, his is the kind of postmodernism that equates to “epistemological humility” rather than relativism – and that I would want to applaud and encourage: No human expression of Truth, whether based on biblical interpretations or other is ever ultimately authoritative or constitutes an absolute foundation. All human understandings and expressions of the Truth are subject to critical scrutiny, further honing and/or possible revision. On page 316 McLaren succinctly describes the “stages of faith” by which one appropriates this important “postmodern” lesson: “simplicity, complexity, perplexity and humility”.

McLaren doesn’t assume that his or anyone else’s particular Christian cultural splinter has all the right answers, or for that matter all the wrong answers. This means that he doesn’t write off any particular cultural expression of Christianity as damned. But although he looks as though he is the sort of person who is able to negotiate with most Christian communities, I get the impression that for McLaren self-criticism is a non-negotiable feature of his Christianity and therefore for him healthy Christianity is in the business of constantly reappraising itself. He warms to the concept of “continuous reformation” (P213), an idea that is close to my concept of continuous rival.

At his own confession there is a streak of cynicism in McLaren. Like myself, therefore, he is suspicious of restorationism; that is, the claim by countless start-up denominations, sects and cults that they have cleared the ground to create a restored church untainted by human foibles and sinfulness. “Oh yeah?” has always been my response to this sort of thing and I think McLaren’s response would be similar (P140)

As I said in my previous post it is difficult to distill McLaren’s views down to simple formula; he is too intellectually mature for that. He knows that unlike the world of the physical sciences where much can be captured in simple formulae, the socio-religious world is a world that is necessarily rife with narrative intense metaphors. Thus, it is difficult to pin the label of heresy on McLaren just by quoting a few sentences on, say, his views of hell and other religions, because there are always qualifications further into the text.

EPC (evangelical, pentecostal, charismatics) sects often require one to swallow whole and digest slowly; that is they require you to eat in one sitting everything on the platter they serve; it won’t do to leave any of it to pick over later, let alone refuse to swallow something altogether. This is where I believe Mclaren wins outright over much of “modernist” EPC; for his twin methodology of acquiring historical perspective and his soft postmodern epistemological humility is scientific in as much as he only allows us to establish what we feel we can establish in our own good time.

Do I disagree with McLaren on anything? I think it is less a case of disagreeing with him than it is taking issue with him where I think he lacks an emphasis. In this connection I feel that he casts the mold too much in terms of dichotomies: modernism vs. postmodernism, mechanism vs. mystery, reductionism vs. intuition – basically similar expressions to the fundamental dichotomy of logos vs. mythos that I keep banging on about. In my view these dichotomies require synthesis and not polarization; or at least be kept in paradoxical tension. In the face of this lack of emphasis by McLaren, I am not surprised that the emerging churches I’m acquainted with tend to resolve the tension between Mythos and Logos in favour of mythos. For someone such as myself who is temperamentally wired up for analysis and articulation and reared in the enlightenment traditions I find such fellowships (which may be full of ex-charismatic refugees) far too touchy-feely for my taste. But I must stress the subjectiveness of my term “taste”; this is not say that those who engage in such fellowships don't do well in them. At least they are free of that “swallow whole and digest slowly” tyranny.

The Suffocating Trappings of Piety

A Christian journalist by the name of H. V. Morton visited the Holy Land between the wars and subsequently wrote a book entitled “In the Steps of The Master”. Here is his reflection after visiting the Mt Calvary of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher:

....Calvary, the holiest place on Earth. I looked round hoping to be able to detect some sign of its former aspect, but that has been obliterated for ever beneath the suffocating trappings of piety... I went away wishing that we might have known this place only in our hearts.

In summer of 1997 I was on business in Israel. During that visit I managed to squeeze in a “Jerusalem pilgrimage” and for a day I became a “pilgrim” doing the usual Holy sites. I too was left with my own reflection on “the suffocating trappings of piety”. Here is a short passage from the story of my visit

The religious mentality has something about it that renders it unselfconscious. Perhaps this is a consequence of devotion so intense that it becomes lost in itself. But whatever the cause, this context blindness means that this extreme devotion leads to an inability to stand back and examine itself. Thus in its obsession with devotional minutia it is unable to see the aggregate effect of its activity, and is thus unaware of the incoherent and implausible jumble its religion has become. One man's iconic elaborations are another man's blasphemy. And so there is a tendency for these elaborations to be repeatedly destroyed and remade as people wipe away the elaborations of their forerunners or contemporaries and start all over again with the construction of fantastic new cultural forms, forms often thought to represent a return to genuine and original simplicity. Thus, the ground is successively cleared and replanted and the net effect is that there springs up a thick undergrowth of diverse groups.


The generic concept here is summed up by the word “Restorationism”. Freedom permitting, Christians (and in fact religious people in general) are forever rebuilding their faith in reaction against the other believers around them, thus restoring or returning to what they believe to be the right way. This tendency is particularly marked in Protestantism where a power vacuum attracts self proclaimed authorities.

With this background behind me it was with a somewhat perturbed fascination that I recently noticed yet another form of Christian restorationism popping up on a Network Norwich & Norfolk thread (See here - this link no longer exists 20/2/10). This form of restorationism actually goes back a few decades and has its origins in the ministry of a Chinese Christian called “Witness Lee” whose views, in turn, are partly founded on the teachings of another Chinese Christian called “Watchman Nee”. Unlike the Christian house church restorationists of the late seventies the Lee sect doesn’t use the word “Restoration”, but a word like it: “Recovery”; it considers itself to be the Lord’s “recovered” church.

I have had a quick look at the teachings of Lee and Nee using links furnished by the NN&N thread (Especially the links provided by a correspondent called “The Terminator”). In order to assess a movement as quickly as I can, as a general rule I go straight to a sects publications dealing with leadership, authority and church. This is because the subject of church management will reveal any cult ethos, if it is to be found. In this case I focused on two publications called “Authority and Submission” and “Leadership in the New Testament”. To cut a long story short these publications suggested to me that we have here a group ethos with a very strong view of its spiritual authority. This was no surprise. Moreover, in the NN&N thread one of the sect members is caught in the act of trying to administer that authority online. Clearly annoyed by the obstinacy of The Terminator a sect member called “a believer in Norwich” does the equivalent of excommunicating The Terminator:

We are left with no other recourse but to follow our Lord’s directive to treat him/her, according to his /her own attitude, as those who are outside the realm of the people of God .

And this is carried out on the basis that The Terminator’s behavior:

reveals little care for the headship of Christ or the body of Christ

This online disfellowshipping is a rather a futile gesture as clearly “The Terminator” is not part of the Lee sect fellowship in the first place. What little gravitas this “excommunication” has comes about as a result of the sect’s view of spiritual demographics: The sect divides the world into three populations: the favoured “blended brothers” (sect members, it seems), the apostate church of “divided brothers” (all other sects and denominations of Christianity) and finally the pagans and atheists on the way to hell. It is to the latter group that the excommunicated Terminator has been consigned. The “headship of Christ or the body of Christ” referred to above is none other than the authority of the “recovered” church of Witness Lee: This much becomes clear when one reads the publications cited. It is this authority that has been exercised in excommunicating The Terminator. (I doubt the Terminator gives a damn). It was the basis of this authority that I expected to find and found when I started reading the sects literature; any sect/cult that maintains a strong sense of communal identity and belongingness requires an exalted notion of the group’s religious authority in order keep discipline. This notion of authority can be found in other sects/cults.

The Lee sect members who meet in a city call themselves the “Local Church”. This may seem a rather bland name, a name that is just about as uninformative as calling oneself a “church”; such terms are over allocated. Moreover the qualification “local” adds little distinction, since all churches, accept perhaps for web churches, are local. However, as is always the case with restorationist startups there is a hidden qualifier tacked on to the front of its prosaic and affectedly primitive self designation. In its view they are not merely “a local church” but “THE local church”.

All restorationist startups face one impossible logical conundrum. As an almost invariable rule they rail against the denominational divisions, but in a monumental and yet completely unself-conscious act of collective egotism they never see themselves as just another denominational start-up: They get round this by taking it for granted that unlike all those other corrupt and apostate churches they are THE church; church in its best and purist manifestation. They are, in their opinion, the church restored (or recovered) to what it should be; primitive and simple. This is ever the story one finds amongst JW’s, Mormons, house church restorationists and the like. They usually have novel elements found in no other contemporary or historic churches and thus they have little option but to explain themselves as a modern recovery of what should have been.

However, to talk of some of these restorationists as just another denominational start-up is to do great disservice to the average mainstream denominational church, because the restorationist churches usually have a much stronger sense of their identity and belonging than the average denomination. Moreover, that identity is maintained by the administration of authority, an authority wielded by a strong leadership. So in a sense restorationist sects are a form of deniminationalism++. But this takes us back to my introduction: Sect and cult members are utterly and genuinely unaware of themselves as just another division of Christianity and they too, in their elaboration of belief and practice, are tempted to bury the true Calvary under the suffocating trappings of piety, particularly the trappings of, submission, authority and control.

There is a story of tadpole that mocked frogs for their ill favoured looks and yet the tadpole himself grew up to be an ugly toad. This story is a fitting metaphor for the cult startups who forever criticize and denounce the denominations of the mainstream EPC (Evangelical, Pentecostal, Charismatic) community. But it is out of the EPC community from which many sects are spawned. The authoritarian parody of faith that we see in the cult-startups is often prefigured, albeit a less pronounced form, in EPC itself: Spiritual pride and elitism, anti-intellectualism, intense and affected spiritual expressions, haughty condemnations of sin etc. In some ways the restorationist sects are a mirror of EPC, a mirror that exaggerates its less desirable aspects. That mirror needs to be looked by into by the EPC community and the lessons learned. We currently have an opportunity to look into that mirror on the NN&N website.
.

"a Generous Or+thodoxy": Part 1

Can Brian Mclaren save Protestantism from the chaos monster?

I have at last got round to reading one of Brian Mclaren’s (the emerging church leader) notorious books - namely “a Generous Or+thodoxy”. Before I comment on this book I shall have to give some preamble.

Broadly speaking EPC (= Evangelical, Pentecostal, Charismatic) Christianity approximately clusters around two classes of groupings. If I am allowed to recycle two historical terms in order to designate more generic phenomena then I would describe these clusters as “The Gnostics” and “The Strict and Particulars”. “Gnostic” Christians are those who place a premium on spiritual intuitions, esoteric experiences and sublime initiations. The Strict and Particulars (Or “Straps” for short) are those for whom the spiritual premium is upon “Obeying the Word of God”, that “word” usually being identified with a bespoke interpretation of the Bible. Different fellowships and churches will show differing degrees of pronouncement of these two categories. In some cases a benign and happy mean may be settled for, but in my experience there is often a tension in EPC churches between proponents of these differing emphases on revelation. In fact, in extreme cases a belligerent sectarianism can result. Complicating matters further is the fact that it is also possible for a single sect to display both characteristics at once: A soft gnostic centre may be protected by a hardened shell of strict “Word of God” doctrine. When manifested in extreme form gnostic Christianity is akin to a kind of spiritual delirium whereas strap Christianity looks like a kind of spiritual autism; and I suppose it is also possible to have a form of delirious autism!


Gnostics and straps are not specifically an EPC phenomenon and one can find the same clusters in other religions. This clustering is what Karen Armstrong generically refers to as the Mythos or Logos manifestations of religion (See here for more details). My hunch is that the basis of this division is to be found in temperamental, psychological and other human factors. As I have remarked before, the divisions may have something to do with the left-right brain partitioning. EPC sects and subcultures will, needless to say, be very unlikely to admit that they are manifesting psychological traits beyond their control as they will much prefer to think of themselves as having made a choice in favour of what is absolutely true rather than succumbing to a human foible. EPC sects and subcultures are jealous defenders of their bespoke version of the faith and as a consequence they can be very partisan. Because these groups may regard their renditions of the faith as the last word in truth one finds not only finds gnostic vs. strap tensions, but gnostic vs. gnostic and strap vs. strap conflicts.

My understanding of the Christian faith is that it’s kernel idea, in contradistinction to the concept of a self help salvation, is that of the condescension of a God who reaches down to the human level (and beyond) in an act of saving grace thus adopting as spiritual children all those who are willing to become “sons of God”. Christianity is about an undeserved gift of salvation; a robust fault tolerant message of salvation for all those who, though they grasp truth imperfectly, have appropriated grace and are on the road to salvation by the sustaining grace of God revealed in Christ.

One would expect that the Christian message of grace would by its very definition be extremely robust and tolerant of the faults of its recipients. But it seems that this is not the view of many who, though they have appropriated the of Grace God in spite of themselves, then go on to attempt to take full control of the message; for they often suggest that God’s Grace is all but unavailable to those who do not share certain bespoke doctrines and gnostic blessings. For the erstwhile recipients of grace may be unwilling to accept that others beyond the domain of their bespoke practice and belief have the cry of “Abba Father” in their hearts. At best they may recognize them as inferior Christians and at worse consider them beyond the pale. Thus in a travesty of the very grace they themselves have accepted they are quick to deny that the (full) favour of God’s blessing is on to those who don’t share their numerous and ramifying particularities of faith. As a result there are often some pretty venomous inter sectarian altercations within EPC. EPC is very schizoid and the more extreme subcultures and sects within EPC will criticize one another from variety of a spiritual hobby horses: Restorationism, Young Earth Creationism, spiritual authority, fideism, conspiracy theory, right wing politics, bespoke revivals, blessings, miraculous healings and prophecies. (This list is not exhaustive!)

***

I have engaged on this rather long preamble because it seems that Brian McLaren has been subject to the kind of criticism I have referred to. Given my understanding of the gospel it would seem clear to me that Mclaren is, as far as his book “a Generous Or+thodoxy” is concerned, very much in the Christian fold: He understands and accepts grace, he understands that it’s Christ work and not his that brings salvation, and he knows God as father through Christ – read part 1 of his book. But as one reads McLaren one must be aware that he does not readily parrot EPC formulae and confessional quips; if one wants to verify that McLaren supports an EPC confessional formula one may have to read many pages in order to “distill out” that formula. Spiritual quips and cliché surfing, which are often required to authenticate one’s faith to one’s target Christian subculture and to win acclaim from that subculture, are not readily available in McLaren’s writings and this certainly brings a freshness to his work.

And yet on McLaren’s Wiki page one reads of one EPC commentator confidently declaring: “As kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and [Steve] Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel”. From a movement that itself so often parodies the gospel of grace it is difficult to take statements like that very seriously. Whatever Mclaren might have said elsewhere, it appears from my reading of “a Generous Or+thdoxy” that his basic gospel credentials are assured. But if one is going to question McLaren’s faith this sets a precedent which prompts me to in turn question the Christian credentials of those sub cultures and sects in EPC (Perhaps like McLaren’s critic) who trammel the gospel with so many bespoke conditions and offer up a travesty of its message of grace. If McLaren has abandoned the gospel then so have many ungracious divisions within EPC. Commentators like McLaren’s critic are setting a very dangerous precedent indeed, a precedent that subverts Christianity to its core. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


As you can perhaps see from the foregoing, even before I started reading McLaren’s book I sensed I was going to find a lot in common with him: I held off the evil day knowing that if I got too close to McLaren I would be accused of abandoning “The Truth”. In fact as I stood in the queue waiting to buy my copy of “a Generous Or+thodoxy” I met a much respected minister acquaintance who jokingly said to me that the book set him on the road to wrack and ruin! But then one can hardly get much more ruinous than EPC culture itself, so what’s there to lose? Like myself, McLaren appears to have attempted to raise himself above the EPC scene in order to take in a wide breathtaking overview of the chaotic shipwreck that is EPC (and also of the broader sweep of Christian history) and then been prompted to ask: “What can we salvage from the chaos?”

To be continued….