Stay the Course!

Here is a post I wrote several years ago and decided to re-post after recently engaging in a rather nasty religious debate. Here are my observations about the conversational style of people who are more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.

After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to simply supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.

2. Rely on Mocking or Sarcasm to ignite passion: If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken). BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)

3. Do not give an inch: If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation! In all cases, never concede even a minor point to your opponent.

4. Make your opponent work harder: Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has to prove you wrong. If he presents troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit. Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.

5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent: After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning. Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6. Stay the Course!: Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.

Boiling it down

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about the Old Testament. The fact is, I cannot reconcile the depiction of God in the OT with the God I worship, and I am tired of making up lame excuses for the horrific acts portrayed. Here is the deal, if God is really as violent and petty as He is described by the writer's of the OT, it would be unethical to worship Him. I have more compassion for my dogs than God seems to have for the people He created.

Honestly, a new way of approaching the OT is way past due. Instead of celebrating the atrocities committed by the Israelites, it is time to view their behavior for what it is; nationalistic, opportunistic, superstitious attempts to mold God's will to their own agenda. I am not singling out the Jewish people - all governments and individuals do the same thing. The whole point of the OT is to declare God's Being and set down some rules to live by - the rest of it is a record of inspired cautionary tales, included in the cannon to illustrate how not to respond to God. It is a biography of humanity - our inept attempt to respond to God's Being. We should read the OT as a autobiography - placing ourselves in the shoes of all the characters in order to understand ourselves better. The worst thing we can do is read the OT as a guide to morality because the moral message is the ends justify the means - which is totally unethical.

The NT is God's response to God. Jesus is our example of how God wants us to live - love Him, love ourselves (self awareness) and love our neighbors through service. There is no room for war, genocide, human-made famine, consumerism, nationalism, individualism and the rest of the 'lesser good' behaviors, yet they are still prevalent, however, unconditional love is what we are supposed to be practicing.

So our response to the message of the Bible and Descartes declaration 'I think therefore, I am' is 'God is, therefore I love'

The Journey to Self-Awareness

Referred to as ‘self actualization’, by Maslow and placed at the top of his hierarchy of needs, discovery and acceptance of the True Self (TS) has been recognized by many, as the highest level of consciousness.  All the mystical branches of religion hold self awareness as necessary for union with God.  From Buddhists to Sufi masters; Cabbalists to medieval Christian mystics; people throughout time have been compelled to overthrow the ego and integrate the TS. 

In the Jewish tradition, the OT is humanity’s introduction to Yahweh, or I AM.  Throughout Jewish history His declaration of being has elicited an array of responses from humanity, some ethical, others horrifying. 

Christianity teaches followers to believe that Jesus fulfilled the OT by providing God’s perfect response to His own introduction.  In the NT, God provides us with His Son who explains that we are to recognize His love for us and allow Him to sanctify our hearts, which involves teaching us to love.  Despite the narcissistic interpretation of many groups of modern Christians, who deny themselves in a grand act of false modesty, and follow through by martyring themselves for others in an attempt to justify themselves; Jesus tells us to start by loving and accepting ourselves. Only then can we see how much God loves us, which allows us to reach out in obedience and love to our neighbors through service.

The enduring theme of the quest for the self is also found throughout American folklore, specifically Frank Baum’s classic, “The Wizard of Oz”.  Much has been written examining the political allegory found within the children’s classic; however, this author has never encountered a psycho-dynamic interpretation.  Perhaps unintentionally, Baum’s fairytale presents the story of the true self on a journey to self discovery.

The story opens when the TS, Dorothy, notices a tornado, emotion trauma, approaching the family farm, which represents her childhood defenses.  Her response is to pick up her dog, which is her fear defense, and regress into childhood by running into the farmhouse.  It appears that she does not possess the skills to follow her elders, their adult response to the trauma, is represented by seeking refuge in the storm cellar.  Predictably, her childhood defenses prove to be inadequate protection against the looming emotional trauma.

Indeed, when the house lands in Oz, she is thrown into an extended period of regression, an emotional place where she is forced to navigate adult issue interpreted using a primitive schema.  Eventually, after she confronts her narcissist wounds, her ego, and her dualistic worldview, Dorothy integrates her TS and realizes she already possesses the skills necessary to grow up and thrive in adulthood.

After abandoning the wreckage of her childhood defenses, Dorothy recognizes that she must journey to confront the ego, which she views as the ultimate authority and equipped to help her heal from the trauma endured.   First, she sets up a primitive, dualistic worldview, consisting of a self-soothing and self-punishing system, in the guise of the Good Witch of the East, and The Wicked Witch of the West.  Also in preparation, she is provided with ruby red slippers, which represent hope, and her primary defense system, fear, or her little black dog, which lashes out at every new situation she will encounter.  As the journey unfolds, she incorporates the three defense of her narcissistic wound; the man with no brain, the borderline defense, portrayed as a Scarecrow; the man with no heart, or the narcissistic response, illustrated as a Woodcutter made of tin; and the fear-based response, the schizoid, presented as the Cowardly Lion.  The complexity of the characters becomes apparent when the Scarecrow appears insightful, the Tinman displays emotion and the Lion seems protective.  Under close examination, true to their character, the Scarecrow’s insight is restricted to caretaking in relationships (borderline); the Tinman’s emotional responses are self-centered (narcissistic); and the Lion’s protective qualities are fear-based, primitive and unable to incorporate the other characters (schizoid).

It is interesting to note that Dorothy spends considerable time trying to soothe the three primary defenses whenever they are triggered by the ravages of her anger towards the Self, which manifest in character representing the dark half of her worldview or the Wicked Witch of the West.  It becomes apparent that neither the Scarecrow, Woodcutter, or Lion can stand up to the self directed anger, yet it is repelled by hope, when the ruby red slippers eventually burn the Wicked Witch of the West.

As Dorothy, Toto, Scarecrow, Tinman, and Lion, advance towards the confrontation with the Great and Powerful Oz (TGAPO), navigating specialized attacks from the Wicked Witch of the West, they reach the last manifestation of self directed anger, the poppies, which represent the ultimate expression of anger towards the self; the use of narcotics in an attempt to lull the group to sleep.  Only soothing in the light half of the worldview can rouse the narcissistic response, the Tinman, to carry the party through the drug induced haze.

Upon reaching the Emerald City, the self and defenses prepare to meet the ego by hiding its fear-based condition, in the form of the application of various cosmetics.  Standing in front of the grandiose display of TGAPO, triggers all the defenses and forces the TS to speak out.  Despite the puffed up image of the Ego, the TS is able to confront TGAPO about her need to integrate the Self and travel back to reality.  TGAPO gives her a seemingly impossible task, to take away the power of the childish, self directed fear and anger, the representation of the dark half of her worldview.  Dorothy, although she still relies on her defenses, confronts the Witch and defeats her, which inadvertently deconstructs her entire dualistic worldview – dark and light.

Interesting enough, after the dualistic worldview is dismantled, the defenses are still in place, until the Ego is confronted once again.  During the second meeting, the TS presents the broom to TGAPO and demands the help she was promised.  Instead of bestowing the insight promised, the ego is exposed for what it is….simply a ‘little man behind a curtain’.  Following a moment of despair, Dorothy, realizes that her defenses can be healed using her own insight, which consequently integrates the Scarecrow, Tinman and Lion into the self.  Dorothy than realizes that hope, the ruby red slippers; the same hope that carried her through her journey so far, will also bring her to self actualization and Kansas, or the successful journey from childhood to adolescence.

Repent!

Used as a battle cry for the condemnation of humanity throughout the history of the church, the word repent has often been received by people inside the church, not as a gentle invitation to change behavior, but as a strong-armed, directive to question self-worth and the quality of their relationship with God.  Outside the church, people who are subjected to this approach of 'sharing the good news', react appropriately, as if they are experiencing an unjustified attack from illegitimate zealots.

Christians need to take back the word repent from those who believe Jesus came to condemn us, rather than love and forgive humanity.  I really like Thomas Keating's definition of the word in his booklet, 'The Human Condition', 'Change the direction that you look for your happiness.'  Choosing to engage in destructive behavior or sin, is a bad habit we have learned, but we are no longer forced to continue engaging in.  The Creation story tells us that Adam and Eve believed they were going to be 'like gods' by learning a new behavior - the ability to make a choice between the good and evil.  Instead, their actions took away humanity's ability to make good choices - we became lovers of cutting corners, tricking and cheating others for our own benefit.  Indeed, we were narcissistic to the core of our beings; Christ came to give us back the ability to choose the good.  As Paul says, we are to 'throw off the Old Man, or our habit of worldliness - rooted in grandiose, narcissistic behavior.

Although humanity was duped in the beginning, the unforgivable sin was not eating the fruit - it was refusing to take personal responsibility for our actions.  'Where are you?', God asked, 'we are hiding because we are naked' (getting exposed or being seen for who they really are is the most terrifying possibility for a narcissist to imagine - in order to escape, they hide behind a grandiose, manufactured version of the ego), Adam replied.  'Who told you that were naked?", God asked - then the fingers start pointing in every direction - the serpent, the women, not me!  Their inability to take personal responsibility placed a wedge in their relationship with God that existed until Jesus forgave us.

Homosexuality

Is homosexuality really the sin of Sodom?  It seems convenient to condemn a behavior that only a small percentage of the population engages in.  If you consider this a sin at all, you have to admit that the vast majority of the population is never tempted by it.  Ironically, we are all tempted to lie everyday, yet, we tend to hold figures in the OT who also lie as men and women of God who's behavior is justified by God to bring about His will.  CS Lewis refused to comment on homosexuality because he was never tempted by it and therefore could not empathize with that population.

Instead, I believe the point of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was the same as the rest of the OT - God is all-powerful.  Also, who is more guilty?  The mob of people that wanted to reduce the visitors to objects; Lot who tried to apply a human remedy by substituting his daughters for the objects; or the consumerism of our day, where we elevate the status of objects to the level of people?

As with all accounts of human behavior included in the OT, we benefit the most from using them to identify our own behavior, rather than to condemn others.

Forgiveness

---

I am very interested in Forgiveness. I believe it is the highest example of love and the meaning of life - not to mention God's incredible, merciful, and elegant response to the problem of pain. Learning to forgive another person and yourself in the face of injustice is perfectly sublime.

A story of forgiveness always come to my mind when I contemplate this topic - I am sure most people remember it - when the Amish community in PA choose to be a witness to the world by forgiving one of their own people for a mass shooting in one of their towns. I get chills thinking about it - God made it possible - His mercy made it possible to sew up the chaism of pain caused by the Fall through a monumental action - the highest example of charity - forgiveness. Because Jesus forgives us, we now know how to forgive others, in the face of a world that is terribly unjust.

I would love to hear any stories of forgiveness that you would like to share.

How can we learn to forgive radically?

Boasting

---

The sin of pride usually described in the form of boasting is soundly condemned throughout the Bible, especially by Paul. It is interesting that our culture does not seem to share this ideal, in fact, we appear to revel in worldliness as no other culture has since Rome. Why is it then that we are so quick to point out and condemn all the sins Paul used simply to illustrate worldliness, without getting his point? Stop being proud of your worldliness! Stop condemning - stop being inhospitable to your neighbors - stop acquiring things and start focusing on loving God and your neighbor.

I think Paul's writings have become notorious in some Christian circles as being judgmental because when we read his letters we are missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Paul's point is always stop boasting / start loving - all the sins he mentions are used to illustrate this greater point.

How should we interpret Paul's writings?

How can we practice humility in opposition to our culture?