Sorry, I’m _where_?

When I left my old church just over a year ago, I had no idea where I was going apart from AWAY.  I didn’t know if I was right or wrong (They said absolutely wrong, of course), I just knew it was time for me to go.  The bird flew, knowing not where it would land.

I spent several months going through a personal emotional crisis to do with leaving – this, after all, being a group that I had spent over a decade being told was the place where God had placed me, in fact almost the only place where god could be found.  I left most of my family there, and almost all the people I called friends.  In many ways I had never become an independent adult despite being in my thirties, as independence was practically _the_ mortal sin.  Suddenly I was free to make my own decisions.  I had spent a lot of time building myself up before I left, but there was lots of work that needed to be done in order to be able to cope with the concept of freedom.

Suffice it to say that once I’d sorted out my personal issues to a certain level, I went through the inevitable “spiritual” crisis.

I recall having a conversation with a new friend in my new church, in which I said that I think I was becoming an atheist, although rather reluctantly.  She asked me if that frightened me, and I was amazed that anyone could be frightened at the concept.  It just made sense, even if it’s not how I wanted the world to be.  Nevertheless, I felt like I had to be absolutely sure that Christianity really, truly wasn’t true before I left for good.  And somehow, it appears that there’s something to it after all.  I am still not sure that I’m not deluding myself, and no doubt there are plenty who would say just that, but it seems that it really is possible that there is a loving God even though I never encountered such an entity in 25 years of being a Christian of sorts.  Somehow I seem to have done not a u-turn, but taken a different direction from that which I thought was inevitable.  Maybe I have flown from a dead tree to a living one.  Certainly I find the endless empty sky of no world-view is not enough for me.

Who’d have thought it? Not me. I sure don’t know why me, when so many others have left altogether, both from my old church and from thousands all over the world. I feel a lot more affinity with those who claim to be atheists than those who claim to be Christians. But here I am on the side, if side there be, of the Christians.  I really am astonished.

Roast-a-Preacher.

The pastors at my church have instituted what they call Roast a Preacher days.  The idea is that at the end of every big series of sermons, usually twice a year, there will be a day where instead of a sermon anyone can ask anything, in both the morning and evening service.  Last night we had the senior pastor, the associate, and one of our several seminary students answering questions ranging from “Why are there denominations and are they so doctrinally different that they are actually different beliefs?” to “Is there a Christian perspective on climate change?”, with detours through other, more standard topics like the teaching of creationism in schools, answering people who take one small passage of the Bible to prove that God or his works are evil, and the problems of the Australian church.

One of the things that I really like about this church is the attitude of the senior pastor.  He’s not afraid to put himself on the line, he’s not afraid to answer questions, he’s not afraid to say that he’s probably not right on everything, and has changed his mind on some things.  He has a good line in self-depreciation, not to mention a very tolerant wife, given some of the stories he tells.  He quite frequently opens the floor for questions at the end of sermons, particularly if he’s been preaching on a particularly controversial or difficult topic (we’ve just finished a series on 1 Corinthians, so there’s several topics right there that produced some fairly lively opinions!)  As he is the senior pastor, his attitude shapes and attracts people with similar attitudes, so in general the church is full of intelligent, questioning, thoughtful and active people.  There aren’t many who are just hangers-on, even though this church is in a high socioeconomic area and the congregation are largely highly educated professionals or tertiary students, along with a smattering of musicians and other artistic types, all with busy lives.  The level of volunteerism is very high.  There is a social conscience.

I rather wish there was some way to let people know that church is not always full of condescending conservative leaders and blind, unintelligent followers who never question what they are told.  Or perhaps, I wish that there were enough churches and Christians out there which encourage questioning that the stereotype would change.

Edit:  Roast-a-Preacher Number 2 can be found here.

A well-publicised story not yet finished.

I recently came across this interview (prelude, part 1, part 2) with the now infamous Ted Haggard, the mega-church pastor caught in a public sex scandal a couple of years ago.  It’s not so much as a straight interview as a reflection how the author, Donny Pauling, also has gone through many of the thoughts, feelings and processes that Mr. Haggard is now going through – unconventional, but I think rather good.  It was one person empathising with another about some pretty hard things he has faced.

Some of my major issues with the church are touched on in this article.  In particular, the way that churches handle those who have messed up big time because they are messed up often shows very little grace or understanding.  It boils down to this – many Christians and churches say that they believe in both forgiveness and restoration, but they do not practice it except on their own terms.  Mr. Haggard’s story of being isolated from and not being allowed to talk with his friends, parishioners and even those who were involved in his indiscretions is one that’s familiar to me both from observation and experience.  That experience leads me to believe that this approach does far more harm than good in many cases.  I have found myself that being prevented from discussing the situation with someone who hurt me very badly did not help me deal with my own not-exactly-glorious behaviour, but only made me confused, angry and depressed.  It was only a couple of years later when I finally contacted the person (without permission) that we both were able to find some understanding, healing, and even friendship.

In general, the Cone of Silence under which churches often deal with ’sin’ is just like the one that Maxwell Smart and the Chief used in Get Smart – so silent that it actually prevents what it is intended to facilitate.  I’m not saying that everyone’s personal circumstances should be proclaimed from the rooftops, but there’s nothing that starts a rumour and grows suspicion and offense so fast as seeing someone who is “under discipline” for something that nobody knows much about, particularly if the church generally enforces a system of isolating the individual concerned even from those who may have been affected.  That can never heal a person, it can only make them feel ashamed and unfit to associate with those who should be there to love and support them, and it allows others to become bitter and less likely to be able to understand or forgive.  It is hardly surprising that many people become hurt, resentful and angry rather than working through their issues.

I’m glad that Mr. Haggard has found good counselling and the support of his family.  I’m also glad that he seems to be making an attempt to communicate with his former parishioners and to the wider public, seeing as he was formerly a public figure in whom many put their trust.  I don’t get the impression that he is trying to justify himself.  I know from experience that his description of the roller-coaster of emotions is quite accurate.  I’m also very glad that he has made the statements he has both about the study and practice of psychology being helpful, not in opposition to God or church doctrine.  Perhaps if more people in the church knew a bit about psychology and how our thoughts and emotions really work, we would have fewer people damaged and destroyed by well-meaning but misguided church behavioural practices and pastoral ‘care’.

In the meantime, I wish Mr. Haggard well in his journey.  His previous church leadership may have written him off, but it seems he’s not yet finished.

The sick-bed reading list.

So.  I’m on my way to getting better, although there’s months of medication still to come and probably a while before I have my normal energy and concentration.  But I’m back at work even though I have to be careful not to get too tired or stressed, and I’m into my second semester of psychology study.  I did a lot of reading while I was out of things though.  Here’s a sample:

The Prodigal God, Timothy Keller.  I had previously read his other book, The Reason for God, while I was in the worst of my doubt about the whole idea of God.  I love his style.  He does not assume that the majority of people who call themselves Christian have everything worked out, which to me, who views the stereotypical manifestations of US-style conservative evangelicalism with a large amount of suspicion, is a relief.  This book indicates that there is something that many Christians, as well as non-Christians, have missed – that all of our various methods of attempting to gain the approval of God, whether from rebellion or compliance, are useless.  Keller points in the direction of love for God, because He first loved us.  I have spent many, many years in churches that fail to understand this.

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins.  I realised recently that my own attraction to atheism is due to my very negative view of God, developed from many years in a church which emphasised the Almighty, holy, vengeful God who punishes sinners and only redeems even his chosen people through devastation and suffering.  I wonder if that is the case for the majority of ex-Christians.  It certainly seems to be the view of a lot of them, and of many of the “new atheists” of whom Dawkins is a chief representative.  I certainly never started to doubt faith through reading any of Dawkins’ books, or those of the other prominent “new atheists”.  It isn’t going to happen now, either, because I found the tone of The God Delusion so smug and superior as to be unreadable.  I really wanted to enjoy it, or at least be either confirmed or challenged by it.  I have very much enjoyed interviews I have seen with Dawkins, and books by some of the other “new atheists” such as, say, Sam Harris, but I’m afraid the God Delusion leaves me cold.  I’ve seen all the arguments he uses put elsewhere, far more politely, and I really do think that some of those arguments are based on misunderstandings and/or assumptions.  I might have to save developing that comment for another post, though.  The fact that I disliked the book doesn’t mean that I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the sceptics out there (after all, they generally come across as considerably more sane and intelligent than a lot of Christians, at least on the internet!), but the smugness really is irritating.  The whole concept of calling yourself a “Bright” is part of the same superior attitude, and it’s really, really off-putting.

What’s so great about Christianity?, Dinesh D’Souza.  I thought that this was a good general reply to the likes of Dawkins et al.  I’m don’t necessarily think his arguments are all unanswerable, but in general he states them well, and brings some perhaps more honest perspective to some of the most common of the atheist/Christian arguments.  I really don’t think either side (I’m simplifying a bit here, I think it’s more complicated than two clear-cut ’sides’) can win by arguing these points over and over, though.

Religion is for Fools, Bill Medley.  This little book is written in the form of a letter explaining the author’s investigation of religion and his eventual conversion to Christianity.  I’m not actually sure why the title is what it is, as the text doesn’t really reference the concept, however, it’s a concise little apologetic.  It doesn’t say anything world-changing and doesn’t have any new and startling insights, but is a nice primer for someone approaching Christianity for the first time.

Worship, Community, and the Triune God of Grace, James B. Torrance.  This was quite an important book for me.  As I said earlier, I come from a background which very much de-emphasised the role of Christ and the concept that his faith and love, not ours, is what saves anyone.  Combined with The Prodigal God, I’ve been pointed in the direction of exploring this basic idea, so central to Christianity but apparently misunderstood or forgotten by many or most.  I’m still not sure what to make of it, but you never know, maybe it’ll all make sense soon

The Mary Russell novels, Laurie R. King.  These books, starting with the The Beekeeper’s Apprentice, are a re-imagining of the world of Sherlock Holmes.  Normally I hate books where an author takes someone else’s world and characters, mostly because it is so rarely done in a way that is true to the original author’s ideas and intentions.  This series is a wonderful exception, with a Holmes who is true to his original character and developed into something more, and his supporting cast re-written in a sympathetic manner.  The central character is a hyper-intelligent Jewish feminist theologian, and whilst some of the ideas might be rather controversial to some it does provide some food for thought on the place of women in society and religion.  I haven’t read the whole series (I’ve read the first three plus Justice Hall, so I’ve skipped a couple and there’s a couple of later ones still to read) and they seem to be difficult to get in bookshops here these days, but Amazon.com is my friend in this regard.

Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman.  I am a huge Pratchett fan, and in fact it is probably his books that have done more than anything else to cause me to question the situation I was in than anything else (thanks Pterry!).  Whilst I know a lot of people who think highly of Gaiman as well, The only work of his that I’ve seen is the movie adaption of Stardust, which I thought was cute but by no means wonderful and without a single original concept to distinguish it from any other fantasy story.  Therefore I’ve not previously bothered to track down this book, but as I had lots of time on my hands I thought I’d give it a go.  I’m only part of the way through at the moment, but it’s wonderful!  Very, very funny.

Now that I’m back into study, I’ll have to cut back a bit.  I have so much reading for Psych this semester that my eyes are glazing just thinking about it, but as I’m now getting into specific topics rather than than first semester’s general overview, I’m also looking forward to getting into some things in a little more depth.  This semester includes a section on social psychology, which I’m particularly looking forward to.

On the sick list.

I’ve been far too lacking in motivation and attention span to update as much as I would like.  I found out this week that there’s a good reason for that – the return of a disease that saps energy and concentration, among other things, and which is likely to make me easily tired and perhaps a bit absent-minded for some months at least.

Oh well – it could be much worse.  Thank goodness for modern medicine!

Me, studying theology?

Yes, it’s true.  I’ve enrolled in a correspondence Introduction to the Bible class run by Moore Theological College, an Anglican college in Sydney.  I find this both mildly amusing and a bit surprising, given that I’m not even sure if I could be called a Christian.  This study is mostly a way for me to have a look at the Bible in a way which is a bit more consistent with mainstream Christian thinking than where I came from (which had a “Bible College” with study texts produced by elders almost exclusively, no library and no formal curriculum).  Who knows, I might even find whatever it is I lack when it comes to being a convinced believer, if anything.  Or not, as the case may be.  I don’t think it’s a waste of time, anyway – I find the commonly expressed opinion that theology is flawed as a study because it is inherently biased a bit dissatisfying.  Much as we like to think otherwise, we are always inherently biased on all things – why should studying religion be any different?  Most of the world has some sort of religious belief, so why not have a formal look at the one I feel a cultural link with?  Plus, I’m on semester break from my psychology course, so it’s something to fill my copious spare time (haha!)

My how you’ve grown, world.

I went to a birthday party for a friend from my old church today.  It was a surprisingly enjoyable experience, considering how awkward it could have been.  I left nearly a year ago and haven’t seen most of the people who were at the party since, although I did make a point of keeping in some kind of contact with a couple of close friends.

One of the reasons it was enjoyable was the knowledge that this group is no longer my entire world.  I am so much more!  I can love and care for my friends and family still there, but I no longer have to limit myself to them only, or feel guilty for having close friends and interests outside.

Shunning by any other name is still shunning.

There has been a fair bit of discussion on the forum for ex-members of my former church about shunning, the practice of cutting off all contact with group members who are either not conforming to expected behaviour in some way or who leave altogether.  My old church would claim that they do not shun leavers, however not only are there numerous overt examples (I remember, for instance, the entire youth group being taken aside one day and told not to attend the 21st birthday party of the son of an elder who had recently left), there are various factors which come together to ensure that anyone who leaves is shunned in practice, if not in word.

My old church had surreptitious shunning down pat.  Here’s how it works.  Warning, lots of quote marks ahead!

First of all, you teach members that God’s greatest, most up-to-date word is in this group, and those who are members are the most privileged people in Christendom to be able to hear it.  All the other churches are full of sin, law-bound, not enough like the church as described in the New Testament to be legitimate or have some other problem which means God isn’t speaking to them, or at least not as much as he’s speaking to us.

Once this is well established, you teach them that anyone who criticises, disagrees, has a different perspective or gets information from other sources is not being faithful to the direct word of God.  They are “using reason” or “filtering”, or some such other behaviour which is equated with “the sinful nature” and therefore not legitimate.  This has the benefit of making people mistrust their own judgement, so they are more and more likely over time to swallow anything given to them without examining it first.

Next, you teach people the importance of respecting not only “the word”, but “the messenger” as well.  This is a good one, because if you convince people that rejecting a message, or even part of a message, automatically means that you lack respect both for the person giving it and anyone who believes him, then anyone who disagrees with a particular doctrine or who leaves the group is seen to also be personally rejecting the remaining members.  It also means that members have to accept everything spoken by the nominated elders or messengers – if they disagree with some of it, they disagree with all of it.

Lastly, you teach the group that the only way that rebels can be saved is for them to be “sent away”, out of God’s favour for the worst to happen to them, so that like the Prodigal Son they will “come to their senses”, see that this group really is God’s favoured church, and come crawling back broken, with much wailing and repentance.  Much quoting of 1 Corinthians 5 will be done to back up the idea that a church member who sins must be socially disciplined, and as you have neatly redefined slander to include all disagreement with “the messenger”, you can apply this to anyone who expresses any opinion that isn’t in line.  You tell the group that the only way the “rebel” can be saved is if nobody shows them any kindness, because that would allow them to “avoid discipline” by having any kind of benefit without being a member of the group.  If any leaver has in fact had a hard time since leaving, you point to them as an example of what will happen, and tell people that if they do leave not only will they lose everything, God may not give them another chance.

Just to back all of this up, any faults real or perceived of someone who has left become topics of hushed conversation by the group – sometimes including things that were told in confidence – so that everyone knows that the leaver was weak, sinful or rebellious.

So what is the result?  For leavers, there is likely to be guilt because even if they feel that their reasons for leaving are legitimate, they have heard the message that leaving equals rejecting both God and their companions so often that they believe it at least in part.  There is also likely to be an enormous amount of fear of what will happen to them, both from outside (remember, it’s all evil and will damage or punish) or from inside (this is where you remember everything that was said about everyone else, and wonder what will be said about you).  Both of these emotions will make it very unlikely that the person will wish to speak to anyone in the group – they know that they are likely to be at best condescended to as weak, and at worst viewed as an enemy.  Within the group, a general opinion that those who have left have personally rejected them will cause them to feel awkward and almost certainly cease contact, and anyone within the group who has some kind of doubt squashes it because they see what has happened and don’t want the same to happen to them.  Even being seen talking to someone under suspicion or known to be “rebellious” or a “wolf” might bring you under suspicion, so better not talk to them…

Voila – shunning by stealth!  Even better, you have convinced yourself that the leaver has done the shunning, not the church.  It’s marvellous in a way, really.

A little bit about me.

I grew up going to a charismatic Anglican church, very happy-clappy but not terribly deep.  When I was in that transition age after high school and starting my university studies, my parents started going to an independent church which taught a lot about things like “accountability” and did a lot of serious bible study, and as I found the people of my age quite likeable and more “Christian” than my peers at my old church, I eventually joined them.

So started a 15 year period which included some genuinely great times and a few good friendships, but which I also found disturbing.  Without going into all the details at this time, I eventually found it impossible to stay without giving up my self-integrity (they actually wanted that!), but incredibly difficult to leave.  It took me several years of what you might call dysfunctional attempts at leaving (bad relationships, throwing myself into work), and then several more years of slowly building up my own sense of self (with the help of a psychologist, supportive outside friends,and lots of exploration and research on the internet), and finally some negative publicity in the media, before I eventually found the courage to leave.  For anyone reading this who thinks that I’m exaggerating, believe me, it takes courage to leave something that for 15 years has taught you that it is the place God has put you in, the only place where you can literally live, and know that when you leave most of the people who you consider friends will almost certainly stop speaking to you.  I fully expected that even my parents and sister would cut me off, but I couldn’t stay any longer.

I started my exit by attending a church more local to my home for an evening service, and the very first visit I had to rush out, I was so emotionally overwhelmed by the experience.  This was my first experience with ‘triggers’ – phrases which bring back memories of the bad old days – yes, the bad old days weren’t that old!  Fortunately the pastor spotted me and caught up, and we had a bit of a chat.  That was the beginning of months of intellectual and emotional struggle as I tried to sort out what I believed, if anything.  That included what I believed of myself – the power of a group to make you believe that you are worthless for leaving is incredibly strong.  I felt and still feel a good deal of sympathy for some of the sceptic and atheist ideas, as they closely match many of my own ways of thinking, and I couldn’t see how God could possibly be active in the world.  However, somehow I found that I still believe in something, even if I don’t know in what yet.  I seem to have come to the conclusion that maybe my expectation of what God’s actions should look like were wrong.  Anyway, I’ve decided to stick around and find out.

An introduction.

I used to be a member of a church which arguably meets the criteria for being a cult.  Whether or not this particular group is a cult, there are certainly people around who have found some of its practices personally damaging.  Nevertheless, I’ve watched with a certain amount of concern as the most well-known forum set up to support ex-members and criticise my former church’s practices has been hijacked by people with agendas, particularly of attack against certain leaders or former leaders.  While I disagree with many of the things that happen there, I’ve seen that attack has only hardened the response of those still in that place, including my close family members, to outside opinion.  It’s also, in my opinion anyway, misguided in that I’m pretty convinced that what most of these people do or have done is more a case of “they know not what they do” than deliberate damage.  Even though I feel that I was hurt by them, I think my response should not be personal attack.  That would imply that my hurt was entirely at their hands, which is of course not the case.

This is not to say that I will not criticise their methods and teachings.  I truly think they are damaging to individuals and families.  The people themselves, though?  I don’t want to destroy them, but I do want them to stop damaging people.

I will make comments on the church in general, as I can see many of the things that bothered me about my old church are there to a greater or lesser extent in the wider church.  I may have decided that I am still a believer, but there are many, many things about the church that bother me.  Some of them may be my own misperceptions, though.  I’m not arrogant enough to think that I have the solutions to anything.

As for myself, I have a great joy in life.  I have great friends, a job which I mostly enjoy, a lovely home, a church where I feel free to be myself, work out what I think about God and ample opportunity to participate, the freedom to study.  Oh yes, and I also have what every single girl of a certain age has a right to – more than one cat!  Sure, there are things I hope and dream for, but my life is pretty awesome even as it is.