When the Benny Hinn Show came to City

Religious melodrama can be popular.

An account of my personal reaction to the Benny Hinn show at Norwich football stadium on 23 July 2005 can be downloaded  from here. ("File" drop down and then "download").

As a taster, here is my postscript which I have appended to the account:

I have written many words on the subject Gnostic Christianity, but we may now be passing into days when the swing is away from Christianity with a Gnostic flavouring. A string of false prophecies, authoritarian leadership, failed revivals, failed prophecies, ambiguous healings, and bizarre “blessings” has emptied the language of the cliché surfing anti-intellectual Gnostics. In short they have nothing new to say and their talk of the “latest move of God” no longer has the impact that it once had and, indeed, may now be received with some measure of cynicism.  However, memories are short and new inexperienced people enter the fray. So this sort of thing is likely to be recrudescent!

It is an irony that supporters of this kind performance will see it as an outpouring of the "supernatural", but to me it looks all too human in motivation and manifestation.

The Escape to Arcadia

Fundamentalism: The attempt to restore a unified sense of community anchored in epistemic certainties in the face of a puzzling and uncertain world.

The recent resurgence in science denying Young Earthism among Western evangelical Christians appears to trace back to the sixties. It is probably related to the ideological pressures that Western Christianity came under during that decade. The assertion of a more pronounced, emphatic and extreme belief system seems to be the manifestation of a general psychological response when a community finds itself under the pressures of marginalization and alienation: As society rejects the beliefs and values of these communities, the more belligerent elements in them haul up the draw bridges, repair the walls of defence, and generally do all they can define themselves as a distinct holy remnant separate from their social environment, challenging the values of their host society from their citadel. In fact they are inclined to become more vehement and convinced about the very beliefs that society rejects as crazy; as if sheer conviction conveys truth.

In effect these religious communities are returning the “compliment” of alienation by rejecting society’s values and that is likely to include its science. The likely underlying motive is the need to turn their backs on social fragmentation, rejection, anonymity, nihilism and restore a unified sense of community anchored in epistemic certainties. In these retrenched religious communities a varying blend of epistemic certainty, scriptural literalism, Gnosticism, fideism, religious legalism, paranoia and conspiracy theory feeds their mental complex. A side effect of this whole process is that liberalizing believers are purged from their ranks and subject to strident and shrill condemnation as at best bad conscience compromisers or at worst heretical apostates.

That the resurgence of Genesis literalism is a recent phenomenon is in fact effectively admitted by fundamentalist theme park manager Ken Ham himself where in a blog post entitled “Happy Reformation Day” (31 October 2013) he applauds the reference to the 1960s YEC rival as “The Creation Reformation”. Prior to the sixties there was only a low background of Genesis literalism, a background found amongst the more extreme Christian sects like the Adventists, the Amish, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Plymouth brethren and I guess numerous marginal fundamentalist Christian sects in North America (See footnote *1). Since the rise of science YEC was never mainstream.

In this blog post I want to document some of the texts I have compiled that may help demonstrate this process of neo-fundamentalist polarization against civic society. There is a health warning I attach to all sectarian and fundamentalist religions especially when it borders on the cultish; it can be dangerous, (especially to those seeking a revelation from God) for those who might be vulnerable to the suggestion pressures caused by the kind of emotional, social and moral duress sects are capable of bringing to bear on Christian believers. It is axiomatic amongst extreme sectarians that those who don’t exclusively identify with their community have morally compromised consciences, and an inferior faith or perhaps are even in a state of total depravity, sold out to evil. This belief about the flawed moral state of outsiders justifies putting moral duress on them by way of character assassination and accusations of sin.  They are very quick to read moral imperfection in the behaviour of detractors. This can have deep auto-suggestive effect on those who are already God fearers and who are aware of the human failure to fulfil moral imperatives. Some sects are undoubtedly less extreme than others but I would advise that God fearers, unless they are well armoured with cynical humour, are cautious in all cases.

In this blog I want to convey the extremes that the neo-fundamentalists are going to in their attempts to impugn the integrity and character of Christians who don’t bow to their views (and atheists! See for example the story of PZ Myers that I relate below).

***

OK, so I’ll start with some quotes from my favorite text book fundamentalist, YEC theme park manager Ken Ham. Although he claims that disbelief in his YEC opinions is not a salvation stopper he has nevertheless made it clear that those opinions are being offered as a faith testing Shibboleth.  Ham makes the simple epistemic mistake  that what he interprets from scripture is the de-facto word of God. Thus in Ham’s mind it follows from this elementary epistemic mistake that those who oppose his opinions – which of course he will claim to be God’s opinions – are also opposed to God and above all to Christ.

Below I quote from Ham’s blog by way of evidence (My emphases in bold):

Millions of Years – an attack on the Cross (June 9 2012) …..those who compromise God’s Word with millions of years are (wittingly or unwittingly) really engaged in an attack on the Cross.  What a serious issue.

What’s the least you can believe? (March 29 2012)…..Believing in theistic evolution as a Christian means you reject the authority of God’s Word, because the creation account in Genesis teaches a literal six-day creation   (Ham quoting Steve Golden) Even the idea of “theistic evolution” is problematic, because evolutionary ideas were created to explain a world without God. (Ham quoting Steve Golden)

Which Jesus do you really believe in?  (Dec 30 2011). Steve (Ham) shows that today many Christian scholars who identify themselves as theological conservatives and evangelicals are preaching a Jesus different from the Jesus of the Bible.

More about those emboldened  phrases later! But  just before we leave Ham, let's be clear that he can be a menacing and intimidating person, willing to apply maximum moral duress on his detractors: Ham has little compunction about using a threat of divine displeasure and judgement to be visited on those Christians who don't  agree with him:

Compromise teaching in a Christian school in Alaska  (March 16 2013) Teachers like Kretschmer will be held accountable for the many students they lead astray with their compromise regarding biblical authority and undermining teaching.  How very sad.  And the board/administrators of such Christian schools will also be held accountable.  

Below I collect some material from comments I have made on the churches web site “Network Norwich and Norfolk” (NN&N).  From these quotes we can see how the embattled fundamentalists turn their noisy moral, social and emotional duress up to a maximum volume. In these comments I was responding to the posts by two fundamentalists who I name as James May and Andrew Holland.

From an NN&N post 22/06/2011

There is something pathological about the doctrinaire YEC community. They are obsessed with their concept of a 6000 year old creation and they will go to extraordinary lengths to insist that other Christians follow suit. Here are some quotations from Hugh Ross’s book “Creation and Time”. Bear in mind as you read the following quotes that Dr. Ross (an astronomer by profession) is not an evolutionist, he believes in an anthropically universal flood, the inspiration of scripture, has an evangelical faith and but believes in an old Earth. In some ways you might think him to be close to the YECs and yet.....

YEC AFFINITY FOR CONSPIRACY THEORY: “When young-earth creationists claim (As did Russell Akridge among others) that the worldwide community of secular astrophysicists and astronomers are banded together in a God-hating conspiracy to deceive the public about the creation date, the offence is driven deeper. Given the tendency toward independence and nonconformity among them, it’s absurd to suggest that tens of thousands of them would or could unanimously carry out a plot through four decades to bamboozle the public” (P72)  (Editorial note: When Ross refers to "four decades" I think he is acknowledging the "YEC reformation" of the 60s)

MAKING YEC A FAITH TEST: In the following quote Hugh Ross tells the story of a new convert: “Almost immediately he met some fellow Christians who happened to be young universe creationists. They insisted that the price of his salvation was denial of the billions-of-years age of the cosmos and the earth…..They backed their case with this Bible passage: ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes even his own life – he cannot be my disciple’ (Luke 14:26-27)”. (P159)

EVANGELISM OPPORTUNITY WRECKED BY YECs “Another encounter took place near Oakridge Nuclear Facility in Tennessee, where I spoke on scientific evidence for the God of the Bible. With the room full of research physicists, I focused on proofs from physics and astronomy for a transcendent, personal and caring Creator. Unknown to me and the meetings organizers, a carload of YECs had driven for four and a half hours to make a spectacle of me at this gathering. When the question period opened they took over, attempting first to take apart my physics and astronomy data. They were furious that the scientists in the room would not join them in refuting my science. So blinded were they by their indoctrination regarding the evils of belief in the antiquity of the universe that they disrupted a meeting intended to introduce people to personal faith in Jesus Christ (including His sacrifice to atone for our sin)” (P86)

NON YEC CHRISTIANS TO BE BARRED CHURCH MEMBERSHIP?: Hugh Ross quotes YEC John Morris as follows: “I still am uncertain about young-earth creationism being a requirement for church membership; perhaps it would be proper to give new members time to grow and mature under good teaching. But I do know one thing [young-earth] creationism should be made a requirement for Christian leadership. No church should sanction a pastor, Sunday school teacher, elder, or Bible-study leader who knowledgeably and purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine” (P43))

MY COMMENT: It’s one thing to believe YEC, it’s quite another to become obsessed by it to the extent that it becomes an all-consuming crusade that sacrifices evangelical church life for its version of legalism. Recall Andrew Holland’s fanatical insinuation about making God a liar if you don’t follow Holland's views. Literalists are never subtle when it comes to imputing sinful motives:

“….the historical parts of the Bible, such as Genesis, should be taken at face value, otherwise it is tantamount to calling God a liar! Thus the account of creation, Noah's flood and Jonah's adventures are accurate and can be completely trusted. They are all verified in the New Testament.” (Andrew Holland, my emphasis)

From an NN&N post 24/06/2011

We often hear Christians referring to believers like James May (JM) and Andrew Holland (AH) as fundamentalists. However, I think you will find that JM and AH are part of a recent recrudescent trend that kicked in only in earnest from the sixties in onward. This YEC trend is, in fact, more extreme than most Christians who identified themselves with R A Torrey’s twelve volume series published between 1910 and 1915 entitled “The Fundamentals”, a work that became the manual of the early 20th  century fundamentalists. In their book “Reason and Faith”, evangelical Christians Roger Forster and Paul Marston comment as followers on the original fundamentalists:

“A few points are worth spelling out in more detail here. First, by Morris own admission [That is Henry Morris a founding father of modern YEC], most founding fundamentalists accepted either the age-day or the gap-theory form of creationism and he [Morris] can cite none who were young-earth creationists….. Orr (1844-1913), who contended for a moderate Calvinist form of historical evangelicalism in Britain and America …asserts: ‘The Bible does not profess to anticipate the scientific discoveries of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Its design is …..to reveal God and His will and His purposes of grace to men, and, as involved in this, His general relation to the creative world….Natural things are taken as they are given, and spoken of in simple, popular language, as we ourselves every day speak of them.’” (P329, my emphasis)

Forster and Marston go on to trace a link between contemporary YEC and Adventist prophetess Ellen G White through the Adventist YEC apologist George McCready Price:

“What we find then, that Price’s [YEC] appeal was to his fellow believers in the prophetess Ellen White, to some Lutheran pastors without scientific training and to the very occasional irascible person with scientific training. The bulk of critics of evolution did not accept flood theory. Even the famous lawyer/politician William Jennings Bryan, who led the abortive attack on evolution in the infamous Scopes trial, or Tennessee Monkey Trail as it became known, was (by Morris’ own admission) an age-day theorist who rejected Price and accepted orthodox geology” (P331)

MY COMMENT: JM and AH will try to make out that they stand in the best traditions of the mainstream faith, but they actually have a more natural affinity with the pre-scientific days of the faith or to sectarian and cultic Christian figures.

From an NN&N 25/06/2011

Unfortunately today the term “fundamentalism” has been cut adrift from its relatively moderate beginnings and now has a de facto meaning brought about by it being linked to religious extremists, science illiteracy and YECs. Moreover, the bad associations of the term are being compounded by a growing association with geocentrism. Firstly, the recent YEC attempts to solve the star light problem have lurched towards geocentric cosmologies (See Jason Lisle and Ross Humphreys of AiG). There is also this little piece below written by somebody who visited the “National Bible-Science Conference” which appeared to be a Geocentric Physics conference:

“How many of the creationists present were geocentrists, I do not know. One Rev. Walter Lang, a Missouri-Synod Lutheran and Executive Director of the Bible Science Association (headquartered in Minneapolis) was quite sympathetic, and I was led to conclude that the Missouri Lutherans are bringing back the geocentric doctrine. According to science-writer Robert Schadewald ….. five of the 18 speakers were known geocentrists. Just how fast "this old-time astronomy" is spreading among believers in that "old-time religion" I cannot guess, but not a single creationist spoke against it, not even Duane T. Gish, the creationists' Lochinvar of the debate circuit. Although he had a lot of quibbles with the thesis of one Dr. Kaufmann (who thought Christians should be more exercise-conscious), Gish found nothing to complain of when geocentrists were speaking…..The silence of all creationists when goof centrists were speaking is quite puzzling. Does silence mean tacit acceptance? Embarrassment? Or is it a case of honor among thieves: if you don't expose me, I won't expose you.”

The full article can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part3.html

What are we to make of this? Are the YECs starting to do the Full Literalist Monty and really going the whole hog in “taking the Bible at its (literalist) word”?

From an NN&N post 27/06/2011  

As I have indicated above, I do not accept YEC attempts to make a fundamental distinction between historical sciences which they try to undermine with the quip “You weren’t there” and those present tense continuous sciences like physics. Since all information arrives at our observational door via circuitous routes in space and time the “You weren’t there” quip could be damagingly applied across the board and, if pressed, subvert the whole domain of science and history. In this connection the following blog post of mine may be of interest:

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com/2011/06/cloistered-academics-vs-punks.html

The above post links to a post on atheist PZ Myers’ blog where he criticizes to the “You weren’t there” philosophy. The exact circumstances involve Myers criticizing an eleven year old girl who had been taught to parrot this quip by YEC ministries. Myers writes a gentle open letter to the eleven year old.

Myers letter is in my opinion very reasonable; he completely understands that the “You weren’t there” philosophy undermines not just the historical sciences, but the whole of science (In fact ultimately it even undermines the Bible). PZ Myers is basically assuming the world to be rational and coherent and it is on the basis of that assumption that “You weren’t there” nihilism is prevented from frustrating all science. Where I would disagree with Myers is that the coherent ontology that permits science to prosper is taken for granted by him as axiomatic; for him the highly coordinated patterns of a rational cosmos are just descriptive brute facts of nature; end of story. However, I would want to push the boat out further and suggest that the coherent patterning in nature is not just descriptive but prescriptive, with all the connotations of a guiding a-priori complex intelligence that the term “prescriptive” entails (i.e. God)

My main reason for bringing this up is that in spite of disagreeing with Myers on ultimate origins I’m entirely at one with him on the assumption of the intelligibility of our world, an intelligibility that is undermined by a thoroughgoing application of “You weren’t there” nihilism. Hence I support Myers’ stand against implicit YEC nihilism. What I would like to point out is that in spite of Myers reasonable and gentle open letter to an eleven year old the YEC response to Myers was all but hysterical, triggering off a frenzy of spiritual recrimination. He was accused of all sorts of heinous sins such as “viciously attacking a little girl”, and being “an instrument of Satan” amongst other self-righteous fulminations.

Although I differ with Myers’ on many things, in this instance I believe he has been unfairly treated by those who profess to be Christians. My own opinion is that those professing Christians should apologize to Myers for their treatment of him. This, I suppose, is too much to ask, but the least they could do is engage dispassionately with his perfectly reasonable argument rather than unfairly assassinating his character.

From an NN&N post 15/11/2011

The YEC philosophy is at odds with the views of many well respected Christians, evangelical and otherwise. I list some below:

William Lane Craig – philosopher and feared (amongst atheists) Christian debater.

David Instone-Brewer – writer of scholarly articles in “Christianity” magazine.

Hugh Ross - astronomer and leader of “Reasons to Believe”.

Davis A Young – Christian geologist and author of “The Biblical Flood”.

Roger Forster and Paul Marston - authors of the very instructive and erudite book “Reason and Faith”.

William Dembski – a leader and mathematician of the Intelligent design movement.

John Polkinghorne – ex particle physicist, now a C of E theologian.

John Lennox – Oxford Mathematician and gentlemanly Christian debater.

Francis Collins – very successful scientist; was leader of the human genome project.

…and many more could be added.

YEC is a sectarian and marginal philosophy which I’m glad to say seems to be becoming increasingly marginalized amongst Christians – see http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com/2011/10/good-news-from-ken-ham.html

Stop press 28/01/2014:

Adding more to the above list:

Simon Conway Morris: Cambridge evolutionary palaeontologist

Denis Alexander: Molecular biologist and director of the Faraday institute.
See also:

https://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Advisory.php 

https://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Associates.php 

These are the Christian scientists, so diverse in their interests and specialisms who, according to the Kentucky theme park management, are “really engaged in an attack on the Cross”, “rejecting the authority of God’s Word,” “explaining a world without God” and "are preaching a Jesus different from the Jesus of the Bible.” These are the words of the besieged and paranoiac sectarian mind; it's the beginning of a kind of collective insanity,  as some disturbing and well known cases suggest.

Footnote:

*1 The Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in YEC: See here: http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-watchtower-and-creation.html.  Also checking up on the cults I mention here I haven't been able to confirm either way whether they believe in YEC on not. 

Hell and Hamnation at Work

Fundamentalism: The Voice of Voris  (See here
  for the video)

Quoting myself in a recent correspondence to James Knight:

The best sense I've made of pathological manifestations of the faith revolve round the common themes of social marginalisation and alienation, social anonymity, tribalism, paranoia, conspiracy theory and above all a desire to have a sure-fire secure epistemology either based on "The word of God" and/or gnostic revelation that can be used to oppose "profane" & "secular" knowledge.

James Knight has recently provided an interesting perspective on pathological religious communities by focusing on the role of leadership. See here. He also links to this article on the sociology of leaders who exploit their position by talking up the fears, scares and threats which draw a close knit community together and which discourage challenges to its leadership.

It is clear that leadership gurus are an important component contributing to the maintenance of the sectarian status quo; in particular, when the sect is embattled there is a need to talk up the paranoia and persecution complexes which help cement the group to its leaders. Ken Ham, who James mentions, is a classic case. Ham’s rhetoric against his detractors is always set at maximum fire power and he never minces his words; in particular Christians who don’t agree with him are one of the main targets of his condemnatory bulls: They are accused of quite extreme sins of compromise, of heresy, of attacking the Cross of Christ and of following another Jesus (I can provide references). In this light Ham’s claim that Young Earthism is not a salvation issue is ungenuine and merely academic. For Ham Biblical literalism is every bit a faith testing shibboleth. He also tells us that Biblical literalism is an authority issue. But with that I certainly agree; after all, in the final analysis it’s about the divine authority of Ham’s opinions. If one identifies one's opinions with divine authority it is no surprise that detractors are perceived to be indulging in the worst of heresies and one will condemn them in the strongest possible terms.

Upping the ante can sometimes, however, result in diminishing returns. The Jehovah’s Witness did this with their rhetoric surrounding 1975 which lead many of their followers to believe that the end of "this system of things" was set for that year. Of course, like many of their other “prophecies” 1975 fell through and for a while membership eased off. But either people have short memories or are stupid, (probably both), because it wasn't long before the membership recovered with the input of a new batch of inexperienced and ignorant recruits. So perhaps the sectarian world''s strategy of living off sensationalist capital actually works. It may pall for a bit, but the supply of fresh faced dupes who are ripe for exploitation seems inexhaustible; they are the sects renewable  resource that keep it running.

See also Micheal Voris who provides us with a fine example of a Catholic fundamentalist guru going forth with all guns blazing. Fundamentalist rhetoric has just two settings: Maximum volume and maximum volume.

See also:
http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/arbitrariness-in-mature-creation-theory.html

Ken "Slam'em" Ham is leader of the pack

AiG a Micky Mouse Outfit Admits Ken Ham!

Face palming faux pas: AiG have a funny idea of promoting the faith!

Recently the Biblical literalists of Answers in Genesis started a bill board campaign. When I saw the cartoon below I was completely convinced that it was a send up by some atheist who wanted to lampoon this campaign.

And then I saw  "c. AiG 2013" printed vertically on the first frame! That's right, this is an AiG conceived and promoted cartoon! I was as gob-smacked as the atheist character in the cartoon: Can anyone be so brazenly naive and not see it? This is a real windfall for those atheists who knew all along that AiG's ministry was about the circular reasoning of self-authentification. But I bet AiG won't see it: Fundamentalists take themselves too seriously to be able to detect irony! 

A similar thing happened to me when I noticed one of Ken Ham's blog posts dated 21st October and entitled "The same quality you expect from Disney world!". My first thought was that this must be Ken complaining about how some atheist has described his creation "museum". You could have knocked me over with a feather when after reading the post it turned out that this was the appropriately inappropriately subliminal remark used by one of Ken's own admirers to describe the Creation Museum. Viz:

The same quality you expect from Disney World can be expected from the Creation Museum

Once again evangelical atheists will be chuffed that Ken Ham has allowed through a statement that compares his Creation "Museum" with Disney Land! This is not really the association that any scientific museum would want to cultivate even if the intent is merely to convey something about the standard of the display.

Ken, you're not supposed to be broadcasting own goals like this; you're supposed to be promoting Christianity, not making it a laughing stock!

Who needs atheists to take the micky when we Christians have got Ken Ham and Co!

Christian Apologists Against Fideism

The atheists would agree!

An article appeared in the October edition of Christianity magazine entitled “Let’s be reasonable”. It’s about the presentation of Christian apologetics and debate. Let me just explain here that my own motives for studying and thinking are not primarily apologetic but rather motivated by a desire to unravel selected mysteries. This has a tendency to intensify my focus on very particular issues and away from the broad “jack-of-all-trades” focus required by an apologist because he or she is servicing an audience. However, there is a lot of very good stuff that comes from Christian apologists. In this particular connection what piqued my interest were these quotes from the article:

David Robertson, pastor of St Peter’s Free church, Dundee says:  “People say no one is ever converted through arguing. That is rubbish. Of course people are only converted through the Holy Spirit, but he uses different means”

Alister McGrath, theologian, says: “As an apologist, I occasionally meet some people who are aggressively anti-Christian. What made them like this was somebody taking a very anti-intellectual viewpoint; that faith is all about not  using your head, refusing to think and just trusting. People who say this kind of thing do create a lot of damage”

I agree completely: The Holy Spirit is as much immanent in reasoning as he is anything else. Fideism is one of the byproducts of a Christian dualism that sharply separates out the supernatural from natural. Fideists are complete failures in what they may think of as the profane field of apologetics and so make their escape into the esoteric "supernatural" knowledge of those who claim to have the inexpressible inner light of the gnostic. Well, fair enough, perhaps they do have esoteric inner light; who knows how the Holy Spirit works in the inner man. However, the ultra-fideists believe they have a superior epistemic based on their arcane intuitions and they are intolerant of those who might claim that reason is a facet of revelation. Here’s an example of fideism that I picked up from a TV program which showcased a Christian “teacher”. As always with fideism it is ultimately self-contradictory: Unless the fideist shuts up completely (I wish they would) one can observe the amusing spectacle of the fideist justifying fideism with reason!

Fideist Number 1: If you always process salvation through your mind you will never enter the fuller things in your walk. You must move from a place of cognitive reasoning ability to a place where faith and belief flows through your spirit and not your head … God is beyond your logic.

Now, below is another farcical example of a fideist using reasoning to justify his fideism. This example is a particularly unpleasant and nasty specimen betraying a self-centered spiritual egotism: The quote has been taken from the post of an anonymous contributor to the comments section of the Christian web site Network Norwich and Norfolk: I have highlighted (in bold) some parts of this text, in particular those parts showing the use of the extreme anti-superlatives to which this kind of person is readily attracted. I have also highlighted those parts which evidence a resort to his "inner light"; that is, his intuitions and feelings which of course he identifies with Christ's authority. As a consequence notice that he has little respect for Bible study because to him intuitive inner light trumps reason; that’s just another way of raising his opinions and feelings to the level of divine authority!

Fideist Number 2:  Debate, debate, debate, even if you win sometimes you lose! What is the church? I want to tell you that in the heavy load that we carry called "the local church" it is very difficult for us to really slow down long enough to not just study the bible but to eat and drink that which it really speaks of which is the very person of Jesus Christ Himself. To intimately fellowship with Him even romantically as His bride even to eating His flesh and drinking His blood. I mean really doing this not just drinking a cup of grape juice and a piece of cracker and acting all introspective and holy in some ritualistic form. Brethren we have been ignorant of the devices of Satan. We have not known that religion and spiritual thinking in the minds of men is SATANS THROWN! (sic) I have had some conversations with members of the Jehovah’s witness cult and I was instructed at the time by the Holy Spirit not to debate with them from their intellect. The Spirit showed...that is EXACTLY what they want. They want to debate with you the scriptures. The moment you want to disprove their interpretation of the scripture with the scripture...they got you RIGHT WHERE THEY WANT YOU! Even if you outdo them with your wisdom... you lose. Because they will never know anything of what you are talking about because they are forming their argument even to "twisting" your words and guess who wins. Satan. You have just participated in and played his game. You want to tell the truth to someone and really help them to know the truth. Direct them to the teacher inside their spirit. Christ in them. Now if you don’t believe Christ is in them...well your gonna have to keep picking up that sword of the word and fighting it out but hear the echoes of our Saviour in the pressure of His passion....(He who lives by the sword SHALL DIE by the sword) The Carnal mind is DEATH the mind of the Spirit (within even deeper than intellect) is LIFE and PEACE. The letter KILLS but the Spirit gives life. Christ the teacher is in all men. Don’t debate with men direct them to Christ within. John said that which denys (sic) Christ in the flesh is the Spirit of Anti-Christ. That simply means "instead of Christ." Watch out if you get pleasure in debate...and pleasure in your doctrine...your church...your way of believing...watch out what spirit you really are in. Of whose domain really has dominion in that realm? Jesus told Peter Get behind me SATAN you do not know the things of God but THE THINGS OF MEN. Christ IN YOU is the hope of glory and Christ in others also!

I hardly need say that I don’t see eye to eye with the Jehovah’s Witnesses but it is very unfair to accuse them of being Satanic; in fact their methods, customs and epistemic philosophy are very similar to other fundamentalist Christians.

Like other fundamentalists the fideist I have quoted sees the world very much in the black and whites of depraved baddies versus spiritual goodies like himself. Unable to see the world in shades of grey he goes straight for the maximum fire power of the spiritual nuclear option, accusing, with loud shouts, those of whom he is unable to successfully reason of heinous sin and being instruments of Satan. Christians who do engage in reason are written off as falling for Satan’s wiles. In the fractious world of Christian sectarianism abusive accusations like this are as bad as it gets. This conceited spiritual bigot, of course, believes that he is above reason and instead receives direct instruction from God and the Christ within Viz “I was instructed by the Holy Spirit”. "The Spirit showed [me]". Moreover, notice that he is very ready to rubbish other Christian's experience of communion over his own.

And yet in spite of the pretensions to a having a deep mystical union with Christ it is ironic that this conceited bigot is engaged in a spiritual ego trip that is manifestly all too humanly motivated. McGrath is completely right “People who say this kind of thing do create a lot of damage”. The only people that a testimony of the above sort attracts are fellow egotists who are tempted by thoughts of being part of a spiritual elite from where they can scream down hell and damnation on all who disagree with them.

Some relevant links:

http://norwichcentralbaptistchurch.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/human-predicament.html  

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/dallas-willard-catches-up-on-gnosticism.html

Onward Child Soldiers

The first video below is a news item about a crop of talented child preachers. Like the young Michael Jackson these kids watch, observe and pick up a repertoire of moves and lyrics. They then spontaneously choreograph their own melodramatic performances. They clearly have acting and imitative talent, although content is rather light as one might expect of such young minds. This child preacher phenomenon has a very "black church" feel about it in that exuberance, melodrama and theatre form an important part of worship in such churches. (Also, children "channelling" spirits is a black theme) But ironically these child performances come over to me as a comedian's caricature and send up of the adult preacher world! I actually enjoyed their "acts"!

Below is a rather different performance. This is very white middle class in flavour. Here young Tinkertell, presumably reciting from a script compiled by an adult, gives her fundamentalist YEC audience all that they want hear. Apart from being a good reader Tinkertell hasn't been given much opportunity to display talent; she's just  been taught to jump through hoops.

(Sept 13: The above video has recently been removed. It showed a child reciting, probably from a script, standard fundamentalist objections to evolution and an old Earth. Those same objections can be picked up from any fundamentalist web site that promotes a literal interpretation of Genesis)

Remarks
I must say that I feel very uncomfortable about this public use of children, a use which puts them in the firing line: They are being thrust into the world of adult affairs with all its ulterior motives, passions and contentions. When she is older Tinkertell might cringe at her video - unlike the child preachers there's not even the redeeming feature of much talent on show. For that reason I perhaps feel a  little better about the child preachers (Provided they are confined to their parent's church services);  at least these young performers  might enjoy exercising their considerable stage talents and benefit from the opportunity to do so. But in both cases adults are investing the performances with far more gravitas and meaning than just the joy of seeing a child given the opportunity to perform: These kid preachers aren't recognised for what they are but are seen as pawns being moved by the Holy Spirit. In poor little Tinkertell's case her mouth is being stuffed full of fifth rate polemic that she doesn't understand and is in no position to critique. These children may have an entirely different perspective on  things when they grow up and may feel they were used.

These children have been groomed into a world of  serious adult "games" that are in fact for real. They have become gun fodder against other adults. It's the difference between seeing kids play Cowboys and Indians with toy guns and actually giving them real guns. They are being sent to the front line and used as both human shields and carriers of warheads. After all, what normal adult could attack a child's performance without looking like a heartless brute? In fact poor old PZ Myers was once caught in one of these nasty fundamentalist child traps; I found the whole thing so immoral that I had to weigh in on PZ's side.

The YEC video is particularly cynical. Recently the atheist community has been banging on about fundamentalists educationally abusing their children. This video, by using a child, is intended to be a "in-yer-face-f*ck-you!" taunt to the atheist community.  The subtext is intended to further provoke by conveying that even children can understand stuff that the likes of PZ Myers et al do not!

It's all very tacky and disturbing and yet twee, kitsch and cutesy at the same time. Ambivalent and conflicting feelings make the whole experience of watching these child performances distinctly uncomfortable and sinister.

Happy Snappy Christians!

Jeff Lucas gives us a new perspective on the Christian Ixthus sign!

When you’ve had contact with the Christian community for as long as I have then you've probably seen just about all the tacky off-colour stuff it can throw at you:  Failed prophecies and failed healings are probably near the top of my hokum list, but then so is the accompanying aggressive spin-doctoring needed to reinterpret failure as either outright success or downright spiritual blockage somewhere (that is, someone’s going to get the blame!). Next, perhaps, are the literalist Godbots who comb the Bible looking for instructions to add to their lists of commands directing life and community and who loudly accuse others of not following the Bible. But then I’m forgetting the abrasive super-spiritual gnostics who see themselves as a spiritual elite and are determined to foist their recipe for revival and blessing on everyone else. Actually, though, perhaps the people deserving top hokum rating are the church patriarchs put up by their gullible following as figures with “covering authority” over their flocks. Of course, I mustn't forget to find a place for the anti-science fundamentalists, the fideists, the Christian conspiracy theorists, and the numerous restorationist start-up fellowships who start to look dangerously like cults populated as they are by spiritual egotists who think their opinions trumps the guidance of all other Christians. In fact, there are so many self-deceived con-artists out there that I'm undecided as to who should get top rating so perhaps they could take  turns at occupying the top slot. But one thing I'm sure of: Whatever special access to the Divine these people may claim, they are nonetheless behaving in an all too typically human way; a way that is repeated again and again in the annals of sectarian history.

Now, Jeff Lucas is a teaching pastor at Timberline Church, Colorado. He also writes a regular column for Christianity magazine and has received the VNP award for Christian authenticity on two occasions. (See here). He has hung out long enough in this Christianity business to have been well exposed to the snapsters I’ve outlined above. He’s definitely seen it all and it shows! For example, check out these quotes from his column in the May edition of Christianity magazine:

From Jeff Lucas’ article: Sorry folks but the VNP censor didn't leave us with much to read!

Lucas, like me, is clearly long in the tooth, but his articles are often a protest against Christians who are very sharp in the tooth and who, recycling the illustration Jeff uses in the quoted article, are like a shoal of snappy little piranha unable to resist the reflex action of biting to bits everything that comes their way. Lucas’ regular column sits on the last page of the magazine after the advert section and this may explain why he seldom gets letters of complaint from sort of people I've outlined above – once they have snapped their way through the mag. chomping at all the "doctrinal error", by the time they get to the adverts section they don't realise that there's still a tasty morsel left on the last page! Christianity magazine obviously wants to keep Jeff Lucas out of bite sight! Perhaps that’s also why our VNP censor rather over did it! Perhaps that’s why Jeff's stuck himself right out in the waterless Colorado Desert somewhere!

Worshipping Worship.

"It is possible to create 'event dependency' where people feel they cannot enter into worship unless they have an 'anointed' worship leader" (says Graham Kendrick)

The 1960s were a traumatic time for Christianity. After rallying a bit during the austere 1950s (at least in the UK) the mold breaking and icon shattering sixties took their toll on traditional Christianity. Many Western Christians (over)reacted by turning to fundamentalist and/or gnostic versions of the faith; both reactions were intimately bound up with an innate anti-intellectualism (Often expressing itself in Young Earthism, Godbotting, legalism, fideism, and above all epistemic arrogance) and have been the subject of this blog on many an occasion. However, in this post I would like to focus on the gnosticisation of Christianity.  Gnosticisation is a kickback against society that takes the form of a retreat into the mysteries of the inner life of soul and spirit, the place where consolation is sought in the warm light of sublime wordless revelations from God. This shift of focus, (which is especially found amongst evangelical Christians) toward unspeakable epiphanies and touches of God has been my study for many years now. In fact I recently commented on the subject in response to an article in Christianity magazine on scholar Dallas Willard. (Willard seems as aware of this gnostic drift toward the esoteric as I am) In fact in the nineties I wrote several articles on evangelical Gnosticism, one of which can be downloaded from here. My current opinion is that this fashionable foray into the deep soul is far more endemic than is extreme fundamentalism which in any case is inclined to confine itself to self-isolating and marginalized Christian sects.*

So, given this background I was gratified to see that another person, namely Christian song writer Graham Kendrick, has also become aware of the contemporary skew toward what I refer to as Christian Gnosticism. Judging from what Kendrick says in the March edition of Christianity Magazine it looks to me as if Kendrick has clearly spotted that there has been a slip and slide in worship events toward a very individualistic striving for the experientially arcane. This endemic gnosticism has clearly shaped Christian spiritual values and influenced what the contemporary Christian scene rates as high spirituality; in short,   the mystical, the inscrutable, the fideist and cabalistic are considered to be where it’s at, or at least where it looks to be going.

Below I have quoted parts of Kendrick’s article and from these quotes it is apparent that the gnostic themes of inner blessing, release of the spirit, initiation into inscrutable experiential truth, and anointed enablers have found their place in our churches; all else is inclined to be undervalued and marginalized.

…..in many churches this focus on creating a personal connection with God has come to dominate the style, mood and lyrics of our corporate worship.

…we now view worship primarily as an experience to be had…

…big worship gatherings can actually be a celebration of mass individuality..

..songs rich in content that stretch the mind can seem to get in the way of creating that intimate experience. They are overlooked because they don’t fit the expected mood, ethos or style of experiential worship. (My emphasis - TVR)

It is possible to create “event dependency” where people feel they cannot enter into worship unless they have an “anointed” worship leader. As a worship leader myself, sometimes it’s as though the expectations are being heaped up – it’s as if everyone is expecting me to take them to an amazing level that they could not otherwise access.

A dominant genre of emotional intensity…. In the end that which doesn’t fit the mood of emotional intensity tends not to be included.

If our gatherings always peak in moments of personal blessing, the subliminal message can be that this is why we exist, rather than being blessed to be a blessing to the world we step out into.

The article is certainly recommended reading for worship leaders as it not only gives Kendrick’s perspective on what I myself would identify as the gnosticisation of church, but also provides practical steps that Kendrick thinks we should take to correct the gnostic drift in our worship.

***

* Footnote: A case of self-isolation that has been the focus of my recent attention is Ken Ham’s organization: The more he becomes aware of his isolation from the mainstream the more his statements become strident and extreme, thus simply reinforcing that isolation. The regenerative logic here is this: “I’m isolated because people aren't getting my message, therefore I must shout louder!”

Oh, and By the Way Ken....

........I've moved amongst quite a few fundamentalists in my time. In fact when I first committed to Christ I was somewhat spiritually intimidated into becoming a fundie myself. But it didn't last very long; when I looked at the state of Whitcomb and Morris' book "The Genesis Flood", I thought "Oh no! Surely I haven't got to defend this travesty of science?". YEC was the first thing to go!  But from day one I was fascinated by the varieties of fundamentalism that at once contradicted and yet looked so much like my new found "faith". They too claimed an epistemic authority as mouth pieces of God's Word and were quick to put me in my place as a heretic with a bad conscience. Think about the logic of fundamentalism - it always comes down to imputing bad consciences to detractors - that's why fundamentalists are such sops for conspiracy theory.  All in all I've done quite a bit of work amongst fundies. That means I know a bit about their group dynamics, their psychology and the psychology of their leaders. So, given your likely personality type, Ken, you can imagine I have lots of ideas about just why you should have bothered to link to such quiet part of the blogosphere as mine; but you just couldn't let it lie, could you? Which reminds me, the word "LIE" (as in "The're all lovers of lies outside my sect") is right up the fundamentalist's epistemic street isn't it?

Hell and Hamnation II

Look in the Mirror Ken!

In my last post I drew a parallel between protestant fundamentalist Ken Ham and “Real Catholic” fundamentalist Michael Voris ; both characters have at their disposal a deep supply of spiritual invective and know how to use it on their detractors. Throughout history the commonality amongst religious sectarians is that they are a people convinced of the divine authority of their opinions and do all they can to make sure that the rest of us are convinced too. What really defines fundamentalists is their epistemic arrogance: They show little real awareness that revelations of all kinds can only be received by humanity through the weak link of human understanding and interpretation. Instead they take for granted they have bypassed all epistemic questions and have a direct connection with the absolute. Concomitantly they are convinced that the authority of their message is manifest to “outsiders” who, they think, must be covering up bad consciences and therefore deserve the moral disapprobation they get.

Well, Ken Ham somehow found my blog post and decided to solicit some supportive back slapping from his Facebook following by commenting on my post; a move I can hardly blame him for given that he is very aware of what he calls the widespread “compromise” in the mainstream church beyond his sect. You can find a copy of Ken’s Facebook follower’s comments below! They conveniently provided me with a sample of exactly the kind of spiritual censure I’d expect. Much of it is just knee-jerk reaction as is evidenced in the automatic assumption I'm atheist.  There is, however, a pathos in these responses: they have locked themselves into a marginalised culture whose survival depends on mutual encouragement.

As for Ken I don’t think he really looked into the mirror I was holding up and made no comment about Michael Voris. What he doesn't see, of course, is that to the average observer sees little difference between himself and Voris apart from some doctrinal fine tuning.

STOP PRESS: In further indication of AiG's marginal position we see on Facebook Yesterday and Thursday Ken Ham lamenting Christian right-wingers Bill O’Reilly and Pat Robertson’s stand against Biblical literalism. YECs are increasingly fighting a rearguard action. See:

http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/343961535721755 

http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/541644369199257

http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/221596944644798 

http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/432596880156306 

Ken Ham shared a link.

19 hours ago

Ken Ham: Every so often I link to a blog to remind you of the opposition we receive and the ridiculous misguided statements people make. I decided to link to this one as I learned a new word 'Hamnation.'

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2013/02/hell-and-hamnation.html

46 people like this.

XXXX: Well, at least he can't say he wasn't warned of "hamnation." No blood on your hands if he chooses to die lost.

19 hours ago • Like • 6

XXXX: pffft

19 hours ago • Like

XXXX: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11

19 hours ago • Like • 16

XXXX: Yea Ken, just ignore this guy. I don't understand why they are so hateful and ridiculous...

19 hours ago • Like

XXXX: People will chose to believe what they want to hear

19 hours ago via mobile • Like • 1

XXXX: Praise God who give ears to hear and eyes to see and his Holy Spirit to understand

19 hours ago via mobile • Like • 5

XXXX: I noticed the blog stated that Ken was becoming "marginalized from the Christian mainstream ".Well done Ken ,Jesus was in the same boat so your in good company. Keep up the good work.

19 hours ago • Like • 9

XXXX: This guy obviously doesn't want to hear how severe sin is to a Holy God and that sin condemns us. He doesn't get that we need to know we are sinners in order to realize our need for Jesus. You're just being the salt Ken, and salt can sting. Keep irritating them, they need to hear the truth.

19 hours ago • Like • 5

XXXX: While the "experts" keep making the noise of tinkling cymbals and sounding brass, you can be sure your message is being heard loud and clear Brother.

19 hours ago • Like • 3

Creation Science 4 Kids Wow, your infamous! Won't it be wonderful to stand tall with the prophets one day and glorify our Lord and Savior?

19 hours ago • Like • 8

XXXX: If we are so similar to the world, why would anyone want to be a Christian? Keep up the good fight brother!

19 hours ago • Like

XXXX: GOD BLESS YOU!

18 hours ago • Like

XXXX: The blogger is appealing to his crowd, funny how I see this point of view mildly expressed through Christians. Guess who has mainstream Christianity's ear through the compromise of Genesis 1-11. Time to recognize the source people.

18 hours ago via mobile • Like

XXXX: never herd any good response from this guy on the subject! just personal attack!

18 hours ago via mobile • Like • 2

XXXX: You notice the guy didn't put any 'solutions' in his article....

18 hours ago • Like • 1

XXXX: Sorry cant get the video to play

17 hours ago • Like • 1

XXXX: I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

15 hours ago • Like • 1

XXXX: Persecution. More glory for God, keep doing what you do!

14 hours ago via mobile • Like • 2

XXXX: Ironically atheists spend more time talking about God and the bible than many christians do. I can't imagine spending my life talking about something I don't believe in. As for condemnation, well, Christ had no problem talking of this and no problem believing in a God who condemns as well as loves. Christ was not an atheist and I'd sooner believe his interpretation of things pertaining to God and condemnation. Well done Ken for standing on the word of God. The fool says in his heart "there is no God", but "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

13 hours ago • Edited • Like

XXXX: I like GODnation better;)

12 hours ago • Like

XXXX: Keep on keeping on, Ken!

11 hours ago via mobile • Like

XXXX: GOD bless you Ken!

Apologists don't apologize!

10 hours ago • Like

XXXX: You're doing what's right.

9 hours ago • Like • 1

XXXX: There really is a Ham Nation http://twit.tv/hn It's an online television show about Amateur Radio "Ham Radio".

Ham Nation | TWiT.TV

twit.tv

Ham Nation | TWiT.TV

4 hours ago • Like

XXXX: I like the fact that he at least reads Ken's blog

2 hours ago via mobile • Like

XXXX:. I find that these are the only arguments that they have. Slander, ridicule, name-calling, assumptive character bashing, bullying... It's a shame that they feel they have to stoop so low but it also shines light on how threatened they feel by the truth that they see in our arguments.about an hour ago • 

That last comment is self referencing and is true of Ken Ham and the writer of the comment! 

Hell and Hamnation:

Not Ken Ham, I know, but  an easy mistake to make.

I was interested to see YEC theme park manager Ken Ham commenting on the news item that was the subject of my last post, namely, the atheist “church” that has recently started meeting in London. (See Ham’s blogpost dated 5 Feb). Ham, needless to say, responds to this news with his usual highly offended self and reaches into his deep supply of censorious terms, quoting from what is probably a well-thumbed part of his Bible, Romans 1, St Paul’s condemnation of Roman society: Ham's lament is one of unrelenting woe: “Shaking their fist at God”, “Suppress the truth in unrighteousness”, “mock the death and resurrection of Christ”, “they are worshipping man”, “The Devil always tries to copy the things of God”.  (It’s worth comparing Ham’s spiritual fulminations with those of Real Catholic Michael Voris.)

Ham puts the blame on the mainstream church:

“…. it’s really because of the church and its rampant compromise on God’s Word that these people are on a journey away from Christianity”  

In some ways that statement is very telling because it’s evidence that Ham and his ilk are feeling increasingly marginalized from the Christian mainstream and this is probably a good thing. But of course in Ham’s epistemically arrogant fundamentalist mind more, yes more hell and hamnation are required to fix the problem! That’s just what we don’t want! If  the atheist church are to remain on speaking terms with Christians, then the last thing we want is for Ken Ham to turn up on their doorstep as their neighbour! This man has a ministry of condemnation: He can only see people who argue with him as thoroughly depraved and will not mince his words in accusing them of such. A personality of his authoritarian disposition will inflame passions and divisions and cause hatred; schismogenesis here we come! Ham is a fine example of the jaundiced fundamentalist mind that readily reads heinous sin and malign motives into a critic's actions and is therefore fertile ground for conspiracy theory . (See also here)

***

Addendum 09/02/13: If you log into your Facebook account and go to this page you can see Ken Ham’s reaction to the above post. How Ken came by this post I can only guess as I generally avoid contact with fundamentalists and nowadays only link to their pages if I have to.

I can’t begrudge Ken the need to solicit some words of support from his Facebook following, given that relative to the greater society the culture he stands for is in a minority, even amongst Christians. But really, the kind of comments we see from Ken’s supporters rather make the point; they live in a world of black and white, the black being the hearts of those heretics, apostates, pagans and atheists they perceive to be ranged “against” them. In this context any criticism is likely to be read as an affront, an insult, a sign of lurking sinister motives and therefore worthy of strong disapprobation.  This sense of persecution connives with their egos in as much as they see themselves as important enough to be the focus of insult and hatred. A world view that includes an expectation of persecution, along with that familiar fundamentalist epistemic arrogance, fortifies the faithful against attack.

Now Ken if you are reading this be assured that I don’t reciprocate your censorious opinions by thinking of you as a particularly bad boy –  like the rest of us you are just being human, all too human.

Churches that aren't Churches?

The above picture has been taken from a BBC news magazine article entitled What happens at an atheist church. Atheists are using a redundant church to meet to together to celebrate: But celebrate what?  “.... a celebration of life” according to master of ceremonies Sanderson Jones. But somehow it all feels just a little uncomfortable and embarrassing: One senses that an object fully worthy of our celebratory focus and abandon is missing from the ceremony and this only serves to recall that phrase  "The God shaped hole".  A yearning for the numinous and eternal seems to be part of our nature.

Atheist Alan De Botton, who is a fan of atheist “churches”, says:

“It should never be called [a church] because atheism isn’t an ideology around which anyone could gather. (as if we didn’t know! – ed) Far better to call it something like cultural humanism.

Militant anti-theist blogger PZ Myers, as I have reported before, hates this sort of thing, perhaps because it could be the thin end of the wedge and construed as admitting that humans have some innate spirituality that seeks satiation; we have an itch that needs scratching. If it's any easier for him to come to terms with PZ could think of it as mental baggage that is part of our "evolutionary heritage". As the psychologist James Moray has said:

The psychological mechanisms are the way in which God makes himself known

Ironically the neighbours of the atheist “church” are an on fire for the Lord black church. (I couldn't think of better and more non-threatening juxtaposition – thank God for black churches!). Their pastor, Bishop Harrison, seems to be a wise man. According to the article:

…he does not see his new neighbours as a threat, confidently predicting that their spiritual journey will eventually lead them to God. “They have got to start from somewhere” he says.

What I do commend is the good humour that exists between the two “fellowships”; so far there looks to be none of that nasty polarized venom we have seen in some quarters where there is a hostile stand-off between anachronistic “heretic burning” Christians and blinkered “rationalists”. May it remain so. But should any of the atheists seek for that “something” which is really worthy of sincere worship, focus and celebration I’m sure Bishop Harrison will be there to help!