silva rhetoricae
Hi, all! You still reading? Is this thing on?
Well, I’ve dropped off the face of the religiosphere for a number of reasons, the foremost of which being that I’ve kind of taken a break from thinking about religion. Since I stopped going to church, it’s been significantly easier to do that. Right now my perspective on religion, and even spirituality as a whole, is so cynical that I expect participation in any discussion about it is non-productive for me and everyone else.
Another reason I haven’t been around much is because I’ve been feeling much better (you may recall, I have chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia) and therefore have been working more. The past few weeks I’ve been working full-time, with only one or two of those days spent working from home. That hasn’t been possible in a long, long time, my friends!
What has prompted me to poke my head out was the discovery that Steve Sjogren made a comment on my last entry, referring to a post I made last summer responding to a Pastors.com article he wrote about pastors and the concept of original thought.
Here’s an excerpt of his comment:
I have spoken as much as anyone you will ever meet in terms of actual times in front of an audience - between 10,000 and 12,000 times. All that to say - I have learned a lot - still am about the craft of communicating orally. I am more than honored that each weekend that many communicators lift my messages, hundreds of invented phrases - without being quoted.
What struck me about what he said there was the use of the word communicating/communicator.
My university degree is in communications. I’m not trying to set myself up as an expert here, just explaining that I took a lot of courses in the discipline of rhetoric. Now, there are many different definitions of rhetoric as a discipline, but I’ll give you one by a well-known rhetorician, Kenneth Burke:
The most characteristic concern of rhetoric [is] the manipulation of men’s beliefs for political ends….the basic function of rhetoric [is] the use of words by human agents to form attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents.
Just as the word ‘rhetoric’ has a negative connotation in Western culture, so does the word ‘persuasion,’ often. I don’t see rhetoric or persuasion as morally polarized in and of themselves. One television ad will persuade a viewer to give to a charity; another television ad will persuade the viewer to buy nutritionally-devoid, more-than-slightly-toxic fast food. Some people will say that all communication is an attempt at persuasion on one level. You don’t have to buy into that to acknowledge the power that rhetoric, that communication, has in a multitude of situations in all facets of life — the private, the public, and everything in between.
My cynicism here revolves around the idea that a gifted orator can convince an audience of many things. I won’t go so far as to say ‘anything,’ (though we can always point to Hitler as the default example of this) but certainly a lot. My question is, when you are moved, stirred, convicted by a pastor’s sermon — that is, an orator at work — are you being called by a higher power? Is the Spirit moving? Or is it purely the talent of the speaker, the order of the words, the sequence of the argument?
I feel this same trepidation toward music and worship. Human beings respond to music. I’ve said before on this blog that I’ve felt the same transcendent feelings at indie pop shows that I’ve felt in church services. I believe music has a special effect on the human psyche, human emotions, that must be separated from the supernatural.
The power of music and the power of communication/rhetoric are two branches of the same tree, in my view. Experiences that are a result of their effective use are never to be trivialized or ignored, but it’s essential to take a good look at what’s creating that sense of conviction in your heart (or, should I say, your ‘gut’), what’s making your spirits soar over the piano chords and vocal harmonies.
Counter-arguments I anticipate:
“God created rhetoric and music, and that’s why they work on people.”
Not a particularly effective argument against a person who does not presuppose the existence of God and/or the particular expression of God that would interact with humanity in such a way
“It’s not an either/or proposition. It’s not a matter of genuine spiritual experience vs. rhetorical/emotional manipulation.”
Perhaps. But my current frame of mind demands I examine the religious experience as it compares to the secular, especially since so much of the religion I was raised in was focussed on ‘feeling.’ That kind of faith becomes problematic when, it turns out, you don’t ‘feel’ it. This has to do with my own personal issues. I’m not condemning the use of oratory and music in worship, because that would be silly. Though it all makes me wonder if maybe the Quakers had it right. Sit in a bare room with your fellow believers and wait for something to happen. No sermons, no worship ballads to obscure the truth.
NB: The title of this post translates to “The forest of rhetoric,” and is also the name of an excellent reference site on this very topic.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:25 am
If you won’t condemn the use of oratory and music in worship, then I will.
In my experience (and I have had a few), it’s about performance and/or manipulation. There has not been a church I have served in as pastor (from traditional Baptist in Texas to seeker-sensitive evangelical in California) that we did not plan out the services to evoke a response or to try and draw out the people to take action in some form or another. In my opinion and from where I sit, pretty much everything I have done up front as a speaker has been about me putting on a “good talk” - but I framed it within the idea that I wanted to be God’s mouthpiece.
ANd I would use music to frame my messages emotionally. I always wanted up beat and lively music before I spoke, because as a high energy speaker, I wanted people to be engaged and “pumped up” when I got on stage. And then, I would use music either throughout my messages or at the end to drive the point home and allow people to contemplate what I had said.
Looking back on it now, it frustrates me to see the way I used my abilities to emotionally manipulate specifically the teenagers I was leading. That is such a vulnerable age and their emotions are so easily swayed. And then with adults, many of them who come to church on Sundays emotionally tired and frustrated or depressed… pastors use that all the time to evoke responses that aren’t sop much spiritually based as they are emotionally. If you are a decent speaker and you have a good worship leader you can get people to do almost anything… it’s really like shooting fish in a barrel.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Hee, leave it to Steve to pull no punches.
Thanks for commenting, buddy. I expect what you have to say is harder for some people to hear, given that it’s coming from a former pastor.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
i actually agree with both of you. and while you may disagree jenny having been part of at least one worship gathering i’ve been in charge of, i do my best to avoid the very things you’ve both talked about above. i’m definately a fan of “head first, emotion later”.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
hey jenny,
thank you for your insightful honesty. In my opinion, after simply loving God, all He really wants from us is to question and seek.
This leads directly into my response to your post. Though I believe your points are well made, and I can only hope that a mulitude of pastors and worship people are taking your observations to heart, I see a danger in simply laying the blame at their feet. I believe that as a worshiping audience (not just in a musical sense) we have become extremely lazy and needy. I believe that God ‘moves’ us in a multitude of ways, which does potentially include the pastor or worship music. However, I believe that “we” share and equlal if not greater responsibility to arrive at these respective gatherings with and understanding of why we are there, what we are ‘expecting’, and how we ultimatly receive what is presented.
In other words, if we simply show up to our favorite (or not so favorite) church as empty vessels, looking to be ‘filled’ with….whatever, I believe we are setting ourselves up for potential failure. We must be an intelligent and discerning audience. Have we truely become such a sheep-like group that pastor Joe with the slightest bit of oratory skill, or worship leader Jane with the great voice, can sweep us off of our spiritual feet?
God created us with amazing and varied talents. I believe that it is a direct insult to Him not to utilize them to their fullest. However, we must take responsibility over their use, or more appropriatly–misuse.
This all ties in to my new life motto: balance. We must remain balanced and honest with ourselves, as must be our leaders in whom we have entrusted the honor of teaching and leading us. An example of great, humble, and completely honest leadership is Rob Bell, over at Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids (check out their podcast…good stuff).
Please keep us updated on your continuing journey. I’d much rather spend time with a seeker than a criticist (?) and hypocrite any day!
March 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
lowendaction:
thank you for your insightful honesty. In my opinion, after simply loving God, all He really wants from us is to question and seek.
Thank you for your lengthy comment. But before we begin, I’d like to note that you seem to be assuming that I believe in God; I don’t. Not completely, anyway. Not that that changes your belief in any of the statements you make — I just want you to know that we’re not exactly coming from the same standpoints in this regard.
I see a danger in simply laying the blame at their feet.
I’m not blaming. I’m just analyzing the situation. And while your moving the discussion toward the topic of passivity in worship is not unexpected, you are moving away from the crux of my question, here.
Religion is a structure, a system. Participants in the system — both pastors and worshippers, as you have set out the dichotomy, and indeed as the dichotomy is set out in most of Western Christendom — do as they’re told. Not just by the authority figure (as Western Christendom is highly hierarchical) but as the system instructs. So lobbing tennis ball back with the “But worshippers expect to be entertained! They’re lazy!” is not all that effective. The system imposes a set of behaviours on its participants; by doing those behaviours, the participants create the system.
But that’s not my quarrel, here. What I want to know about is religious experience; spiritual experience. Is it “real,” or is it the product of moderately quantifiable artistic effects?
A linguist who specializes in stylistics can take a particular text and break it down into its elements — grammar, phonology, morphology. You can even make flow charts and the like about what a piece of text does with its syntax, tropes and schemes and how that tends to affect the audience. It’s not hard science or anything, but there is a discipline for analyzing it.
Given the effect that oratory, music and even, say, the pure beauty of a mountain vista on a spring morning can have on the human brain in secular contexts, do true spiritual experiences even exist?
That’s my question. And I find your response to my entry a typical evangelical avoidance of philosophical query.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
jenny -
sorry for the leangth, it’s hard for me to slow down when I get into something I’m passionate about. And though I guess I could have studied up a bit more on you and your current belief systems, they have no impact on me or my previous statements. The “we” refers to those who call themselves christians and attend some kind of church.
What strikes me about your entire stance, is that you seem to be angered and somewhat baffeled by what you observe in christians. And though science is well and good for the study of that which we can touch, see and hear, what you are asking about, is ultimatly only for those who “experience” it. Yes, I am painfully aware of how cliche and predictable my response must be to you, it none the less speaks to a simple truth. You seek answers to something that you mus ultimately discover for yourself. Even if I and a million others told you about their “genuine” spiritual experiences, would it make it any more real for you?
Your apperent knowledge of the Christian faith and church seems to be a very external view. And though it can be described as accurate from its appearance, you would quickly find that much of it holds no truth to many of those individuals that it is comprised of. I know of very little, if any, westerners who are some how forced or even coerced into being christians. Sure there are plenty of churches that prey on the week and emotional (either maliciously or ignorantly), but that still has very little to do with the individuals decision to engage in a personal relationship with Christ. The decision to attend a church (again, quite voluntarily) is for the means of fellowship and spiritual growth. Does this apply to everyone? Of course not. There are far to many who have all the wrong motivations or dillusions about the nature and purpose of christendom and the church is.
Again, i applaud and welcome your desire for knowledge, but I caution you that you will not find the “real” answers in a book or from someones testimony. This is not a ploy to try and “suck” you into the club. It’s like a non-musician trying to understand/experience what it feels like for a master musician to play their instrument to perfection. Sure they can describe it, but is that really the answer you’re looking for?
I’m not trying to convince, convert or otherwise pursued you. All I would challenge you with, is to ask yourself honestly why you are asking these questions, and how far are you willing to go to find out.
As to your original question, for me, yes.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:30 am
What strikes me about your entire stance, is that you seem to be angered and somewhat baffeled by what you observe in christians.
See, when I read comments like this I wonder if you actually read anything I wrote or if you skimmed it and then launched into the appropriate platitudes?
Why is it that anyone who takes a critical stance on Christian religion is automatically “angry”?
Your apperent knowledge of the Christian faith and church seems to be a very external view. And though it can be described as accurate from its appearance, you would quickly find that much of it holds no truth to many of those individuals that it is comprised of.
While the second sentence doesn’t really make sense — that is, I can’t parse it — I’m tempted to list my Christian credentials in response to the first. I am, after all, ex-Christian, not non-Christian. My father and brother are ministers, my grandfather was a minister, I’ve been to Bible school, and I was once a card-carrying Christian. I’ve had the “spiritual” experiences (though they were few and far between, and, it turns out, easily replicated in the secular realm).
On a rhetorical level, I find your tone quite dismissive. (”Again, i applaud and welcome your desire for knowledge, but I caution you that you will not find the “real” answers in a book or from someones testimony.”) I want to talk about the nature of experience; you want to launch into the old refrain of “You just have to feel it.” (And I knew it was a mistake to mention the word science! So many Christians are so mortally terrified of that word!)
As to your original question, for me, yes.
Well, thank you, but one-word answers don’t cut it here. Make a decent argument for why that’s your answer.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:14 am
As I’ve experienced, on many occasions at the SCP nation, the tone of a comment or post can often be misinterpreted. The last thing I want to do is come across as “all knowing” or hostile.
I am not ‘afraid’ of science. Quite the contrary. I have great respect and understanding of it. However, it does not apply to the topic of “spiritual experience”. And though you may not like my “touchy-feely” suggestions, i really can’t think of any other way TO experience the spirtual…thing. If you do come accross such a method, please don’t keep it a secret!
The term ex-Christian is a bit facinating to me. I have read a bit about your history and uprbinging, and can’t say that I remember seeing your age listed. And though I am painfully aware of the dangerous waters I am about to tread, I feel they are worth exploring. I can’t say this clearly enough: I am not, nor would I ever judge you or your eternal security! Having said that, I would challenge you that perhaps your prior ‘card carrying crhistian’ experience wasn’t…well, I’ll just leave it at that. Look, my dad is missionary, and therefore I LITTERALLY grew up in the church. That did not make me an automatic Christian in any way shape or form. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I didn’t ‘become’ a chrisitian until the age of 19 or 20. Having said that, I am still very much on my journey of questions and understanding, and would never claim to have achieved some kind of christianic nirvana. All that to say, the term ‘being a christian’ is far to often misused. Again, not judging…just asking/suggesting/postulizing…whatever word is most non-offensive and non-judging!
My ’spiritual experience’ is my life. Let me explain. I had the dis-pleasure of serving in Iraq twice. There were multiple occasions when my life could have ended. Do I attribute all of those ‘happenstances’, ‘miricles’, ‘coincidencess’–which ever of those terms best suits you–to God? Many times I have concluded: no. But through all of these crazy times, I also met my wife (not in Iraq…), and she has most definitly been the most spiritual thing that I’ve ever experienced (and still do). So did he protect or guide me through these events? I can’t say for sure, but much of it has been beyond my compacity to explain by ‘human’ measure. I think what you’re looking for is some kind of definable event that can be put in a bottle and later analyzed through reason and deduction. From my limited understanding, all I can tell you, is that it doesn’t work that way. If you really want to know…
I’m no good at all this rhetoric (to borrow from you), but I would strongly encourage you to check out one guy that I think has a unique gift at formulating much of this in word. His name is Rob Bell, and the book I am refering to is: Velvet Elivs (you can get the audiobook, read by him, on itunes). I’ll guarantee you that it will be enlighting if nothing else.
thank you for the open forum for this discussion, and I look forward to exchanging life experiences with you along our respective journeys.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Because I’m kind of a jerk and because butting in is what I do best, I just couldn’t hold my tongue any longer (besides it makes you very thirsty to do so). I think it is totally valid to question the legitimacy of our experiences (although it does sadden me to hear some peoples conclusions). I also have to say that (and I don’t mean to be rude but) I think Rob Bell is a fairly dim guy with a few gems but almost no content. I think maybe Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel would be better or perhaps Dr. Ann D. Braude.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Lessee…
My question is, when you are moved, stirred, convicted by a pastor’s sermon — that is, an orator at work — are you being called by a higher power? Is the Spirit moving? Or is it purely the talent of the speaker, the order of the words, the sequence of the argument?
Most Christians, IMO, would say it is “the work of the Spirit”, that it is a real experience. And while I certainly believe God can use the spoken word to touch someone (God can use anything, IMO), I also think a lot of it can be attributed to the power of suggestion. If one says something in the just the right way, or if a worship band plays a certain song in a particular way (or even repeats a lyric several times), it can put some sort of suggestion in someone’s head, which can cause someone to react in a certain way.
I’ve been on a worship team for nearly ten years (I play piano and sing). Sometimes a minister will come up to our worship leader and say, or announce from the pulpit, “Oh, God really moved through the singing today; I felt like we actually entered the ‘holy of holies’.” Me, I’m usually thinking, ‘Well, if you felt something, good for you, because I felt absolutely nothing’. Some would say that’s because I wouldn’t allow the Spirit to move within me during that time, that I wouldn’t open up (read: “let myself go”) and worship. (During the singing, my eyes are always open, usually looking at the worship leader. Sometimes I look at the other musicians or at the congregation.)
Then when it comes time to listen to the sermon, I may pick up on a little something here and there; but usually, I’m disengaged for some reason. I dunno.
Lowend…
However, [science] does not apply to the topic of “spiritual experience”.
I think it does, actually (science = knowledge, after all; and knowledge seems to be something God likes to give his children). I think a lot of things that are usually chalked up to God (or the spiritual in general) *can* be explained scientifically in some way.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:13 am
well, i guess until jenny gives us the boot, we’re just going to go ahead and jack her blog for a while…sorry jenny!
HoKohen - I’m not sure if I ended up muddling my own words again, but my entire point was TO question…question everything. Not sure if you were just agreeing with me or not, but there you have it. Some pretty harsh words for our brother Rob though. I’m just wondering how familiar you are with his work (his books, NOOMA, and his sermons “Mars Hill Church” podcast). I actaually find him to be very well educated and extremely historically versed. But hey…to each their own.
shelly - I love your honesty and frank discription of your worship experience. I think that far to often, we think that just because a group has assembled for a singular (or simlar) purpose, that all must have the same experience/reaction to the ongoings. We were created as individuals, and will therefore have completely different experiences, which really shouldn’t be compared or judged.
I must say that I find your “science = spiritual experience” comment a little limiting. As in, putting God in a box kind of limiting. Sure there is much we can, and should be able to explain and understand by science. However, there are other ‘mysteries’ that, in my belief, are simply beyond our human comprehension…and that’s ok! After all, faith is the very crux of the christian belief. Can you scientifically explain faith? Again I refer to balance, we shouldn’t be completely swept up in the unknown/unexplained blah blah blah. On the other hand, when our God can be wholly explained and fit into a tidy little box of human understanding, than he is (in my opinion) in fact, not there at all.
good times…
March 30th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
On the other hand, when our God can be wholly explained and fit into a tidy little box of human understanding, than he is (in my opinion) in fact, not there at all.
Lowend… you may have successfully just fully deconverted me with that sentence.
But seriously, IMO you can scientifically (pyschologically, physiologically, sociologically) explain almost every aspect of the religious experience around the globe. Of course, I know your argument will be “where do these aspects of our beings originate”. But noone can prove their origins and so in typical fashion the only argument believers are left with is “the faith card”. Christians want to appeal to science when it benefits them and run to faith when science counteracts their beliefs.
As believers, we emphatically claim to KNOW God exists based on our experiences. When asked to document these claims or proofs, we fall back on “faith”. As I have stated before… faith is the Christian “get out of reason card”.
Christians claim complete certainty on one hand (God exists, the Bible is God’s word, Jesus died and rose again) and complete faith on the other. They only claim the latter when they can’t prove the former.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:48 am
[…] A post of Steeples and People seem to echo my thoughts: … my current frame of mind demands I examine the religious experience as it compares to the secular, especially since so much of the religion I was raised in was focussed on ‘feeling.’ That kind of faith becomes problematic when, it turns out, you don’t ‘feel’ it. This has to do with my own personal issues. I’m not condemning the use of oratory and music in worship, because that would be silly. Though it all makes me wonder if maybe the Quakers had it right. Sit in a bare room with your fellow believers and wait for something to happen. No sermons, no worship ballads to obscure the truth. […]
April 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
To Lowendaction: I would agree with aspects of what both you and Jenny have said (though the discussion seems a bit petty at times (and I know about petty). What I meant about Rob Bell is that he is probably a bad choice for you to have picked out for Jenny; that’s all. I think that in a discussion concerning the legitimacy of spiritual experiences; when one looks at the unavoidable impact of other stimuli, Rob Bell would simply help to prove her point. He is after all not a scholar but a very competent speaker who runs a large church (though despite how they wished to be viewed, still presents incredibly polished services that are intended to be very emotional). I didn’t mean to insult him/or you, but I just think that Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel would have been a better choice. Despite being one of the most important theologs of the past 100 years, he also wrote specifically about how faith can create responses in believers (in God in search of Man). I also thought that Dr. Ann D. Braude had something to contribute if for no other reason than the fact that she is probably one of the world’s foremost scholars on women and religion in North America and because she certainly has something to say on expression vs. understanding. (Transforming the Faiths of Our Fathers: The Women Who Changed American Religion).
To Jenny: I don’t want to start a new debate but I would like to hear your thoughts on this. First, I agree that the Church (some more than others) manipulates (though to some degree - so does everything else from commercials to clothing – although arguably with less potential for negative consequence). But… can anything really be untainted by both presentation and perception? I guess what I’m saying is… if all things are both presented in some way and subsequently deciphered by the addressees, then what constitutes exploitation and by what criteria do we separate this from instruction?
Apologies for my form – I am not the expert writer you are.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
well put Hakohen (I always have to scroll up to ensure I haven’t dislexifide your name…it’s a tricky one!).
I have nothing more to add to that.
jenny, the ball is in your court (to use a vomit-inducing cliche-but not mean it any kind of taunting or adjetating way…).
April 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I already kind of mentioned this on SCP, but I’ll repeat myself. I stray from the issue, but I think there’s a connection:
I agree that orators and music can create intense feelings in people - especially those who are searching for that “fluttery feeling” as a means to a desirable end.
I think some Christians get caught up in searching for feelings and signs to justify their own wants, needs, and desires.
A couple of years ago my friend wanted to rekindle his relationship with an ex-girlfriend but like all good conservative evangelicals he had to consult God first. When I asked him what the verdict was, he said he knew that God wanted him to get back together with his ex (even though “God had told him to leave her” a year prior to go out with someone else). Often when I ask Christians how they know what God wants, they reply with “It’s just a feeling I get. I just know what God wants me to do.” And big surprise: the verdict is that God affirms what he was desiring in the first place. Coincidence?
People seek justification and validation. If God is telling you to do something, who can tell you you’re wrong? I think many Christians are guilty of taking acid indigestion or queezing feelings as a sign from God to mean something that just isn’t there.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 am
Ha Kohen:
But… can anything really be untainted by both presentation and perception?
Short answer: no. And that’s kind of my point. It’s beginning to look like what I want here are answers on the nature of reality. i.e. does reality exist or is reality subjective? And, along that same line, is truth Truth or is it too subjective (Christians, I would be most gratified if you refrained from commenting “Yes, Truth exists because the Bible says so.” Thank you.)
All communication is mediated by perception and persuasion. I feel confident in making that statement. But to me, the question that remains is whether or not there is an objective reality beneath that.
Bastard Bob:
That’s always the concern with following “God’s will” when God “speaks” to us. Though I no longer ascribe such feelings to God, I personally go with my gut feeling on things (Stephen Colbert has taught me so much) on many occasions (in terms of what job I should take, what trips I should go on — things of more consequence than “What shall I have for lunch?” but I suppose not by much in the cosmic scheme). I might even entertain the idea of fate and the idea of things happening as they’re supposed to. But I think there are some serious implications of making decisions based on the will of a divine being where that being does not communicate in a physical sense with you.
I think many of us have witnessed scenarios like the one you did, Bob. And the people who believe God speaks to them believe it. I think there’s a certain culture that emerges in evangelical circles, though, where people submit their will to God as a way of maybe abdicating personal responsibility in decisions like the example you wrote of.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:36 am
jenny, I’m a little hurt that I didn’t get a personal shout out, or at least a decent toungue-lashing from you, but not to worry…I’ve got my bucket of worms well stocked (and their blessed!).
Enough silliness, I would like to address you question/statement. Though I do think I attempted to explain this earlier, or maybe it was at SCP, or maybe I just wasn’t making any sense… The obvious response to your question: “Is an objective reality beneath…” would be that perseption/perspective Is reality. That is to say, each and every one of us must seek our own truth and validate it to ourselves. I think that as soon as we begin trading our ‘rightness’ with that of others, we have already invalidated our own truth. This does not mean we should question, examine, probe and study any and everything, but at the end of the day, it is our image in the mirror that must say to us: “Yes, I’m with you on this.” Unfortunatly this is one of the many flaws of the christian movement. People get lulled into a mutual affirmation of ‘faith’, and stop checking themsleves on the inside. This same phenomenon can be found outside of the church as well… environmental movements, politics, sports…not that any of these are fake or false in and of them selves, but sadly full of people who have sold out to a mass movement, instead of a personal conviction. Truth is what you make of it. If for you truth is what other likeminded individuals around you are are confirming, then who am I to judge that (and I’m not accusing you of that…just trying to make a point)? My only reservation with that stance, is that your base is no longer within in yourself, but the movement/idea/belief…etc.
This leads directly into your comments to Bastard Bob (is that like the white version of O.D.B.? just curious…;). There was a long period in my life when I was just tearing my self appart regarding the whole “is it my will?” or “is it God’s will?” issue. A good friend of mine finally put it to me like this. Since God created us, and is infact IN us (not just the believers…omnipresence, kinda deep if you think about it!!), he also designed us with our own unique talents/visions/desires. Along with that, we are in relationship with him, and therefore make decisions that are mututally beneficial to the relationship. This does not necessarily mean a set of old testament rules like some kind of Charlet Heston movie, but much more like any meaningful relationship you currently have. Like for example a family memeber or loved one. If you have that relationships best interrest in mind, you will make descisions that will hopefully not hurt or destroy that relationship/person. You do not do this because it’s in a contractual agreement, or forced rule, but because you love that person. So too is it with God. We make descesions that will hopefully streangthen our relationship to him (this of course based on the one and only thing he really ever wants from us: love, not blind obediance, religious tradition, or false worship). So, it woul look something like this. If I am in the decision making process of an upcoming choice, I examine my motivations (are they fueled by love and compassion?) and whether they the true desire of my heart (not tainted by the opinions or misdirection of others). Then ultimately i just go for it. Now, if you are geniuinely interrested in the health and future of your relationship with God, than you will know wether or not he was in mind while you were walking through your choices.
As you accuratly pointed out, those who simply hand the whole thing over to God, are not really communicating with their relational partner, and are therefore not making sound decisions (or not making decisions at all!). If on the other hand, you are simply leaving God out of your decision making process all together, than you will never really know how his will (the streangth of your relationship) plays in to all of this.
That is why ealier on I kept on harping on my point of: “you must walk it, to truely understand it.” I really hope I’ve made sense in all of this. I apologize for the leangth…but you did ask the question. But most importantly, I want to make clear that none of this is an attack or judgement directed at you…but simply truths that I’ve come to except and understand for MYy life…which is all anyone can ever do.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
Jenny: I guess I would say that this is an important question.
Although the existence of objective reality is quite easy to prove in some instances, this is not always the case. For example: a group of people might begin driving down the highway on their way to one place only to find that they were heading in the opposite direction. The vehicles’ internal compass could have been off, the sings on the highway may have been vague or gone unnoticed and the driver and passengers might have earnestly believed the course of their journey to be the correct one, but that perception didn’t make it so. Perception is not reality. Perception is merely how we interpret stimuli and it is very often wrong and is even deadly in many cases. Objective reality does exist and in some cases can easily be demonstrated. (Though this gets quite complicated by the fact that subjectivity can only be viewed by those outside the erroneous perspective; such as a friend who sees the car heading in the wrong direction. Or it could even be seen as objective by the individuals themselves at a later time when the objective reality of the situation catches up to them; such as arriving in the wrong location.)
The more poignant question is – can we or can we not do what Descartes attempted to do in applying knowledge of objective reality to what Christians already admit to being a transcendent God. Although objective reality exists, can we ever (as participants rather than observers i.e. before death) really perceive God objectively? This is where those of us in the Christian community should simply answer “No, we cannot”. But… as insiders, because all things must be interpreted, this means that God is no more subjectively perceived than is: taste, gravity, smell, time or anything else for that matter. Therefore, if perception cannot be a reason for belief in God then it also cannot be a reason for disbelief in God, because disbelief would also be subjectively perceived.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
much respect HaKohen…
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Hi Jenny
you are absolutely right that “a gifted orator can convince an audience of many things” and that music can manipulate a church full of people. Speaking and music are in themselves neutral - their power lie in the way they are used - or abused. Because of my aversion to being manipulated I have found silence to be a more helpful environment. I have learned much from from the Ignatian and Benedictine traditions about encountering God in silence.
Peace
PG
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
This discussion is getting pretty personal for me. This Lenten season in my prayers, I’ve gotten the distinct impression that it would be a good idea for me to step into full-time ministry. What that means exactly and whether or not God thinks I’m daft, I don’t know yet.
Personally, I’m not much into rhetoric that persuades as much as storytelling that reveals. Ads and politicians and media and what not pummel us with rhetoric all day long. Some of it is legit, but most is noise. Why should the Church join in all that noise — browbeating the unwilling into something that in the end analysis can only be experienced?
Every artist knows that rhetoric doesn’t move anyone to tears, doesn’t profoundly shift their consciousness or commitment. Artists create symbols, mine metaphors, root around in the dirt of human experience, tell stories and literally transform the world by introducing new authentic persepectives.
Faith without reason is superstition, so a big shout out to the philosophers and theologians. But they can only provide a reasonable framework for the truth that profound experiences teach.
Rhetoric opens the door, but storytelling turns on the light. Churches that try and corral attendees into the straight and narrow with rhetoric of any kind — preaching, powerpoint, programs, whatever — are immediately doomed to irrelevance. Church that reveals, tells the truth, will remain vital and critical to spiritual survival, no matter what the form.
I like and recommend these Revelators: Sara Miles (Take This Bread), Frederick Buechner (Telling Secrets, Wishful Thinking), Annie Dillard (Teaching A Stone To Talk), Barbara Taylor Brown (Leaving Church), Anne Lamott (Traveling Mercies, Grace Eventually). Stunning, tear-inducing and recklessly Godly — all of them.
In any case, thx for letting me add to your comments. You’ve been a gracious host…
I found this site via Stupid Church People via Scott Williams (http://scott.club365.net).
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:33 am
lowendaction:
How about I start giving you shoutouts when you stop spouting platitudes? I guess I just broke my own rule, there. But seriously, pal — you’re not saying anything I haven’t heard before and you’re not even saying it in a new and exciting way (that is with a little RHETORICAL flair!).
Ha Kohen:
I like this line of reasoning. But where does that leave us? Taste, smell, gravity, and time at least have a baseline the vast majority of humanity can agree upon. Though taste and smell are in a different category than time and gravity — taste and smell are modes of perception rather than things to be perceived. (They’re also concepts, I realize and therefore partially in the abstract as everything eventually is.) But time and gravity why is it that the vast, vast majority of us agree that when you drop a ball it will fall to the ground? And while ideas about time vary from culture to culture, we’ve all developed a linear structure to our lives and thinking. But there’s no similar consensus on the divine.
Pete, thanks for your comment.
Paul — I’ll get to you later, right now I have to get ready for work!
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 am
Jenny: I think we could get into a discussion concerning temporal analysis and we could probably talk about (my view) how the idea of the divine is perhaps even more universal than a consensus on gravity (looking back through history or at so called 3rd world observations and everything from Aristotle’s concepts to Newton and even Gravity vs. Gravitation as some call it). But to be honest… I think we would both get board and I think it would be a bit silly. In the end, maybe we should just agree that churches should be self aware of their capacity for manipulation and that people like you should continue, as Anderson Cooper says, “keeping them honest”.
Love your blog!
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
well then…it’s a somewhat sad revelation for me, that I didn’t pass the required ‘Pre-rhetoric 101′ course to be worthy of your circle-discussions. But then again…not so much.
I guess my attempts at encouraging you towards more action and less talking just fell on deaf eyes. But I have absolutely no interest in antagonizing you or discouraging you from you quest for knowledge (though you seem to know an aweful lot already).
So good times to you, and may your hospitality serve you well.
good bye
September 27th, 2007 at 6:10 am
After skimming this lengthy blog, I come right back to my ultimate conclusion. It’s all about opinion.
First, for the record, I’m a 21 year retired veteran of the US military having served in both the Army and Air Force, and am a combat veteran of Operations Desert Shield and Storm. I was raised Reform/Conservative Jewish, was pounded at every opportunity by people of every denomination who insisted I needed to “find Jesus” their way, eventually “made a profession of faith” through the outreach of the Independent Baptists (indie-fundies if you will, an organization I will avoid at all cost now), was a volunteer with San Francisco, CA-based “Jews for Jesus”, and was a “children’s church pastor” (not ordained, sort of an apprentice if you will), taught adult clases in Germany and Korea in my travels… in other words I’m not stranger to the system
Opinions are like rectal orifices. Most everyone has one, and most of them stink. I bailed out of the religio-political thing some years ago when I realized just that. While it’s not a “scientific” fact, there may be something to that old saying “if you do something over and over again and expect different results, that’s insanity”. Religion and politics have been going on for over 10,00 years of recorded history and it hasn’t fixed anything. Back in the beginning of this blog words like “persuasion”, and “rhetoric” came up which was the subject to begin with. And the reference to Hitler and NAZI Germany too. A perfect example of rhetoric and persuasion mixed with strong-arm tactics, power in the worst hands, and “might makes right - until someone with bigger guns, better funding, more troops, atomic weapons, and a different opinion comes along”.
Government in action, soldiers just “doing their job”, people being convinced of absurdities when they have no hope in anything so far and the most persuasive, charismatic person comes along with a “good idea”, yada yada yada.
Bottom line is they were wrong in every sense of the word, in my humble opinion, and in the opinions of most of the world so it would seem. Not all, Neo-Nazis, for example, but 99% we’ll say. Yet there were those who were convinced. Not all, but enough. Enough to know that if you want to live another day you may have to conform. In the religious organizations, whiole Roman Catholics aren’t conducting Inquisitions anymore you still will catch hell in religion if you dare to be different, or at least live outside the “rules”. I do, that’s why i don’t play “church” anymore at all.
So what’s the difference when a “pastor” motivates a lemming-audience to move his way? With little thought most religious organization members (I reserve the word church for those who are truely following the teachings of Y’shua, not “religion”) blindly suck up and swallow whatever they are fed. If it makes no sense they just disregard it and go on and they are called “fence straddlers”. Those who buy into it and act upon it are “fundamentalists” in the literal use of the word, the “hard core” of their organizations. And then there are the majority that can’t get behind the non-sense and they are the ones, who eventually go over the side, quit the stupidity and are the “excommunicated”, the “backsliders”, the “lost all over again” or “never was really saved to begin with” (depending on your doctrine), or whatever the term du juor is. I’ve been away from it for a while.
There will always be the hard-asses versus the “liberals” depending on who is ranting from the pulpit. It’s all opinion and referencing back to the subject, it’s about persuasion and convincing and bending herts and minds, and I for one, will not be manipulated. Yes I know to be an American citizen is to be manipulated. Taxes, laws concerning what I can and can’t do in the privacy of my own home, left versus right… but the point is, FAITH is not “wishful thinking”. It’s being convinced based on a fact.
There’s no such thing as “blind faith”. That’s guesswork, gambling, wishful thinking”. HOPE is not wishful thinking either. It’s an expectation based on trust. For example, I received a promise and I am waiting for that promise to be fulfilled because I am TRUSTING in the one that made the promise because, based on their past performance, they can be trusted to do what they promised. THAT is FAITH and HOPE.
As for me, I believe in a Creator God if only because, for now, it explains our origins better than “chance”. And I believe this God (not he or she but rather a spirit with the best attributes of both who is able to give “gender” to people) knows this universe down to the sub-atomic level. This God is all-knowing, not by learing, but rather by a complete understanding of the physics of the universe as God created them. And God knows us at the sub-atomic level, every chemical interaction, every synapse in the nervous system, every quark, muon, and electron. And God’s perfect plan is agapé, perfect unselfish love. Not laws, not rules, not conditions in order to be accepted. No legislature can overrule agapé-love.
That’s the mind of God, that’s what God taught us if we believe that the spirit/mind of God inhabitied a human body for three decades and left us a working example of how God thinks and acts and what we should try to rise to. Then, in death and resurrection, reset the “Adam error” for the WHOLE world, showed that death is not the end and has been defeated, gave us something to look forward to, and opened the way for a relationship with this Creator God and an opportunity to learn from the example left for us. No religion required.