Case study: falling away from the faith

While visiting a Catholic site I've not read for a while, I noticed a comment by someone who wonders why some of the most angry and atheist apologists and attackers of Christianity and the Church are "former evangelicals." The answer to this is somewhat straightforward, so I'll make it a quick case study.

Even when one is a Christian, the farther away that you are in your faith from making God the center of it all, the more you are at risk of losing your perspective, and then your faith. So if you think of faith as being a series of concentric circles, the innermost circle being God himself, if you are in a faith that is in a close circle to God, where your focus is always kept on him, it tends to be a good indicator of future stability of mind. This is true, obviously, if one is Christian, Muslim or Jewish. The more that you view your faith as "being all about God" and not yourself, the better you yourself will actually grow in spirit and in love of human life.

Now, say what you will about the problems of the "hierarchy" of those big bad institutional churches, but there is an advantage to enforced humility. Humans tend to puff themselves up pretty big and fast when they are on their own. This is one reason it is not such a bad thing to belong to a large institutional faith, such as being Catholic, and I also include the highly humble and egalitarian faith of Islam (witness three million people on Haj even as we speak, side by side, rich and poor, all men wearing two white cloths as their clothing). Many hajis (people who have gone on haj) say that remembering that it is all about God and his mercy, and all being equal in his eyes, is the highlight personal illumination of haj. The Catholic Mass is, likewise, a liturgy that is focused entirely on God, as revealed through Jesus Christ, and in the prophets and forefathers and mothers.

Likewise, the institutional churches of the children of the Reformation, such as the various sects, called denominations, of Protestantism, Methodists, Baptists and so forth, also retain this focus on God. Their communal worship within an institutional church helps remind them that it is not all about themselves, but it's all about God, and Jesus Christ, the Savior.

However, when a number of Protestants began to self identify as "Evangelicals," a subtle form of temptation crept in. So long as they remained in the mainstream of the institutionalized denominations, that temptation to increase one's own individual importance, and diminish one's focus on God, is usually kept in check. This is one reason I am a great admirer of Baptists.

But the problem is that many take a worthy objective, to "evangelize" and have done two things. One is that they give themselves a title, merited or not. Suddenly they think of themselves as being "evangelicals," with all due honors and privileges, if you know what I mean. Second, many break away from their denominations and "create their own churches." What exactly is one's "own church?" Whenever a few in the congregation get angry, off they go and "create their own church." Where's God in all this, and God's equal expectations from everyone?

Thus, ironically, when an "evangelical" loses faith for some reason or another, it is not at all surprising that they tumble far and hard, with great anger, often going to the extreme of virulent denial of God himself The reason it is not surprising is that with each step one takes in faith, no matter which faith or denomination you are in, away from God and toward self focus and meeting "your own needs" for "your own church," you are already having one foot in a sticky pit of temptation without even knowing it.

Many people, as an aside, are baffled by the grandeur of the interior of Catholic churches. But one important reason for that is to continue to keep people looking upward toward God, and not mistake that the worship is all about themselves and their "message" "on behalf of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit." Catholic churches are deliberately designed to appear as two things 1) the sacrificial altar and 2) a glimpse into the sanctuary, which is the gateway to heaven. That sure keeps it focused on God.

When an "evangelical" (or anyone else) starts to subconsciously and then consciously focus on whether or not "his or her church" is "meeting" "his or her needs," you've got a big potential problem of temptation of hubris and the falling away of faith. One has, at that point, already taken a big step away from God, by lowering God in one's own mind and raising one's self up as being the "one who really understands what it is all about." When that evangelical has inch by inch step by step moved farther from God being the center of it all, one day they wake up and feel there is nothing there, and then they lose their faith, they deny, they get angry, and they attack the very people, the remaining faithful, who the evangelical him or herself had "left behind" as being "indoctrinated" or "stupid." It's like running away from home and then denying that a home ever existed. It's exactly like that.

Sometimes you can better understand this drift if you compare it with groups where the drift does not happen, for the most part. Look at Orthodox Jews, for example. You just don't tend to see an Orthodox Jew shake his head and say, "You know, this worship thing really doesn't meet my needs or work for me. I know what God really wants, so I'm going to 'plant' my own synagogue, and we will do in it whatever 'meets our needs.'" Um, you just don't see that. Likewise, look at Muslims. The Sunni and the Shi'a have sometimes bitter disagreement about the spiritual successors to the Prophet (PBUH). But I do not know a single Muslim who would go up the the Grand Mufti and say, "You know, this haj schedule really doesn't work for me and my friends. We are going to start our own haj, but it's going to take place in some month that is not haj." LOL, imagine that. You just would not see it, because all Muslims are proud of the five pillars of their faith, not trying to "edit" them and become "non denominational" in order to "better meet their needs." I also don't know Muslims who run around saying, "You know, parts of the Qur'an really don't work for me, so let's remove those chapters." Sometimes individuals err in the direction of deeply believing but not understanding their own faith, and that is something mainstream Islam is trying to address. But none of them take their eyes off of God above all to "create their own mosque" that "meets their own worship needs."

With every step that one takes from keeping God himself at the very center of one's spiritual and secular life, one is taking one's self farther into an area where one is tempted to think that faith exists in order to "meet your needs" because it is "all about you." That is the shadow, to use a psychological term, of "evangelicals." They feel a great love and vigor of faith, but their unnoticed shadow is that they feel they are interior and individual custodians of the "truth" of their faith, and that is a dangerous slope of inflation and ultimately disappointment, anger, disenfranchising and disbelief.

This, again, is the reason that some are baffled that the Methodist church has an empty cross, with a red cloth draped to signify that Christ has risen, while Catholics have the crucifixion cross, with the corpus of Christ. The people who are baffled think that Catholics are "stuck" on the gory figure of Christ, and not focused on his having resurrected and "left the cross." But to quote St. Paul it is about him, Christ and him crucified. Catholics, even the weak ones, never forget that it is about God through Jesus Christ, and that one must always keep one's gaze on God and on the Savior he sent, that the Savior was crucified and that all must carry one's cross.

Sometimes I worry that my friends the Methodists have a psychology that the Cross is a "completed project." That is one step away from being totally God centric. I'm not bashing, I'm analyzing. Trust me, I grew up among many Methodists and they think they have it figured out, while the Catholic Church has the wrong orientation. Nope. One is never wrong if one is totally focused on God, and Jesus Christ crucified. When one is not "comfortable" with that focus on God and Jesus Christ, crucified, one has to ask, why is it about your "comfort" level, your faith? Again, I'm not criticizing, but I am critiquing, since, after all, I've endured silently decades of being critiqued unjustly, and now I reply.

Again, if one need to understand faith, look at Orthodox Jews. Have they edited their faith in order to be "more comfortable," to eliminate the suffering and anguish in faith history and replace it only with "spreading the good word," and have they people who break away when they quarrel and set up their own "non denominational" "place of worship?" No, because as I've said before, no one comprehends God better than Orthodox scholarly Jews, and it is on God that they keep their focus, where they keep their eyes and ears, and their hearts. People often wonder why God did not charter the Israelites to be "evangelicals," to convert and spread the word. This is exactly why. God understands humans more than you can ever imagine, and he knows that it is hard enough to keep humans faithful and focused on him through the centuries, even, as the Bible demonstrates, a small group of people such were the Israelites. That is part of the miracle, and proof, of the Savior, of Jesus Christ, that humans had reached a point where they can evangelize and still stay focused on God, and not inflate their own personal attributes as "representatives" of God. But see, over time, there is that temptation, and it started in the Reformation.

So that, my anonymous friends and readers, is why we see some who seemed so in love with Jesus Christ that they called themselves "evangelicals," fall so far that they become bitter atheists who are not only against God and denying him, but hating upon the faithful who stay in the fold. Any evangelical or any faithful for that matter who starts to think that spreading God's message as they understand it personally, rather than staying in the institutional church and providing personal witness, is the course that "meets their needs" is already putting their feet on a path that, God forbid, could bring them to crashing into total lack of faith. The Bible explains that if you put your trust in yourself or your fellow human, you will fail. If you put your trust in God, and remain focused on only God, you will not fail. It's as simple as that, really.

Book: Crazy for God, by Frank Schaeffer

I'm reading this book. "Oy vey!"

It's a very good book and a brave one. I can only imagine the asbestos underwear that the author would have needed, as he broke from what is called the "Evangelical circuit" and wrote this honest memoir of his childhood and adult crisis of faith.

The "oy vey" is because it spells out the incredibly elitist and exclusionary "faith" that is pushed by many of these Evangelicals, and why I have pointedly ignored them for most of my life thus far. Their hostility toward Catholicism obviously does not wrap them in glory in my eyes, and their spiteful sanctimonious oneupmanship of each other is also not praiseworthy. But that's the way they are, and that is why none of the famous Evangelicals were even on my radar (I'd never heard of the Schaeffers, ha ha, seriously) except for the one I admire the most, Billy Graham (Happy Birthday, by the way!) But what I do admire is where Frank Schaeffer can paint for his readers a fair assessment of the qualities of a good parent and grandparent, in a time when as those of us of at least a "certain age" well recall, there were many more good examples and role models than there are today. Even social climbing moms in those days still were, well, moms, who loved and cared for their children without making every motion of theirs a "striking a pose," as do many modern mothers or, yuck, "caregivers" do today.

I'll write a little review when I finish reading it.

Thinking case study: "Gay versus Evangelicals"

As part of the continuing series on how to improve one’s skills in faith and reasoning, and particularly one’s intellectual and discernment faculties, here are some thoughts prompted by an editorial I read. The editorial was really a, how do I describe it; I guess “witty gloat” about how a recent anti-gay boycott effort by evangelical Christians has generated no press. The editorial was entirely focused on gloating, and being as word smithy and mocking as possible. And that is cool, if that is the purpose. But once again I was sad at a missed opportunity, and I emailed the writer saying so. I could reproduce what I wrote here, but it was brief and chatty, and not instructive, and that is what I want to provide here instead.

Regular readers know I am no fan of evangelical Christians as a movement or a bloc. They have been very unkind, in general, to Catholics, and show an incredible lack of charity. While they consider themselves the standard bearers of morality, they missed huge opportunities to put their money where their mouths are, for example, stopping abortion in the bud by using their money and influence to promote adoption and monetary and societal support structures for those with unplanned pregnancies. Further, many make money off of crass lies about scripture, such as the “Left Behind” series. No, I am no fans of theirs.

But having said that there are two things that are commendable and undeniable: most of them love Jesus Christ in truth, heart and soul, and they firmly and honorably believe in God and his teachings. Their ardor for Jesus is unmistakable, though their perception of God is somewhat more obscured. For that and for the many good things they do, especially keeping their own lives and families within grace, they deserve a lot of credit. And here is the point I am leading up to: secular critics of theirs need to understand that these people genuinely fear for EVERYONE’s soul and salvation. Let’s use a secular example.

Suppose a man bursts into your home and points a gun or a knife at you and your family. Would you say, “Um, I don’t believe that the technology to build a gun or make a knife exists. “ And then conclude, “So what you are holding is not real.” Of course you would not. I’m not saying you think it is a fake gun, which is why I say in this example a gun or a knife. I mean, would you deny that the person is holding any sort of weapon at all, and that his hand is really empty? Not on your life; even a crazy person recognizes a weapon in the hand.

The pious faithful, from the most private and low key believer all the way to the screaming zealot, all believe one thing in common: they believe in the reality of God, and they believe in the reality of eternal reward or eternal punishment. You cannot have an intellectual thought about faith dialogue without reminding yourselves that the truly pious, even if they are quiet, “See the gun or the knife.”

Suppose that the gunman bursts into a public place, where you are there with your family and strangers. If he started to shoot, would you shout out, “Don’t hit us! Hit that gay guy over there!” Of course not, and neither would a pious Jew, Muslim or Christian. They would share equal alarm and dread based on anyone and everyone being a victim of the threatened shooting or knifing.

So using the evangelical Christians as an example, they “See the gun or the knife” and they fear for not only themselves, but their children, their community and yes, even the gay guy over there. They fight against what they see as grave moral sins and acts because they fear that very real “gun or knife” on everyone’s behalf, including the guy who sits there and says, “You morons. That man is not holding a gun or a knife. I don’t believe the tech exists to create a gun or a knife. What are you shouting about? You just want me to leave the public place because I’m gay. You hate me. I hate you.” Etc. etc.

So do you see what I mean? Modern people are so factionalized and anti-intellectual that they are unable to perceive the stance of the very people they argue against. They assume that God fearing people are mean morons. They do not recognize that these people genuinely fear for not only their personal, community and societal safety, but also for the safety of the very people they seem to be “against.” They see the gun or the knife.

Where discernment needs to take place is that what one does when one sees a gun or a knife can differ according to your charity and trust in God. Since I cannot appeal to secularists who are anti-God or disbelieving in God about trusting God, I have to appeal to them to be more charitable. Gays who are angry at “anti-gay” evangelical Christians are missing out completely in seeing that for the most part, sincere evangelical Christians are afraid on their behalf, not just repelled or feeling repugnant about a lifestyle choice. Evangelical Christians who are sincere, and most are, see the gun or the knife, and fear on behalf of the gays too. If gays could exercise charity, they would have much more fruitful and less confrontational dialogue, and could even collaborate on common ground, such as keeping children safe.

So I wrote to the editorial guy saying yeah sure, you had a good gloating mocking rant (and he used imagery where he claims to know what God would really think about those bad evangelicals, just to be provocative). But his piece could mock and gloat all it wanted with cleverness, but would it not have been also zesty and a great opportunity to insert just a few charitable sentences, pondering what next, and how both sides could do better?

Many anti-Church bashers and they include lots of post Reformation Christians, like to drag up killings and persecutions of the past, such as of course that favorite “Spanish Inquisition.” You need to understand that my “seeing the gun and knife” analogy applies and explains those horrible events too. Each side has a genuine and real perception and fear that they see the gun or the knife in the other’s hands, because that side is “disobeying God” and will feel his wrath someday. People in those days literally thought it was better to torture someone into your “true” faith than risk their heresy imperiling you, your family, your community and yes, the person they were torturing. I’m not saying that’s cool. I’m saying that no one can claim to be a scholar or historical analyst, or even an armchair expert, if they do not understand that. One needs to use wisdom and charity when interpreting the Inquisition, the Crusades and yes, the other side, the Muslim invaders and conquerors. Each side genuinely “sees the gun or the knife” and fears the consequences both personally and societally, including “the heretic” or “the infidel.” Believers kill other believers when they feel that they cannot convert them AND they see a gun or a knife rather than the possibility of peaceful co-existence.

Those who oppose gay agenda items see the gun or the knife pointed not only to them personally, and their families, but toward the community, society in general, and the people whose actions they oppose. Vilifying the evangelical Christians and/or anyone who opposes any part of the gay agenda is not only uncharitable, but it is intellectually flawed and it is stupid, because you eliminate the possibility of peaceful co-existence. If peaceful co-existence comes because the other side is finally “defeated” and “silenced” rather than gloat, you ought to be a little disconcerted. Why is that? It is because they have stopped caring about your soul.

I know secularists who either don’t believe in God or “believe in a different, kinder, more all inclusive God” may say “Hurrah” if the evangelical Christians no longer care about your souls and/or dampen their concern about their own family, community and society in general. But I do not think that is something to celebrate and neither does God. Whether you believe in God or not, you should not celebrate if a community of believers no longer gives a rat’s ass about your soul or well being. There are both pragmatic and character based reasons you should care. The pragmatic reason is that someday you will need a hand and you will not have it extended to you. You may think that you can build Gay Nation where you do not need the concern and collaboration of your ideologue opponents, and who knows? You may be right. But it is not wise to assume that you never need the help of a group of tax paying, food growing, and school building God fearing people. Think about it. I did not hear of any evangelical Christians who refused to look into a microscope when the AIDS epidemic was first identified. People may have said unkind things, had ignorant unkind thoughts, and argued about remedies, but the tax dollars, the public health drives and the research came from God fearing and secular people alike. That is just one example, and a highly pragmatic one.

The character example is something that is easier to feel but harder to describe. When one hates and writes off an entire group of people, even if, like ignorant children you point and yell, “He started it first,” you shut down part of your own character diversity and humanity at the same time. There is a terrible ennui that at first looks wonderful when one has something goes entirely your own way. When you beat or mock opponents into the ground because you hate them or their message, it does not make your character better or stronger and it sure does not make your character more diverse. Isn’t it interesting how “diversity” is the new idol to many, yet you prune away your own character so it loses rather than gains “diversity?” Character is what takes you through the many stages of your life, and through the unforeseen challenges. If you pound your ideological opponent into the dust, hating and mocking them, how does that enhance your character, your life skills, and your options when difficulties and challenges arise? And what if you inadvertently shut down someone who in the long run could give you the wisest advice?

So the evaporation of a pious person’s opposition to some of your actions should not be something you celebrate. I speak from experience, as someone who has been repeatedly rebuffed, despite my good intentions, until I have reached the point that I genuinely no longer care about people I once did so deeply… and I no longer care if they fall into the pitfalls that I’ve only been mocked and hated for pointing out, and for trying to find mutually agreeable compromises. It is not a thing to brag about when nice people, even if you hate their specific ideology, no longer care about you and drop their emotional investment in you.

I hope you all have found this mind expanding and helpful, perhaps even thought or wisdom provoking.