The One

Em January 10th, 2010

I believe that one of the most damaging myths of our society is that of “The One.” People are always looking for that “One” person who will make them happy, who they will always love without difficulty. Aside from it being highly improbable that only one person on this overcrowded planet is your perfect match, this is far too much pressure to put on that person. The myth often dictates that you must continually feel the oxygen high of your early relationship, regardless of what stage you’re in. If for any reason that feeling fades or changes, your choice was clearly incorrect.

Think about how incredibly stressful that is! Of the likely millions of people in the world who are the correct gender, speak the correct language, and come from a background that you find compatible, there is a single person that you must find in order to be happy.*

But let me put your mind at ease. It is your choice.  There is no cosmic force that has selected a mate for you. You will not discover this fictional person by a serendipitous series of coincidences. Though it may feel that way, and though you may have found your love despite overwhelming odds, in the end YOU have decided whether or not to act. If you had chosen not to, you would have likely ended up with another compatible person.

Okay, now you have the incredible power of reason on your side. But with that comes responsibility, which means that you must also accept that your romantic relationship will change. On your 25th anniversary, you will not feel like you are walking on a cloud every time you hold hands. Unfortunately, perpetual bliss is what we love most about the “One” myth, which allows us one all-encompassing excuse that trumps all other arguments:

He just wasn’t the One.

And so some will jump from relationship to relationship, always ending with that excuse and the feeling that they are continually reaching for something just beyond their grasp.

*There is a Christian variation of this myth that shifts focus to “God’s will.” As though you didn’t have enough to worry about, you must not only decipher your own feelings but also God’s feelings. Oddly enough, there is a general consensus that this is the one time when God will not ask you to do something you don’t want to;  ie., marry someone you find distasteful.

Vicarious

D November 26th, 2009

This web comic I found is one of those things that feels like it was pulled right out of my head.  With the exception of the alcoholism, I easily could have written any of these strips.

http://www.wetherobots.com/2007/10/01/intro-ch-001/

My fundamentalism

Em October 29th, 2009

I cannot begin to describe the exquisite accuracy of D’s entry Fear and Control. You have put words to what I have seen and felt that I could never articulate myself. I could never articulate because I seem to have fallen off the bridge into the water you sagely examine.

How can I begin to describe my own messy, difficult, ongoing exit from fundamentalism? Better yet, why should I begin to describe it? Perhaps there is someone who needs to hear it, to know they’re not alone; perhaps I am vain and prideful and hope that others will read my story and consider what a strong, courageous woman I am. And perhaps I only pause because I know there are others who remain where I began, who cling to the fears D described, whom I love and hope will always remain a part of my life. My fear is, and has been since the beginning of this journey, that they will reject me if they find out who I truly am.

Truth is sometimes unfortunate, however, and I feel compelled to give the truth.

I knew without a perceptible doubt that Jesus was God, that he had died for my sins, that he was coming again, and that I was His light in the world. There was no shortage of metaphors to describe who I was; a soldier in the army of God, a runner in the race of righteousness, a traveller with a cross strapped to my back, a beam of light in the darkness of an evil world. They were lost, I was found, and I was coming to bring them the truth. I did it all: I spoke in tongues, I witnessed on the street, I prayed for hours, I fasted, I read the Bible through, I studied, I sang in the choir, I even came on Sunday nights. My faith felt glorious, powerful, and strong.

Now, this is not to say that I was the perfect model of fundamental Christianity, but I certainly was a committed acolyte. By this time, I was coming to the end of high school and was strongly encouraged to attend the bible college D so aptly described. The main reason this appealed to me was also the driving force behind my devotion; everything I believed could be utterly and completely explained by studying history, the appropriate philosophy, and above all the inerrant Bible. I wanted to go and create resounding arguments that would leave atheists and various other non-Christians stuttering and speechless. I wanted to bring them to their knees through the unfailing logic and reason I found in the very words of God. Pride had no small part in my ambition, I realize, but I was absolutely convinced that I could be a historymaker, and that through God’s power I could literally save the world. Going to bible college was the first step toward a bright, certain future.

Bible college was not to be, however. That path was barred, and I was forced to find a new one. To me, this was incomprehensible. I knew that God wanted me to go to bible college, I knew that he wanted me to be a missionary, and I also knew that he controlled everything. Why, then, would he prevent me from doing exactly what he wanted me to do? There were no scriptures, no comforts, no words of wisdom that satisfied me. In a world where faith and the Bible spoke logical conclusions to every answer, I found nothing but an overwhelming silence. You must understand what this event meant to me; it was not simply a dramatic shift in life direction, it was the destruction of my innocence. The pillars upon which my truth was built were now cracked and damaged. However, I am not bitter nor angry, because I now believe the problem lay in the foundation itself rather than the incident that rocked it.

Pillars going to pieces around me, I entered the most ideologically diverse place around; university. This was a time of intense reflection, and I did write about it. In this piece, I can still hear remnants of certainty and clarity. But as time went on, my questions became deeper and deeper, up to now when I feel as though my tiny fragment of faith is a fly in the sap. If you are inclined to read them, the links contain entries about my gradual, cyclical struggle with faith.

And so here I stand, light years from where I began. I can barely pray without being wracked with doubts, my Bible has more questions than answers, and I cry through songs that used to make me smile. I want to be a part of God, but so much doubt has risen from the ashes of my fundamentalism that I cannot believe in any way like I used to. The irony is that I don’t know how to believe other than through the absolute rationality that I once had. It occurs to me that perhaps I could learn, and perhaps I will. I still believe in God, but I have come to a point where I can no longer ignore my doubts. They gnaw at me constantly, and unless I choose for or against Christianity they will gnaw me into apathy. Already I can feel hints of blissful numbness in my soul, which is more terrifying than I can describe.

I fear judgement, I fear death, I fear hell. How ironic that through my rejection of fundamentalism, its strongest grip has tightened around me. And now, I want to end on a hopeful note, but I don’t have anything like that to write. My hope has become those who love me. Thanks for doing that.

I miss being ignorant

D October 3rd, 2009

Over the past several years I’ve been gradually attempting to understand this world and our various problems.  The problems that are outside of my charmed existence as a Canadian.  And I somewhat miss being ignorant to the fact that these issues exist.  Huge problems of oppression and injustice, some of which I perpetrate through my various lifestyle choices.  And therein lies the rub: lost in my double-blinded consumer world, I have no idea who made my clothing, or any of the other crap I own.  I don’t know where the various metals I ‘own’ were mined, and who may or may not have paid the price for them on a human level.

And mostly, the part that really bugs me about it, is that there is so little I can do to adjust how I live.  To adapt into someone better.  I’m trapped in my little paradise, unable to change the order of things, passively condoning the way we treat each other as human beings.  And it’s going to get worse.

I miss the ignorance.

Irrational belief in a creative God

D September 8th, 2009

I was recently asked what I thought the next phase of belief for the post-fundamentalist Christian would be.  My simplest answer being to walk away in disgust and declare themselves agnostic after witnessing the various abuses of God first hand. The more complex being to take the best parts of their experience and reconcile them with a more rational understanding of the world.

And here I am, actively choosing to not walk away, for various purposeful reasons:

  • If my perceptions are correct (and truly, that is all we have) I have experienced the influence of God, not necessarily ‘talking’ to me, but certainly directing me (only twice, and it had to do with pursuing after my wife, and having a child… no small things)
  • Christ was on to something. I can’t *prove* he was God, but I will make that leap of faith for someone who just *got it*. Again, choosing to believe in him. And yes, the bible is fallible, so the gospels might not be perfect. But the spirit of Christ is in there, and that’s what I’m following.
  • Do you remember the fundamentalist ‘tactic’ Christians could use for helping non-Christians understand the concept of God where:

    “Let’s say this whole chalk board is all knowledge possible. Now lets assume that this dot is the knowledge that you possess. Don’t you think you could have missed the knowledge of God’s existence?”

    The irony of this tactic is that the reverse is true:

    “Don’t you, Sir Christian, think you could have missed the knowledge that God doesn’t exist/doesn’t care?”

    And beyond that I realized that both are true: I just CAN’T know either way. My little febrile mind, and my limited capacity to understand all knowledge, space/time etc etc. It is beyond human grasp.

So I’ve reduced it to my experiences and a logic problem:

I’m relying on the infinite power and wisdom of God to catch my ultimate fall into the (possibility) of hell. I’m doing my best to understand something completely not understandable, and if I’m right and he exists, and he acknowledges my efforts, he may accept me. To follow the structure of that belief: he created me with the limited intelligence and capacity to understand him, so I rely on the fact that he knows I’m inherently flawed.

If I’m wrong, and somehow picked the wrong path, or God turns out to be a lot more diabolical that I hope him to be… well, its a Shakespearean tragedy at that point.

Or, it could be a gigantic cosmic joke. But that’s more Douglas Adams’ territory.

Essentially I’m a discriminating pluralist who is a Christian. There’s no way I can know with certainty that Christianity is ‘the one-truth’.  I’ve chosen to believe it because of my upbringing, personal experiences (‘Holy Spirit’ if you will) and the fact that Christ makes the most sense to me.

I irrationally believe in a God who threw this all together, and is watching us tear it apart.

Robertson on Canada

D August 20th, 2009

Ahhh! Not Britain or Canada! Noo!

And why can’t private health insurance companies compete with a government health plan? Oh, cause they need to make profits… riiiight.

Oh, and I had no idea people die from cancer.

Good thing Pat is keeping me ‘informed’.

Bixi

D August 13th, 2009

They’re doing this in Montreal, with its equally harsh winters… think this may work in Edmonton?

The only reason I see it *not* working would be low populations densities causing under use. (ie: you have to drive to the bike) However, in summer time I think it would be viable in the downtown area from say the museum to Chinatown.

Thoughts?

Fear and Control

D August 12th, 2009

There is no end to the discussion on fear and its fabulous utility as a method to control people’s decisions and action. This post is just me brain dumping my experiences growing up ‘in the church’. As it is somewhat redundant for me to delve into the various uses of fear in control, I will attempt to compose a coherent opinion of this weaponized fear. This is all water under the bridge for me at this point, but worth me putting up my ideas to spark discussion regardless.

The new atheist movement (militant fundamentalist all-religions-must-die) has, being somewhat of an oxy-moron, illuminated the hypocrisies of my own religious past. Although I had long pulled myself from the denominational bubble, militant atheists like Dawkins finally gave me the lens with which to view the structure in which I had grown up. Using subtle phrases, an isolationist worldview was pushed on me all those years. I was ‘inside’ with the ‘one-truth’, much like the new atheists – convinced of their assertions and willing to aggressively defend them. To see such an approach being used by ‘the non-Christians’ gave me additional pause, and led me to the distinct possibility that it was unlikely I held the ‘one-truth’ – as taught by my former denominational leaders.

In the end, it was the us-vs-them attitude that introduced my doubt, and gradually demonstrated to me that really my church leaders were mouthpieces of the bible college they had attended and in turn the denominational industry it represented. If they had ideas outside that denominational box I never saw them discussed. The building of polemic arguments against the latest ‘threat’, be it a court decision, a rock band, television, dating, alcohol, homosexuality, and anything considered a remote threat was commonplace. I now think that the polemic approach was less necessary in regards of the arguments themselves, and served a better purpose of ‘uniting’ the group. We then had a common enemy that we could fight together, ignoring the sometimes shaky foundations of our theology – and certainly ignoring any sort of pragmatism or compromise that could have helped meet ‘the non-Christians’ where they were at.

There was a single overarching idea of ‘unity among the body’, which was a twisted way of saying ’stick to your denomination’. It was this imperialist mindset that gave unity its secondary meaning – the one pertaining to member retention and the guilt and fear associated with walking away from the ‘body’. I now look back astonished that I was always frustrated with our lack of ability to achieve ‘unity’ among believers, which I now attribute to the fact that they had an entirely different sort of isolationist unity in mind.

This brings me to their idea of self-control, their version of which took until much later in life for me to learn was actually repression, a repression borne through fear and negative reinforcement. I plan to write a much more detailed piece on the idea of the ‘dangers of repression as self-control’, but need to do more research into the psychology of these ideas (anyone have any pointers?).

However their biggest fear is that of ideas, and particularly ideas that challenge the denominational theology. There is no room for discussion, and no structure for conversation or debates involving derivations of the teachings. At this point, I believe that is because they were taught with certainty that they hold the ‘one-truth’, and therefore greatly fear (and have no need for) a clearinghouse of ideas. This is where the fear has become systemic, where leaders teach fear not out of some malicious intent, but because they are genuinely scared of being wrong themselves – and in order to protect themselves turn a blind eye to new ideas, interpretations and reason itself.

My emergence from fundamentalism has been refreshing and I feel more at peace with myself and God than ever. And so my persistent uncertainty dictates that I cannot run from ideas, only consume, evaluate and apply those that are sensible to my life as a human who identifies with Christ’s teachings.

Feel free to comment below…

It’s clean! No, for serious!

Dual explanations

Em February 26th, 2009

I have been audiobooking a book about evolutionary psychology called Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters (2007). While it is very interesting, it sometimes feels as though the authors are describing an alien race entirely void of beauty and ugliness, joy and sorrow, where every one of our passionate emotions has a rational explanation. Anyway, they got to this quote in the first chapter:

People – social scientists ans laypersons alike – often speak of culture in the plural (“cultures”) because they believe that there are many different cultures in the world. At one level, this is of course true…[h]owever, all the cultural differences are on the surface; deep down, at the most fundamental level, all human cultures are essentially the same.

They go on to explain that, according to evolutionary psychology, our human culture (singular) is a product of evolution in the same way as our hands, hearts and brains. As I listened, I had the nagging feeling that I had heard that same thing somewhere before. And I had; C. S. Lewis makes a similar point in Mere Christianity (1943):

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature [a universal moral code] or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference… Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well imagine a country where two and two made five.

He goes on to explain that, according to Christianity, this is evidence of a universal moral code that transcends the norms of any society.

So which is it? Can it be both? And why does it seem that so many arguments for the existence or dominance of God have an alternate argument which, while not necessarily contradictory, seem to strip the former of its power and mystery?

Next »