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!
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
debatewith 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.
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.
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!
"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 overlookedbecause 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!”
........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?
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:
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.'
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 •
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.
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!
If you think the services at your church are starting to feel a bit flat and in need of a spirit filled pick-me-up ... no, make that "a spirit filled knock-me-down"... then the people in the above video claim to have the answer. But if your church goes for this style of worship it may need to treat some worshippers for post traumatic stress syndrome; in fact, in video look out for the guy who runs dementedly up the aisle of the church and appears to be making for the door. That brings me to the other health and safety aspect: Make sure you keep the doors of the church locked during the service: Worshippers involuntarily spilling out onto the streets and running all over the place may end up under a truck feeling a bit flat and you're then back to square one!
Some mickey mouse prophecies have run out of time.
In this blog post I quoted a Christian leader who, during a gathering of the Revival Alliance in September 2011, made this prophecy:
There’s something about September 1st, I believe you can write it down. I believe you can write it in your journal, that ‘everything changed September 1st 2011’. I feel like it’s a prophetic word over this country (the UK) – September 1st 2011 – everything’s different”
In the November 2012 edition of Christianity magazine there is a report on this September's 2012 Revival Alliance conference. In the report we read:
This conference followed a special more restricted gathering of the Revival Alliance in September 2011…reported in a previous issue of Christianity. Many observers hailed that as a significant time for the UK with many prophetic words suggesting the UK was being given an opportunity to embrace a new move of God…. Some delegates expressed sadness that there was no continuity with what had happened in 2011, though many were thrilled with their experience of God’s presence.
To all intents and purposes this looks like another stale prophecy that’s well past its sell-by-date. But notice the escape clause here: The UK was being given an opportunity to embrace a new move of God. So will the prophet admit to being culpable for the failure? No! Modern prophets and their followers are canny when it comes to apportioning responsibility for their turkeys: That responsibility will be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of all those in the UK who didn't take the opportunity to embrace “a new move of God”! ..... What move of God? Did I miss it?
Fideism: A widespread philosophy in contemporary Christianity
I was extremely interested to read an article in the October issue of Christianity magazine about Christian philosopher Dallas Willard. The article tells us that according to Gary Moon Willard’s contribution might one day be comparable to that of Martin Luther. Well, I've never heard of Gary Moon and not sure if I've even heard Willard’s name either, but this probably only goes to show how out of touch I am! Nevertheless, I was very impressed by Willard’s response when he was questioned on why he had written his book Personal Religion, Public Reality? [2010]. This is what Willard says: (The emphases are mine):
A very deep problem of contemporary society: the idea that when you speak of the truths of the Christian faith, and when you speak of the path you walk as a Christian and a disciple, you do not have knowledge to rely on. It is believed that knowledge is ‘secular’, and anything that is of God or the Holy Spirit, or of the human soul, is not in the area of knowledge, but in the area of something called ‘faith’. Over the last 100 years or so it has become commonly accepted that faith is not based on knowledge and doesn't incorporate knowledge. And so then the question is ‘So what in the world is it?’ And the answer that most people give you is that it’s an irrational leap.
That’s what the book is really all about. It’s showing first of all that this happened [this new view of faith], and that as pastors and leaders, and just as simple Christians, we’re up against this assumption, and it’s just not true. The central truths of Christianity are subjects of knowledge for anyone who could reach for them and understand that that is what they are. Such thinking changes entirely the atmosphere in which one lives and in which one deals with others. If you just take faith as it is currently understood, it dismisses reality and says that you’re just running on what’s inside of you. So the idea of personal religion becomes dominant, and the idea that religion is essentially personal and it can’t be anything public because it’s just ‘your stuff’.
Nice to have you onboard Dallas! The scourge of Christian fideism/Gnosticism is something I’m all too familiar with. I’ve been up against this problem for the whole of my Christian life and I have referenced it in my blog posts and elsewhere many, many times. However, I want to take this opportunity to make available an essay on the subject that I completed in 2000. This essay can be downloaded here.
Interestingly, the irrational leap that Willard speaks of is well exemplified in the very same issue of Christianity magazine. In an article entitled “Mind Games” we read about a pastor in the state of Pennsylvania:
There are those who say that there is no rational argument for God, and that we should be happy with that. John Wilkinson, a pastor at LCBC church in Pennsylvania….. argues that we shouldn’t expect faith to be rational, because it isn’t. When he went to Penn State University to study philosophy and religion, he was faced with and atheist ‘Goliath’ – a professor who ‘saw as his mission to suck faith out of every student’. Wilkinson was no exception, and he faced a crisis of faith. But this was not addressed by counter-argument using reason and wit. Instead, he told God that he chose to believe in him. ‘Shortly after… I felt a very calming and soothing presence’, he records. ‘Something like a warm hand on my shoulders. I heard, “there, now we can begin”. Wilkinson seems to think that we can ignore rational arguments for God, and the science behind it, and instead we should celebrate that Christianity is irrational.
Let’s face it, Wilkinson has been utterly routed by his ‘Goliath’ and that has left him with only one option; to retreat into the security of the protecting shell of his inner life and sooth himself with the ‘inner light’ of the spirit. But note the irony: It was the still small voice of reason that ultimately came to Wilkinson and spoke to him from within the soft warm womb of his bolt hole; Wilkinson's hypothesis for God was eventually supported by his (private) experience. That’s the paradox of fideism; it too is eventually forced to fall back on the canons of reason in spite of pretensions to having access to superior revelations transcending rationality. In the final analysis fideism proves to be a philosophy that attempts to justify itself through reasoned articulation and therefore one that must eventually pass the test of rationality, the test that the ideas vs. experience contention imposes on all sentience.
It’s good to see Willard giving a strong lead away from the contradictory self-referencing of fideist versions of Christianity. Willard’s book was published in 2010 and given his stature it is not a moment too soon; in fact as far as I’m concerned it is at least ten years behind the times. But better late than never!
Addendum 23/10/12. Today's charismatic evangelical milieu is very liable to divide the Christian world up into Holy Spirit initiates and non-initiates and therefore one has to be very careful what one says in order to forestall being placed on either side of this false dichotomy. In fact, only very recently did I have to send out the email below in an attempt to promote a more nuanced position:
Dear all,
As it may have been the cause of some dismay I thought
I had better qualify my remark about expressions of Holy Spirit, a remark I
made during our discussion on the benches at the edge of XXXX's sunny
sports field. You may remember (or not as
the case may be) I said something to the effect that these expressions are
strongly influenced by personality (and I should have added “culture”)
I thought I had better qualify my remark because parts
of the contemporary Christian scene are polarized on this issue and are consequently
only able to register two Christian types; namely, those who have been
initiated into the things of the Spirit and those who haven’t. I have long
rejected the uncritical acceptance of this dichotomy.
But firstly I must say that I have always affirmed Christian
experiences such as epiphanies, spiritual gifts and the miraculous in general.
Above all I affirm that the promise and anointing respectively referred to in
Acts 2:39 and 1 John 2:20&27 are universal amongst Christians and
constitute the much needed antidote to a creeping contemporary anti-physicalism
and Gnosticism amongst Christians, just as it did in the first century.
What I do utterly reject, however, is the setting up of
spiritual elites based on a claimed spiritual initiation into some kind of mystical
“inner light” experience; in short a form of neo-gnosticism”. Gnosticism is a
common “elite” phenomenon right across the religious spectrum and beyond. In
its most general form it sets up an “inner light” vs. “reason” paradigm and my
own researches suggest that this is not a peculiarly Christian phenomenon but
is influenced by sociological, cultural and crowd factors.
My own view is that otherwise valid Christian markers
(such as epiphanies, spiritual gifts and various cultural expressions) have
been (ab)used to create a fictitious category of “elite spirituality”. In some cases this has even resulted in the calling
into question of many Christians claim to the promise and the anointing.
(This post contains a link that can be used to download the discussion I had with Nigel Wright on his web site)
Not long after I published this pieceon New Testament
Restorationist Alan Howes, along came someone called Nigel Wright who posted
the following comment on one of my blogs:
Christians wonder
why those around them don't believe the bible is true.
In fact those in
the world say with one loud voice "science" that's what we believe.
Unfortunately to
sum up the problem, it's fair to say that many claiming to be Christian don't
believe the bible to be true either.
Nigel
Well, guess where this guy is coming from! He’s a
fundagelical who believes that those Christians who don’t emulate his brand of
scriptural literalism, devotional ostentation and plastic piety are the cause of disbelief.
He’s quite sure that if every Christian were just like him the world would have
less difficulty with the Bible. He doesn’t think of himself as part of the problem
but part of the solution! In his view what is all-so-obvious to him must also
be obvious to other Christians. Since he believes the divine authority of
his opinions to be self-evident then in his eyes any professing Christians who
doesn’t agree with him must be sinning and have a bad conscience; if indeed
they have the right to call themselves Christians!
Such is the logic of the fundamentalist mind. Notice,
however, that Nigel made absolutely no attempt to grapple with the content of
the post he commented on. He probably thinks himself to be above such
“intellectualism” because he is “in the
Spirit” and therefore all he need do is speak in the strongly censorious
tones of the righteous.
The appearance of Nigel Wright on my blog turned out to
be something of a windfall for the VNP research department. For it seems that
Nigel Wright has a connection with Alan Howes: Nigel’s Web site gives the same
email address as can be found on Alan Howes article on NN&N
As I said in my post on Alan Howes "One man’s NT blueprint is another man’s corrupt practice and disagreements can be very sharp if contending parties all think they are operating according to scripture or according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Try contradicting Alan Howes and you will
see what I mean”. Well, here was the next best thing: Here was someone who looked to be from the
same or similar Christian subculture (i.e. reformo-charismatic) so why not try
contradicting him and see what happens? I just had to interview this man, so I
followed Nigel back to his web site anxious to carry out the contradiction test.
We had a “discussion” that lasted over several weeks. My previous experience
with those who have a high estimation of their spirituality told me that it would
only be a matter of time before this guy deleted my “worldly” views.
Consequently, I took pains to store the content of this “discussion”. This
content can be downloaded in PDF format from here. I may well single out some of
the gems in this material for special comment later.
***
Some understanding, sympathy even, ought to be offered
to fundamentalists like Nigel Wright; (Although this is difficult to do without patronizing such anti-intellectual duffers). The fact is, as William Irvin Thompson tells us,
contemporary society contains far too much information to make a comprehensive and
rational evaluation of it humanly possible, even for the most intelligent and
well informed of us. Therefore, no world view can realistically be claimed to be
based on a synthesis of all the strands of available data.
The personality traits of the average fundamentalist are
such that they are very uncomfortable with this literary overload that society presents
us with; they also loath ambiguity and crave mechanical certainty. They feel insecure
and let down by “The World”, a world that in the final analysis offers them little
in the way of unambiguous anchor points and the authoritative last word. They
want to short cut all the intellectual tedium and instead aspire to making a connection
with a failsafe and authoritative epistemic method. To them the Bible is apparently the solution to this problem;
it offers a relatively tiny universe of data of only about 1000 pages. This is
the small closed ended universe they have been looking for that contains all
they need to know.
But fundamentalism fails to take sufficient cognizance
of the fact that Biblical meaning can only be unraveled in the context of the open
ended resources of the world God has given us; the Bible is meaningless without
a blend of knowledge that ranges from history, through the language instinct
and psychology, to common sense philosophy and physics. (Seehere) However, in an attempt to preserve their closed ended and authoritative epistemology
fundamentalists will down play the subject of Biblical interpretation by using doctrines like “The perspicuity of scripture” or “Using scripture to interpret scripture” in an attempt to truncate the open endedness of scripture and make its revelation self-contained. (These doctrines are in any case necessarily extra-biblical in nature and not
unassailable.) For the fundamentalist,
language interpretation must be relegated to the status of an unproblematic
secondary issue because they so want to pronounce with confidence and with last word
authority using phrases like “The Bible says so & so” or “It’s all in accordance
with the Scriptures”. That life is seldom this simple is acknowledged in a backhanded way even by the Nigel Wrights of this world. When it comes to
difficult topics like say the meaning of Genesis they have to resort to specialist
ministries like AiG (and also to religious cranks like John MacKay in Nigel’s case – see Nigel's web site)
As with fundamentalist epistemology, so it is with fundamentalist
community: Polyculturalsim can be as open ended and fazing a subject as
epistemology. Once again the fundamentalist mind is inclined to draw an
exclusive line round what he considers to be valid. In particular, the very
checkered nature of Christian community particularly rankles with the strict
and particular fundamentalists. Instead they hanker after cozy monocultural communities
that are claimed to be immaculately modelled “in accordance with the scriptures”.
This is likely to lead to the formation of small exclusive “uncontaminated”
groups of believers. A sense of marginalization, persecution even, from the wider
community can mean that paranoia has a tendency to run high in these exclusive
groups, even to the extent that outsiders may be regarded as engaged in a conspiracy
against them. But this comes with a consolation of pride in thinking oneself to be part of a small community who have rumbled the secret of a persecuting society. They can
walk past their fellow human with their head held high, knowing that they are
in on a secret known only to a holy remnant.
Against all this one might wonder how the Christian
message of the unconditional love of God and the gospel of grace and freedom
from sin is prevented from subverting this exclusive religious vision of Christianity.
Easy: The Nigel Wrights of this world are likely to tell us that it is sign you have failed to apprehend God’s grace if you continue in ways that
violate the belief and practice laid down by his sect. In short we have the oxymoron
that grace is to be earned the Nigel Wright way. In fact he implicitly says as
much in the discussion we had. This religionisation of the Gospel is common to
every Christian sect between here and the Watchtower’s Brooklyn Head Quarters.
Unfortunately there
is usually little time to develop a proper relationship with Christian
sectarians to the point where it is clear to them that one isn’t part of a
worldwide conspiracy against them. In fact such a relationship is all but impossible
until you are eating out of their doctrinal hand; until then they are apt to
regard you as Satan’s tool or dupe. For me, then, it suffices to get across to
the sectarian that I find their religion repugnant and that they can give up
any ideas that I’m a potential convert. For this reason I’m always firm with
fundamentalists, a hard cop rather than a soft cop. This approach usually succeeds
in demonstrating only one thing: If you are firm in your disagreement with the Wrights
and Howes of this world don’t be surprised if they are very reluctant to
acknowledge you as a fellow Christian!
In his "atheist testimony series" PZ Myers has picked up some fascinating accounts of "conversion" from fundamentalism to atheism. In particular this testimnony piqued my interest because it was from an ex-fundagelical who was, amongst other reasons, "deconverted" due to the sharp disagreements between fundamentalist sects and cults. Fundagelical infighting, need I say, has been one of my interests ever since I was drawn toward Christianity; see the following links, for example.
As PZ's correspondent makes clear, schismatic behaviour is a fundamental challenge to fundamentalism's vehement claims of being "in accordance with the scriptures": This is what we read:
I also visited friends’ churches with them, and found that they, too, believed that they alone were the ‘real’ Christians. It seemed they sincerely derived the same comfort and joy from their beliefs as I did from mine; yet I had been taught that their heretical views meant their eternal doom.
This, I think, led to a decisive epiphany for me. I had observed that, even within evangelical Christianity, there were sharp doctrinal divisions between churches; yet they all were reading from the same guidebook! There was no objective way to determine which, if any of them, was really reading it correctly. I remember hearing a number of very heated arguments between different churches’ members on various doctrinal points. Each of these opposing viewpoints could be ‘proved’ by citing one’s own select scriptures. Every church believes that they alone have all the answers. From listening to the arguments, I saw that the differences of opinion weren’t so much that one person has any more or less insight into the ‘true’ meaning of the scriptures. They simply believed what they had been TOLD to believe, and the groupthink was enforced through the social interactions within each church.
You would think that an omnipotent God would be able to make his will perfectly known to his followers. Instead, what we have is a cacaphony of thousands of different sects and denominations sniping at each other, each proclaiming its own monopoly on the truth.
Fundamentalism was aggressively and threateningly pushed my way when I was "converted". I even got as far as trying to believe Morris and Whitcomb's book "The Genesis Flood". However, in time this book help trigger a kind of "intellectual vomit" reaction, a reaction which was also in part down to my observations on fundamentalist schismogenesis. As per the above correspondent this schismatic behaviour potentially threatened the very plausibility of Christianity. However, it could never be claimed I was a good or convinced evangelical and in fact my relationship with it proved to be stormy right from the start, ultimately ending in divorce. Ironically it was my poor evangelical standing that probably saved my faith: I always reserved for myself the freedom to explore new thoughts and ideas that might help deepen my faith, thoughts and ideas that are a no-go-area for the average fundagelical.
However, the correspondent I have quoted above really paints a too extreme picture of Christianity when (s)he says Every church believes that they alone have all the answers. Although that is true of many a fundagelical (And have I met my fair share of them!) it is not true of many Christians I know.
