The Game is Rigged for God

[graceandpeace]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationaldoubt/2016/05/the-game-is-rigged-for-god/

An ex-pastor answers questions about his journey to non-belief.

I'm sharing this here because I can relate to the doubt, but I don't always know how to respond when a person comes to this point. I wouldn't want to argue with someone about something like this - I'm thinking more about communicating my own faith in spite of doubts.

How do you handle doubt without falling into unbelief?

How do we best respond to those who become unbelievers?

How do we best communicate faith?

Thoughts welcome. I'm looking for responses from liberal/progressive Christians.

 

[Cappadocious]

The first thing to ask of yourself is the same thing you'd ask of yourself when someone proclaims they have faith:

What, practically, is it doing for them? How is it functioning?

For a lot of people who profess spirituality, it serves to treat and reproduce their class conditions (ex. treat the professional class' guilt and alienation from rewarding work).
For a lot of people who profess religion, it allows a pathology to be made sense of in a socially-acceptable way (ex. agoraphobia, various sexual hangups).
For a lot of people who profess "secularism" or "humanism," it provides a sort of distance or buffer from a world of meanings, trauma, and horrors crying out for explanation and justification.

The next question isn't, "how are they deceiving themselves?" because every self-identification is self-deception, we can take this for granted. The question is rather why is their pathology showing up in this particular way, as a profession of spirituality, religion or empiricism/secularism/humanism?

So: 1. How is it functioning?
2. Then we can move on to asking, why?

 

[FireDragon76]

It sounds like the ex-pastor was from a fundamentalist background and believed in God as a personal genie. It's not hard to see why that would be easy to doubt.

I've struggled with doubt a lot... mostly doubting religious leaders and institutions. And a great deal of anger, too. But, I continue to hold onto hope (I hesitate to use the word faith because its so loaded with religiosity, which is something I have backed away from), and I think that's the best thing that liberal and progressive Christians could offer. Not certainty, but hope.

I also think churches tend to invest too much into their churches and institutions, and foster reliance upon them. Institutions fail, people fail... and then faith fails. If they really want people of enduring faith, they are going to have to start teaching people its ok to think for themselves. Of course, they'ld have to give up their power trips and authoritarianism in the process.

I really think many Christians don't realize the stumbling blocks people face in belief. It makes it difficult to empathize with those who doubt or don't believe, so they rationalize unbelief and doubt, rather than trying to grapple with the difficult issues.

 

[FireDragon76]

For a lot of people who profess spirituality, it serves to treat and reproduce their class conditions (ex. treat the professional class' guilt and alienation from rewarding work).

Cap... this is a great insight. I've been thinking of this sort of stuff some time, I came up with this idea myself a while back, trying to figure out my frustration with mainline Protestant churches. I think its down to a great deal of WASP Christianity being packaged to deal with middle-class guilt. It's not really set up for people that feel more like they are on the short-end of the stick. The big heavy hitting stuff, the material privations and lack of dignity that are common to most of humanity, conventional religion in American doesn't deal well with it. I think the mainline and evangelicals deal more with a sense of anomie and aimlessness, which is unfortunate in its own right, but it doesn't have the visceral pain that much of the world experiences.

Unfortunately, to deal with that guilt, often times empathy is sacrificed.

For a lot of people who profess religion, it allows a pathology to be made sense of in a socially-acceptable way (ex. agoraphobia, various sexual hangups).

Absolutely. If sex and relationships are scary, old time religion is for you!

For a lot of people who profess "secularism" or "humanism," it provides a sort of distance or buffer from a world of meanings, trauma, and horrors crying out for explanation and justification.

It's an anesthetic as much as religion, with its own eschatological hope (usually technological or moral progress).

 

[RDKirk]

It sounds like the ex-pastor was from a fundamentalist background and believed in God as a personal genie. It's not hard to see why that would be easy to doubt.

I've struggled with doubt a lot... mostly doubting religious leaders and institutions. And a great deal of anger, too. But, I continue to hold onto hope (I hesitate to use the word faith because its so loaded with religiosity, which is something I have backed away from), and I think that's the best thing that liberal and progressive Christians could offer. Not certainty, but hope.

I also think churches tend to invest too much into their churches and institutions, and foster reliance upon them. Institutions fail, people fail... and then faith fails. If they really want people of enduring faith, they are going to have to start teaching people its ok to think for themselves. Of course, they'ld have to give up their power trips and authoritarianism in the process.

I really think many Christians don't realize the stumbling blocks people face in belief. It makes it difficult to empathize with those who doubt or don't believe, so they rationalize unbelief and doubt, rather than trying to grapple with the difficult issues.

I think you've made some important points.

Let me express this in kind of the reverse. Back in the 1800s, a pastor said of a lot of theologians: "They've found a button and woven an entire suit behind it."

A lot of Christians lose faith in the suit. It tatters, it gets holes worn into it, it falls apart, upon close inspection it's just cheaply made. But they don't know that the suit was just woven by men, and it was that button, just that button, that was real. They never grasped the real thing.

 

[graceandpeace]

The first thing to ask of yourself is the same thing you'd ask of yourself when someone proclaims they have faith:

What, practically, is it doing for them? How is it functioning?

For a lot of people who profess spirituality, it serves to treat and reproduce their class conditions (ex. treat the professional class' guilt and alienation from rewarding work).
For a lot of people who profess religion, it allows a pathology to be made sense of in a socially-acceptable way (ex. agoraphobia, various sexual hangups).
For a lot of people who profess "secularism" or "humanism," it provides a sort of distance or buffer from a world of meanings, trauma, and horrors crying out for explanation and justification.

The next question isn't, "how are they deceiving themselves?" because every self-identification is self-deception, we can take this for granted. The question is rather why is their pathology showing up in this particular way, as a profession of spirituality, religion or empiricism/secularism/humanism?

So: 1. How is it functioning?
2. Then we can move on to asking, why?

I think these are good insights.

So if someone came to you & said they lost faith because they can't prove God exists or the Bible is true or something similar - how would you practically discuss something like the above with them? Basically, how would you respond?

 

[Cappadocious]

I can't come up with an input output formula, but I'll speculate a little:

For the author in the OP, they seem like a disaffected evangelical, thinking within a strict Empirical Fact vs. Interpretation view of reality. One avenue of talking to this person would be to prove the errors of this view: Not as an apologetic to restore their professed belief in God, but to give them the space to approach the question in a richer and truer manner; cutting closer to the quick.

This avenue would perhaps allow me to learn more about the person, and gain their confidence that I am a serious person and not a polemical apologist. I would then try to get them on a rant where they might say something like, "and I just couldn't live in that world anymore" which doesn't seem to fit with their professed image. Then I would inquire as to what they're talking about, and go from there, etc. Who knows what would happen?

 

[FireDragon76]

So if someone came to you & said they lost faith because they can't prove God exists or the Bible is true or something similar - how would you practically discuss something like the above with them? Basically, how would you respond?

I don't know what to do exactly in that situation, but I have some ideas on what not to do:

Most moderate and liberal mainline Christians do not believe in apologetics as an enterprise. Bonhoeffer and Barth come to mind as obvious examples in my own experience. "God as explanation" is dead, the world has come of age, we don't need him. And its wrong to try to put that "god" back in His place. We must find other motivations besides the desire to explain.

Again, I think Cap has the right answer. Giving the person space is the best thing to do. More religious institutions need to realize doubt is a healthy part of spiritual maturity, and a very necessary component to living authentically in this world. If we take Christian mysticism as an example, doubt is a necessary part of dispelling illusions and idolatries. And postmodern philosophy can also be helpful in this area because many ex-Christians make the mistake of thinking that science can fill the void of religion, which in reality they have just replaced one fundamentalist narrative with another.

And I also agree that polemicism is a significant problem in conservative religious discourse.

 

[graceandpeace]

I don't know what to do exactly in that situation, but I have some ideas on what not to do:

Most moderate and liberal mainline Christians do not believe in apologetics as an enterprise. Bonhoeffer and Barth come to mind as obvious examples in my own experience. "God as explanation" is dead, the world has come of age, we don't need him. And its wrong to try to put that "god" back in His place. We must find other motivations besides the desire to explain.

Again, I think Cap has the right answer. Giving the person space is the best thing to do. More religious institutions need to realize doubt is a healthy part of spiritual maturity, and a very necessary component to living authentically in this world. If we take Christian mysticism as an example, doubt is a necessary part of dispelling illusions and idolatries. And postmodern philosophy can also be helpful in this area because many ex-Christians make the mistake of thinking that science can fill the void of religion, which in reality they have just replaced one fundamentalist narrative with another.

And I also agree that polemicism is a significant problem in conservative religious discourse.

I agree. I used to be big on apologetics, but not so much anymore. I don't think it is really helpful.

It is interesting to think how science can replace religion for some. Maybe some feel like because science supposedly deals with facts, it is a reasonable foundation. In some sense I agree that having logic & reason are comforting. Maybe the problem is partly that some try to treat religion as fact in the same way, I can see how that would be problematic.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is interesting to think how science can replace religion for some. Maybe some feel like because science supposedly deals with facts, it is a reasonable foundation. In some sense I agree that having logic & reason are comforting. Maybe the problem is partly that some try to treat religion as fact in the same way, I can see how that would be problematic.

The folks that ditch religion in favor of faith in scientific progress and discovery tend to be the heady types, or they must sacrifice their emotions and intuitions on the altar of reason. This is what Lewis called "men without chests".

 

[lismore]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationaldoubt/2016/05/the-game-is-rigged-for-god/

An ex-pastor answers questions about his journey to non-belief.

Hello. I was curious as to how he came to faith in the first place. It says he was raised in an 'Evangelical home'. An inherited faith will only carry you so far.

 

[lismore]

How do you handle doubt without falling into unbelief?

Hello there. I may not be a classic liberal Christian, but one comment from me. In the bible it says 'Test Everything' or a similar line many times. I think that's an issue in the church- conformity. 'It's my way or the Highway'. Heard that from a pastor once. The guy who wrote the article didn't have a real enough relationship with anyone in the church to share his inner turmoil with, seems his faith wasn't based on anything real but rather on adherence to an abstract set of principles provided by his denomination. Not faith, more like faith in faith. Take Care

 

[FireDragon76]

How do we best communicate faith?

I think the model of evangelism that many conservative Protestants use today, and one that is part of the wider culture that emphasizes pragmatism, is fundamentally wrong. Faithfulness is what's important. Trying to package the Gospel to make it tasteful to various groups is one of the reasons that Christianity in America is a mile wide and an inch deep.

This isn't to say we shouldn't have a concern that what we preach isn't relevant. But it should come from a place of love, and not the desire of conquest, which is really what a lot of conservative, Bible-only type Protestants do. We should be involved in authentic relationship with all people as a matter of integrity and sacrificial love, not trying to manipulate them to our point of view (which is why, among other reasons, Christian boycotts of places like Target are so misguided). And trust the rest in God's hands. If this means the Church gets smaller and less influential, that's sad but it has to be accepted as God's will. We have to believe in Jesus insistence on being salt and light, and his desire to draw the world to himself through vicarious suffering, and take these things to heart.

 

[graceandpeace]

^I think that is a good insight. Evangelism is often approached as a conquest, rather than from a place of love, & that makes all the difference.

I think being able to talk with people & not at them is part of a more loving approach. It means letting go of controlling the conversation & being okay with the outcome. Many very conservative/fundamentalists can't do this because of the need to "win" people & the burden of responsibility they've assumed for souls (I.e. Fear others might "burn in hell forever.") I know what that burden feels like - I used to hand out "tracts" a long time ago. So, I need to try to be compassionate to Christians who are burdened like this, too, because I know it's hard to let go of the fear & pride in such a responsibility.

 

[Gabriel Anton]

Blessed be Jesus Christ for His Gift of Salvation.

The Door with a Welcome Back sign is always there for all Lost Sheep. The Mercy of Jesus Christ, Shepherd of the Fold will embrace and welcome you back into His Lovings Arms. Jesus Christ invites all Lost Sheep back into His Fold because Precious Divine Blood was shed for your Salvation. Do not hesitate Lost Sheep to jump back into Jesus Christ's Arms and into His Loving Bosom.

Glory be to the Holy Spirit for His Everlasting Light. Amen.