Guest post: CRISIS DIVIDE: The Righteous and the Woke--Why Evangelicals and Social Justice Warriors Trigger...

Guest Post on current CRISIS DIVIDE IN THE U.S.
The Righteous and the Woke – Why Evangelicals and Social Justice Warriors Trigger Me in the Same Way
by Valerie Tarico,
Seattle psychologist and writer.
FROM https://valerietarico.com/2019/01/24/the-righteousness-and-the-woke-why-evangelicals-and-social-justice-warriors-trigger-me-in-the-same-way/?fbclid=IwAR3yUudcjmlRlTroHNGxyAsUKGI8g4Bfr2ScHgDRMwGvDAhKEUDkPCrfJto

"I was Born Again until nearly the end of graduate school, a sincere Evangelical who went to church on Sunday and Wednesday with my family and to Thursday Bible study on my own. I dialed for converts during the “I Found It” evangelism campaign, served as a counselor at Camp Good News, and graduated from Wheaton College, Billy Graham’s alma mater. I know what it is to be an earnest believer among believers.

"I also know what it is to experience those same dynamics from the outside. Since my fall from grace, I’ve written a book, Trusting Doubt, and several hundred articles exposing harms from Evangelicalism—not just the content of beliefs but also how they spread and shape the psychology of individuals and behavior of communities, doing damage in particular to women, children, and religious minorities.

It occurred to me recently that my time in Evangelicalism and subsequent journey out have a lot to do with why I find myself reactive to the spread of Woke culture among colleagues, political soulmates, and friends. Christianity takes many forms, with Evangelicalism being one of the more single-minded, dogmatic, groupish and enthusiastic among them. The Woke—meaning progressives who have “awoken” to the idea that oppression is the key concept explaining the structure of society, the flow of history, and virtually all of humanity’s woes—share these qualities.

To a former Evangelical, something feels too familiar—or better said, a bunch of somethings feel too familiar.

Righteous and infidels—There are two kinds of people in the world: Saved and damned or Woke and bigots, and anyone who isn’t with you 100% is morally suspect*. Through the lens of dichotomizing ideologies, each of us is seen—first and foremost—not as a complicated individual, but as a member of a group, with moral weight attached to our status as an insider or outsider. (*exceptions made for potential converts)

Insider jargon—Like many other groups, the saved and the Woke signal insider status by using special language. An Evangelical immediately recognizes a fellow tribe-member when he or she hears phrases like Praise the Lord, born again, backsliding, stumbling block, give a testimony, a harvest of souls, or It’s not a religion; it’s a relationship. The Woke signal their wokeness with words like intersectionality, cultural appropriation, trigger warning, microaggression, privilege, fragility, problematic, or decolonization. The language of the Woke may have more meaningful real-world referents than that of Evangelicals, but in both cases, jargon isn’t merely a tool for efficient or precise communication as it is in many professions—it is a sign of belonging and moral virtue.

Born that way—Although theoretically anyone is welcome in either group, the social hierarchies in both Evangelical culture and Woke culture are defined largely by accidents of birth. The Bible lists privileged blood lines—the Chosen People—and teaches that men (more so than women) were made in the image of God. In Woke culture, hierarchy is determined by membership in traditionally oppressed tribes, again based largely on blood lines and chromosomes. Note that this is not about individual experience of oppression or privilege, hardship or ease. Rather, generic average oppression scores get assigned to each tribe and then to each person based on intersecting tribal identities. Thus, a queer female East Indian Harvard grad with a Ph.D. and E.D. position is considered more oppressed than the unemployed third son of a white Appalachian coal miner.

Original sin—In both systems, one consequence of birth is inherited guilt. People are guilty of the sins of their fathers. In the case of Evangelicalism, we all are born sinful, deserving of eternal torture because of Eve’s folly—eating from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. In Woke culture, white and male people are born with blood guilt, a product of how dominant white and male people have treated other people over the ages and in modern times, (which—it must be said—often has been unspeakably horrible). Again, though, individual guilt isn’t about individual behaviors. A person born with original sin or blood guilt can behave badly and make things worse, but they cannot erase the inborn stain. (Note that this contradicts core tenets of liberal, humanist, and traditional progressive thought.)

Orthodoxies—The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Jesus died for your sins. Hell awaits sinners. Salvation comes through accepting Jesus as your savior. If you are an Evangelical, doctrines like these must not be questioned. Trust and obey for there’s no other way. Anyone who questions core dogmas commits heresy, and anyone who preaches against them should be de-platformed or silenced. The Woke also have tenets of faith that must not be questioned. Most if not all ills flow from racism or sexism. Only males can be sexist; only white people can be racist. Gender is culturally constructed and independent of sex. Immigration is an economic boon for everyone. Elevating the most oppressed person will solve problems all the way up. Did my challenging that list make you think you might be reading an article by a conservative? If so, that’s exactly what I’m trying to illustrate.

Denial as proof—In Evangelicalism, thinking you don’t need to accept Jesus as your savior is proof that you do. Your denial simply reveals the depth of your sin and hardness of heart. In Woke culture, any pushback is perceived as a sign of white fragility or worse, a sign that one is a racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, xenophobe, or transphobe. You say that you voted for Barack Obama and your kids are biracial so your problem with BLM isn’t racism? LOL, that’s just what a racist would say. In both cultures, the most charitable interpretation that an insider can offer a skeptic is something along these lines, You seem like a decent, kind person. I’m sure that you just don’t understand. Since Evangelical and Woke dogmas don’t allow for honest, ethical disagreement, the only alternative hypothesis is that the skeptic must be an evildoer or bigot.

Black and white thinking—If you are not for us, you’re against us. In the Evangelical worldview we are all caught up in a spiritual war between the forces of God and Satan, which is playing out on the celestial plane. Who is on the Lord’s side? one hymn asks, because anyone else is on the other. Even mainline Christians—and especially Catholics—may be seen by Evangelicals as part of the enemy force. For many of the Woke, the equivalent of mainline Christians are old school social liberals, like women who wear pink pussy hats. Working toward colorblindness, for example, is not just considered a suboptimal way of addressing racism (which is a position that people can make arguments for). Rather, it is itself a symptom of racism. And there’s no such thing as a moderate conservative. Both Evangelicals and the Woke argue that tolerance is bad. One shouldn’t tolerate evil or fascism, they say, and most people would agree. The problem is that so many outsiders are considered either evil sinners or racist fascists. In this view, pragmatism and compromise are signs of moral taint.

Shaming and shunning—The Woke don’t tar, feather and banish sinners. Neither—mercifully—do Christian puritans anymore. But public shaming and trial by ordeal are used by both clans to keep people in line. Some Christian leaders pressure members into ritual public confession. After all, as theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Nothing can be more cruel than the leniency which abandons others to their sin.” Shaming and shunning have ancient roots as tools of social control, and they elevate the status of the person or group doing the shaming. Maoist struggle sessions (forced public confessions) and Soviet self-criticism are examples of extreme shaming in social-critical movements seeking to upend traditional power structures. So, it should be no surprise that some of the Woke show little hesitation when call-out opportunities present themselves—nor that some remain unrelentingly righteous even when those call-outs leave a life or a family in ruins.

Selective science denial—Disinterest in inconvenient truths—or worse, denial of inconvenient truths, is generally a sign that ideology is at play. Most of us on the left can rattle off a list of truths that Evangelicals find inconvenient. The Bible is full of contradictions. Teens are going to keep having sex. Species evolve. The Earth is four and a half billion years old. Climate change is caused by humans (which suggests that God doesn’t have his hand on the wheel). Prayer works, at best, at the margins of statistical significance. But evidence and facts can be just as inconvenient for the Woke. Gender dimorphism affects how we think, not just how we look. Personal responsibility has real world benefits, even for people who have the odds stacked against them. Lived experience is simply anecdotal evidence. Skin color is often a poor proxy for privilege. Organic foods won’t feed 11 billion.

Evangelism—As infectious ideologies, Evangelicalism and Woke culture rely on both paid evangelists and enthusiastic converts to spread the word. Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ) and related organizations spend tens of millions annually seeking converts on college campuses. But many outreach activities are led by earnest student believers. Critical Oppression Theory on campus has its epicenter in gender and race studies but has become a mainstay in schools of public health and law as well as the liberal arts. Once this becomes the dominant lens for human interactions, students police themselves—and each other. Nobody wants to be the ignoramus who deadnames a transgender peer or microaggresses against a foreign student by asking about their culture.

Hypocrisy—Christianity bills itself as a religion centered in humility, but countervailing dogmas promote the opposite. It is hard to imagine a set of beliefs more arrogant than the following: The universe was designed for humans. We uniquely are made in the image of God. All other creatures are ours to consume. Among thousands of religions, I happened to be born into the one that’s correct. The creator of the universe wants a personal relationship with me. Where Evangelicalism traffics in hubris cloaked as humility, Woke culture traffics in discrimination cloaked as inclusion. The far left demands that hiring practices, organizational hierarchies, social affinity groups, political strategizing, and funding flow give primacy to race and gender. Some of the Woke measure people by these checkboxes to a degree matched in the West only by groups like MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) and white supremacists. The intent is to rectify old wrongs and current inequities–to literally solve discrimination with discrimination. One result is disinterest in suffering that doesn’t derive from traditional structural oppression of one tribe by another.

Gloating about the fate of the wicked—One of humanity’s uglier traits is that we like it when our enemies suffer. Some of the great Christian leaders and great justice warriors of history have inspired people to rise higher (think Desmond Tutu, Eli Wiesel, Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela). But neither Evangelicalism nor Woke culture consistently inspires members to transcend tribal vindictiveness because neither, at heart, calls members into our shared humanity. Some Christian leaders have actually proclaimed that the suffering of the damned in hell heightens the joy of the saved in heaven. Some of the Woke curse those they see as fascists to burn in the very same Christian hell, metaphorically if not literally. They dream of restorative justice for criminal offenses but lifelong, ruinous retribution for political sinners: Those hateful Trump voters deserve whatever destitution or illness may come their way. Unemployed young men in rural middle America are turning to Heroin? Too bad. Nobody did anything about the crack epidemic. Oil town’s on fire? Burn baby burn.

I know how compelling those frustrated, vengeful thoughts can be, because I’ve had them. But I think that progressives can do better.

Ideology has an awe-inspiring power to forge identity and community, direct energy, channel rage and determination, love and hate. It has been one of the most transformative forces in human history. But too often ideology in the hands of a social movement simply rebrands and redirects old self-centering impulses while justifying the sense that this particular fight is uniquely holy.

Even so, social movements and religions—including those that are misguided—usually emerge from an impulse that is deeply good, the desire to foster wellbeing in world that is more kind and just, one that brings us closer to humanity’s multi-millennial dream of broad enduring peace and bounty. This, too, is something that the Righteous and the Woke have in common. Both genuinely aspire to societal justice—small s, small j—meaning not the brand but the real deal. Given that they often see themselves at opposite ends of the spectrum, perhaps that is grounds for a little hope.

—————–

Note: In this article I didn’t address why, despite these discouraging social and ideological dynamics, I continue to lean left. In the frustration raised by excesses of Woke culture it is easy to lose sight of more substantive issues. Here is some of my list: The best evidence available tells us climate change is human-caused and urgent. Market failures are real. Trickle-down economics has produced greater inequality, which has been growing for decades. Inequality is a factor in social instability. Social democracy (the combination of capitalist enterprise with a strong social safety net) appears to have produced greater average wellbeing than other economic systems. Investments in diplomacy reduce war. Reproductive empowerment is fundamental to individual political and economic participation. The Religious Right more so than classical liberals control social policy on the Right. Government, when functioning properly, is the way we do things that we can’t very well do alone.

I would like to thank Dan Fincke for his input on this article, and Marian Wiggins for her generous editorial time."

by VALERIE TARICO

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including The Huffington Post, Salon, The Independent, Free Inquiry, The Humanist, AlterNet, Raw Story, Grist, Jezebel, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Subscribe at ValerieTarico.com.

STEPPING BACK FROM CERTAINTY: remembering we are finite, seeking what is true

Have you noticed that most of the voices currently shouting for their side (which ever one it is) seem to think they know for sure and that the other side is completely wrong?

As has happened endlessly in history past, leaders of today are forgetting that they are finite humans seeking what is true, but instead claim to know and that anyone who disagrees with them is________ (fill in the demeaned name-calling).

A few words from a brilliant character in Michael Crichton's book, Timeline, would seem good to reflect about and muse on by everyone today:

"The present is like a coral island that sticks above the water, but is built upon millions of dead corals under the surface...in the same way, our everyday world is built upon millions and millions of events and decisions that occurred in the past."

This is why confirmation bias and hostility are so present often in Republicans versus Democrats, Theists versus Atheists, Capitalists versus Socialists, and so on. Each opposing human's view of reality is partially shaped by his/her perceptional view from his/her particular coral reef.

Of course the Timeline quote is hyperbole, overstatement. Our Pasts--whether liberal or conservative, religious or non-religious don't define us completely.

We rational primates have the ability to advance, to make creative new choices, to advance closer to reality.

Most humans can choose to step back and question their presuppositions, their own understandings based upon their own worldview and life-stance which came about in the past,
BUT
it ain't easy.

If in doubt, look at how few of us are doing so.

So, let us PAUSE, and study again what we are stating, promoting, in all of these current philosophical and political conflagrations.

1. Are we aware how much of our past is leading us to hold to one position, rather than engaging in careful rational thought about it?

2. Are we remembering to be civil and courteous with those with whom we strongly disagree?

3. Are we open to new thoughts, new perspectives on these contentious arguments?

4. Do we seek to view the best arguments of our enemies with careful consideration?

5. Are we always seeking to be aware of our own confirmation bias?

6. Do we demonstrate benevolence toward those whose views we strongly, rightly, oppose?


Seek what is true,

Daniel Wilcox

My Philosophical Journey Across Brief Time

While lapping up long lengths of the swimming pool last night, another reflective project splashed (like the proverbial salmon or cod) into my consciousness.

Enclosed is the beginning of a philosophical timeline of my life--less than a quantum blink in cosmic time--which shows how I came to the place I am now, and the journeying and struggles and radiances. Hopefully, my own backwards reflection and chewing of life's cud will spark (to change metaphors midstream;-) your own musings and reflection of your lives.

One Philosophical Time Line:

1) From my earliest memories (maybe 4?), I recall that I badgered my folks (and later many other adults) with WHY questions. It appears that I was born with a 'why' caught in my throat and mind;-)

When I was still young, and about to meet a new person, my parent would remind me not to ask questions, or talk a lot.

2) At a small age, before first grade, my Aunt 'Barbrie' used to often child-sit me, because both of my parents worked late jobs. She was a wild (in an innocent sort of way) young woman who at bedtime told me incredibly creative science fiction stories she made up on the spur of the moment.

Great space ships left earth to other planets; the planets were strange and different. And she told me about a boy, just like myself, who built a space ship in his backyard. Maybe those early stories were a factor in my childhood--and life-long--love of science?

3) By the time I was 5 or 6, I began trying to figure out God, this mystery that everyone talked about, and my father, as a Baptist minister, preached about every Sunday morning. I did this, partially during the sermons, while I moved a little toy car about in my winter coat sleeves and on top of it; and remembering I mustn't say a word or ask questions until the end of the service.

Contrary to the caricature of what atheists claim all Christians and theists believe--that God is "Sky Father/Super Person,"
I never thought that.

Rather, in my little imagination and beginning of abstract reasoning, I thought God must be like gas:-), like the air, invisible but everywhere.

4) Then by 8 years of age, I became very aware of ethics and my own part in it. Consciousness and conscience met.

A dramatic conversion experience on the way home from Adams. I leaned forward and asked my dad to stop the Chevy. He pulled over on the shoulder of the gravel road in Southeast Nebraska on a Thursday night in 1955. Since I've told that life-changing story in past blogs, I won't repeat it here. (This is to be a short time line, not a tome;-)

5) In elementary school (3rd or 4th grade), a librarian used to lend me new books (beyond my years) and I learned about Neanderthals, the prehistoric, and more about dinosaurs, and science fiction.

My dad used to talk with me about prehistoric times, as well as space travel. He was a history teacher, Baptist preacher, carpenter, small town farmer, and handy-man.

As far as I know, no one in our family was ever "young creationist" in the sense that is meant by most conservative Christians and secularists now. While such labels may describe many or most fundamentalists and evangelicals, my own growing up years were very different.

I guess we would have fit in the "Old Earth" category, because we thought the world was very old as proven by dinosaur skeletons, and that prehistoric men had existed as evidenced by Neanderthals' remains found in excavations in Germany and elsewhere. We did believe in the Genesis Flood.

Categories:
--Naive Faith
--Adapted religion with budding reason and science
--Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism)and Moral Universalism
--Theism
--Anabaptist Version of the Christian religion
--Infants innocent, no O.S.
--Free Will


6) But my devout naive faith and hope came crashing down at the fairly young age of 11 years. Our Sunday School teacher told us God sent bears to punish kids who were making fun of the prophet Elisha's bald head!

I immediately raised my hand, very upset. This chasm opened up severe doubt within me. How could the Bible and adult Christians believe such horrific things about God?

I refused to accept such stories. The God I hoped in wasn't at all like that.

7) About this time, or maybe a little later, I learned the Baptist view (at least of our church) that St. Augustine was a false teacher, that Original Sin and infant baptism were horrific wrong beliefs which Roman Catholics believed.

We Baptists didn't accept the Creeds of the Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. We were non-creedal and humble of it;-).

8) Then as an early teen, I discovered the passages in Scripture which condoned, supported, and caused slavery!

If the Bible was God's Word, how could it be so wrong about this horrific evil?

This ethical contradiction bothered me deeply for years, as well as other horrific actions, stories, and demands in Scripture.

9) By the time I was 13 or 14, I quit thinking the Bible was inerrant. Too many wrong parts. It couldn't be, though, I continued to think that many key passages were inspired by God.

When I asked my dad and to other Christian leaders, and read books which explained problems in the Bible, their answers didn't satisfy, not in the least.

This controversial issue--and plenty of other wrongs and errors in the Bible--still troubles me.

And how is it possible that many bright, even brilliant, highly educated adults really think the Bible is "inerrant"?
Why do so many churches and denominations insist that Scripture is error-free, perfect?

Clearly, despite their irrational faith, the Bible is in error in many places. And, of course, later when I studied textural criticism, etc., I learned of the many thousands of other errors, of serious historical errors, of grievous scientific errors, copy errors, and so forth.

10) Summer camp! Ah, those exciting times. At 13 years old, I got to go. (Normally, my parents couldn't afford the cost.)

What a rousing time with campfires, games, Bible studies, exultant singing, and the fun of running through the night, knocking down the wood braces which kept the wood window covers open in the campers' cabins.

I don't remember if I actually ever did that, but rooted for those few who did; what fun:-)! Especially if it was one of the girls' cabins. By the time I had reached 12, I was completely girl-crazy.

There at that Baptist summer camp, philosophy showed up vividly and got personal, too.

I dedicated my life to God one inspirational night after a powerful sermon about how we need to choose to commit our lives totally to God and to change the world.

Strangely though when I got home and excitedly told my folks, they were dismissive of my experience. They told me I was already a Christian, and, basically, 'don't get carried away'!

I guess this shows how moderate--middle of the road-- my folks were in their fundamentalism, not extremists.

They had met those extreme "fundamentalists--the GARB ones in college, a very bad experience for them. Whenever I got "too religious," like the time I went around our small town putting evangelistic tracts on car windows, they cautioned me to be moderate.

My dad and mom were practical people, not given to dramatic religious experience. They also thought no miracles--like the ones in the Bible took place now. TV preachers, according to them, were con-artists, fakes.

Rather, what counted in life was being a strong Christian who lives right and good, succeeds, treats others equally, and helps those in need.

11) The older I got, the greater my questioning. I'm surprised I didn't turn into a question mark;-).

When I was 16 (15?) and asking and thinking deeply about philosophy and religion, and always involved in reading religious books, I came to view God as the "Ground of All Being."

And the more I studied and thought, I began to accept other such 'liberal' views. (This, of course, worried my parents, but they didn't normally speak of it.)

Categories:
--Skeptical faith
--Religion and Science together
--Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism)and Moral Universalism
--Theism
--Liberal Baptist
--Ultimism
--Free Will
--Separation of Church and State


12) An added burst to my already questioning mind, came as a junior in high school, when I chose to sign up for an elective, Philosophy class. (Our high school was one of the few high schools in which philosophy was offered as a class.)

We read Plato's The Cave, and complex explanations of famous philosophers, and talked and talked, etc. My understanding of the world, life, existence, the universe kept expanding.

This exciting class was taught by my favorite teacher, who also taught history and debate.

He was an agnostic, had a dry sense of Mark Twainian humor, and made side comments against religion, politically correct ideas, and so forth. Later when I became an educator, I modeled my teaching on his methods and style.

And that year, we studied Transcendentalism in American literature. Emerson's and Thoreau's view of reality greatly influenced me, though I opposed some of their beliefs.

Additional Categories:
--Ideals, Essence, the Good
--Mysticism
--Civil Disobedience
--Questioning about relationship of Nature and Science and God

13) But then, at 17, another life-changing crisis blasted forth--one struggle which has lasted for 53 years!

I encountered Christian Calvinism, Reformed theology.

The Christian leader was our teen Bible study teacher in Lincoln, Nebraska.
(How did a 'free-will' Baptist like me, end up in a Christian group led by a Calvinist?
No idea.)

The Vietnam War had ignited and was raging. And I was struggling with whether or not to go into the military--
probably the Navy, like my dad, after high school as planned--
and go to Vietnam.

When I asked (questions, again) this Christian leader, he declared that Christians ought to kill for God.

Shocked at his certainty and the way he stated it, I responded, "I don't think God would ever command us to kill others."

He proceeded to quote passages from the Old Testament. According to him, God would sometimes command Christians to do what is "immoral."

Quickly, it got terrible. I learned the worst--Calvinists, Augustinians, and Lutherans think most of the billions of us humans are foreordained to hell, to eternal damnation, condemned before the whole cosmos began!

Calvinists claim that God doesn't love everyone, but only loves a limited number of humans.

What!!!!!:-( I've never gotten over the shocked horror of that.

The bears, even slavery, now seemed minor issues; this new horror was like falling from a 10-thousand-foot cliff.

:-((((((((

Other Christian leaders claimed that only the Creeds are true Christianity, not our Baptist beliefs--those are "heretical."

Whew...

So for the first time, I checked out these infamous "Creeds." Got a large tome from the public library.

To say I was devastated and baffled is an understatement.

These creedal statements were NOTHING like our Baptist faith, nothing like the Christianity that I deeply trusted in.

The creedal theology was so contrary to everything we believed about life and existence.

And the Creeds made very bizarre statements such as that Jesus is totally God and totally human, etc. They seemed irrational, ridiculous, and absurd.

How could any thinking human possibly believe that Jesus was God?!

14) Then at 18/19 years of age, I went off to university, first to the University of Nebraska, then transferred to Long Beach State in California. At the latter, most of the professors were outspoken atheists.

Very brilliant men, I looked up to. Two great profs were agnostics, the second one a Jewish agnostic. It was the fall of 1966, a very volatile time. The best of times, the worst.

I learned so much. But fairly quickly I came to see that Christianity probably isn't true, at least not what I had believed, and certainly not denominational religion.

At one point while crossing the university quad, I came to a marrow-deep crisis point, probably the central one of my entire life:
I was at a 50% versus 50%
'two roads'--

EITHER/OR:

Stay with liberal Baptist religion
(our Baptist campus minister said he leaned toward Deism)

OR

Change to Atheism
(like our profs and most of the students I knew).

The tipping point came in that dramatic crisis moment,
as I stood on the quad,
torn between 2 opposite directions,
2 opposite roads,
2 diametrically opposed lives.

While organized Christianity didn't seem to fit with some of the evidence we were learning in anthropology, geology, and philosophy,
on the opposite side
Atheism generally rejected the reality of objective ethics, and was in very serious error in claiming to know for sure about the ultimate nature of the cosmos, of Reality.

We often discussed philosophical, ethical, and political issues between classes, disagreeing, reflecting, and countering.

How could anyone know that the vast cosmos was "meaningless" and "purposeless"?!

True, as a liberal Baptist, I thought that existence was "meaningful," but I didn't "know" that; rather I had faith it did.

So though Christianity had deep problems, (and I strongly rejected the major Christian traditions of the Creeds), I knew that ethics are real, not "subjective" stuff humans make up. I could see that in the Civil Rights Movement, and other issues. My first protest march was against Apartheid in South Africa.

Another troubling factor was the unethical behavior of some of the professors and atheist students. When they defended unethical actions, and lived them, I realized, I didn't want to go down that river.

My two best friends were atheists. Worst of all, I saw how their nontheistic lifestance was harming them.

That was then...

But now--over 50 years later--I wish I could have a second chance at that drastic decision on the quad.

I wish I could live that crisis over again, now that I know there are far more than only those 2 extreme contrary options,
that Life isn't an
either/or--

EITHER

Baptist Christianity

OR

Atheism.

No, there are many different philosophical lifestances humans can consider, think about, and choose from.

There are at least 10 very different views of Reality. (See my other blog post for specifics.)

I do know I would reject Atheism again.

After over 50 more years of studying Atheism, reading lots of books by many famous atheists, talking with thousands of them, I am more intellectually convinced that Atheism is incorrect. Besides, I don't identify my central views by what I am not.

BUT what I would change, is that I would leave organized Christianity.

TO BE CONTINUED--

Would you like to share your own philosophical timeline?


In the LIGHT,

Daniel Wilcox
lightwaveseeker@gmail.com

I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him.
Martin Luther King

Those Who Forget the Central Cause of Past Wrongs...

What Americans are forgetting in their current debacle of political, religious, and social name-calling are these words:

The Revenge of the Politically Incorrect: Don Trumphalism

triumphalism: "excessive exultation over one's success or achievements (used especially in a political context)"

"an attitude or feeling of victory or superiority: as
a : the attitude that one religious creed is superior to all others
b : smug or boastful pride in the success or dominance of one's nation or ideology over others"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

triumph:
"late 14c., "success in battle, conquest," also "spiritual victory" and "a procession celebrating victory in war," from Old French triumphe (12c., Modern French triomphe), from Latin triumphus "an achievement, a success; celebratory procession for a victorious general or admiral,"

"from Old Latin triumpus, probably via Etruscan from Greek thriambos..."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=triumph

But beneath the Trump-halism and the Hilary-Everestism:

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico: "As you have probably noticed, as more polls include my name and show us in double digits..."

"Not only is the news media taking TO Governor Weld [former Republican governor of Massachusetts] and me more, they are now talking ABOUT us more."

"And, of course, that is precisely what we need...the media, and voters, will take note of the fact that 15 percent puts us in the presidential and vice-presidential debates this fall...Being in the debates is a game-changer."

Even though this is impressive: two former conservative/libertarian governors running in the presidential election, what can it really achieve?

Will it throw an odd curve ball?

Could it possibly throw the election, like the infamous election of 1860?

Republican Party Abraham Lincoln 39.8%

Democratic Party Stephen A. Douglas 29.5%

Southern Democratic Party John C. Breckinridge 18.1%

Constitutional Party John Bell 12.6%
--

Who will benefit from the Johnson-Weld run, Clinton or Trump?

Or will the curve be split?

In the current 4-way race, NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll:

Libertarian Party Gary Johnson 10%

Green Party Jill Stein 6%

Democratic Party Hilary Clinton 39%

Republican Party Donald Trump 38%
--

Businessman Ross Perot in 1992 earned 18.9% but that was no cigar.
--

In the divided election of 1912,

Democratic Party Woodrow Wilson 41.8%

Bull Moose Party Theodore Roosevelt 27.4%

Republican Party William Howard Taft 23.2%

Socialist Party Eugene V. Debs 6%
--

Other Third Party Runs:

1968:

American Independent Party, Former Governor George Wallace 13.5%
& General Curtis LeMay

Republican Party Richard Nixon 43.4%

Democratic Party Hubert Humphrey 42.7%
--

1924:
Progressive Party Robert M. La Follette 16.6%
--

1980:

Independent Congress John B. Anderson 6.6%
--


Could the current election get such a severe split this time around, over 100 years later?

Unlikely, but then no one thought Trumphalism was going to defeat the usual standard bearers of the Republican Party in the Primaries.




But where in all of this rhetoric, propaganda, and multi-millions spent, is there any LIGHT?

Daniel Wilcox

Don't Miss This Must-Read Article!

Get disturbed and urged to think deeply across current theological, political, and cultural divides.

Read this bridge article promoting "progressive Quakerism"!

FAQS FOR FRIENDS– PART #9: JESUS & THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

by Chuck Fager

http://afriendlyletter.com/faqs-friends-part-9-last-part/#more-6038

"...What’s Jesus Got to Do With the Golden Gate Bridge?"

"...one of the most agreeable years of my life was spent in San Francisco, from mid-1976 to mid-1977. Never mind that I was poor, even officially homeless for part of the time, because life was good. I had steady work as a reporter..."

"...a Progressive Quaker perspective, is inextricably tied up with my memories of one of San Francisco’s signal glories, the Golden Gate Bridge.

"Suppose the Golden Gate Bridge connected, not Marin County and San Francisco, but earth and heaven..."

"This idea is not as silly as it sounds. At the old Lake Street Friends meetinghouse...a large window opened on a view of the bridge. On numerous First Day mornings during that year I sat and contemplated the scene."

"Often enough the great arched span was caressed and then obscured by rolling sweeps of fog, and it was easy to imagine that the far end came down in some dimension much stranger than Marin County."

"Thus, solid as the bridge looked, and was, not everyone who set foot on it made it to the promised land at the other end. There was no guarantee: to get across, one had first to find the bridge, then walk or drive straight, stay in lane, and keep going."

"And it was not long thereafter when it came to me that the bridge could serve as a parable of the work of Christ, as understood by early Quakers, and Progressive Christian Quakers today."

With this powerful metaphor and vivid image,
so begins a very deep, insightful, and inclusive article by Chuck Fager
on the matters of reality, identity, purpose, ethics, religion, and philosophy.

I tend to be skeptical of "progressive"-labeled writing
(for a host of reasons, but that's not the 'angles'here).

And I don't much care for long hyphenated words for Quakers,
or anyone else for that matter.
But given the extreme divides and contradictions within Quakerism
(and most worldviews for that matter), it is probably necessary as shorthand.

Don't miss this article.

See if it is, indeed, one of those deep moments of witnessing in meeting.



In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

The Blessing versus the Bane of the Bible

As a liberal Friend (as in progressive Hicksite, Beanite, Anthonyite, Woolite;-), I am very biblically focused, which sometimes confuses people who tend to think of the Bible as every thumper's rigid rule book which he uses to chastise others, bludgeoning them over the head, trying to drive out a legion of modern liberal ideals.

Isn't living Scripturally, fundamentalist?

And there is, too, right up front, the chameleon-likeness of how Scripture often changes into different meanings according to which religious group is quoting it.

This compendium, of sometimes contradictory, ancient spiritual and ethical texts acts as a Rorschach inkblot of squiggles, worded phrases where any and all humans find whatever they wish to see.

Slave owners see justification for human bondage, but abolitionists see the truth of liberty.

Augustine, Luther and Calvin see mostly a God of sovereign power and self-centered glory, creating a reality of damning theological determinism, but
Pelagius, Origen, and George Fox see God as empathetic father with limitless love for everyone, lighting all of reality with creativity and beauty.

One can even become fluent in Greek and Hebrew and read enough tomes for a PhD. and still fall victim to the humor (or is it the tumor?) of proof-texting:

A person wants to know God's will. He opens his Bible and reads:
>And he went and hanged himself.

The person worries; there must be more than such an awful command.
So he opens to another verse:
>Go and do thou likewise.

Surely that must not be God's will.
The person flips to another page:
>What thou doest, do quickly.

Also, for many Christians (not many Friends), the Bible is a flat inerrant book.

Immoral actions in I Samuel are given equal weight to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. Joshua and Judges carry equal weight with Jesus and Acts.

That is why Bernard of Clairvaux, Oliver Cromwell, Stonewall Jackson and R.L. Dabney, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman could justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of humans in the name of Jesus.

They, actually, were following Joshua, not anything that Jesus did or said. They held that O.T. actions and commands are still valid for Christ-followers. According to them, Jesus' words only apply to personal relationships, while the O.T. orders for slaughter, slavery, conquest, theft, deception apply to government and us as a nation.

Evangelicals think the Bible must be inerrant because Scripture is the very words of God, and God wouldn't create a book of errors.

In sharp contrast, thank goodness, early Friends realized that the words of the Bible witness to Christ, who is the Word of God, who represents true reality (like an ambassador represents a nation in the UN). Scripture must be interpreted by Christ's Spirit, not by a theological flat literalism.

We are to reject texts that contradict Jesus' life and words.

So how then is one to be instructed, guided, and inspired by Scripture as a liberal Friend?

Here are a few suggestions that I learned the hard way. I kept bumping into the low theological literal doorway until I finally realized there was a wide-open-to-the-heavens alternative. Some of this came by the help of wiser persons of hope.

#1 Written by humans (as well as inspired by God), the Bible is ancient literature which needs to be interpreted like other writings. For instance, in Genesis 1, a reader doesn't assume this poetic praise to God for creation is a modern scientific explanation of the cosmos. Rather it is a symbolic hymn to the Divine, a celebration to the wonder of existence, and a declaration of the importance of the Sabbath.

#2 Unlike much secular literature, within Scripture there is a witness to God--to Truth, Goodness, and Love.

This is true sometimes in spite of the literal meaning of various texts, not because of it.

And there are many key passages throughout the Bible which will transform our lives if we live in them. For example, try this. Read I Corinthians 13 every day for a year. Whenever the subject refers to love, insert your name.

[Dan] is patient;
[Dan] is always kind;
[Dan] is never envious or arrogant with pride...

Practice those words of ethical truth.

I'm still working on the very first one;-)

#3 The whole Bible is not one consistent theological treatise using 21st century standards of rationalism and logic.

On the contrary, the books of the Bible (the book is a library of ancient texts) often disagree and are filled with symbolism and much paradox.

Hebraic thinking was mostly image-based and concrete, while modern people often expect information to be logical and abstract.

The Bible doesn't try to philosophically prove theism. It assumes God IS
and focuses on images of what God is like--a father, a mother,
a romantic lover, a shepherd,
a just king, a strong tower,
a shield, a consuming fire...

(Thanks to Professor James Kallas for showing the paradoxical nature
of literature in the NT.)

#4 When interpreted by people of hope, an individual can find true guidance from God. This isn't easy. But when was Life ever easy?

Are any of the other ethical systems of ethics reliable?

Too often they amount to the "end justifies the means."

Life is a dangerous journey not a walk in the park, not the Garden.

But if we seek transcendent Truth with our whole self, we will discover new vistas of living.

#5 Much of the Bible is filled with stories of individuals encountering God.

These encounters (and even some ethical rules) are told from the humans' point of view and often display distorted, at times even evil twists.

For instance, the devout Jewish Pharisees and Scribes (textural scholars) said that divorce was okay because Moses had gotten the Jewish law from God, and then they quoted the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible)

In contrast, Jesus countered that divorce had never been God's idea, not the Truth, but Moses permitted divorce because of the "hardness" of humans' hearts.

Mark 10:2-12:
2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away."

5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.

9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Jesus held to very strict ethical ideals! For a primer on how to live as a Friend of Jesus, read the Sermon on the Mount.

On the other hand, Jesus is very compassionate when we fail. When he met a woman at the well--an immoral one who had had five husbands and was living with another man-- Jesus didn't launch into a condeming speech.

He asked her for water. Imagine that!

A Jewish rabbi asking an immoral woman in public for water.

Furthermore she was an enemy of the Jews, a despised minority and a heretic too, but Jesus loved her and shared with her Living Water.


#6 Scripture is not the end of revelation but the foundational beginning. Revelation continues.

For example, early in the biblical narrative (I Samuel), the text claims that God "tempted" David.

Later, however, in Chronicles, the biblical text changes the story and states that "the Adversary (the satan) "tempted" David.

And James in the New Testament totally contradicts all of the past literature, emphasizing that God never tempts anyone.

In the O.T. according to the text, God ordered Israelites to slaughter every single human in villages, including children and infants.

Indeed, Psalm 137 blesses people who bash babies onto rocks to kill them!

But in the New Testament, the son of man says to let the little ones come unto him and that if anyone hurts a child, it would be better if the person were hung with a millstone and dumped into the sea.

Every child is precious to God. All ancient texts need to be interpreted by Christ's ethical insights.

As one leader stated, God sent a prophet, not a proposition.

The key to understanding the Bible is to remember, the book (written over thousands of years) demonstrates increasing truth, increasing ethical insight.

What is condoned or ordered in the O.T. is often strongly condemned in the New.

David kills 200 men and mutilates them--cuts off their foreskins--as a present for his first wife! (1 Samuel 18:14-28)

But in the NT, Peter doesn't mutilate or kill others. On the contrary, Peter blesses and encourages the Roman jailer who had him tortured!

Who among us today, even the most literalist fundamentalist would encourage or order soldiers to behave like David?

In total contrast to David's actions, we are supposed to live in peace with everyone, even love our enemies.

James says violence and war come from selfishness, not from the Spirit of God (James 4:1-7). How many of us pray for the Islamic State leaders and the Taliban bombers every day?

Are Friends making an effort to give the Good News to them?

Would any person of hope in modern time
(excluding Christian soldiers of the Spanish Civil War under Franco and some Muslim jihadists) think it morally right and the will of God to kill others and mutilate them?

Yet in 1 Samuel verse 14 says "David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and Yahweh was with him."

What a LIE!

Evidently, one has to judge such a declaration as not true when evaluated by the Spirit of Jesus.

A good interpretive method is to remember that what is ethically condemned in the Old Testament is even more stringently true in the New and now in the present.

Jesus said the act of adultery had been condemned in the OT., but he emphasized even lusting in one's heart for a woman who has committed her life to another man is sinful.

The closer one comes to the Truth of God, the holier one must seek to live in the Light.

Since the closing of the NT canon, there have been many further developments in ethical truth.

Most humans (except for a few Reformed and Muslim thinkers) now hold that slavery is inherently evil despite the fact that neither the O.T. nor the N.T. claim slavery is wrong, let alone evil.

This new ethical truth finally shown forth with clarity among the Mennonites/Brethren of the 16th century, then eventually among the Friends of the 18th century after the witness of John Woolman, and among some Methodists of the 19th, etc.

Finally the total ban on slavery was accepted by most people (though a few Christians and some Muslims still defend the slave system).

Torture was practiced by Christians for centuries, justified by Augustine, the Reformers, etc. and is still held to be good by many American Christians today such as Evangelicals, but many humans now realize torture is contrary to the Light and Love of God.

Then there is the case of equality of the sexes and races...

To be continued

In the Light,

Daniel