Category Archives: fundamentalism

Book review: Carolyn Briggs

Leave a reply

I just finished reading Carolyn Brigg’s book, “This Dark World: A Memoir of Salvation Found and Lost”. This is the story of a young woman’s conversion to fundamentalist Christian extremism and how that she eventually became disenchanted and left that faith for what some would call “secular humanism.” This is one of a growing genre of books by people who have left fundamentalism and adopted a more open-minded faith or have eschewed faith altogether.

What I admire most about this book is its description of how social pressures and manipulation are used to “convert” people, especially young people, into the fundamentalist fold and how those same pressures are used to keep them there. Religion of this genre is not about the Spirit of God leading but about “group think” and the powerful human need to belong. And it is important to “belong” to various social groups…and certainly to the human race!…but this social belonging must not be confused with mature spirituality.

I have noticed that many readers of this blog are evangelical Christians. When I made this discovery I was really surprised for I assumed that the beliefs I’m promulgating would be anathema to them. I’m pleased to learn that this is not the case. My heart still lies with evangelical Christianity though I can never go back. I don’t need to and don’t want to. But I’m pleased to see how that an open-mindedness and humility is springing up in the evangelical faith here and there. So, my dear evangelical brethren and sisters, I strongly recommend that you read this Carolyn Briggs book. It does not have to shake your faith but it will bring your attention to the social pressures and manipulation that are often the bedrock in your churches. It is possible to see through those “social pressures and manipulation” and still maintain the rudiments of your faith.

And I might add, “social pressures and manipulation” is not the exclusive domain of evangelicals! It is present in any grouping, “spiritual” or otherwise. In fact, Ms. Briggs wrote a very insightful article several months ago about the same sort of pressures being very apparent at a gathering of atheists. See the link provided below:

(http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/5283/waiting_for_lightning_to_strike%3A_a_wobbly_agnostic_among_the_atheists)

Ostentatious displays of faith

Leave a reply

I’m afraid the world has not heard me! I discoursed several weeks ago about the “Tebowing” phenomena and, low and behold, it continues! Can’t ya’ll listen to me????? I mean, am I a mere voice “crying in the wilderness?”

Tim Tebow is making a show of his faith. He is not doing this because he is a bad guy. He is not a bad guy. He has faith and I commend him for that. But he is doing “Tim Tebow” because that is all he knows and that is what he was rewarded for when he was a child. Faith, as it was presented to him, is about showmanship. If you will indulge me a bit of a leap, I quote Shakespeare who once noted, “When love (i.e., “faith”) begins to sicken and decay, it useth an enforced ceremony.”

Tim needs to learn that faith is first and foremost a private matter and does not need ostentatious displays before screaming throngs…and a national tv audience…whose concern at the moment is not religion. Sure, a public affirmation of faith has its place. Yes, he can affirm his “faith in Jesus Christ as his personal savior” in public venues, when appropriate. But to do so during a sporting cheapens his faith and does it great disservice.

Anti-intellectualism and anti-science: Keep ’em on the reservation.

Leave a reply

Karl Gilberson has another post in the Huffington Post in which he, an evangelical himself, addresses the issue of anti-intellectual, anti-science stances taken by the evangelical movement. He attributes this issue to driving away the youth from evangelical churches and cites statistics to prove his point. And his position brings to my mind the work of Richard Hofstadtner on anti-intellectualism in American history (Anti-intellectualism in American Life), a tendency which Hofstadtner links with religious and political conservatism.

Some Christians feel that God wants them to turn their brains off and not think critically. Their stance reveals a perception of God who wants to be merely adored and worshipped, who will, after “the end of the world “comes will get his jollies from having all his believers fawn over him for eternity. And “eternity” in this mind set is a quantitative term, not qualitative. In other words, it will go on and on and on forever! AND, of course, meanwhile those “non-believers” will be roasting in hell for the same “eternity.” Why is it so important for Christians to have and to maintain this perspective? (There are some revisionist interpretations of hell in evangelical circles and they are not appreciated. That is putting it mildly.)

A key issue here is the very nature of identity. People who subscribe to this world view reflect a very rigid view of themselves; for, as we see God so do we see ourselves and the rest of the world. This is just another variation of my oft-used bromide, “What we see is what we are.” This static view of the world was reality at one point in the past and still is in many cultures. And that “static world” created static identities. But reality has evolved so far beyond that limited grasp of the world.

Identity…and the rest of the world we perceive…is ephemeral. When this understanding comes to an individual whose grasp of the world is otherwise, it is admittedly disturbing and potentially catastrophic. That is why conservative believers cling so desperately to their static world-view, their static identity, and amuse themselves with mindless repetition of dogma. I must insist, however, they could “let go” of their dogma and discover that their “dogma” would still be valid, though in a radically different way. The “letter of the law” would then give way to “the spirit of the law”. When identity has been transformed, worship of “god” becomes worship of “God.”

But I must offer a caveat to any True Believer (see Eric Hoffer) who might have stumbled upon my musings— “You had better keep your kids on the reservation! Yes, home-school ‘em and try to keep them out of college. And if you let them go to college, make sure it is some diploma-mill where their belief system will not be challenged.”

Leave a reply

Atheists often have the same enthusiasm and arrogance that hyper-conservative Christians do.  They appear to become very smug with their belief-system and view “non-believers” with disdain.  It is really kind of comical.  This is best seen in Carolyn Brigg’s description of her visit to an atheist convention in Iowa several months ago.  I provide the link here:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/5283/waiting_for_lightning_to_strike%3A_a_wobbly_agnostic_among_the_atheists/

(You will probably have to copy-and-paste this to your address bar.  I haven’t learned yet how to import a link!)

Persons of faith can learn from reading Briggs’ report.  Her report illustrates how any belief system can become an end in itself, how that it can be used to make persons feel really good about themselves, so much so that they become smug.  I believe in feeling good about ourselves but we should not need a crutch to accomplish this.

One of the most prominent atheists of our day is Bill Maher.  And, I love Bill Maher!  But at times he is just too disdainful toward those who choose to believe.  And Christopher Hitches can be outright arrogant.  He was brutal in his treatment of Mother Teresa who honestly acknowledged the profound doubt that haunted her deep faith.

Obnoxious atheists, just like obnoxious Christians, need to get a life.  They need to follow the advice, “Get over yourself.”

Richard Rohr and the church

Leave a reply

Richard Rohr was recently on a PBS program on religion and ethics.  I provide here a link to his 10-minute presentation and high recommend it.   Some of my regular readers are evangelical and I really think that Rohr’s spirituality and teachings is relevant to evangelicism although he is a Franciscan monk.

In this presentation, Rohr takes to task the church for opting for a “religious comfort zone” rather than meaningful spiritual development.  He also noted the need of “shadow boxing” to address the dark side that is with us all, even Christians.  “We need to clean the lens,” he said, pointing to his glasses.  He was here referring to the fact that we “see through a glass darkly” and our “glasses” are always being “dirtied” by this dark side, this ever-present shadow.

He emphasized the need of prayer and not hollow, empty, formulaic, meaningless prayer.  Instead he recommends meditative prayer in which one clears his/her mind of the clutter, engages in primordial silence, and follows the biblical mandate, “Be still and know that I am God.”  He declares that prayer helps us to let go of our self, to let go of “repetitive compulsive thoughts.”

(You will have to copy-and-paste the following link to your address bar)

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/november-11-2011/richard-rohr/9902/&gt;

Conservative faith and fear of difference

Leave a reply

Yesterday I noted my reluctance to read Ram Dass even though I stumble upon his teachings often and always find them very insightful.  I attributed this reluctance to my conservative youth when he and his ilk were roundly demonized by my conservative faith.  I often find little intrusions into my life by this conservative past, little themes that are resurrected by day-to-day events in my life and the life of my culture.  For example, I was raised in a racist Southern culture but have gone far beyond racism ever since I made my escape from that culture in the early 70’s.  But from time to time that demon just faintly resurrects itself in my heart with some passing thought.  And, I don’t then berate myself or “confess my sin” to God; I merely exercise “mindfulness” for a moment and then go on with my life, recognizing that all of us have these haunts in our past

It is interesting that Ram Dass and “his ilk” were so hated by conservative Christian culture back then and that it continues today.  I know it had to do with the “foreignness” of it all—trekking to India, studying in an “ashram”, receiving teachings from guys with names like Meha Baba and Maharaja Ji.  And there was all this talk of “foreign gods” and holy literature when I knew there was only one “holy literature” available—the Bible.  They talked a different language than I did and it made me uncomfortable.  And, of course, there was this issue at the root of it all—they did not believe in Jesus and would one day rot in hell for their unbelief.

Perhaps the core issue there was simply “difference.”  I was raised to fear and loathe difference.  I was taught that everyone should be just like me and if they didn’t, it was merely an issue of them getting right with God and joining the Christian fold.  But, this exploration has been deeply enriching to my faith….my “Christian” faith…to learn of different ways to approach spirituality. Not that I have to adopt any of them!  When I explore these other religions I am made more aware of reality and I can bring this increased awareness to my faith.  But in conservative religion, there is no need for ‘awareness”.  There is merely the need to accept the dogma being presented to you, swallow it uncritically, and then regurgitate it the rest of your life.  (This “regurgitation” brings to my mind a cow chewing her cud—-the cow just stands there nonchalantly chewing her cud, apparently just as happy as a bug-in-a-rug.)

Ram Dass

Leave a reply

I keep running across Ram Dass in my readings.  And I still have not read him and his name still rings slightly dissonant in my heart.  But I recognize that this dissonance speaks volumes about me and my conservatism in the 1970’s (when he first surfaced on the cultural scene) and nothing about him.  Though I have not read any of his books, I have discovered numerous quotes all of which speak to his insight and courage.  For example:

In most of our human relationships, we spend much of our time reassuring one another that our costumes of identity are on straight.

 Everything changes once we identify with being the witness to the story, instead of the actor in it.

 Religion is the product of the conceptual mind attempting to describe the mystery.

 Ego is an exquisite instrument. Enjoy it, use it–just don’t get lost in it.

 I recognize why I was so averse to him in my youth and why conservative spirituality still is averse to him and all Eastern religions—he recognized a spiritual reality that is not reduced to the conceptual and which, consequently, cannot be owned and controlled.  That posed a threat for me as it brought into question everything I assumed about spirituality…and I have discoursed here several times re the “tyranny of assumptions.”

One task I have before me is to start reading Ram Dass, probably starting with his book, Be Here Now

Book review re Frank Schaeffer’s “Crazy for God”

Leave a reply

Frank Schaeffer is the son of Francis Schaeffer who was a leading spokesman and intellectual for the Christian Right in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s.  Frank himself was groomed in his childhood as their heir apparent for his father and did indeed step into that role as a young man.  But, safely ensconced in that prominent position, he became disaffected and disillusioned by the bigotry and closed-mindedness that he witnessed and eventually left the fold.  But, if that wasn’t enough, he began to speak and write about what he witnessed during his youth, not just with the Christian Right, but with his family itself.  His book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All of It Back” is the story of his “conversion” from hyper-fundamentalist Christianity and political conservatism to a pronounced liberal stance in both regards.  If you are an ex-fundamentalist, or if you are a fundamentalist who would deign to look critically at yourself, you really need to read this book.

Politically and familial-ly his book is a story of a standard dysfunctional family, a family trapped inside its own limited world-view and incapable of dealing honestly and openly with the world.  Families of this sort are in service to the myth that they are caught up in and dutifully dedicate themselves to perpetuating that myth even at the expense of its members own soul. Yes, it is sheer lunacy at times.

However, let me note that the “lunacy” presented here cannot compare with the lunacy I noted last week when I discoursed re Muslim culture from the perspective of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Any closed-mindedness veers toward lunacy and will end up there unless reality sets in.  But, I much prefer our culture’s conservative lunacy over that of the Muslim world.  There are more limits set here, largely by the power of a liberal and critical press.

Emptiness and religion

Leave a reply

I’m sure you have noted that my posts have a heavy emphasis on Eastern religious, Zen-themes, emptiness and “such.”  This is the result of, first of all, the alienation that has been my blessing/curse all of my life.  Second, it reflects the extensive reading I have done in world religions and philosophy.  These two considerations have left we with strong convictions (i.e. a “bias”) toward the notion that this world is ephemeral and that reality lies beneath the surface of day to day life….or “out there” or “beyond the grasp of cognition” or however you wish to put it.  And to “find it”, you have to “lose” your own grasp of reality or, in the words of Jesus, you have to lose your life to find it.

Western Christian culture often fails to consider that Christianity itself is an Eastern religion that has been dragged kicking and screaming to the West.  And we have done a thorough job on westernizing this spiritual tradition, i.e. reducing it to dogma and mindless ritual.

I’d like to share with you two different translations of one of Lao Tzu‘s verses relevant to the subject of emptiness:

We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.

We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.

We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.

We work with being,
but non-being is what we use

 

Thirty spokes are united around the hub of a wheel,
but the usefulness of the wheel
depends on the space where nothing exists.
Clay is molded into a vessel,
but the usefulness of the vessel
depends on the space where nothing exists.
Doors and windows are cut out of the walls of a house,
and the usefulness of the house
depends on the space where nothing exists.

Therefore take advantage of what exists,
and use what does not exist.

Review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book, Infidel

1 Reply

I have started reading again, Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  In this book she describes the intricacies of tribal culture and the various myths that shaped this culture.  One thing is standing out in this reading of the book that I had forgotten—-even though her father was the patriarch of the family he was a bit “liberal” and that definitely had an impact of Ms. Ali.  I’m sure contributed to her rebellion at age 22 and her rejection of her entire culture.  The first “mistake” her father made…in reference to the dictates of the tribal gods (i.e. Allah)…was that he got a Western education at Columbia University, majoring in anthropology.  And her mother also was a bit of a rebel herself, leaving home on her own at age fifteen and moving to the city, Mogadishu I think.  And, Ali’s parents met casually and engaged in courtship and married without an “arrangement” by parents.  Furthermore, political turmoil abounded in Somalia in the seventies, wreaking havoc on the country in all respects, including culturally.  This instability there was the opportunity for “mischief”, meaning an opportunity for some brazen children to begin to “question the gods”, that is to say in this case, Allah.

This is a very important book and is very relevant to any culture, tribal or modern.  Ali eloquently portrays the iron-clad grip that her culture had on her, particularly its Muslim religion, and the excruciating pain that it inflicted on her and other females.  She writes in detail of her own genital mutilation when she was aged five.  It was painful to read.  But equally painful was the total and brutal denial of the rights of women and the extremes that her culture went to to keep it that way.

Culture can be ugly.  Or, to be more accurate, human beings can be ugly.