Jeepers Creepers I

Previously unknown species of Christian cults/sects creep out from under every stone.

Did you know that there is a danger of you going to hell if you:

1. Call Jesus "Jesus".
2. Don't speak in tongues
3. Watch TV.

Well, that's according to a couple of  Christian cults/sects that have come to my notice of late. In both cases it looks as though a sect member has crept onto my church premises and deposited their tracts which I then find. Here's the first tract:

(Click to enlarge)

This one threatens hell and damnation if you don't have an accredited reception of the Holy Spirit, (as accredited by them of course!) - what they recognize as "speaking in tongues" is regarded as important evidence of this. They also threaten damnation for TV viewers. I have a hunch that the people who left this tract are the so-called "Potter's House", a sect who meet not far away from my church. According to their Wiki page "Potter's House" expect a true Christian believer to speak in tongues and they also have a dim view of TV viewing. However, that's just a guess.

Here's my second tract:

(Click to enlarge)

If you read this tract you will see that they talk in very stern and condemning tones about anyone who refers to Jesus as simply "Jesus" and/or regards him as a friend. Some spiritually conceited blockhead has written an incoherent footnote on this tract that tries to get around the passage in John  15:14-15 where Jesus refers to himself as a "friend"; this person simply cannot see that "friendship" is a mutual extrinsic property brought about by mutual relationship: Viz: If A is my friend then it follows that I'm a friend of A. I know very little about this second sect except that the tract gives an address in Germany.  I actually first came across this group when they put tracts on the cars in the car park at my church. See here:

http://norwichcentralbaptistchurch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/yet-another-christian-sect-coming-out.html

When I find a tract from some hitherto unknown Christian group there is a simple rule of thumb I use to test the likelihood that the tract is from a strongly sectarian group: Look for passages in the tract that criticize other Christians as at best inferior and at worst hell-bound - when you see that you know they only accept themselves as authentically Christian.

This characteristic of condemning all people outside one's cloistered holy remnant as at best spiritually compromised and at worst satanically evil as an all too common and recognisable human trait. As we can see from the above, apparently quite innocuous behaviors (or absence of certain behaviors) are regarded by sectarians as enough evidence to consign people to eternal tortures and at the same time are considered clear cut signifiers separating out the sheep from goats. I've said the following before but it bears repeating: It is easy to imagine that the very human traits we see above could be exploited to promote acts of violence: Firstly, if these sectarian people have little problem in accepting innocuous behaviors as evidences of the presence of evil and therefore deserving eternal tortures in hell it would be no big deal for them to think that "goats" deserve physical death. Secondly, these sectarians have such a mechanical and literal way of interpreting the Bible that I shudder to think what might happen if the New Testament contained injunctions to kill apostates, heretics, blasphemers, and unbelievers. Fortunately for us in the West, the NT is very explicit about not spreading Christianity by the sword (.....but then come to think of it what about the "inquisition"?).  But there is more than one way to disseminate fear: heavy hints about the wrath of God and hell if one leaves a sect is another way of keeping people in line. The irony is that in theory Christianity  removes the fear of sin and death, and yet these cultists know how to reintroduce it!

It would be a nice idea to get together a sect/cult database that tabulates all the traits of the different cults. However, I've more pressing things to do! 

Why I’m not an Evangelical. Part 1: The Fundamentalist Epistemic

 Did he really say that?

The following letter appeared in the March/April edition of “IDEA”, the magazine of the Evangelical Alliance. The letter gives one of the reasons why I, as a Christian, struggle with evangelicalism; it tells us why evangelicalism so easily topples down into fundamentalist authoritarianism. It is a text book example of the epistemic error which is at the heart of fundamentalism:

Thanks for your timely investigations into evangelical identity in the Jan/Feb issue. Nowhere did that question come more sharply into focus than in Leader’s Questions (p32) on what the word ‘evangelical’ means.

Whilst Revd Rachel Marszalek reads scripture ‘through the lenses of reason, tradition and experience”, Dr Lucy Peppiatt perceives scripture as “the primary authoritative lens through which and against which all other texts, ideas, cultures etc. are interpreted and measured”

So which lens are we to use! Is scripture to be viewed through the filter of our world or our world to be viewed through scripture? Is the word of God to be subject to the changing culture of the world or the world subject to the enduring word of God?

Our evangelical forbears allowed the word of God to reign supreme in their lives, even when it cost them dear. May God enable us, together, to do the same.

Yours sincerely

Michael Thornton.

Michael Thornton appears to have no inkling how language actually works: The interpretation of text is always dependent on cultural and cognitive complexes, complexes which effectively process textual tokens. These tokens don’t contain meanings; rather they generate meaning given the interpretative resources of the cultural and cognitive substrate they impact. This is a general truism which applies to all forms of language because this is what language is by definition: that is, signals which act as meaning stimuli as they impinge upon cultural and cognitive contexts. The Bible, as a sequence of textual tokens, also follows these principles; if it didn’t it wouldn’t be language.

So, strictly speaking the starting point isn’t scripture in-and-of-itself but the combination of scripture and the substrate on which scripture works its purposes. Thornton appears to be under the mistaken impression that it’s a choice between scripture and substrate; he is so confounded by this false dichotomy that he is unable to see that the two must work together to generate meaning, a meaning that flows out of their interaction. In fact given this truism there is a case for claiming that effective scripture isn’t in fact the printed word, but the meanings those words evoke given the right substrate. Thornton’s dichotomy  may have been encouraged by a misapplication of the “sola scriptura” concept, a slogan coined during the reformation as a way of prizing apart scripture from the authoritarian grip of Roman Catholic fundamentalism; sola scriptura could never mean scripture alone in an absolute sense, but only in a relative sense.

The type of view expressed by Thornton is one I frequently encounter amongst fundamentalists and even moderate evangelicals like those represented by IDEA: I’ve long suspected that part of the psychological complex which favors such a view is an epistemic insecurity which prompts fundamentalist minded Christians to seek absolute jot and tittle certainty in their faith. This temptation towards inquisitional certainty subsequently provides a basis for the heretic purging of those Christians who disagree with the inquisitors.

The epistemic insecurities which fuel fundamentalist jot and tittle certainties might be assuaged somewhat if there was a clearer apprehension that God is sovereign over the whole package of contextual substrate and impacting word. The Divine choreographer is no doubt more than capable of arranging things so that the interaction between symbol and context generate potentially edifying meaning in the life of the believer.  It is unfortunate that the statement by evangelical Lucy Peppiatt has had the effect of conniving with Michael Thornton’s fundamentalist mentality.

However, let’s have a look at what Jason Lisle has to say on this subject. The following quote is taken from a comment on one of his blog posts. Here Lisle was responding to the question of a fellow fundamentalist:

Dr. Lisle says:

October 14, 2014 at 11:54 am

Zach, the answers to your questions involve the concept of the “hermeneutical circle” or “hermeneutical spiral.” I have a book coming out in the summer that addresses these issues in rich detail (in chapter 9). For now, I’ll have to give a shorter answer. God’s Word would have to be true because of the nature of God; He is truth. God has “hardwired” us to know that He exists, and to recognize His Word when we hear it or read it (John 10:27). How we respond to God’s Word will determine what happens next. If we receive His Word with humility then we participate in the hermeneutical circle. Basically, this means that God’s Word is sufficiently clear that we can understand and correctly interpret much of it upon reading it. After all, God designed our minds and knows how to write a book such that our minds can understand it. Because of sin, we don’t instantly correctly interpret all of God’s Word on the first reading. But the portions we do understand rightly will help us to understand the more difficult portions. In the process of time, our understanding improves as the Scriptures systematically sanctify our thinking. The Bible is therefore self-interpreting. It teaches us how to interpret it.

The general drift of this piece by Lisle is, I believe, correct, although he has expressed it in such a way as to as to neutralize its important lessons and even encourage the black vs white/baddies vs goodies categories preferred by the right-wing Fundamentalist mind. However, Lisle has at least become aware of the textual boot strap problem: i.e. one can’t assign meaning to scripture in a cognitive and cultural vacuum; that meaning can only bootstrap from an a priori cognitive and cultural substrate on which the text of scripture impacts. Thus the mind, in part equipped by its context, must be correctly primed in order that it be correctly informed by the textual input from the Bible. Moreover, as Lisle suggests, the reading of scripture effectively feeds back into one’s priming and therefore scripture influences the understanding of scripture; in fact Scripture becomes part of the substrate culture on which scripture itself works.  See here where I made this important point.

But fundamentalists are not known for nuancing or epistemic humility, and so Lisle uses some phrases that cancel all his good work by encouraging epistemic arrogance. These phrases are stock in trade for the fundamentalist and have the effect of signaling the old certainties about the divine authority of fundamentalist opinion.

Lisle: God’s Word would have to be true because of the nature of God

My Comment: There is a difference between natural language and the propositional notational language of mathematics and physics whose “truth” is intended to be independent of any one human being and is found in consistent and correct symbolic operations. In contrast natural language is highly connotational in nature and as such truth (or falsehood) is found in what it generates in the cognition it impacts.  Take for example the parables of Jesus: in what sense are these “true”? Are they to be regarded as true literal histories? If they don’t refer to literal histories does that make them false? Or should they be regarded as edifying archetypical vignettes whose truth emerges when they generate meaning on the appropriate human substrate?  Where is God’s truth in this case? It can’t be in the text because without interaction with a substrate it generates nothing and means nothing.  In much of natural language truth or falsehood is an effect rather than being resident in the text itself. The criticism often made of fundamentalism, and there are hints of it in the way Lisle expresses himself, is that in its very literal approach to scripture it treats the Bible like a scientific textbook. Parables are far from scientific statements: they are signals to the reader to be appropriately and rightly creative in their interpretation.

Lisle God has “hardwired” us to know…

It may well be (in fact I think it is likely) we have some kind of “God instinct”, but we must set that against the possibly that the intensity of this instinct may vary from person to person. Moreover, this instinct may be obscured and/or weakened, perhaps even eclipsed, by environmental influences of all sorts. So called hard wiring may actually only set up a propensity that in itself is not determinative. In using the term hard wiring Lisle has expressed the “God instinct” in typically black and white terms, terms that are likely to appeal to the fundamentalist sense of epistemic certainty: As the fundamentalist reads his Bible with Lisle reference to “hard wiring” in mind he will likely be encouraged to believe he has been “hard wired” to correctly interpret the text thus helping to neutralize any doubts, ambiguities or epistemic humility about what he draws from the text.

Lisle: God’s Word is sufficiently clear that we can understand and correctly interpret much of it upon reading it. After all, God designed our minds and knows how to write a book such that our minds can understand it. Because of sin, we don’t instantly correctly interpret all of God’s Word on the first reading

My Comment: It’s probably a safe bet to infer that to Lisle and his fellow fundamentalists those sufficiently clear meanings are their own! It’s what some fundamentalists refer to as the “plain meaning” of scripture; any other meanings must, according to Lisle, be a product of sinful and willful misinterpretation – notice that Lisle gives no space to plain ordinary genuine  interpretation errors when reading the Bible! In the fundamentalist universe sinful motives stalk the world and beyond their strict and particular fundamentalist communities those malign motives are found around every corner – this is why fundamentalists have a weakness for conspiracy theory.

Lisle: The Bible is therefore self-interpreting. It teaches us how to interpret it

My Comment: Although I agree with what Lisle has written immediately before this sentence, he has gone too far here: Scripture is never absolutely self-interpreting; its meaning has to be bootstrapped from somewhere as Lisle himself has admitted with his reference to “hardwiring”.  Once again we find Lisle serving up what his strict fundamentalist audience want to hear: Namely, that the Bible is a small, secure, self-interpreting universe. This encourages the fundamentalist to drop outside influences in favor of the proprietary readings favoured by his particular fundamentalist community; this is the sense in which they implicitly understand the term “sola scriptura”. The latter phrase was coined in a time when Catholic fundamentalism insisted on the divine authority of its reading of scripture. Ironically Lisle and his fellow fundamentalists have a similar opinion of their own views!

All in all Lisle has expressed himself in such a way as to mask the important questions surrounding the bootstrapping of Biblical meaning: The tenor of what he says would be unlikely to budge Michael Thornton  and Lucy Peppiatt from their misleading opinions which wrongly give the impression that scripture is a self-contained island of meaning, an independent “lens” which has no need to call on cultural and cognitive resources in order to generate meaning.

...to be continued

Did he really say that? As we shall see, the fundamentalist epistemic is likely motivated by fear and insecurity.


Postscript 30/6/15. A case study in fundamentalist epistemic arrogance

Who else?

In a blog post entitled 28 June 2015 fundamentalist Ken Ham writes (my emphases):

....we have an absolute authority by which all our actions must be judged—the authority of the Word of God. God obviously is the ultimate Judge, and He has given us His Word with which to judge actions.

....before we make a judgment, we must make sure we are judging righteously from God’s Word and not relying on our own opinion.

Ken's post is about the validity of judging others - I wouldn't quibble with that as we all, necessarily in fact, make valued judgments on people's behavior.  What interests me here is the way Ken justifies his judgments. As we know Ken Ham is a very judgmental person, constantly pronouncing God's censor on atheists and Christians alike; even that I wouldn't class as an activity wrong in-and-of-itself. Where Ken goes wrong is that he passes the buck on his epistemic responsibility in arriving at the ontological basis from whence he makes his judgments: For, as we can see from the above, in Ken's eyes he is not pronouncing his opinions, but God's opinions. He sees little epistemic responsibility in getting his interpretation of the Bible right, and gives no indication that when he "judges righteously from God's Word" it still remains his opinion of God's Word: Instead Ken is quite certain that his opinions are God's opinions. It is that unquestioning confidence that to his mind sanctions his prolific output of condemnation on others, and it is that which qualifies him as a fundamentalist.    (See here http://www.viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/hell-and-hamnation-ii.html). As I heard someone say: "An evangelical is nice fundamentalist". It follows then that a fundamentalist is a nasty evangelical!

The Nasty Party Speaks

Fearful certainly, but Meek? I don't think so!

In a blog post dated 15th April and ironically entitled "In Meekness and Fear" Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis Theme Park manager, remarks on a transcript of a conversation between "Old Earth" Astronomer Hugh Ross and the president of Biologos, Deborah Haarsma. Ham informs us that during  this conversation Hugh Ross....

"....implied that in contrast to us at Answers in Genesis, Reasons to Believe and BioLogos try to avoid “vindictive language” and “ad hominems” in their conversations on origins"

This is true! But Ham, needless to say, denies it and instead rationalizes his particularly abrasive personality as follows:

"We can (and should) speak authoritatively.....standing on the authority of God’s Word and not compromising with man’s ideas about origins."

...implying of course that Hugh Ross and other Christian scientists like Deborah Haarsma are compromising. If such moral slurs aren't ad hominems, then I don't know what is! In fact the moral slurs and ad hominems are so natural to Ham's confident self-believing way of thinking that he is quite unaware of the effect of what he is saying.  As a rule fundamentalists like Ham see sinful malign motives round every corner (See epilogue) and have no compulsion in accusing detractors of the heinousness of their position. In his post the slurs and slander come in thick and fast:

"....interpret the Bible however they want."

"We should not impose our ideas on God’s Word (as Hugh Ross and BioLogos continually do)"

We shouldn't let the fallible, sinful world dictate what we believe about the past any more than we should let the sinful ways of the world dictate our attitudes!"

"Pray that they [Ross and Haarsma] will repent and return to the authority of God’s Word as the foundation for their thinking in every area! "

 Ham's vindictive fulminations are no stranger to this blog. See here for other examples:

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-escape-to-arcadia.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/hell-and-hamnation-at-work.html 

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/hell-and-hamnation-ii.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-paranoiac-mind-of.html

As usual Ham's attacks find their rationale in his intellectual short comings and misunderstandings about the nature of science: See here for example:*

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/mangling-science-part-5-two-kinds-of.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/beyond-our-ken-on-mature-creation.html

(See also: http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/intellectual-depravity.html)

It seems that fundamentalist cultures attract personalities like Ken Ham and this is not necessarily to do with espousing Young Earth Creationism either. Young Earthists such as Paul Nelson and those on the web site "Uncommon Descent" seem to manage to put their case forward without using the "nuclear options" of charges of compromise, heresy and blasphemy. Embattled fundamentalist communities such as "Answers in Genesis" appear to attract and select for obdurate personalities who are looking for the security of epistemic certainties and a supporting sectarian community from which they can condemn a world that has alienated them.  The associated self-belief and self-deceit which supports the holy remnant conceit of these quasi-cults leaves only one logical conclusion open to these fundamentalists; namely, that all those who disagree with them are bad conscience heretics and this belief in turn provides divine sanction for the condemnation of "heretics" in the strongest (and nastiest) religious language.

As Sir Kenneth Clarke once said:

....to try and suppress opinions one doesn't share is much less profitable than to tolerate them. This conclusion should have been reached during the reformation, it permeated the writings of Erasmus,…alas a belief in the divine authority of our own opinions afflicted the protestants just as much as the Catholics……

I have heard it said that "an evangelical is a nice fundamentalist". Perhaps we could be more explicit and say a fundamentalist is a nasty evangelical!

Epilogue: Witchcraft and Conspiracy Theorism (20/04/15) 
 A very religious fundamentalist like Ham sees disagreement with himself as sure sign of sinful motives, bad conscience and guilt. He cannot accept that ontological complexity and epistemic intractability very easily results in differing opinions for quite genuine reasons, reasons absent of malign motives. Instead he believes that those who disagree with him are willfully disobeying the obvious meaning of holy writ. In effect Ham believes he has secure knowledge of the private consciences of Christians like Hugh Ross and Deborah Haarsma. To him Ross and Haarsma have broken a religious taboo and have become ritually unclean and nothing they say can dissuade him of their good consciences; hence his call for them to repent. Ham's recriminations have parallels with the accusations of witchcraft one sees in rural Africa. Victims of such accusations can say nothing to clear themselves in the face of accusers who believe they have a secure knowledge of the truth, knowledge that is in fact a fiction from the imagination (perhaps even a monster from the id!).  As I have remarked many times in my blogs, the suspicious fundamentalist mentality which sees the world as the domain of broken taboos, ritual uncleanness, hatred, persecutions, flawed consciences and evil genius provides fertile ground for the paranoiac and fictitious constructions of conspiracy theorism.


Footnote: 
* 29/04/15 On Ham's Scientific ineptitude: Words, and that includes the words of the Bible, don't contain meaning; rather they trigger meaning as they impact upon a substrate of cognitive resources strongly influenced by culture and knowledge of historical context.  We therefore cannot escape from an assumed knowledge of the past when we interpret the Bible. But knowledge of the past is the very thing that Ham attempts to downgrade with his repeatedly used false dichotomy between historical and observational science, thus undermining his own claimed grasp of Biblical truth. And of course he is naive enough to repeatedly use the anthropomorphism that God is an "eyewitness" of the Genesis creation.

Jeff Lucas

Lucas: against holy affectations and spiritual pretentiousness

At a recent Church at Home Weekend  I attended Jeff Lucas was the speaker. Jeff is a well-known figure in evangelical Christian circles and I have mentioned him approvingly in this blog on more than one occasion. (See here). If my memory serves me well then I believe Jeff started out as leader with the restorationist house group movement along with other leaders such as Terry Virgo and David Tomlinson. This movement peaked in the UK at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s. But a lot has happened since then and these three leaders now find themselves in very different positions, or at least two of them do.

It is probably true say that whilst Virgo has more or less stayed in the same place all these years Lucas and Tomlinson have moved on. In fact in Tomlinson’s case the move has been considerable. Virgo probably classified (and probably still does) as a fundamentalist patriarch whereas Tomlinson is now a fairly left wing Christian Liberal and ordained Church of England minister. Both Virgo and Tomlinson have received mention in this blog before (See here and here).  In terms of his culture and attitude I would place Jeff Lucas somewhere between the two, and like Tomlinson I suspect that Lucas has gone through a period of soul searching and transition. This transition has lead him away from a self-assured fundamentalist faith, the sort of faith that believes more in its own spirituality than it does in God himself. Although it’s probably true to say that I’m nearer Tomlinson than I am Lucas, I have great regard for Lucas and I am very glad that someone of his caliber is where is, strategically well placed to bring sanity and self–awareness to an evangelical Christian culture that in some places seems to teeter on the edge of an anasognosic crackpot spiritual dementia.  In contrast Tomlinson has moved too far to be so strategically placed. It may be true to say that Lucas and Tomlinson are part of a church malaise that produced the so-called emerging church along with other Christian leaders like Rob Bell and Brian Mclaren; but somehow Lucas has managed to stay true to a charismatic evangelical tradition.

Like Tomlinson, Lucas has no doubt experienced times of disillusionment with Christian evangelicalism and may have had the maturing experience of thinking things through in the empty dungeons of doubting castle. But Lucas has reacted very differently to Tomlinson. He copes with the hackneyed spiritual clichés and plastic inauthenticity so often found in charismatic fundagelicalism with satire and humour. I think I recognize that reaction because I’ve gone that way myself: The only worthy response to the kind of serious minded fundagelicalism which is so consumed with its own self-belief is to satirize it and laugh at it; for its conceited self-assurance makes it well beyond the voice of reason (For examples of my own satire see some of the early posts on this blog that reproduced some of the articles from the hard copy version of VNP; in fact the hard copy version of VNP was  almost entirely satirical, a kind  of “Wipers Times”, a way of coping with what for me was a situation difficult to come to terms with).

Lucas is a leader who, I guess, has seen more than his fill of cliché welding over confident holy rollers and this comes out in his talks; although I call them “talks” he has all the cutting edge talent of a standup comic and he uses this talent in a routine that is subliminally if not overtly subversive of kitschy versions of Christian community: Take one example: He said that sometimes long band driven worship sessions can drag rather and yet during these marathon sessions a worship leader may interject with camp affectation ”Heaven is just like this, only its forever!”.  Well, I’m afraid I can’t tell them like Lucas does, but I hope the drift is clear; Lucas is constantly and hilariously sending up the all too human foibles of charismatic and evangelical Christianity. In response all I can say is “Good on yer Jeff!”. Lucas confessed that he himself was once inclined to crass in-your-face-evangelism; that is, the sort of evangelism that can take an otherwise prosaic conversation, turn it on a sixpence via some corny tenuous allusion and start talking about grave spiritual matters; cue funny anecdotes from Lucas! He also referred to a phenomenon I have frequently seen myself; that is, of the unchurched being dehumanized as pew fodder for some evangelistic message. He also took a swipe at the heavy healers who attempt to explain failed miraculous healings in terms of disbelief and disobedience. By way of summary Lucas said he really wished that many Christians could “lighten up and chill out.” My reply? No chance! Tacky spiritual posturing is here to stay, but look on the bright side; at least it gives us something to laugh about!

Lucas’ unrelenting subliminal attack on Christian inauthenticiy had a purpose. Lucas wanted to make the point that we as Christians have reacted against twee spiritual ostentation and consequently lost our voice; instead we need to regain our voice and consolidate our fellowship and community.  But Lucas warned against going so far as to turn church into a meeting down at the pub – was that an oblique reference to David Tomlinson?

Jeff Lucas admitted himself to having suffered disappointments and burn out. He consequently recommended his book "Faith in the Fog" which addresses this subject. In Lucas’ case he resolves the problems in favour of a generous form of evangelicalism, one that embraces self-doubt and humour and prunes away the hollow hypocrisy. His aim is for a truly serious version of Christianity that doesn’t find a need to major in spiritual gimcrack. Jeff Lucas, I’m glad to say, has his eyes wide open and well knows just how cheap and clinquant Christian spiritual ostentation can become,. This ostentation, in the final analysis, amounts to a display of very human self-believing conceits and self-deceits, a sham holiness. My overall verdict of Jeff Lucas is that whilst I’m probably a bit closer to Tomlinson than Lucas, without doubt the church is in very good hands with someone like Lucas and it will not want for critical self-examination and be less inclined to take its own inevitably flawed spiritually (See Romans 7) too seriously.

Postscript

One Sunday service at the begging of September 2002 I found a printed piece of writing folded into my church notices; it was a piece abstracted from “Lucas on Life” by some unknown church member. At that time I hadn't heard much about Lucas accept that from somewhere I had gained the impression  he was once connected with restorationist Terry Virgo and New Frontiers. The piece he had written was a funny story about a minister who took the bull by the horns and made small changes to the morning service such as moving the pews around a bit and then after the service serving Jaffa cakes with the tea and coffee instead of Rich Tea biscuits.  At that stage I had had a belly full of talk about change because the word “change” was often a code word for “We need a holy spirit revival”. Such aspirations were usually expressed by those who completely undervalued and/or ignored the anointed ministries that were already were active in the church. So, I naturally assumed that Lucas was yet another aficionado of those “holy spirit” churches that are constantly on the lookout for tawdry and tinselly blessings. By 2002 I had already written a satirical piece called “Killing Pews” [1995] about “holy spirit” revivalism, and so having been subject to this unsolicited spam in the notices the following Sunday I distributed a piece of counter spam (see below):  I had no idea at the time that Lucas was actually on a similar escape  trajectory to myself. The character “John Bilgewater” mentioned below had appeared in an early hard copy versions of VNP. (See here for more about Bilgewater)

Dereham Road Baptist Church

Norwich

7 Sept 2002

Hi folks,

Re: DRBC's Spamming wars

               I was absolutely fascinated by the piece of spam I found in my notices last week. Taken from "Lucas on Life" it portrayed a minister making modest changes to his services/pew arrangements. This timid tinkering with service arrangements, however, just isn't radical enough. Jeff Lucas, and his readers, are clearly well behind the times or, more likely, on a different planet and know nothing about the following which goes back to  1995, more than 7 light years away (The following is a quote from “Killer Pews”):

               Another shock is that in this environment of light movable seats it is very difficult to adopt a cosy out of the way pew of your own. In fact I am waiting for the day when we arrive for the service downstairs to find that someone has removed the seats completely,  no doubt intended to convey to us, as we stand shiftily wondering what to do with our arms and legs, that if we are not going to "move on with the Lord" the seats will.. ... The design and mobility of the pews down here remind their congregations that God demands change whether they like it or not. ("Killer Pews", TVR January 95)

               But if you want to get really radical the man to see is the Rev J. Bilgewater whose activities you can read about in DRBC's spammed church magazine "Views, News, and Pews". Needless to say he has solved this pew problem in his own inimitable style. He sent all his pews to the dump long ago and replaced them with pogo sticks to ensure his congregation keeps mingling. After a trial run of this new scheme Rev. Bilgewater realised that the tea had to be served in "roller coaster" proof spout mugs.

              Now, who is going to have the courage to admit to having handed out this spiritual cliche? Come off it, we can't work in a cultural vacuum and there always has to be some kind of arbitrary framework needed to give shape to our activities, so why constantly be soul searching about it? True, we mustn't be inflexible, but haven't we heard this message about how terribly spiritual it is to accept change just about 15 billion times too often? Can't we have a change and not hear about change for a change?

 Tim "you've been spammed" Reeves.

PS Can Jeff Lucas tell us how to dunk jafa cakes into tea and get a useful result?

Vengeance Fundamentalism: Turn or Burn

The group above has been featured before on this blog; they are Islamic State jihadists who hail from the UK. Given the legacy of news reports and imagery IS have thrust upon the world, I find it difficult to look at these jihadist gentlemen without shuddering; they have joined one of the nastiest religious groups the world has seen. But the shock horror that Islamic State specializes in may in part be down to a compensation for the relative weakness of IS in terms of conventional arms; in comparison the allied forces ranged against them have the technology to precision bomb them with virtual impunity and Islamic State has little hope of fighting back on equal terms. This probably means that their most powerful and perhaps their only really effective weapon is fear itself, a fear they stoke up with the horrific atrocities which they publish with pride. And of course one mustn't underestimate the role that vengeance plays in these acts of barbarity.

Somehow the IS fundamentalists appear to have lost all humanity and become heartless automata prepared to do anything to fulfill the letter of their religious law without hint of compassion. The chances of high flying aircraft coming to grief over their domain is very small indeed and yet I’m sure allied military pilots quake just a little at the thought of what might happen if they have to bail out. It makes me quake just thinking about it even though I’m thousands of miles away in the refuge of a comfortable safe and rich country, a country armed to the hilt with the most advanced weaponry the world has seen. But this weaponry is unable to defend against the invasion of the irrational fear and horror that the jihadists have unleashed; some of the imagery I've seen of their violent work I will take to the grave.

Fear used as weapon has a long case history;

• Some fiction writers undoubtedly understand the effect of fear as a weapon: In the film Aliens II the troops sent in to deal with the alien threat utterly outclassed these aliens in terms of firepower and killing ratio. But in spite of that the alien’s suicidal strategies against superior arms along with the fear and revulsion they engendered nearly won the battle for them. In Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings the chief weapon of the Nazgul was a disabling and choking cloud of fear and rumour .Other than that they didn’t have any really effective weapons; their leader was killed by a hobbit and a young fearless female warrior.

• In the natural world warning displays that actually don’t signify a real threat but are copies from animals with real offensive means are sufficient to keep foes at bay as a result of the fear and repugnance these displays invoke.

• During the Roman invasion of Anglesey Druid priests called down terrible curses on the Roman army; but apart from the fear value of these curses they were ultimately ineffective. As Tactitus wrote:

• On the shore stood the opposing army with its dense array of armed warriors, while between the ranks dashed women, in black attire like the Furies, with hair dishevelled, waving brands. All around, the Druids, lifting up their hands to heaven, and pouring forth dreadful imprecations, scared our soldiers by the unfamiliar sight, so that, as if their limbs were paralysed, they stood motionless, and exposed to wounds. Then urged by their general's appeals and mutual encouragements not to quail before a troop of frenzied women, they bore the standards onwards, smote down all resistance, and wrapped the foe in the flames of his own brands. A force was next set over the conquered, and their groves, devoted to inhuman superstitions, were destroyed. They deemed it indeed a duty to cover their altars with the blood of captives and to consult their deities through human entrails."

• In the Middle Ages when government ruled less by consent than by force miscreants were publically put to death in horrifying ways that must have acted as a form of aversion therapy for those who might contemplate challenging the powers that be. Moreover, the religion of the day traded on threats of judgment and eternal torture and this must have helped scare a believing public into keeping on the straight and narrow.

When your only weapon is fear.

Modern religious fundamentalists often have few material bargaining chips, but as of old they have become skilled in wielding the weapon of fear. They speak in strong censorious tones to those who challenge their opinions and practices, threatening God’s displeasure and judgment on those they accuse of heresy, apostasy and disbelief.  (See for Example Ken Ham’s words here and here and Michael Voris' words here) . Of novel interest, however, is the strange case of well and truly cornered Christian fundamentalist Kent Hovind, a man in jail for tax fraud. Perhaps as a way of consoling his damaged ego he appears to have adopted the sovereign citizen movement and consequently he has made a set of legal pronouncements as if he was an official judge dispensing justice upon what he considers to be an outlaw US state . In fact according to wiki he has claimed that Democracy is evil and contrary to God's law  a claim which has a very Islamic jihadist flavor about it. This could be interpreted as just emotive gesturing, but:

A 2014 report by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism stated that a survey of law-enforcement officials and agencies across the United States concluded that the [Sovereign Citizen] movement was the single greatest threat to their communities, ranking above Islamic terrorists and jihadists.

…..and such a movement is likely to resort to fear tactics, by definition.

Fundamentalists of all brands use the weapon of fear and their expertise in wielding this weapon may result of their first person knowledge of fear; they are themselves beset by fears because from their perspective the world is a very scary and evil place full of conspiracies against them. They are therefore all too ready to read into the quite innocuous behaviors of disbelievers motivations driven by the heinous sins of heretics, apostates and evil doers who need the fear of God put into them. In the absence of any real power fear is the main means of effect for the fundamentalist, a tool one doesn't have to be particularly powerful to use, because fear, if done well, can be administered with the right kind of threat. For example, towards the end of this post on his blog PZ Myers quotes Kent Hovind telling Myers to “Turn or Burn”. Although I don’t suppose that’ll frighten PZ Myers any more than it does me, some people are intimidated by that sort of talk. But when one calls the bluff of these “Turn or Burn” fundamentalists one finds that the fear they secrete evaporates like a black mist in the Sun.

Islam needs to reform itself by de-literalizing many of its vengeance based practices and bellicose chauvinistic beliefs, beliefs originating from violent lawless contexts. Above all it needs to give up the kind of Islam that only regards itself as properly expressed until it has taken over the state and installed Sharia law. Unlike Christianity which has a tradition of victorious dignified living even when its communities are small, powerless and persecuted, Islam has a tendency to only see dignity in civic power and control. It’s not as if Christianity can claim to be perfect; far from it: Christianity also needs to reform with the times; in fact it started to reform* 200 years ago following the enlightenment, although there have been reactionary influences particularly during the 1960s that have tried to take it back to the past. 

There is, however, an ironic link between Islam and Christianity. As we have seen in recent days Islam, (or at least some sections of Islam) has a very strong vengeance streak: Innocent IS hostages have been put to death in very cruel ways. These executions appear to have little tactical value apart from breeding fear and horror among IS enemies. But these executions may also serve as a way of satiating the IS appetite for vengeance and assuage their fiery wrath built up over many months of being targeted with guided missiles about which they can do absolutely nothing apart from hide. The immolation of innocents in order to dampen the fires of wrath is, of course, the very literal theological construction that some fundamentalist Christians put on the meaning of The Cross of Christ; they believe that in a very literal sense God’s infinite anger against humanity was assuaged by the infinite torture of his “Son”, just as burning innocent victims alive might satiate IS wrath. Taken literally this view doesn't work on several counts, not least because it is clear that smoldering human anger which satisfies itself in acts of judicial vengeance has its root and rationale in the socio-biological contexts of human communal living and this is not likely to be part of the Divine condition. I don’t believe the Christian fundamentalist soteriology of torture to be literal; for me The Cross manifests the divine motivation to bring about reconciliation, identification and the concomitant emotional cost such reconciliation entails in dealing with the schismogenic nature of sin. A vengeance-cum-torture theological model may be apposite to the true cost of restorative justice but only as a metaphor. Life enhancing productive anger doesn't merely placate itself with cathartic acts of cruelty or self-harming but constitutes the motive needed to get on and do something constructive about the situation even at high emotional cost.

As I've pondered the cruel acts of Islamic State I've come to the conclusion that these acts make very little tactical or strategic sense and it is only in the context of the Abrahamic perspective of propitiatory vengeance and immolation can I make any sense of them.  Christianity and Islam are linked through the theme of vengeance except for one big difference; through Christ vengeance (whether understood literally or metaphorically) has had its day. Islam (and some versions of Christian fundamentalism), we hope and pray, will one day end its attraction to power and vengeance.

***

By the way if you happen to see any of the jihadist gentlemen pictured above make sure you call the police quickly. Also call the police if you spot Christian fundamentalist Kent Hovind because it may be he has been sprung out of jail by fellow Sovereign Citizens.

Hovind: At war with the "pagan" world.

Footnote: * As Lord Kenneth Clark once put it; the reformers of the 16^th century were in some ways simply swapping Papal and Catholic authority for the divine authority of their opinions. Appeal to the Bible was seldom moderated with epistemic humility; yes, the Bible is Revelation but its revelation is often mediated through a very human, sometimes flawed, channel. And yet the sola scriptura principle, in as much as it individualized the faith, may well have been a necessary precursor of the enlightenment and science; it set up the idea that theories, claims and propositions etc, must find authentication in the "textual" experience of the individual. (Where I use "textual" in the post modern sense)

Galactic Egos

Spiritual egos as big as a planets (For PZ Myers' reaction see here)

Like some hilarious straight man-funny man act, the abrasive atheist PZ Myers is the perfect foil for some of his seriously religious fellow US citizens. To PZ Meyers even so much as a mild congeniality toward religion comes up for rough treatment; I certainly have no illusions that this man. although ironically in some respects I find myself on his side, would treat my own Christian faith with the utmost contempt. But this is just the sort of wise cracking ultra cynic that is needed to heighten the humor of his encounters with what must be some of the most bizarre manifestations of the Christian faith ever seen. If he can be so scathing toward moderates what words is he going to find for the extremists? Is Myers going to run out of anti-superlatives and dysphemisms and become speechless? Just the anticipation of wondering how PZ Myers is going to react to the next Poe's Law fundamentalist who merrily trots up on to the stage has me in fits of laughter. 

But much of it is a kind of black trench humor about nasty people and their very unpleasant doings; its a bit like laughing at Islamic State. Take for instance the Christian fundamentalist  in the video below who PZ Myers features in a blog post here. One feels that this client could in fact be rather dangerous. As the video progresses he seems to lose his cool and at one point he insists that Obama's "crimes" merit him being publicly beheaded on prime time TV and that he himself is prepared to personally carry out this brutal act. It's a little worrying that this man lives in a country awash with high powered rifles.

If the information on Myers blog is to be believed he is a supporter of Christian fundamentalist Kent Hovind and the  Sovereign Citizen Movement. Hovind, whose anti-government stance has put him in jail for tax evasion, looks to be very close to the Sovereign Citizen Movement. (Anti-government, anti-tax is, of course, ever the theme of the American ultra-right). In another blog post Myers publishes some deranged assertions by this convicted tax criminal who clearly has such a large spiritual ego that he sees himself above the law of the country, a personal trait that fits in very well with Sovereign Citizenism.

Buddies: Mackay and Ham

The trouble is, all this has uncomfortably close links with the more mainstream and moderate fundamentalist, Ken Ham. It is clear from blog posts by Ham (See here and here) that he is singing from the same hymn sheet as Hovind's fundamentalist son, Eric Hovind. Also interesting is the YouTube video I've linked to below of Hovind going through an Answer in Genesis article that does its best to disassociate AiG from the kind of material Hovind's ministry generates. Hovind, as incorrigible as ever, disagrees with the article but nevertheless proclaims AiG to be a fine ministry and plowing the same field as himself. To complete my rogue's gallery it's also worth remembering that Ham is a friend of ex-business partner John Mackay, a man who clearly has ego problems of his own. With friends like these Ken,,,,,,

Christian Fundamentalism is sick, sometimes criminally sick to the point of being dangerous.

Relevant Links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4YIxRqbx8

The Mark Driscoll Affair. Part II

Church Member? Your fired! - unless you follow me!

The December Christianity magazine article carried an article about domineering church leader Mark Driscoll and his fall from grace. The following quote taken from the article holds lessons for evangelical Christians. After Driscoll put one of his pastor's in "the wood chipper" (as Driscoll nicely put it; i.e. gave the pastor the sack and threatened to destroy his career), Driscoll seemed to become intoxicated by power. As Christianity tells us:

It was at this point that Driscoll cancelled all church membership and instructed  the congregation to reapply, simultaneously forcing them to accept his newly proposed bylaws. However, while the majority did not  reapply, new members continued  to flock to the church plugging the many gaps.

This quote is evidence of how these authoritarian leaders are made and supported by gullible followers: Having failed to pull the wool over the eyes of the church members who had at last got wise, Driscoll attempted to "refresh" the membership by gathering to himself only those who would follow him. It seems from the above quote that initially Driscoll found enough new members ignorant of the background to keep his church going for a while. But he couldn't fool all of the people all of the time, for it seems that even these new fresh faced members got wise to him, eventually causing the demise of Driscoll and the Mars Hill fellowship in its original form. The sad fact is it looks as though Driscoll had to be pushed rather than him voluntarily jumping. However, there is some consolation in the fact that ultimately it was by congregational power that Driscoll got his eventual comeuppance. But only then did repentance set in.

Driscoll's strategy by which he attempted to establish absolute control is not original; it's happened before in Restorationist churches and is probably a known, perhaps even a once recommended technique of its leadership: I once heard of a Restorationist leader in the UK who did something very similar: He declared all membership null void during a church meeting and he said that only those who wish to support him need follow him into the next room where he would effectively "reboot" the church with a loyal membership. This little episode, taken together with the Driscoll affair, is evidence of the unhealthy power ethos in Restorationist circles.

During my early 1980s research of Restorationism I also had contact with one of their house group leaders, a certain Steve Lock. Steve said during his sermon at a Restorationist service I attended that one of the purposes of house groups was to give people a boot up the backside - another indication of the kind of abrasive heavy shepherding ethos that was abroad among restorationists. So what has changed? By leaning on his members Driscoll is in many ways simply reflecting his leadership culture.

As said in Part I, we can't put all the blame at Driscoll's door because much traces back to Restorationist attitudes and the epistemic arrogance of their fundamentalism. People like Terry Virgo are in part responsible for this travesty of Christian leadership and their patriarchal maturity should be called into question; Driscoll was never going to learn the art of responsible accountable leadership from the likes of them, especially as the doctrine of the restoration of Apostolic authority was central to their teaching. In fact Driscoll implicitly used this doctrine to justify his putting one of his pastors in the "wood chipper".  For this reason the Christianity article could not offer worse advice than the following:

...if there are lessons to be learned  from the rise of Mark Driscoll (and Mars Hill church) perhaps it is the importance of older and wiser mentors for young church leaders.

No. Given the patriarchal outlook of Restorationist leaders one may as well throw more fuel onto Driscoll's fire if one is to follow that advice. In the end it was the church membership that did their job, voted with their feet and effectively disciplined Driscoll. And that's the way it should be. It's a lesson about where ultimate church power lies; Viz: with an educated and economically and socially empowered church membership who make or break leadership. The writer of the  Christianity article needs to learn that lesson, rather than be besotted with "maturity" and patriarchy. But then does it really matter if the article writer doesn't learn the lesson? Because the hard (and profane) fact is that unless thoroughly deluded church members can simply vote with their feet and withdraw their economic support. That's where the real church power lies, and the Driscoll's of this world can grimace and point as much as they like; they can't take that power away.

For Part I see:

http://www.viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-mark-driscoll-affair.html

29/07/21:  See here

The Mark Driscoll Affair

Many fundagelicals have criticized fallen fellow fundagelical Mark Driscoll. In a fundamentalist vs. fundamentalist match it’s often a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object! However, Driscoll's appears to have repented; but that is worth tuppence to suspicious fundies unless it equates to Driscoll eating out of their doctrinal hand!

The December edition of Premier Christianity magazine carries a news article on mega church leader Mark Driscoll. Actually that should be “ex mega church leader” because Driscoll resigned in October of this year due to a variety of scandals about the style of his leadership, (See for example this wiki page). According to Christianity Driscoll has said that “I have confessed to past pride, anger and a domineering spirit”, which perhaps genuinely sums up where Driscoll personally went wrong;  spiritual arrogance may also be a fitting description at this juncture. However, I am of the opinion that the real problems can be traced further back than Driscoll’s domineering and abrasive personality, right back to “fundagelical” culture and ethos itself.

For a start I find fault with the fundagelical tendency to comb the Bible looking for definitive statements that are considered to be literally God’s (last) Word on belief and practice. This is just a repeat of my usual complaint about the epistemic method and epistemic arrogance of both fundamentalists and some (more moderate) evangelicals who operate with a similar epistemic. In particular, in the Driscoll case Christianity magazine says that “...some welcomed [Driscoll's] return to teaching about submission and authority” (No doubt supported by Biblical chapter and verse “proof texts”!). Driscoll appears to have been part of the restoration movement that claimed to have “restored” New Testament teaching on the “covering authority of leaders”. In the UK this version of Restorationism was championed in the 1970s by fundagelical leaders like Arthur Wallis, Brynn Jones and Terry Virgo (and I believe it still is championed by Virgo who is alive today).

Needless to say that for every fundagelical there is an anti-fundagelical who, although equally as diligent in “following Biblical teaching”, will shout things like heresy!, false teacher! and perhaps even worse at fellow fundagelicals who beg to differ. This is, of course, exactly what happened in the first instance with Driscoll: As Christianity says “...while some welcomed a return to teaching about submission and authority others condemned Driscoll as a false teacher”; notice that as per the usual fundagelical way of doing things they come out shooting with full-on firepower; Driscoll is roundly condemned as an all purpose heretical teacher – they don’t think in terms of shades of grey and will not accept that although Driscoll might well be badly flawed in some areas, he may be OK in others. Rather, the fundagelical tendency is to perceive the world through a polarizing filter that tends to put the latest “big preach” either into the category of a man of God or a false teaching emissary of Satan who is spreading delusion among the gullible Christian flock. By way of example a fundagelical group who would likely see Driscoll in a very bad light, repentance or no repentance, would be the reformo-charismatics, one of whom made a visit to my blog and subsequently became the subject of my scrutiny. (Among the reformo-charismatics a certain Barry Smith was their flawed teacher, a man whose wild millennium bug prognostications ended in grief)

Christianity magazine, however, points a finger of blame at Christian leaders.

“I believe many people were expecting more and certainly expecting more of the men who had a sacred duty to love the church, to love the people and to love Mark Driscoll” he [Petry] said following the resignation. “I  believe [the leaders] failed miserably."

…if there are lessons to be learned  from the rise and fall of Driscoll perhaps it is the importance of older and wiser mentors for young church leaders.

No, I don’t think that is going help because, I propose, it is the inherent ethos and concepts of evangelical leadership that is part of problem. Driscoll had contact with fellow apostolic ministry restoratonist Terry Virgo. Virgo is no doubt an older and wiser leader, but he still holds on to the over-confident fundagelical epistemic and in particular to teaching about submission, authority and patriarchy. It is the flawed evangelical epistemic receptacle that allows dubious personalities like Driscoll to have their authoritarian way without accountability. In his contact with Virgo it seems Driscoll didn’t learn very much, and least of all is Virgo likely to have made Driscoll aware of the weaknesses in fundagelical culture and ethos that conspire to allow ministries like that of Driscoll to grow unchecked before it’s too late. 

You will find some or all of the following cognitive complex I’ve listed below among fundagelicals. This complex grows out of the nutrient bed of intellectual marginalization and existential angst that one finds among fundagelicals. Consequently, fundagelical culture has reacted with (over) compensations and affectations of self-confidence. Here is my list of descriptors of aspects of fundagelicalism that constitute its ugly and all too human facets of spiritual conceit and self-deceit:

Epistemic certainty, a literal understanding of the “God’s Word” concept, a faith based on observance (belief and practice), lionizing leaders, group think and pressures, moral duress applied to dissenters, an array of anti-science concepts, susceptibility to conspiracy theorism, health and wealth teaching, patriarchy, unaccountable leadership authority, a too close identification of right wing attitudes with Christianity, a need for spiritual gurus & personality cults, anti-academic establishment, anti-intellectualism, Gnosticism, rank and file gullibility to the status quo encouraged, a cynical attitude to outsiders but not insider practices, holy remnant elitism,…..

This list will no doubt continue to grow! It is this philosophical complex that is behind the gullibility of the fundagelical rank and file. It is this compliant rank and file who are ultimately responsible for helping to foster leaders like Driscoll by giving them a platform through which they can impose their personality defects on the church.

See here for Part II: http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-mark-driscoll-affair-part-ii.html 


Relevant link:

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/god-father.html

The "visiting speaker" refered to in this post was none other than Mark Driscoll

Power, Heroic Purpose and Community?

British jihadists join a real life shoot'em up.

There was an interesting article in the August edition of “Premier Christianity” magazine by Martin Saunders about computer gaming entitled “The Gospel According to Minecraft”. I was particularly struck by the following comments by Saunders in connection with video gaming pundit Jane McGonigal (My highlights):

McGonigal argues [that] gamers are just people who’ve discovered a more compelling lifestyle in the online world. As video game avatars, they can be faster and stronger. Yet the ability to perform superhuman feats isn’t what hooks them in; it’s the sense that the game offers them purpose.

MocGonigal writes ‘Gamers want to know where, in the real world, is that sense of being fully alive, focused and engaged in every moment? Where is the gamer feeling of power, heroic purpose and community? Where is the heart-expanding thrill of success and team victory? While gamers may experience these pleasures occasionally in their real lives, they experience them almost constantly when they’re playing their favourite games’.

Increasing numbers of people are finding the antidote to the frustration and emptiness of their real-world lives in video games, rejecting an authentic but disappointing world for one that has been engineered to make them happy. Digital culture expert Josh Jost also believes that gamers are searching for qualities that they lack in real life. He identifies these are ‘significance’ and ‘the belief that life matters’

What interests me here has less to do with video gaming per se than the human social motivational complex revealed, a complex especially apparent in the connotational content of the words I have emboldened. We see in these words why video games, by connecting with overriding human emotions, are so popular. But coming back to the real world from the video game the average person may suffer an overwhelming sense of anticlimax: The words that express the real world experience may be more like this:

Purposelessness, aimlessness, emptiness, boredom, humdrum, routine, listlessness, insignificance, social anonymity, social fragmentation, no sense of belonging, alienation, estrangement, thwarted ambition and aspiration, trivialization, unimportance, inconsequential, irrelevance, marginalisation, ineffectual, powerlessness, disengaged, hopelessness, demystification, profanity, failure…..

Western societies are good at keeping people relatively safe, comfortable and prosperous, but with it often rather bored and unfulfilled in the deepest sense of the word; especially those of a restless seeking spirit. An unsatiated human motivational complex seeks fulfillment in finding purposes that matter. Religion has the potential to satisfy this complex, but it also has a well-known downside: Sects and cults exploit this complex and use it in perverse ways. Many migrants at the French port of Calais are endangering their lives in hazardous attempts to cross the channel to Britain illegally. And yet in the light of the above quote it is no surprise that many British Jihadists have left their safe, comfortable and prosperous country to fight in a war they have little chance of winning.  It is ironic, but really no surprise when you think about it, that Britain, the pluralist sardine tin country that so many are trying squeeze into, should become an exporter of terrorists!

Relevant links:

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-riddle-of-sphinx.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/how-to-know-you-know-you-know-it.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-escape-to-arcadia.html