I suppose I should correct #1 from my list of How to Deconstruct Your Church. I should probably say, instead, that you should deconstruct yourself first. I guess this is especially for pastors, but it applies to all of us who want to deconstruct the church so that we can become a genuine community of free individuals. So, here’s a list of how to deconstruct yourself:
- First of all, you have to really want to. It has to be an inner necessity. You’ve seen the light and you have no choice. You are a fraud exposed. You are going to divest yourself of your false self. Let everyone know that the real you is here to stay (whether they like it or not, fire you or not, desert you or not).
- Create a small group of people with whom you can open up and really be yourself with. Your leadership team or elders is best, if possible.
- Keep a journal. It will help you be honest and keep on track. Write even your dreams, which are excellent detectors of what our masks are. Write what people say about you. For instance, my wife said to me once: “When you are more spiritual, you are a worse husband!” I’ve never forgotten that because it exposed that my spirituality at the time was nourishing an arrogance in me.
- Start letting some of the things you do that are motivated by ambition, rote tradition, competition, or people-pleasing die. Stop doing it. Explain why if necessary.
- Have people call you by your first name (not pastor, Mr., Reverend, or Father, etc.). Be a real, normal accessible person.
- Recognize those things about you that aren’t truly you but are attached to your identity as a pastor. Reject them! Example: there are some of your people (and I know some pastors) who have what they think is a biblical view of the authority of a pastor, but is in fact identical to the idea of the “Divine Right of Kings”. Reject it!
- In your mind and heart, genuinely become one with the people. Party with them. Drink too much with them. This, I think, was one of Martin Luther’s strengths as a reformer. His community was his friends, and they would get together and party and intentionally drink too much to spite the devil.
- Prepare for rejection. Many religious people want a king. If you aren’t willing to be that for them, they will go and find one. I can’t tell you how many people have left because I was an insufficient leader or none at all.
- Develop other means of income in case your church shrinks to a size where it is unable to pay you a full salary. Over the last 13 years of my own deconstruction and that of our church, I have taken several pay cuts. I am making much less than I did when I started pastoring this church 13 years ago. Lisa has had to start working, and I am an artist on the side. I’ve done construction and other side projects to keep my family supported. I’ve even received unemployment benefits.
- Start to seriously question everything, especially your theology and your ideas of what church and ministry is. Let your theology deconstruct, realizing that much of what we are taught and have learned endorses power, authority and control, and is contrary to freedom. Begin to discover what the truth is for yourself. Your search, it is promised, will not go unrewarded.
That’s just a start. I hope this is helpful to some. I’m starting to get some clarity on writing a small book on How to Deconstruct Your Church. Ten easy steps. With some of my more relevant cartoons.
My name is David Hayward, and I am the nakedpastor. I am a graffiti artist on the walls of religion.
Tiggy said, on November 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Yes, most places, you only have to be a little bit different from the herd and there’s immediate suspicion – you become a threat.
———Hehehe. The herd I pastor is sooooo different from one another. I got Baptist, Presbys, Pentecostals, Methodist, believers and non-believers. Heck, my Church librarian thinks I lack the power of the Holy Spirit cause I haven’t spoke in tongues. I have a couple of folks that don’t believe there is a hell. Our herd does fine with each other. I think some of them are wrong and it is ok with them, and some of them think I am wrong about some things and that is ok with me.
fishon
So I’m trying to work out what is considered depraved. What do women have to do sexually to be sent to Hell? What do men have to do? Are gay men allowed to kiss?
fishon said – “God is the creator and sovereign and He gets to make the rules and guidelines–He doesn’t need me to understand them all. Just obey them.”
That is why I asked if Christians ever wonder WHY God makes all these rules, rules that presumably were good 4,000 years ago and good today. But we don’t follow the same rules now as then. Some rules, if broken long ago, would require the death penalty. Rules that now are not even consider a sin, even by Christians. and as you just said above, you don’t need to understand them, but to just obey. That is not the attitude of a person who wonders why God makes the rules in the first place…is it?
fishon said – “Bob, a very serious question, what age do you think God considers as consenting? Not what you think, but what does God think that is.”
I have no idea what the bible says concerning this. Is it the same as the “age of accountability” that I used to hear spoken of? Either way, I have no idea. The “legal” age of consent differs from state to state.
fishon said – “So, are you saying, if Christians don’t come to the same conclusion as you they ARE NOT thinking in a rational manner?”
Not at all. I was just asking what happens in their mind when they begin to rationalize what they believe. I think it is obvious that one does not have to use their rational abilities to become a believer. So I was just wondering what goes on in their mind when they begin to, if they begin to, consider what they believe rationally. Like one Christian believes that the Holy spirit comes upon him, causing him to speak in “other tongues”. Another Christian hears him speak and rationalizes that what they are hearing is not from the Holy Spirit, but simply emotionally induced gibberish.
Which Christian is thinking rationally concerning tongues? Can we ever know?
This is just one of many examples I could use.
Tiggy said, on November 6th, 2009 at 9:42 pmSo, Fishon, is it the sex that’s the problem? Are t hey allowed to kiss? You never reply to my questions. I asked you earlier if two women who kissed each other were going to Hell and you didn’t answer.
Tiggy, I did answer: SEE:fishon said, on November 6th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
fishon
fishon: you said about lawyers: “But doesn’t mean it is not skewed by their own prejudices.” Do you also apply that to yourself?
Ah, we must have cross posted, Fishon. Okay, now here were my other questions that got missed, which I’ll repeat here as I find times confusing.
So, Fishon, is it the sex that’s the problem? Are t hey allowed to kiss?
and
So I’m trying to work out what is considered depraved. What do women have to do sexually to be sent to Hell? What do men have to do? Are gay men allowed to kiss?
bob said, on November 6th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
fishon said – “God is the creator and sovereign and He gets to make the rules and guidelines–He doesn’t need me to understand them all. Just obey them.”
That is why I asked if Christians ever wonder WHY God makes all these rules, rules that presumably were good 4,000 years ago and good today. But we don’t follow the same rules now as then. Some rules, if broken long ago, would require the death penalty. Rules that now are not even consider a sin, even by Christians. and as you just said above, you don’t need to understand them, but to just obey. That is not the attitude of a person who wonders why God makes the rules in the first place…is it?
—————bob, I will say it again, just a little different. I wonder why about a lot of things God says, does, and requires. I wonder why He had the Israelites kill the enemies children and animals some times? God created me, so I wonder why I was born with a very complicated defect?
And the wondering goes on and on, but not needing to understand the reasons for what God has done and does, does not make your statement: “This is not the attitude of a person who wonders why God makes the rules in the first place…” valid. I am proof of that. I wonder and don’t have the need to understand. That is my attitude, and just because you say it can’t be does not make it so.
YOU: I have no idea what the bible says concerning this. Is it the same as the “age of accountability” that I used to hear spoken of? Either way, I have no idea. The “legal” age of consent differs from state to state.
———No it is not the same. And I can’t find anything specific about “The age of accountability.”
YOU::So I was just wondering what goes on in their mind when they begin to, if they begin to, consider what they believe rationally. Like one Christian believes that the Holy spirit comes upon him, causing him to speak in “other tongues”. Another Christian hears him speak and rationalizes that what they are hearing is not from the Holy Spirit, but simply emotionally induced gibberish.
Which Christian is thinking rationally concerning tongues? Can we ever know?
———Both can be thinking rationally, but one of them is wrong. To be wrong about something does NOT me that a person is not thinking rationally. Also, both can be rational thinkers, but one may have more information than the other, so their conclusion will not be the same.
fishon
nakedpastor said, on November 6th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
fishon: you said about lawyers: “But doesn’t mean it is not skewed by their own prejudices.” Do you also apply that to yourself?
——–Absolutely!
Tiggy said, on November 6th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Ah, we must have cross posted, Fishon. Okay, now here were my other questions that got missed, which I’ll repeat here as I find times confusing.
So, Fishon, is it the sex that’s the problem? *******Yes*******Are t hey allowed to kiss? *****Answered all ready*******
and
So I’m trying to work out what is considered depraved. What do women have to do sexually to be sent to Hell?*******I don’t want to go there and I won’t for several reasons (ah, I can hear someone screaming about that******** What do men have to do? ?*******I don’t want to go there and I won’t for several reasons(ah, I can hear someone screaming about that******** Are gay men allowed to kiss***********Yes************
fishon
Ah, so is it anal sex specifically that you consider to be damning – or what? I mean kissing is a sexual act, so what’s the difference?
Tiggy said, on November 6th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Ah, so is it anal sex specifically that you consider to be damning – or what? I mean kissing is a sexual act, so what’s the difference?
Tiggy, did you not read or did you not believe me when I said twice:
*******I don’t want to go there and I won’t for several reasons(ah, I can hear someone screaming about that********
Several reasons, Tiggy, several reasons.
fishon
Well, I’m sorry! I didn’t realise what you meant by that. People usually use that expression as a joke, like ‘Don’t even go there!’
That’s a little difficult then if there’s some gay couple and they’re seeking guidelines and you just say to them, ‘I don’t wanna go there’.
I’m just trying to find out if you think anal sex per se is wrong or just when it’s between gay couples. It’s a pretty basic question!
Tiggy said, on November 6th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
That’s a little difficult then if there’s some gay couple and they’re seeking guidelines and you just say to them, ‘I don’t wanna go there’.
————Tiggy, that is why I do get frustrated with people on this blog. They don’t read what is said.
Where did I say or intimate that I would not talk to a gay couple about sexuality and guidelines? I most certainly would talk with them and be straight up with them.
fishon
Oh fine! So you’ll talk to some gay couple, but not to me – sulks.
Well what am I supposed to say to gay couples then?
The old ladies at my bible study group didn’t have a problem talking about anal sex, so I don’t see w hy you do.
Let me put this another way, in a way that doesn’t exclude me from the discussion; do you consider it wrong for heterosexual couples to have anal sex?
Tiggy said, on November 7th, 2009 at 12:19 am Let me put this another way, in a way that doesn’t exclude me from the discussion; do you consider it wrong for heterosexual couples to have anal sex?
———–Now let me see, I have asked David a question many times, and he refuses to answer it———-and my friend, I don’t know what it takes to get you to understand, I am not going to get into those details on this blog. If others want to, ok, but not me. I am not a purd or afraid to answer, I just am not going to talk about it on this blog.
fishon
I thought it was just the gay stuff you wouldn’t discuss. I know Americans often have different attitudes to Europeans on these things. I have to deal with these kinds of questions at my church though because they know I go to a Metropolitan Community Church as well. And it’s not something we discuss there! Most of them would be far too embarassed and probably don’t go in for such things anyway. They’re quite a shy group and mostly fairly old. It’s not the kind of thing we discuss over tea and cake after the service.
Bob said: I think it is obvious that one does not have to use their rational abilities to become a believer.
True! But are you implying, that reason/rationalism is the only path to “Truth”? If so, is this really all that different than fishon’s belief that the literal word of God is the only path to “Truth”?
A fundamentalist Christian is not irrational and unreasonable. What is unreasonable is what they base their reason upon. It requires a leap of faith to believe the Bible is the only way to “Truth”. (And I’m not referring to the sort of “leap of faith” of Kierkegaard’s Knight of Faith or Nietzsche’s Ubermensch.) A rationalist, who only believes in reason, makes the same leap of faith. Can anyone prove that reason is the only path to “Truth”? In order to do so, all you have as proof is your belief that reason is the only path to “Truth”. It’s a circular argument in the same way someone who thumps the Bible as proof is making a circular argument. Belief, no matter how strong, is not proof of anything. And it’s not “knowing”. It’s belief. A rationalist who claims he’s basing his “knowledge” on reason isn’t being completely honest with himself.
Consider this: supposedly, something like 35% of us have had transcendental experiences and these experiences resonate “Truth” in a way that is far more intimate than our rational/sensory-based experiences. These aren’t irrational experiences. They are transrational experiences. A rationalist might explain such experiences away as a misinterpretation of the experience or attribute them to insanity. And that’s a reasonable explanation given a rationalist’s frame of reference. But they can’t prove that human beings are incapable of transcending sensory experience. The best they can do is simply believe that it isn’t true based upon their belief that human experience is entirely sensory based.
Fundamentalist religions arose because people were pushing against the idea that rationalism is all there is. That’s a reasonable response. Fundamentalist atheism and scientism arose because people were pushing against the idea that the word of God is the only path to truth. That is likewise a reasonable response. What is unreasonable is the belief that there is only one path to Truth and that it can be based on personal (or collective) belief. As long as one side pushes, the other is going to push back. It’s really just flip sides of the exact same coin. (There’s probably a better analogy but that’s all that is coming to mind at the moment.)
(Hopefully that makes sense. I’ve had a kazillion interruptions while writing this! And I’m just going to submit it “as is” before I lose the thought altogether!)
Arulba, you did lose me, but I will make a few comments.
me – I think it is obvious that one does not have to use their rational abilities to become a believer.
you – True! But are you implying, that reason/rationalism is the only path to “Truth”?
I have no idea what to use other than my ability to reason. That is the only way I find truth. Do you disagree with my statement above, that one does not have to use their rational abilities to become a [Christian] believer?
you – If so, is this really all that different than fishon’s belief that the literal word of God is the only path to “Truth”?
I guess if fishon KNEW that what he had in his hand was “the literal word of God”, we would be having a completely different discussion, or perhaps no discussion at all.
you – A fundamentalist Christian is not irrational and unreasonable.
I would agree that most are perfectly reasonable with regard to life in general. But with regard to their religious beliefs, I would say they are both irrational and unreasonable.
you – Can anyone prove that reason is the only path to “Truth”?
Until someone shows me a different way, that [reason] is the only way I am familiar with. Do you have an alternative? Can you give me a “truth” that has been found any other way than by the use of reason? Just name me one “truth” for me and we can bat that around.
I stand corrected, thanks to (dissidens) http://www.remonstrans.net/ … who quotes this post and points out some of his disagreements. But he’s right when he critiques #10: I should’ve said that we need to seriously question all of our theology and prepare to reject that which endorses power, etc… The problem is, though, that it all has to be questioned for this to be done. Thanks dissidens.
The trouble is, a lot of people who are drawn to churches want some strong, powerful and authoritative figure to look up to. That’s why they see God that way.
Bob. Sorry I lost you. I have such a difficult time putting my thoughts into words!
You wrote: Do you disagree with my statement above, that one does not have to use their rational abilities to become a [Christian] believer?
I disagree. Belief always requires the use of reason. Whether the belief is reasonable or unreasonable, however, is a separate matter.
You wrote: Until someone shows me a different way, that [reason] is the only way I am familiar with. Do you have an alternative? Can you give me a “truth” that has been found any other way than by the use of reason? Just name me one “truth” for me and we can bat that around.
Yes! Truth is intuited. You tap into some sort of knowing and there is no way to prove where this intuited truth comes from, but it doesn’t come from reason. Reason is applied after the truth is intuited so that it can be substantiated and successfully communicated to others. Einstein called the intuitive mind a gift and the rational mind its servant – we honor the servant and forget the gift. Nietzsche said that God is dead and no one – neither the rationalists nor the theists – know it yet. He figured it would take another 300 years before we finally realized it. We have been slaves to an idea of an abstract God for thousands of years and now that we finally realize it, we are becoming slaves to reason.
The rational mind does not provide truth. It merely explains what the intuitive mind already knows in a way that makes sense to the rational mind. Religion does something similar – but through an artistic avenue that taps into spiritual experience. But if we buy into the idea that either reason or religion is the only way to truth, we obstruct our ability to make use of the intuitive mind.
Bob – just realized I may have misunderstood what you were saying about using rational abilities to become a believer. What do you mean by rational abilities – testing hypothesis against experience?
Any belief system requires that we forgo experience in favor of the belief itself.
Well I’m an Intuitive and it’s really just picking up on little clues that your conscious mind may not even have realised you’ve noticed. The clues add up to something that you intuit as a whole. The clues may come from body language, tone of voice, expression, use of certain words, memories of things said by a person etc. Suddenly you know something with a feeling of certainty, but you don’t know HOW you know. Sometimes if you think back you can work out afterwards how you know it. For some people it comes as a picture or symbol. Symbols are very important to Intuitives.
Intuition isn’t always right – as with any means of taking in information, you can still make mistakes.
Bob said: I would agree that most are perfectly reasonable with regard to life in general. But with regard to their religious beliefs, I would say they are both irrational and unreasonable.
———-Ah bob, that is just an opinion.
You need to do better than that. How about irrefutable proof, not opinion that they are both irrational and unreasonable.
fishon
bob – “Do you disagree with my statement above, that one does not have to use their rational abilities to become a [Christian] believer?”
arulba said – I disagree. Belief always requires the use of reason. Whether the belief is reasonable or unreasonable, however, is a separate matter.
Arulba, when I became a believer at 17, it had nothing to do with using my reasoning abilities to help me decide if what I was considering believing in (Jesus) was real (true) or not. My decision was based entirely on emotions. I had recently been informed that I was a sinner and was heading for hell. Absolutely no reasoning was done on my part, to find out if any of that were true. No facts were considered. I became a believer simply because I was frightened at the prospect of an eternity in a hell I didn’t know even existed, and touch by an act by a man/God whom I didn’t know even existed.
As for “Truth is intuited”…beats the heck out of me as to what all that means.
Bob – I would agree that most [Christians] are perfectly reasonable with regard to life in general. But with regard to their religious beliefs, I would say they are both irrational and unreasonable.
fishon———-Ah bob, that is just an opinion.
You need to do better than that. How about irrefutable proof, not opinion that they are both irrational and unreasonable.
No, I do not need to do better than that. Read again and you will notice the words “I would say”. That should indicate that I was offering my opinion. I will give you “irrefutable proof” when you give me “irrefutable proof” that the God Christians believe in is real. Until then, your opinion, and my opinion, will have to do.
bob – but there was a “reason” that you became a believer. A lot of people become believers out of fear or anxiety because someone has reasoned with them that it will bring them peace. Their reason for believing is not irrational and the belief is not free of reason, even if it was driven by emotion.
That which takes place in the intuitive mind does not involve reason. There are all kinds of stories of mathematicians, scientists, and other people who are engaged in rational pursuits who rack their brains for an understanding and it suddenly comes to them while walking on a trail enjoying the scenery or all of a sudden in a dead sleep. The answer comes to them when their reasoning faculties are not engaged. There is no “reason” why the answer/idea arrives. It just does.
But there is always a reason and a reasoning process behind what it is people believe.
I thought I gave quite a clear description of what Intuition is, Bob. I don’t know why you say you have no idea what it’s all about – I’m quite offended. Let’s go back to anal sex.
Tiggy did provide a very clear description. But if you need something more, check out “The Integral Theory of Truth and Reality” from the Crisis of our Age by Sororkin. His thesis is that integral truth (the combination of intuited truth, reasoned truth, and truth experienced through the senses) comes much closer to absolute truth than reason, alone and he gives a lot of examples of how truth has been intuited by Scientists, Mathematicians, artists, etc. throughout the ages to make his point.
Or – feel free to go back to anal sex. That’s probably much more fascinating than trying to weed through Sororkin.
LOL Well my understanding of the different ways we process information comes from Jung, Myers-Briggs (MBTI) and my own experience as someone quite heavily biased toward Intuition.
I’m afraid Fishon has left me very confused. From what he’s said, it seems it’s okay to be a lesbian because you’re not having anal sex, although…..no I won’t go into that. Does that mean that heterosexual couples who have anal sex are going to Hell?
Tiggy said, on November 8th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
YOU: I’m afraid Fishon has left me very confused.
YOU: my own experience as someone quite heavily biased toward Intuition.
————–I suggest you use your intuition, then you won’t be so confused.
fishon
My intuition tells me it’s all cajones.
I took the MBTI for a job position years ago and was told I was an ENFP. I don’t remember all this entailed, but do know that the N stands for intuition. But it’s specific combinations that create an intuitive, right?
Tiggy said – I thought I gave quite a clear description of what Intuition is, Bob. I don’t know why you say you have no idea what it’s all about – I’m quite offended. Let’s go back to anal sex.
Tiggy, you’re funny. I claim to be dense and I am sticking to it.
I have re-read your response. Makes sense. I have no problem with using “intuition” as you have described. I would be very skeptical of anyone, say, a medical doctor, structural engineer, bomb maker, who relied more on intuition than logical reasoning. I think my “intuition” is a result of years and years of life experience. Years and years of contemplation, observation, more contemplation and more observation can make a person intuitive, wouldn’t you say? I don’t think “intuition” is some kind of mystical flow of spiritual cognition that lays dormant, then when you most need it, it arises like a vapor in your “heart”. I think it is a brain function that occurs as a result of knowledge, experience, brain type and use.
I solve problems daily, just as most everyone else. I use my capacity to logically reason. Whether it be deciding if the ham in the fridge is to old to eat, or if I can make it another 20 miles before filling up my gas tank. I perhaps intertwine logic and wishful thinking at times, but I try to apply logic to my reasoning for the most part.
When I became a believer, wishful thinking was dominating my reasoning. I did not slow down and contemplate what I was about to commit to. Sure, I had “reasons” to believe in Jesus, but those reasons were emotionally driven, just like the vast majority of people who become [fundamentalist] Christians.
Arulba, when I said – …”one does not have to use their rational abilities to become a [Christian] believer” I didn’t mean that they don’t have a “reason” for becoming a believer. I meant that they don’t have to actually contemplate the evidence [reason] for or against what they are about to decide. Most people who become Christians, (if they are not born into it) don’t spend any time researching [again, "reasoning"] the system they are about to commit to. Most are presented the notion, as I said earlier, that they are “lost sinners deserving of hell” and that their “only escape is to accept Jesus”. I am talking mainly of the Christian denominations I am familiar with, Baptist, Pentecostal, and many other Protestant brands.
So, I agree that I “used reason” when I became a believer at 17. I had reasons when I became a believer. I do not however, consider those “reasons” to have been rationally arrived at. I did not approach Christianity, in the beginning, the same way I approached high school math, history, biology, etc. My approach to Christianity was emotionally driven.
Fishon…forgive me if I’m wrong, but are you trying to tell Tiggy that the reason you don’t want to discuss that particular topic is because of something deeply personal to you?……… You seem to be giving some clues, but it’s one of those subjects that I’m not willing to totally trust my own intuition.
bob – I realized that was what you probably meant after I re-read your comment. You are right – I think it is important that we always question what it is we believe – whether it is a belief in religion or a belief in reason as a means to absolute truth. I’ve been on both sides.
I came out of the Methodist tradition which is based on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which demands that faith be based on four elements – Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Not that all Methodists follow it or even know about it. But at least it is a reasonable foundation for church.
Arulba, what is a Methodist to do when the four elements conflict or contradict each other?
When I was a good Baptist, scripture was the only foundation. All else (reason, tradition, experience) would be considered corrupted, or corruptible by Satan.
So, even though those elements were not part of the foundation of my Baptist denomination, they were of course, part of the foundation of my Baptist denomination (we just could not see it or would not admit it).
The same thing anyone does when presented with conflicting information. What do you do when your heart tells you to do one thing but the law tells you to do another? Some people insist on compliance with the law, others with the heart. Others figure out some sort of balance. Others go into despair. That’s the human condition.
One source doesn’t trump another. You allow them to exist in tension. The human condition is one huge conflict. There are no easy solutions..
In the Baptist tradition, Scripture trumps reason, experience, and tradition. In many protestant religions and much of Catholicism, personal experience is barely even taken into consideration. In Scientism, reason trumps all.
Those are attempt to create a sort of certainty. Get everyone to see things the way you do and life will be easy. But life isn’t easy. It’s beautiful, wonderful, magnificent and amazing. But it’s not easy.
What Wesley said is that reason, experience, tradition, and scripture all must exist within a sort of “holy” tension. Faith is only truly faith in mystery – not in certainty. (Based on experience, I interpret scripture to mean any work that resonates the sacred – not just the Bible.)
arulba – “The same thing anyone does when presented with conflicting information.”
I don’t think so. When I read from the scriptures and I find they conflict with reality, or contradicts with it’s self, I conclude that the scripture is wrong. Most fundamentalists Christians, from my experience, will ignore the conflict / contradiction, decide that it doesn’t exist, or try to find some way to make the scripture win.
So, do you do what I do, what the fundy’s do…what?
“What do you do when your heart tells you to do one thing but the law tells you to do another?”
I am not sure what you are asking. What do you mean by “heart” and what do you mean by “law”?
You conclude it is wrong because you are seeing it as “either/or” based on how you were taught to see it. The Baptist tradition teaches scripture as though it should be read rationally rather than artistically. But not all Christians think of it in terms of a rational pursuit. Jonah being swallowed by a whale is a story that resonates with a shared human experience – being engulfed by something larger than ourselves and then being spewed out by it. It’s a literary metaphor. But we moderns have primarily lost our ability to understand metaphor thanks to our addiction to reason. Get out of your head when you read it and maybe it resonates – maybe it doesn’t. No big deal. But just because it doesn’t resonate with you doesn’t mean it’s “wrong”. It just means it doesn’t resonate with you. Different strokes for different folks.
I agree that most Christians these days try to figure out a way to make scripture “win”. I think that’s what the progressive Christians are doing by trying to read it historically. And to me, that’s still part of the problem – both the fundy’s and the progressives still maintain it as a text that is meant to be understood rationally (either literally or historically), and I think that is based on a modern bias that did not exist in traditional times. But I think we understand things in stages and that both a literal understanding and a historical understanding are sometimes necessary before we can fully understand it metaphorically, simply because we do have such a tremendous cultural bias. We have to unlearn the bias – so to speak.
You wrote: I am not sure what you are asking. What do you mean by “heart” and what do you mean by “law”?
Herein lies the problem with logic and with so easily making the simple proclamation something is either “right” or “wrong”. When I asked the question, I had in mind the typical conundrum set up by philosophers and sociologists – imagine your daughter is dying and could be easily saved by a certain, rare, and very expensive medicine. You don’t have the money to purchase the medicine, but you do have some illegal means of acquiring the medicine at your disposal. Perhaps you make use of these means and save your child. But because you didn’t purchase the medicine, funding for additional batches is now unavailable and the child of someone who can afford the medicine dies and funding for reproduction is now unavailable. What do you do? It’s just a thought experiment – I know there are all kinds of ins and outs not provided. There are no easy answers unless you have a total disregard for the law or a complete lack of compassion. If you think of law like scripture – the same thing is going on. A scriptural literalist will have a bias toward the law. Someone who has a complete disregard for the law will have a bias toward saving their child at all costs. But the vast majority of us would feel conflicted – whichever decision it is we choose to make.
The human condition requires that we find a way to simply live the questions (as Rilke put it). We live our way into the answers. Reason is only a part of the way we do that.
arulba – “But we moderns have primarily lost our ability to understand metaphor thanks to our addiction to reason.”
I disagree. I can understand metaphor when I am informed that it is metaphor.
With holy books, who gets to decide what is metaphor and what is (thought to be) literal? For instance, the resurrection of Jesus? Literal or metaphorical?
The reason I asked for clarification on your question concerning “heart” and “law”, I refrain from using “heart” when talking about thinking or knowing things. I know “heart” sounds more…romantic? than using brain or mind, but I like to make my self clear, saying what I mean. As for “law”, I wasn’t sure if you were talking about biblical law or modern governmental law, that’s why I asked.
I understand your point and don’t disagree.
Why must you be informed that it is metaphor? That’s what I mean – we are no longer in touch with the metaphorical. God IS a metaphor.
Joseph Campbell offers a great explanation – if you see an Olympian who runs so swiftly he reminds you of a deer – that’s a simile. “Jon runs like a deer.” But if the way the person runs in a way that so impresses you that you that your breath is taken away by the performance, you might experience the runner in the same way you experience a deer. In that case, Jon isn’t simply like a deer. He IS a deer. Of course, logically, we know he isn’t a deer. But what is experienced is not something that can be explained away by a simple comparison. The experience of metaphor is completely different than that of simile.
So who gets to decide what is metaphor? The person who experiences it. No one else can make that decision for another because experience is individual – although communal experience exists, too. But the communal experience still has an individual component. If a person experiences a text literally rather than metaphorically, then that is how he experiences it. Again – no big deal. He can demand that I experience it literally, but I don’t. It only gets complicated when we buy into belief systems about it, rather than our personal experience of it.
arulba, I am very confused, and very intrigued at the same time. I need to read some more, starting with the links you provided – “The Integral Theory of Truth and Reality” from the Crisis of our Age by Sororkin.
Yes, Arulba, an ENFP uses Intuition most out of the four functions. I’m an ENFP. Althought classed as extraverts, they are often somewhere towards the middle on the Extraverstion-Introversion range or else they switch from one to the other – that kindof depends on the E/I test as well – how subtle it is.
Why would one person not paying for the medicine mean that the producers lost all their funding?
I’d have no qualms whatsoever and I doubt that in reality anyone would if their daughter was dying in front of them.
bob – I’m still not expressing it very well. It’s actually a fairly recent understanding for me.
Tiggy – The situation was a thought experiment. Think in terms of “what if”, not actuality. If it requires you to break the law, would you do it? Most people have no problem breaking the law for someone they love. But add to this the knowledge that you will bring harm to many others who are likewise dying because the supply is limited and reliant upon funds, which you are personally unable to provide. Would you be willing to sacrifice the children of others in order to save your own? Whichever way you answer, could you do so without a sense of conflict?
After reading all that all of you have written, I feel I need to put in my own two cents worth. i believe our spiritual growth takes place on four levels. 1) the material 2&3) the mental, which is broken into two parts a) the conscious b) the occult and 4) the spiritual. The material consists of things being done to you. When you are prayed for for healing your experience of God is through someone else’s experience and your experience is the result of theirs. When you are faced with a problem and find a scripture that answers it, that is a material experience. When you go to a liturgy, such as Catholic mass, again, it is external…it is something done to/for you. The mental level, the conscious part, involves something done by you. You have set goals, prayed affirmative prayers, and have manifested your goal. The occult level…this level most people mistake for the spiritual just because its hidden, and yet things have names and there are words involved and the things revealed can be used for either good or evil. This is why our minds need to be renewed so that we bring nothing but truth into that level. At this level things are done through you. This is the seat of intuition, which if not spiritually generated becomes only a psychic experience, the place from which all the counterfeits are generated as well as the place from which the spiritual manifests. And then there is the place of pure spirit where things are done as you. ..the level of just being…Most people never reach this plane. Some get a glimpse of it, but we don’t know of anyone but Jesus who actually was on this plane as a general rule. The Buddha probably spent a lot of time there, but not enough to go into the fullness, the total unity with the Father. Most people seeking the spiritual reach only the upper reaches of the occult which is a mirror image of the lowest spiritual realm. Regarding scripture, to really know what it is saying, we need to realize that it is made up of several kinds of literature and that its meaning is reflected in those genres.
Well it doesn’t make any sense to me so I can’t think in terms of ‘what if’. If I didn’t have the money, it wouldn’t be getting funds from me anyway and you deal with the immediate emergency before you speculate on later outcomes.
I had absolutely no qualms about shop-lifting from a supermarket when I was in a situation with no money or food. I couldn’ t have begged on the streets because I didn’t look impoverished enough in my fake fur coat that cost me £20 in a charity shop years ago. And it was too cold not to wear it. Of course you don’t have Robin Hood as a national hero; I saw myself as robbing from the rich (Mr. Large chain of Supermarkets owner) to feed the poor (me). But then I was brought up that way.
Preacherlady, that’s certainly not what I mean by Intuition. That’s more psychic. I’m not psychic at all, but I am very Intuitive.
faithlessinfatima said, on November 9th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Fishon…forgive me if I’m wrong, but are you trying to tell Tiggy that the reason you don’t want to discuss that particular topic is because of something deeply personal to you?……… You seem to be giving some clues, but it’s one of those subjects that I’m not willing to totally trust my own intuition.
———No, fif, nothing personal in any way to me. I sure don’t know what those clues you seem to sense are? In reality, it would be a converstation with no end. To answer one question would lead to endless questions finally leading the the absurd. First it was about two gays kissing; next is is about anal sex. On and on, and I just choose not to go there.
fishon