Punctum Saliens

Typical of neurotic people is their attitude of disharmony towards reality, that is their diminished capacity for adaptation.

– C.G. Jung, The Theory of Psychoanalysis:
Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series, No. 19, p. 102

When I read this, I immediately thought about Fred Phelps. Pat Robertson, George Bush, the Kansas State School Board, &c., &c., &c. That is, everyone who vehemently defends that “old time religion” but doesn’t realize the “old time” for which they are nostalgic was populated by people vehemently defending that “old time religion” but didn’t realize their “old time” was populated by people vehemently defending …

Christian Fundamentalism, fundamentalism in general, is a prolific source of neuroses. Regression is one of the central dynamics in any neurosis. When confronted with an obstacle or conflict, the neurotic reverts to pathways that are old and outdated, hence infantile. These old pathways have nothing to do with the current obstacle and offer no effective means of resolution but the neurotic’s energy gets “backed up” due to the obstacle and spills over into these infantile, regressive pathways or thought processes. That is why they seem so irrational and downright childish — their current ideas, actions, and conclusions are being motivated and rationalized by ideas and thought processes that are irrelevant to the conflict at hand and are outdated. It is impossible for them to adapt to a changing world because they are still living in the past.

A Jesus Creed post (via Through a Glass Darkly) asks an excellent question about faith vs. reason. Here are the 4+1 categories:

(1) Faith requires the renunciation of intelligence. Any elaboration here would detract from my principle point – so I will forbear.

(2) Intellectual integrity requires the renunciation of faith. This is a growing view in our world today. Secular humanism and atheism may not be in ascendancy (Alister McGrath, NT Wright, Tim Keller, and Brian McLaren all make this point in various ways) – but the view has become the de facto operating principle for many; the point of departure. More importantly, the accepted alternatives to atheism or materialism do not usually include orthodox Christian faith.

(3) By the skin of one’s teeth one can hold to both faith and integrity. But within this position there is a constant tension. We bracket off the questions and continue to function – barely. Many stories – both of those who “lost faith” and those who “retained faith” include this approach in the mix.

(4) Intellectual integrity demands faith. A modernistic “evidence that demands a verdict” approach. (Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Hugh Ross, …)

I would add a fifth response to this taxonomy:

(5) Intellectual integrity is fully compatible with faith but requires honest interaction. There is no proof – some ambiguity remains. Of course honest grappling with all the questions and issues is somewhat unnerving to many. It seems inevitable that some views will be refined or even abandoned in the process and this prospect causes concern. Perhaps it is not true that everything is clear cut. Nonetheless there is a way forward. Exploring the issues does not lead inevitably to deism or liberalism or apostasy.

First, my little rant. I do not mean to offend anyone who considers herself or himself in Category 4, but I have written about Josh McDowell elsewhere on this blog and I have a difficult time admitting he has intellectual integrity. I find his arguments illogical and his conclusions difficult to embrace. He strikes me as one who has pre-determined the result and tries to make an argument which supports this conclusion even when the argument does not make sense. I find his language in some arguments almost deceitful. He holds a conservative, fundamentalist view of scripture and that is fine. But to masquerade his faulty arguments as logical proof that he is correct is damaging to the Christian faith, in my opinion.

Now that my little tirade is over …

I grew up in a Fundamentalist family and church. Back then, I would have considered myself in Category 4, right along side Josh McDowell. But it was all one-sided. I read Christian literature which bashed evolution but never anything written by anyone holding a different viewpoint. I would have considered myself as reasonably supporting my faith with scientific evidence but, in hindsight, I wasn’t. The “other side” was wrong from the get-go because it did not correspond to our interpretation of the Bible and so there was no point in getting their opinion or listening to them. They listen to someone you know is wrong?!

Senior year in high school, I served my parents’ God with divorce papers and proceeded into Category 2. All religion was poppycock and the only intelligent position was secular and atheistic.

It took me until just before my 40th birthday to realize that there was something missing. And now I’m in Category 5. And RJS describes the situation very well. “Exploring the issues does not lead inevitably to deism or liberalism or apostasy.” True! True!

However, from my parents’ point of view it does because it has lead me away from their point of view and they don’t acknowledge any other as valid. And this is part of the problem. For some people, anything that makes them question what they believe is a heresy. They hold so tightly and desperately to one interpretation and maintain that they must believe what they believe in its entirety. Any deviation in any way would make them question everything.

Yes, what is needed “honest interaction” but both sides need to be willing and able to change. One side cannot be molded to fit the rigid ideas of the other. The result of this is either atheism or fundamentalism and neither is an option for me any more. What is needed is a folding of the two together with the result that the tenets of both evolve together. Kind of like stereo vision. Each eye sees a different scene. There is some overlap but each eye sees some things the other doesn’t. But combined, the resulting image is much more powerful and holds more information than either eye’s separate image.

But I would add that both sides also must realize that it does not hold the possibility of answering all the questions. There are questions that the Bible cannot answer and there are questions that science cannot answer. If everyone would understand this and agree to it, I think a lot of problems would simply vanish.

Bobby Maddex at Sign of the Times is as mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. And he does make some valid points. He and “those … who champion moral absolutes, human dignity, the traditional family, and a transcendent reality” are held to a different standard and are not allowed to take cheap shots, distribute deceitful propaganda, and are very often criticized for their stance. So, it’s natural and reasonable they they should want to fight back and do unto others as gets done unto them.

And, for the record, I don’t agree with Dawkins and the neuvo atheists. Hell, I don’t even agree with the old atheists like Bertrand Russell. I think there is something — a LOT of somethings — beyond science. But I also don’t agree with Maddex. And I’ve written a bit about Russell so now it’s Maddex’s turn.

First of all, the use of righteous anger is VERY dangerous and hubristic. James 1:20 says: “For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.” To be truly righteous anger, you have to be truly right — don’t you? And it’s very easy to say and think that you are right but are you? Truly right? Calling your anger righteous just because you think God is on your side is tricky. A lot of people think God is on their side and so they all have the right to call their anger righteous.

Second is the old corollary to “they will know we are Christians by our love” which is “we will know we are Christians by their hate.” Listen. Just because you’re hated doesn’t mean God is on your side! Yes, Jesus said that those who follow him will be hated. But taking hate from the world as an “affirmation” that you are right is not the same thing. It’s kind of like: every human will die and, therefore, everything that dies is human. Wrong!

So, go ahead and parody, satirize, and poke fun at those who hold different viewpoints because they are doing it to you. I think this world would be a much, much, much better place if we could all laugh at each other and ourselves more often. And I do think that we all have the right to believe what we believe and everyone else just better “deal with it.” But, at the end of the day, we still have to live on the same tiny speck of dust as the other person. We still have to live next door to an atheist or an evangelical. We still have to elect a single president over both atheists and evangelicals. We still have to send our kids to school with atheists and evangelicals and figure out what they are going to be taught. We have to live our mundane lives between two diametrically opposed, antagonistic viewpoints and still get eight hours of sleep every night. Looking at it from this perspective, is the best answer the answer that both sides seem all too keen on? Is continued hostility and escalating aggression going to get us anywhere? Neither side is going to convince the other side it’s wrong no matter how many jib-jab-like parodies are produced. It’s not going to work, folks. So, let’s come up with an alternate solution, shall we?

The last gasp of a religion that has forsaken its contemplative heritage is fundamentalism, which throws logic to the wind and defends its beliefs with a raw appeal to authority. All forms of fundamentalism, religious and scientific, regard themselves as self-sufficient, displaying no interest or concern for external challenges to their dogmas. The contamination of science with scientism and of religion with fundamentalism constitutes a lethal infection, which, if left unchecked, is bound to result in the death of its host; and the aftermath of that fatality bears little resemblance to any genuine science or religion.

B. Alan Wallace, The Taboo Of Subjectivity (via Exploring Our Matrix)

Fanaticism is always a sign of repressed doubt. You can study that in the history of the Church. Always in those times when the Church begins to waver the style becomes fanatical, or fanatical sects spring up, because the secret doubt has to be quenched. When one is really convinced, one is perfectly calm and can discuss one’s beliefs as a personal point of view without any particular resentment.

C.G. Jung, Analytical Psychology: Its Theory & Practice

The word pastor comes from the Latin word for shepherd. There are a lot of shepherds in the Bible. Jesus called himself “The Good Shepherd” and told a parable about a shepherd. Shepherds were there when Jesus was born. The 23rd Psalm says that “The Lord is my shepherd” and God calls himself a shepherd in Ezekiel. David was a shepherd before he killed Goliath and Abel (the “good” son) was a shepherd.

A shepherd takes care of the sheep. He leads them here and there to find food and water. He looks for the lost sheep and returns them to the fold. He puts his own life on the line for the sheep; defending them from the lion and the wolf. The shepherd knows his sheep; the sheep know their shepherd and will follow only him. The shepherd keeps his sheep and the goats separate; the sheep on the right, goats on the left.

The job of the pastor is, as you might expect from the etymology of the word, similar to that of the shepherd. He takes care of his sheep — i.e. his congregation. He leads them through the Bible to find nourishment and refreshment. He puts his metaphorical life on the line to protect them from the evil predators Satan, the humanist, and the religious pluralist. The pastor knows his sheep and they whole-heartedly — one may dare say blindly — follow him. He religiously affirms and reaffirms his congregation’s sheep-ness while pointing out the world’s goat-ness.

But there is another aspect which is often overlooked and which, I think, makes the metaphor that much more apt. Sheep are dumb. The Bible always describes sheep without a shepherd in a most negative way. They are “scattered” and “food for every beast” (Ezekiel 34:5), “wandering” and “afflicted” (Zechariah 10:2), “distressed and downcast” (Matthew 9:36). The sheep cannot survive on their own. They absolutely need a shepherd and are absolutely dependent on him. For he, and he alone, can feed them and save them from getting eaten alive. Now this dependence (dare I say addiction?) gives the pastor/shepherd a tremendous amount of authority over what his flock does and thinks. He decides what they eat and drink; he decides where they can go and can’t go; he is responsible for their complete wellbeing. They know his voice and follow no other. The shepherd basically has absolute power over his flock and we all know what absolute power does. If this sounds like I’m talking about Waco or Jonestown, I’m not — although these were extreme examples of what I am talking about. But the Koreshes and Joneses of the cult world aside, there is more coercion and manipulation in Sunday church in Anytown, USA, than one may think.

Ok, before you get all upset, I’m not talking about every pastor and every church and every congregation member. But, how often do you really think about what your pastor says? How often do you disagree with him/her? If you never do, let me suggest you think about this a little harder. Do you agree simply because you always agree with your pastor? Do you think it’s possible to always agree with someone — especially when it comes to religion? My wife and I have a lot in common but we don’t agree on everything.

I think a lot of people think they are thinking for themselves. They read the Bible and try to figure out what God is telling them. But many times they come up with exactly the same result as what their pastor preaches from the pulpit. Now, this may be construed as confirmation that they agree with their pastor. It may also be construed as “leading the witness”, coercion, or worse.