Atheistic Anxiety

Last week, I discussed the role of anxiety in religious thought, including an article showing that anxiety can lead to more religious extremism. Interestingly, a similar phenomenon seems to occur in atheism. We shouldn't be surprised about this, as I believe atheism is still a religion, just without a deity.

One of the more interesting points in this (in my opinion) is that it is people with overtly confident personalities that tend to become more zealous. "Meek" personalities tend to become "paranoid, credulous, and superstitious."

I think these kinds of things make sense because they seem to relate to the psychological idea of locus of control: Internal being I have control of my world, while External is I have no control over my world. If I have no control, I'll probably be meeker and more paranoid.

What do you think?

Women and the Church

Gender identity and social roles has not been something I have been particularly passionate about. Gender definitely plays a role in society, but for me, my maleness does not (at least consciously) play a major role in my personal identity (other things are much more important).

However, recently, I have noticed that I have been feeling more passionate about advocating for women in the institutional church.

There are many ways this is presented. At a basic level, the language we use in our Bible translations can make a big difference. I'm definitely supportive of the gender-inclusive language because I believe it is a more accurate translation of the meaning. And I believe the meaning to be the most important, as I do not take a literal interpretation most of the time.

Further, this type of translation is important because not only can our translations be archaic, but the way the original authors understood things may not be the way God understands things.

In any case, the area I have been having the most frustration is women's titles and leadership. J.R. Daniel Kirk presented a very nice post on women's silence in the Bible and how that does not mean they should not be pastors or leaders in the institutional churches. In many of the organizations I've been in, particularly religiously, women are the most motivated and wisest.

So why do we insist that men are the heads of household, spiritual leaders, and the only ones who can be pastors? Not all communities do assert this, but many do, even if that's not what practically happens because they have better women than men...

Marital Problems

I have posted several times about marriage and how we have a romanticized perspective of it. Science and Religion Today hosted a challenging (and I would argue controversial) post on considering if we should change our expectations about spousal sexual faithfulness. The author argues that by loosening the reigns on sexual fidelity, relational faithfulness can increase. He states:

But even as we allow for less fidelity, we may find our relationships enriched with greater faithfulness. When an occasional casual sexual adventure is no longer an existential threat to a marriage, it may become something partners can choose to share openly with each other, thereby increasing their own sense of intimacy and trust.

I'm not sure I buy it, but it's interesting to ponder, especially if we take the same process of managing anxiety to increase religious faith. Perhaps what we need to do is not necessarily lower our sexual standards, but put less emphasis on them so we are less anxious about them.

The same blog also summarized another study that found divorce clusters in social networks. Does that mean divorce is contagious? Or socially more acceptable when there are other divorcees? Or perhaps there is a lack of relational health in groups. It will be interesting if other pick up these findings and explore the possible causes more.

Miracles

Miracles can be a very controversial thing. Sometimes they are viewed as violations of the laws of nature. Sometimes they are viewed as things of awe. I think both can be true, but I tend to take a more Incarnational perspective that is more congruent with the latter: Where the actions can be explained scientifically, but are still quite amazing. Why can't God work through that? I think he does, as does a BioLogos writer.

Science and Religion Today also recently posted about a book about miracle cures. It brings up some very interesting points about the sociology of miracle cures. In short, miracle cures were not necessarily created by a violation of nature, but rather due to very natural experiences. Does that make them any less miraculous?

The Anxiety of Scriptural Interpretation

Related to yesterday's post on doubt and certainty, one of the biggest areas I see the certainty as a coping mechanism for religious anxiety is in the interpretation of Scripture. This has literally led to wars and murder. This reminds me again of Brink's quote that closed yesterday's post with that the best defense of faith is displaying love...

This is a humorous video that emphasizes how biblical interpretation and theological nuances can become rather extreme and the basis for conflict. This is another humor post that has a very short summary of each book of the Bible.

On a more serious note, BioLogos often addresses biblical interpretation, particularly regarding Genesis 1 and 2, which I personally think get way too much emphasis put on them in this regard. In any case, this is a nice post exploring literary versus literal interpretations of these chapters. I appreciate how BioLogos emphasizes that even literary interpretations do not reduce people's faith and worship of the Lord...

I also like this post, part of a series on interpretation after inerrancy. The author does a nice job summarizing how non-inerrant views were actually held by some of the most respected Church leaders over time.

And then there's the age-old (or 2000-year-old) fights about the God of the Old Testament and New Testament and the various ways of interpreting the texts to reconcile the two. Keith Giles wrote a very interesting post on this topic.

The Anxiety of Doubt

One of the central purposes of this blog is to help people deal with doubt and the anxiety that goes along with that in a constructive, faith-building way.

This article summarizes a York University study exploring how anxiety can lead to religious extremism. I can believe that. From a psychological perspective, when we are anxious, we tend to often take more solid, definable views. That, by its nature, reduces anxiety because it reduce the ambiguity and the unknown.

If anxiety on its own can lead to religious extremism, then faith-related anxiety can definitely lead to more extreme views that happen to be self-soothing because they leave less room for error. This emphasizes the importance of being about to more positively manage and cope with religious anxiety.

In fact, we should embrace that anxiety. BioLogos hosted a nice post on this matter, discusses how doubt can lead to a deepening of one's faith through challenging our social constructions of God that prevent us from having a true relationship with the real, authentic God. This echoes Tillich's quote from The Courage to Be that is the motto of this blog: "The courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubt."

Jonathan Brink also wrote a nice post on the idea of certainty and how defending certainty rarely works out for good. While it is important to be certain of some things, the best thing we can do is love others. I particularly love his quote, "The truest defense of the faith is not a defense of the faith but the act of love."

Proof-Text Poker

I've been having trouble keeping up my blogging as my wife and I have been house hunting among other things (there's always excuses, huh?). But there's a lot of good stuff I've read I'm hoping to share.

This was a particularly good devotional taken from Eldredge's The Sacred Romance. I love the emphasis on the drama of life and that being a more appropriate way of approaching the Bible. Much better than "proof-text poker," as Eldredge so beautifully describes the way we often approaching biblical interpretation.

What do you think?

Saturday, July 03, 2010 A "Propositional" Christianity We have lived for so long with a "propositional" approach to Christianity, we have nearly lost its true meaning. As Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen says, Much of it hinges on your view of scripture. Are you playing proof-text poker with Genesis plus the Gospels and Paul's epistles, with everything else just sort of a big mystery in between-except maybe Psalms and Proverbs, which you use devotionally? Or do you see scripture as being a cosmic drama-creation, fall, redemption, future hope-dramatic narratives that you can apply to all areas of life? (Prism interview) For centuries prior to our Modern Era, the church viewed the gospel as a Romance, a cosmic drama whose themes permeated our own stories and drew together all the random scenes in a redemptive wholeness. But our rationalistic approach to life, which has dominated Western culture for hundreds of years, has stripped us of that, leaving a faith that is barely more than mere fact-telling. Modern evangelicalism reads like an IRS 1040 form: It's true, all the data is there, but it doesn't take your breath away. As British theologian Alister McGrath warns, the Bible is not primarily a doctrinal sourcebook: "To reduce revelation to principles or concepts is to suppress the element of mystery, holiness and wonder to God's self-disclosure. 'First principles' may enlighten and inform; they do not force us to our knees in reverence and awe, as with Moses at the burning bush, or the disciples in the presence of the risen Christ" (A Passion for Truth). (The Sacred Romance , 45)

HOME · MISSION · EVENTS · STORE · COMMUNITY · DONATE · MORE privacy policy · contact us © 2010 Ransomed Heart Ministries. All rights reserved.