Category Archives: conservatism

Boston Bombers and the Danger of “Big Thoughts”

Leave a reply

“Big Thoughts Have Got Us.” These words of the poet Gene Derwood come to my mind every time I hear of someone else getting carried away with his/her ideology and carrying it to the extreme of taking lives, their own and certainly those of others. I always remember the wisdom of Mike Dooley, “Thoughts are things. Choose the good ones.”

And they, thoughts, are “things” in that they carry weight and can lead us to actions that are not in our own best interest or in the best interest of others. And I am speaking from experience. Now it is easy to look at the ideology of the Boston Marathon bombers and say, “Oh, why did they ever think that and get carried away by it?” Well, that is a good question and there is lunacy in their thought system that is not present in the thought system of most of us. But all of us have “thoughts” and none of our “thoughts” are devoid of intent, noble though we may think them to be. For example, let me take the thought system of Christianity, a “thought system” which I subscribe to and do so ever more passionately. But the danger I face, and the danger that all Christians face, is that they take their “thoughts” as having ultimate value and fail to realize the emotional valence they have been given by our life experiences. Yes, most of us have “thought systems” which are relatively benign compared with the Boston bombers, but they are not totally benign. I, for one, am appalled to recall some of the things I have done and said under the guise of “the Spirit leading.” For, even with benign and even noble thoughts we can be brutal. Even with “Jesus Christ” we can seek to dominate, control, and brutalize other people.

Let me be more honest. I have had interchanges under this persona of “LiteraryLew” which I have had to confess to a few friends are mean-spirited, to put it mildly. And there will be more of that as I am a mere human, driven by passions which at times consume me. But, may I always be subject to Shakespeare’s “pauser reason” which will make me “meta” every now and then and seek to balance some of my verbal and emotional excess. For, with things we feel so strongly about we can be so brutal.

 

Shiva vs Vishnu (Republicans vs Democrats!)

4 Replies

I am now admittedly “recycling” material. And, I really have not “run out of soap” it is just that some of the “stuff” I felt important a year ago appears even more important today. For example, Jonathan Haidt’s Ted Talks discourse re “The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives” (http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html) appears even more relevant today. And, yes, part of me would, admittedly, like to trot this stuff out with Haidt’s reassurance that “liberals (are) good, conservatives (are) bad”. But, that just is not the case…and actually I’m very proud of that. The “good vs bad” issue is merely another version of a basic dimension of human evil, that tendency to bifurcate our world into “us” vs “them”. Haidt describes this as a tribal “need to be right” which is a problem that “literarylew”, with all of his moral superiority (wink, wink…again), is not immune to. Haidt emphasizes in this lecture that the conservative/liberal conflict embodies the eternal conflict between the need for stability vs. change. We must have both. If either, predominates our civilization is in deep “do-do.” The Vedas offered the polarity of Shiva as opposed to Vishnu, Shiva being associated with generation and destruction (change) and Vishnu being associated with preservation, with Brahma (the Creator) sometimes embodying all three roles in himself.

Rush Limbaugh’s Specious Objectivity

6 Replies

I occasionally venture into the dark side, just to recall how it used to be when I had my head so squarely up my backside and thought I viewed the world with objectivity. And it is abysmally dark in there; no light can get in for the light of day would crush the smug world of certitude. And, of course, I’m talking of my occasional venture into Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.

Let me illustrate. Earlier in the week he noted re one issue, “Now, liberal media won’t pick this up because it is not part of their narrative.” Implicit in that observation is that he does not have any “narrative” that he has subscribed to, a narrative for which he “cherry picked” information that would support bias. He thinks he is being objective and is reporting the news as it “really is” while “all those liberals” have an agenda. He vividly illustrates the smugness of those who feel they grasp reality in an objective fashion and seek desperately to maintain the status quo and repudiate anything which threatens the narrow prism through which they view the world. He even noted how the liberals “bend and shape the news, pushing their liberal agenda” without any suspicion that he has an agenda of his own which he is pushing. This is a classic example of the projection that Karl Jung wrote about, ascribing to others the faults that one is actually plagued with him/herself.

Rush proudly announced that he lives in “realville”, not in the “fantasy world” that liberals live in. Well, he does live there but his “realville” is the smug world view that once championed slavery, saw nothing wrong with the corporate excesses of the late 19th century, opposed giving women the right to vote in the early 20th century, vehemently opposed the civil rights movement in the 1960’s, and basically demands that our country lives in the past. His “realville” is merely a version of a template that he and his ilk daily impose on their world, a template that I describe as “the way things are.” They wake up daily and know assuredly that “this is the way things are” and do not consider that their viewpoint is very subjective…as is the case with all of us… and does not definitively describe reality. And their “way things are” is imposed in a tyrannical manner on the whole of their world, including those nearest and dearest to them.

They cannot have the humility to become aware of their own subjectivity, their own inner experience, and know that they can have a confidence in that subjective reality but not with the arrogance they once had. When their subjectivity is recognized, and experienced, they can respect their reality but at the same time recognize that other people have their own subjective world and that many times that subjective world is very different from their own. This is the phenomena of “difference” and “difference” is what makes the world beautiful and exciting.

But, one’s discovering one’s subjective world is a spiritual enterprise. And by “spiritual” I am here not talking of Spiritual (in the sense of God and such—that is relevant but must wait for discussion on another occasion). By “spiritual” I mean becoming aware of the complexities and ambivalences and ugliness of the human heart. Or, to put it differently, I referring to opening up to consideration of an unconscious dimension to the human heart. I am encouraging one to allow the “Spirit of God” (if I might employ that notion) to open up the heart and follow the advice of Shakespeare and allow that Spirit to make that heart “full of penetrable stuff,” no longer “bronzed o’er” with a culturally imposed template of how the world is.

Conservatism is a valid and critical dimension of any culture. But when its extremes are allowed to have undue influence, and the moderates are intimidated into submission, darkness will rear its ugly head. But the real evil is when these moderates do not have the courage to stand up and vote for their convictions, to vote for what they feel is the right, and therefore not worship the false god of “Re-electability.”

 

The Real God of Congress–Getting Re-elected

12 Replies

The following is a copy of a letter I will send to one of my state’s senators, Mark Pryor:

I was disappointed with your vote on the gun legislation earlier this week. I have no doubt that you are a good man, a “good ole Arkansas boy” like I am, like your wonderful father raised you to be, but I feel strongly that you have surrendered to the god of, “What will get me re-elected?” I know as well as you do what the right thing to do was but you caved in as many good men and women did. If I’d been in your position, it would have not been easy to “do the right thing,” as the pressure must be immense. But the real pressure comes down to that God that most of Congress bows to, “What will get me re-elected?”

But, I will not vote for you again. And a lot of friends of mine will not vote for you again. I don’t know who we will vote for but it will not be for you. I will even vote for a Republican if he/she demonstrates conviction and ability to thwart that demon of “re-electability.” We need people who believe in something and “re-electability” is absolutely nothing.

The best example I have seen of this courage was demonstrated by a Republican governor last fall. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey jeopardized his entire political future to accept the assistance of President Obama in the aftermath Hurricane Sandy, right on the brink of the Presidential election. He has not been “crucified” yet…at least not fatally. But many in his party vehemently oppose him as he did not bow to political pressure on that issue and was seen on video and in photo’s “palling around” with the man Republican extremists hate with a passion. I will never forget the demonstration of courage that Governor Christie offered.

I hope that you serve out your term with more integrity than you demonstrated on this issue. And, given your parentage, I know that you have it in you. I know the pressure is immense but we pay you to handle that pressure. And you know what the right thing to do is. Let me re-emphasize that I’m sure you are a good man. You would have to be given who your father is. But good men and women do not always do “good” things. But you and your colleagues are in a position where “the good” needs to have priority in your motivations, not something as lame and immature as re-electability.

My Venture into the Dark Side

Leave a reply

I occasionally venture into the dark side just to see what is going on over there. And it is dark there, abysmally dark, as a stifling smugness predominates along with a complete inability to be self-reflective, to self-monitor, to utilize “meta-cognition.” And, of course, I’m talking of my occasional checking in on Rush Limbaugh’s daily radio show on which he tells the hard-core right-wing extremists what they are to believe.

Let me illustrate. Yesterday he noted re one issue, “Now, liberal media won’t pick this up because it is not part of their narrative.” But implicit in that observation is that he does not have any “narrative” that he has subscribed to, a narrative that consists of “cherry picked” information which will support his bias. For, you see he thinks he is being objective and is reporting the news as it “really is” while all those liberals have an agenda. And the smugness of those who feel they grasp reality in an objective fashion is a basic form of tyranny which seeks desperately to maintain the status quo, which is averse to anything which threatens the narrow little prism through which they view the world. He even noted how the liberals “bend and shape the news, pushing their liberal agenda” without any suspicion that he has an agenda of his own and is pushing an agenda. This is a classic example of the projection that Karl Jung wrote about, ascribing to others the faults that one is actually plagued with him/herself.

Rush proudly announced that he lives in “Realville”, not in the fantasy world that liberals live in. Well, he does but his “realville” is the smug world view that once championed slavery, saw nothing wrong with the corporate excesses of the late 19th century, opposed giving women the right to vote in the early 20th century, vehemently opposed the civil rights movement in the 1960’s, and basically demands that our country lives in the past. His “realville” is merely a version of a template that he and his ilk daily impose on their world, a template that I describe as “the way things are.” They wake up daily and know assuredly that “this is the way things are” and do not consider that their viewpoint is very subjective and does not definitively describe reality. And their “way things are” is imposed in a tyrannical manner on the whole of their world, including those nearest and dearest to them.

They cannot have the humility to become aware of their own subjectivity, their own inner experience, and know that they can have a confidence in this subjective reality but not with the arrogance with which they are accustomed. When their subjectivity is recognized, and experienced, they can respect their own reality but at the same time recognize that other people have their own subjective world and that many times that subjective world is very different than their own. This is the phenomena of “difference” and “difference” is what makes the world beautiful and exciting. But, to acquire this humility always entails entertaining some doubt, anxiety, and emotional distress.

And discovering one’s subjective world is a spiritual enterprise. And by “spiritual” I am here not talking of Spiritual here…that is for another occasion. By “spiritual” I mean becoming aware of the complexities and ambivalence and ugliness of the human heart. Or, to put it differently, I referring to opening up to consideration of the unconscious dimension of the human heart. I am encouraging one to allow the “Spirit of God” to open up the heart and follow the advice of Shakespeare and allow that Spirit to make that heart “full of penetrable stuff,” no longer allowing it to be “bronzed over so that it is proof and bulwark against sense” (or feeling) It is only when our heart is “full of penetrable stuff” that we feel and therefore have a heart which is spiritually alive.

Conservatism is a valid and critical dimension of any culture. But when its extremists are allowed to predominate and influence the moderates and intimidate them into submission, darkness rears its ugly head. But the real evil is when these moderates do not have the courage to stand up and vote for their convictions, vote for what they feel is the right thing, and worship only their false god, “What will get me re-elected”

The election last fall provided us with one example of courage by a Republican luminary. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who “palled around” with President Obama in the interest of his state who was suffering from a weather catastrophe. He knew that his party would get all over his ass but he knew what the right thing to do was and he acted boldly. He then voted Republican, nevertheless, as he is a Republican. But one can be a Republican and see merit in collaborating with a Democrat on occasion to accomplish what is in the best interest of his constituency. And, of course, Christie was punished and was disallowed by from playing in some of the “reindeer games” of the Republican party.

 

Children Belong to All of Us!

Leave a reply

Melissa Harris-Perry (weekend MSNBC news talk show host) provided fodder for the right-wing extremists last week when she emphasized our collective responsibility for our children. This immediately got their “panties in a wad” but this wad became even tighter when Sarah Palin came out from under her Alaskan rock, displaying her intellectual acumen (or lack thereof), and alleged that here again was a “liberal” effort to encroach on parental responsibility. To summarize conservative concerns, “Our children are ours! Keep your government hands off of our children.” This mind-set sees children as property, as extensions of the parents selves.

But my real concern here is the simplicity of thought that was demonstrated. Ms. Palin and her ilk demonstrated again their inability…and spiritual unwillingness…to hold contradictory notions in their mind at the same time. They failed to see that Ms. Perry was not proposing that children are not the primary responsibility of parents. She was merely emphasizing that children are a gift to us all, that we have a collective responsibility to provide an hospitable world to them, and that failure to do so is a grave error in judgment. It is possible to hold both notions in one’s mind at the same time but it will not happen with the hard-core extremists who are not capable of Pauline “spiritual discernment.”

And this problem is very much related to their anti-science stance.  Quantum physics portrays the world as full of contradictions and conflicts, a teeming morass out of which our God-given mind has given us the ability to impose order upon. But beneath this “order” there is still Mother Nature in all her conflicted glory and we ignore this conflicted glory with our neat little conceptual packaging at our own peril. One anecdote from quantum physics which is very relevant is the notion that molecules are “waves” and “particles” at the same time. That makes no “sense” at all but Mother Nature is not required to fit into our world of “sense.” Quantum physics also teaches us that we are basically empty space and that the world we see is ephemeral, including the world of our own body and psyche. Grasping this notion is very humbling but very invigorating and empowering. It has allowed me, for one, to see God at work in a marvelous though mysterious way that is tremendously exciting. But I am deprived of the specious “power” of having it all figured out any more or having any hope of doing so. Alas and alack, I’m left with nothing but faith!

Now, I am wont to emphasize that I see both sides of the picture and give some faint nod of respect to the other viewpoint. But, there are instances in which I am less apt to do so and this is one of them. Keep in mind I am not talking about conservatism as a whole, only those who are what Karl Rove called the “nutty fringe.” Their ignorance is not merely a lack of intelligence or education but is darkness personified. And, unfortunately, there are many conservatives who know better, who do not subscribe to the lunacy of the extremists, but who have allowed themselves to be controlled by them merely to get their vote. “The best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity.” (W. B. Yeats)

The Passion of Christ Caricatured Unwittingly

7 Replies

This picture is a road sign outside a fundamentalist church in southwest Arkansas with the caption, “This Blood’s For You.” The quality of the photo is poor—it is a picture of Jesus with a crown of thorns on his head and blood streaming down his face. “This blood’s for you” is a play on an old Budweiser beer jingle, “This Bud’s for you.”

This road sign illustrates the meaning of Easter for some conservative Christians, capturing so eloquently the pathos of their experience and even their very existence. When I saw this sign two years ago it just brought to my mind so vividly the caricature of the story of Jesus that I am so familiar with and which captivates so many people around the world. By calling using the term “caricature” I do not intend to diminish the story itself in the least. I am merely referring to the misplaced emphasis, the “Mel Gibson Passion of Christ blood-and-guts gore” theme that will get such wide play today in Christian churches today. This emphasis misses the point. For example, when the Apostle Paul spoke of being “crucified with Christ” and the need to “die daily”, he was making reference to an historical event but speaking of an experience in his contemporary life. And the “crucifixion of Christ” is still an historical event but if it is to have any personal value it must be interpreted in personal terms. If meaningful interpretation is not done, if hermeneutics are not employed, then the literal brutality and ugliness of the crucifixion will supersede the symbolic value of the event, and the personal value and relevance will be diminished. The over emphasis of the literal event by the clergy will allow them to get their flock’s “panties in a wad” once again but will not introduce any meaningful change in their life.

So, I guess I am espousing a notion that is really kind of boorish and even offensive to some people—be crucified with Christ! That sounds like a crazy idea in our modern world. And it is a crazy idea if you take the idea as it is often first presented to us and do not make any effort to interpret it. If you do not interpret the event in terms of your personal experience, you merely are regurgitating dogma and probably indulging in a masochistic orgy of shame, humiliation, and anguish.

But if you interpret this event in personal term, there might well be significant pain from time to time…yes even “shame, humiliation, and agony” for some…but the anguish will be personal, it will be about the accumulated impact of “those thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to” that burdens hearts and lives. I am presenting here a version Karl Jung’s interpretation of the crucifixion as an archetype, a cosmic event woven into the warp-and-woof of the human heart. And this archetype emerged in the human heart, and found a notable expression in the crucifixion of Christ, because it is an intrinsically valuable, and even essential, part of the human psyche.

It is very self-indulgent to amuse oneself with the paroxysm of shame and humiliation at Easter and not allow the symbolism to evoke from the hidden regions of the heart. It is in this evocation, or”anamnesis”, that the experience of crucifixion becomes personal and allows individuals to address the issues that stymie them in daily rituals of outdated and maladaptive patterns of behavior. It allows the people of this southwest Arkansas church to remain untouched by the real message of the Cross and facilitates a personal and collective status quo. The cultural bondage in which they are enslaved will not be addressed.

Epistemic Closure and the Republican Party

6 Replies

I had my weekly cup of coffee with God earlier this morning. As we sipped our celestial Starbucks, he pointed to an open-air classroom nearby where young gods were studying, preparing for their future rule of various worlds. “Let’s listen in,” he suggested to me. I obliged readily, knowing of course who I was dealing with.

The “young gods” were being lectured to about epistemic closure, the notion of living in a bubble and assuming that one knows about everything when in reality he/she “knows” only through a small prism. The teacher then ran a video that I have shared here before from Saturday Night Life, illustrating the phenomena vividly. (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9yn49_mr-belvedere_shortfilms#.UUWfUDctU9U)

Then the teacher continued, “Now for a couple of days we are conducting a laboratory experiment in epistemic closure on an obscure little planet called Earth. We are very concerned about this cosmic poison for wherever it gains a foothold, it is almost impossible to eradicate; and it is the one thing that prevents us from accomplishing our Purpose. It is Satan’s favorite weapon.” He then pointed to the screen and zoomed in to a place called “The United States” and suddenly the din of the Republican Party’s internecine squabbling filled the room

Now laying aside my reverie…

Those of you who look on from other countries must be appalled at what you are seeing in the current performance of my country’s political circus. But, please note that the gods are giving you a lesson about what can happen in your own country if it, or any faction within it, draws its boundaries too narrowly and refuses to broaden them. Now I am wont to note at this point of this argument that this tendency is present with all groups, liberal and conservative. HOWEVER, let me note this time that the “open-mindedness” I advocate will never be found on the extreme right fringe of any group as people of that sort desperately hate open-mindedness and desperately cling to “truth” as seen through the narrow prism of their hate-filled heart. It is amusing on one hand to watch the ultra-conservative’s quest for “purity” in their own rank as it creates frustration and consternation within their own ranks. But on the other hand it is not amusing at all, but very sad, as we see in the Taliban what would happen if our culture did not have sophisticated structural limits.

But this boundary dilemma is part of the human experience and reflects a tendency that we have to watch for even in our own heart. With my government’s current impasse…and specifically the Republican imbroglio…we have an object lesson in the lunacy of the human heart, individually and collectively. We are our own worst enemy; as Pogo once noted, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” The human temptation to create a cocoon…an Eden on earth…can be so compelling that it is counter-productive and can even lead to our own demise. As W. H. Auden feared, “We have made for ourselves a life safer than we can bear.”

The answer is “self” awareness or “consciousness” which we can never acquire unless we first recognize that we don’t have it in the first place. In other words, the first step in seeing the light is realizing that we live in darkness just as Plato told us in the 5th Century BC and Jesus told us a few centuries later. And that is to name only two who have offered light in our darkness. Others certainly preceded them and many have come since and are even present today. “But Truth met him and held out her hand. And he clung in panic to his tall belief and shrank away like an ill-treated child.” (W. H. Auden)

 

The Incestuous Nature of Political Extremism

3 Replies

I am one of those guys who see both sides of any particular issue and, in fact, see multiple sides of many issues. That stance in life has become problematic if one is not careful as it leaves one wishy-washy, unable to take a stand, and given to be a “commitment-phobic.” And certainly it was no accident that I did not commit to marriage until I was 37!

So, on the current political morass my country is facing I do see the need of a solid Republican Party as well as a solid Democratic Party. And I do see arrogance on both extremes. HOWEVER, what is going on with the Republican extremists, more or less the Tea Party, merits the full brunt of my analytic knife.

Any group who lives in “the bubble” like they do end up feeding on themselves to the point of catastrophe. One classic example of this insularity run amok is an incested family, a family that has become so insular, so barricaded from the outside world, so deprived of external reference, that they do feed on themselves as demonstrated by sexual violence. And in so many of these families the poison does finally erupt into physical violence and murder and mayhem ensues. (An example of this occurred in my state in the 1980’s. You can google Ronald Gene Simmons and Arkansas if you are interested.)

Now if you interpret this to mean that I am accusing the Republicans of incest you are really not a discriminating reader. My point is that incest is an illustration of the poison that the extremists of that party are infected with and that poison has been allowed to filter out into the ranks of the party as a whole. This is best illustrated in how they have ostracized two of their on in the past year for merely demonstrating a willingness to fraternize with President Obama. I’m speaking of the ex-governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, and the current governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. Christie deigned to accept Obama’s help for his state last fall when it was ravaged by a hurricane, was photographed with Obama, and was recording thanking Obama for his help. As a result, Christie is now persona non grata with the Republicans and last week was, like Rudolph the Red nosed Reindeer, not invited to participate in one of the Party’s “Reindeer games”—the Conservative Political Action Committee. And Crist’s mistake was warmly receiving Obama shortly after his election in 2008 and even being seen embracing the President.

These extremists do not want any outside influence. They know the truth and they insist that others accept that truth and these others will not have their approval unless they accept the party line. They have the obsessive need for purity which I discoursed about earlier in the week. This too is incestuous as the incest dynamic reflects a need for self-sufficiency, an unwillingness to “marry-out”, and an unconscious belief that the family unit can meet its own sexual needs and this in turn is ultimately about meeting one’s own spiritual needs without outside influence. This is evil. And our world has before us a glaring example of where this poison leads—the Taliban!

Thoughts about the “Saved vs. Unsaved” Paradigm

2 Replies

Now I’m not going to dismiss the “Saved/Unsaved” notion. Christianity is part of our world culture and “saved/unsaved” is part of Christian tradition. I’m just much less certain about use of the idea and have deep-seated convictions that it is usually merely a means of the ego to trot out one of its favorite paradigms, “Us” vs. “Them.” You see, drawing distinctions is one of the earliest developments in the human psyche and is absolutely necessary if an ego is to emerge. The determination of “self” vs. “not-self” is an intrinsic part of the operation. If we never learn to draw a distinction between our self and that which is “not-self” we will have grave problems to say the least. In fact, many of the behavioral problems that mental health professionals deal with are boundary issues stemming from an impaired ability to draw that distinction.

And I have faint memories of learning to draw this distinction. And I know from my clinical work that the toddler’s discover of the word “No” is a key hallmark of this step in development and is an essential step in determining “self” vs. “not-self”. I remember very well the comfort in knowing that there was an “us”…meaning my particular family…and that we were separate and distinct from “them.” I also remember when this “us-them” paradigm began to grow in power in my life and when I learned that “saved-unsaved” was one of the primary ways in which the world was divided up. In fact, in that mindset, it was the most fundamental and most important division as it determined who was going to heaven and who was going to hell, who was “right” and who was “wrong.”

But what I now see is the ego reward that came with imposing that template on the world. It was exhilarating to know that I was part of “us” and that “them” did not belong there. And, yes I was horrified to know that, nevertheless, “them” would eventually burn for eternity in hell. ( I guess on some level I was really pleased that it wouldn’t be me though! I definitely took some satisfaction that “one of these days” God was “gonna kick ass” on all those rotten sinners!)

As I grew up this religious ardor diminished but for decades I know that whether or not anybody I met was “saved” or “unsaved” was an immediate issue. It was a template that I imposed on everyone, reflecting that deep-seated need to maintain a primary perceptual grasp of the world, I was “us” and they were “them.” And this also paralleled my view of the very world itself, the whole of God’s kingdom, flora and fauna. I was separate and distinct from “it” and did not see it as a matrix which ultimately was an integral part of God’s granting of my very existence.

In my participation in the blog-o-sphere the past two years or so I have met many conservative, evangelical Christians who, though more conservative than myself, demonstrate less rigidity in their faith and offer love and acceptance more readily. One in particular even had the audacity to discourse about lessons he had learned from atheists he had met. (Check out T. E. Hanna, http://ofdustandkings.com/author/TEHanna/) Hanna’s stance is that when a Christian meets an atheist, he should not immediately go into overdrive with, “Uh oh. He’s going to hell. How do I get him saved?” His attitude is to accept the person as he is, accept him lovingly and unconditionally, and not assume that it is his responsibility to cajole, intimidate, and manipulate that person into becoming a Christian. I think his attitude is like mine, that we should “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling” realizing that as we do this, God will take care of any converting that needs to take place. But when we are obsessed with “winning souls for Jesus”, we are often merely obsessed with making other people believe just as we do.