Is Slam a mimetic religion?

In his book God, Guilt and Death, Westphal (also see the blog here) sets out a taxonomy of religions in three divisions:

Exilic - typically Eastern impersonal/depersonalizing systems that regard people here as exiles from some other, better place (typically a monist no-where place)

Mimetic - 'earthly religions that seek some level of control over life and destiny by actions in this world.

Covenental - typically Judaism and Christianity.

In the book, he doesn't make it clear where Islam sits, as a claimed 'Abrahamic' religion.

I dispute that it has anything to do with Abraham and Yahweh's covenant with him.

The covenants with Israel and the wider people of God marked by repentance and new life are characterized by love and forgiveness (love seeking fellowship by repentance of his people resulting in forgiveness). This is not performance on our part, but a gift of God; all we do is turn towards him by repentance.

Islam sees its function as performance (of the Pillars), and, if you are lucky, or a martyr, you will get to 'paradise'. You will never have fellowship with Allah. It is about actions in the world to earn a good outcome. Not a loving action by Yahweh out of love.

We seek to follow Christ because we 'belong in heaven', to quote a recent sermon by our Rector. That is, we are citizens of the New Creation, in his kingdom.

Thus, Islam is a mimetic religion.

Talking to a 'New-ager'

 In the late 1990s I and a few friends conducted an outreach to New Agers. Unlike most church outreach, it was not 'in-drag'. We went to where New Agers were and sought conversations on their territory. Over five years we ran a stand at an annual New Age festival in our city. The stand was staffed continuously for the four or five days of the event and we had sufficient team members to have from 3 to about 6 people at all times. They ranged from 'ordinary' folk to theologians and scientists. During this time we had hundreds of conversations with New Agers ranging from those who dabbled to those who went 'full bore'.

Our approach to the guests to our stand was based on this:

Firstly, normal conversational approaches are applicable here as anywhere else. First find out a little about the person's interest then get going with 'why' (as Simon Sinek does in business coaching): "Why do you have that belief?" and "Sounds like you've thought this out, what does it really do for you?"

Most answers are dead ends, but one can hint at the content of Eastern 'exilic' religions or ancient 'mimetic' religions (to use Westphal's taxonomy: https://www.amazon.com.au/God-Guilt-Death-Existential-Phenomenology/dp/0253204178) to move the conversation along.

Most New Agers' adopt a couple of baseline beliefs: that truth is relative, and the individual is the centre of the beliefs held.

The relativity of truth can be confronted with the shared nature of reality: we all walk through doorways, not walls; as a Catholic priest remarked in a conversation with me.

We all get hungry and thirsty, we all need sleep. We all sweat, bleed, weep, wash and toilet...we all seek medical help from time to time. The train leaves at the same time for us all. We all breathe. There is clearly a shared inescapable baseline of reality that denominates our material experience.

We all fear death and we are confronted by dependence at every moment. If any deny they are afraid of death, I ask if they have ever gone to the doctor. So far everyone has. I ask why. The want to 'get better'. Thus, they are afraid of death! (Pannenberg says 'all fear is fear of death') We are all enmeshed in a common objective reality!

When they do articulate their beliefs, I find a point to ask "And then what?" to explore the consequence of a belief. I seek to move the conversation to the universal apprehension of the 'human dilemma': there is something 'wrong' that they are attempting to correct by reaching for the transcendental, to something beyond, or 'better' than their life-experience and something that will allow them to integrate their experience of life and its discontents that is beyond their basic being and experience. Something is clearly absent from their 'life-world'! They are seeking it.

Does their NA belief do this?

Some will say yes, but then one can circle back to the question of the congruence of their belief with the world as it is, both at the base material level and in the human quest for the transcendent, for a 'home' in reality.

The aim here is to 'put stones in the shoe' in terms of the disjunct between their relativistic framing of reality and the convenience of a belief that fails to accommodate it fully.

Then, one can explore their basic Buddhist or Hindu framing of reality: if reality is illusory, why seek anything? If it is so bad, why are we asked to ignore it...both in a way absolutes that seek to resolve the dilemma, but they do so by a pretense that a mere program of personal convenience is adequate to deal with a truly confronting existential phenomenon. And why do such programs, invented by people who either think its is OK to abandon family (Buddha) or that there is no real evil or good (Hindu) have any substance?

Of course, as you mentioned on air, Jesus is a part of this conversation, but particularly if one can steer to the summative content of his work that he didn't avoid the real problems of humanity, but confronted, defeated and resolved them; without denying their reality, their effect or their significance, resolving them in the terms of the reality in which they occur.

The other issue to have ready is that personhood (personality) for them is not a core part of reality. If this is so, they are still actually living as though it is! And Jesus, he being the creator, shows that personhood is foundational to all reality; moreover, that he is of the godhead of father, son and spirit, love in community is basically real. Thus our impulse to share, to love and to be in community is itself consistent and based in what is really real and inescapably so.

Just as an addendum. Dr Peter Jones of truthxchange has some great content on YouTube, in books, and a course on Ligonier that deals with modern paganism. These are worth a look.

How to Talk About Jesus by Sam Chan: a review

Chan has hit the spot in his title. No one talks about how to 'talk about Jesus'!

Koukl's books: Tactics, Street Smarts and The Story of Reality are useful resources in this field, but I've encountered little effort in the 'down and dirty' of actual conversations. Chan steps into this field with a welcome contribution, albeit a few years ago.

Let's move through the chapters.

Merge your Universes

Useful information about 'plausibility structure' and making friends of your neigbours: harder in high-rise than on suburban blocks of cottages, but there must be ways.

We have to learn to 'gossip the gospel' as the ancients used to do...reputedly. That is being able to weave tendrils of conversational openings that a listener might grab so you can take the conversation to where you want, for however long...sometimes just a word, a congruent phrase, and that's it. But if we all do it...there's a cumulative effect. 

Go to Their Things

Very useful chapter. Be part of the non-churched community (without being swallowed by it). Ensure your church as 'contact' events where people can enter the premises without being 'sand-bagged' by a preacher. If there is any form of address or presentation, it has to use common language and link to common perspectives and challenges.

I took a couple of friends to a 'coffee shop' run by my church. Coffee, some live music, then a 'sand-bag' of some theological student giving a 'clear presentation of the gospel'. It must have been a college assignment because it was as clear as mud to my friends, and touched not one aspect of any shared experience or common perceptions of life...my friends asked me to never invite them to a similar thing AGAIN. 

Coffee, Dinner, Gospel

The idea of ordinary social get-togethers is helpful, but 'trapping' people into a dinner party where they get preached at is not. I'd suggest you prepare a few 'fire-cracker' issues to raise that you can give a Christian/biblical tinge to and leave it there. Let others enlarge if they want to, or throw out a challenge...give them comfort to disagree, they might love that!

"Here's something I want you to disagree with; see how you go..." Something like that perhaps. 

Listen

Of course. Conversations are about listening: the better conversation is marked by you listening more! 

Chan's taxonomy of questions was OK, for the book, but I think Scharmer's has a better grasp of the range in what I'd call 'positive' conversations.

The four types of listening reflect the underlying principles of the opening of the mind, heart and will are:

1. Dowloading: This type of listening is limited to reconfirming what we already know. Nothing new penetrates our bubble.
2. Factual listening: We let the data talk to us and notice dis-confirming information. Doing this requires opening the mind—that is, the capacity to suspend our habits of judgment.
3. Empathic listening: We see the situation through the eyes of another. Doing this requires opening the heart: using our feelings and our heart as an organ of tuning in to another person’s view.
4. Generative listening: We listen for the highest future possibility to show up while holding a space for something new to be born.

 (from Medium 2019)

Tell a Better Story

Good idea, but it slips at one point into 'worship' language. No one want's to 'worship'. By this they think of ceremonies, rituals, incense perhaps, peculiar music, strange lyrics and cloud-cuckoo sentiments, bowing, kneeling...That's not Christian worship: its a life transformed into wholeness as we follow the man who brought God to earth.

Apart form that, the idea of the 'better story' is a useful one. We all use 'stories' to shape our lives. Christ is the better story, but it can require a long introduction. 

Tell them Stories about Jesus

Plenty of scope here that has to be used judiciously...'who is this Jesus character' could be the response in most cases. It also sounds a bit cute for my taste. I think I'd say something like "that reminds me of an episode from the career of Jesus of Nazareth...or Yeshua the Nazarene." He was a Jewish prophet of 2000 years ago...that might spin out into a conversation about who he was/is.

The you can go on to I like what he had to say a lot because I think it resolved the very human dilemma we are all caught up in.

Here I like to use Schaeffer's definition: mankind/humanity is noble yet cruel. We can make meaningful decisions that have real effect...how does a pile of cells do that?

Become their De Facto Chaplain

This can be very good, and his examples are great. I'll not spoil them here: read the book.

But it is about being alongside of someone who is reaching out for some real human contact and understanding: listening, form a posture of some personal adversity. 

It is about being kind and 'non-judgemental'.The types of questions that might work are of the "How did that come about?", "How does that make you feel" No solutions unless you are asked and are competent to give them, but avoid them, is my thinking. Let the person talk.

Lean into Disagreement

Of course, we Christians are happy with disagreement because we stand on solid ground! Disagreement shows engagement, interest, unless it is mere show and braggadocio. If the latter 'call it out', and ask to have a real conversation.

As Chan suggests, take them to the logical implicatons of their world view and its use in the present. 

Looking for Black Swan Moments.

Wife and I  took a cruise on a local bay. Leaning on the rail of the boat I was standing next to an older woman. I made a 'throw-away' remark about the 'wonderful' creation, or nature, if you like. Her response was 'I wonder why god bothered' (Her 'god' was a small 'g').

I asked "What do you mean?"   What she meant was her older husband had early dementia. Their lives were changing. She was grieving. I commiserated with her. 'But there's hope.  We weren't made for this world, we were made for a better place...we chatted briefly, and the she moved off.

For all its qualities the book has some deficiencies.

1. Unlike Koukl's idea of 'putting a stone in their shoe' as the 'gardening' aspect of evangelism, Chan sets the bar too high for most people. That is, he sees the main game not as representing Christ as an ambassador (ambassadors rarely seek to change their host nation's policies), but as a 'closer' in sales talk.

The main game is certainly to end with leading others to awareness of the real content of Christian faith, but the more frequent game is to actively sow the seeds.

While Chan doesn't 'close' too quickly, he spends most of his time on contact approaches, rather than connections. Now this is OK: getting involved with community (school) groups, hanging off your children's activities in the earlier years (say, up to 15 or 16). Connections flow, in some chapters, but the preparatory work is not emphasized.

There is little about 'testing' (in a nice way) the other's world view or picture of reality. Koukl talks about questioning tactics: prompting someone for their basic beliefs from some trivial thing: a ring they wear, a bumper sticker they display, etc. and asking about that..."What does that mean?" "Why do you say that?" "How does that work out?" 

This invites conversation, but doesn't necessarily want to get to a 'conversion' conversation. Indeed today we seem to want to race people to that, rather than help the questions they have develop and come into the open.

2. He spends little time on the huge task of de-theologizing language. These days, few people might really know who this Jesus chap is. Muslims think they know, so fruitful conversations can easily be had, if you have done some general research into Islam. So called 'New-Agers' (although that terms is passe now: almost everyone is a 'New-Ager' by default) might also have a better grip on Jesus, or 'the Christ' than the average person, or think they do. People from the sub-continent are also ahead of the game and can be open to discussion more directly. But not the 'average Joe'.

For the average person we need to use simple communicative language. Churches need to teach, practice and train their members for this, and encourage discussing with each other their attempts and outcomes for joint learning and skill-building. This is the hardest skill for most older Christians to master; older in the faith, I mean. Not necessarily in years.

Being adept with common language would also assist people develop conversation pathways that can get 'spiritual' or proto-spiritual without being inappropriate to the conversational topic or tone and so come across as impolite or gauche.

Alongside that, we need to learn to understand what a 'world-view' is and how it plays a role in evangelism at whichever level. I've never heard a sermon about this. I've never heard Schaeffer's discussion of this issue introduced to a congregation. Not that a sermon is a useful means of growing people of course. It's not. Adults learn by grafting in the new to their current stock of ideas and they do this by discussing, asking questions and having issues teased out. We don't do that in church, at our 'services' do we? 

3. The third is equipping. The previous weakness is an aspect of that. Another is the development of skills by local churches.

Christians need to be practiced in putting the Christian message, and 'pre-message' into everyday language, and to deal confidently, if not adroitly with the most common questions that people have, and discussion points that people raise that have Christian implications. Chan touches on this in principle, which is helpful, but I think churches need to up their game and also deal with such issues in discussion groups, not in that one-man, usually, performance known as the 'sermon show'.

Moreover the format of most church gatherings implicitly tells people that a) they have nothing to say, and if they did b) its not worth saying. Against this, the NT church was a place of community communion (as in talking to each other). Many contributed, questions were asked (a little to volubly in some cases, attracting Paul's rebuke to some noisy women), and people grew. The church grew. Except some of the addressees of the letter to the Hebrews seemed to have missed that memo: Hebrews 5:12. 

Some specifics 

Christians need to be able to easily deal with a few common issues:

The Bible: what and why it is, its textual reliability (Bible publishers can help by providing true tables of contents to the major stories or episodes in the books of the Bible, and short orienting intros to each book).

Church: why do you attend/be part of;

Jesus: who is he, why do you/should I follow him? Why is he the only way/

God: does he really exist...and who is he?

Christian: why you are one?

Science: hasn't it disproved the Bible?

Evil/suffering: how can a God of love and mercy allow such?

Training in dealing with these topics is not for the sermon-lecture. It is for focused workshops where people can discuss, simulate encounters, and develop skill in crafting their own approaches. 

The hard part about swinging a conversation to Christian matters is: can I answer the objection (let's make that a 'yes') and the segue from talking about the stock market to talking about values, then talking about how we value...I mean what value does life have if we are a bunch of molecules?  You can usually do it in a few steps to change the 'tone' to what we want to be effective and not 'that guy'.

 

 

 

Why didn't God just destroy Adam and Eve, and start again.

This was a question posed to Greg Koukl on his "STRask" podcast, and the 'start again' was posed on the basis of God knowing that he'd be wiping out all except Noah in a few centuries.

His answer was a little like the curate's egg: good in parts. The not good parts arose from his Calvinism and his view as to 'long ages' defining the history of revelation and thus the cosmos.

As a result he missed the obvious point, which I discuss.

Initially, the question seems to presume a couple of things that, to my mind, run against the Bible's data on creation (with respect to mankind's place and role, and God's action in creation) and on biblical anthropology.

Firstly, it seems to consider a cosmos that is disconnected from the creatures in God's image and that their fall affected only themselves. Subsidiary to this, it seems to presuppose that there was death before the fall, contrary to the God who found everything very good in a world not yet marked by corruption. Even animal death would be very much a mark of corruption. Upsetting, as it often is even today, rather than a matter of joy!

Secondly, it seems to trivialize the scope of sin and God's true relation to his creation and its creatures in his image: that we are made for fellowship and the first couple are the only ones by whom that unique status is unveiled. It would hardly be significant if there was a 'start again' option! God made them for fellowship, and now he goes about restoring the breach.

The notion that God could 'start again' with a new couple fails to recognize the effect of the fall on the cosmos. Paul tells us that the entire creation is groaning (Romans 8:19-23). So post fall, any new couple would no longer be in the pristine creation, but in the marred creation, subjected to futility and corruption: death now the unwelcome feature.

There would be other depredations of sin affecting the entire cosmos by virtue of Adam and Eve being God's image bearers and vicegerents. A new couple would be aliens at best, in a world not fitted for them and be either immediately frustrated, not knowing the world for which they were made as it has been damaged, or quickly become part of it. At worst they would conceivably be completely incompatible with it!

The original couple who fell being God's image-bearers are not just disposable and replaceable. Because sin has entered there could be no starting again. Yet they are rescuable, and God shows both his love and his power in that he is not outdone by sin, but rather overcomes it, as he promises them. A benefit of this is our further encouragement that God is truly the King of Creation and not a Zoroastrian bit player. God is not equally opposed by the 'not-God' of sin, but overcomes it. He does not tolerate death, but in Christ defeats it.

Following on, then, the gross condition of Noah's time was cleared for the line of the Messiah to be established in the. God let conditions play out until they needed to be wiped away for his plan to unfold.

Your Muslim friend

 Two questions for your Muslim friend (and I mean friend: this is to be a fruitful and friendly conversation):

1. How do you know who is a prophet?

2. How can you tell if a document is from God?

The discussion:

1. Mohammad is claimed to be a prophet, because he said so. The biblical prophets claim to speak for God in the public sphere, not hidden in a cave; they make predictions; the predictions come about.

Mohammad was an acquitistive war lord; the prophets of God in the Bible were far from the 'great', but humble and despised; yet they spoke against the powers of the day to their own detriment and had a massive effect in history.

2. The document records the events of people, words of God, and unfolding of history in public. For all to see, for others to debate and comment on. The Q by contrast was compiled from 'narrators' 200 years after it was claimed to be dictated (no one else was there), and Uthman destroyed the written parts he didn't like.

I'm not really religious, but I'm spiritual!

How many times have you heard this on a news clip or 'vox-pop' video?

What does it mean?

How do you deal with it?

Mostly, I'd say, it is an evasion to avoid you talking to me about your religion.

But, it might be right.

However, if you are 'spiritual', then you are 'religious'. All religions represent an approach to the spiritual in terms of seeking a resolution to life's contradictions.

The base contradiction is this: how can there be discontents when this is the world we are in; perhaps evolved within: so where does the transcendent notion of a 'discontent' of experience come in. Surely what is, simply is?

But it is not; and no one has ever been satisfied with this. Even materialist atheists would rely on the dead hand of evolution to make things better (but again, whence such transcendence as a view of the future, and a comparison against what actually is?); but we are all worm dung in the end; so it doesn't matter...but no one lives this way! 

According to Westphal (God, Guilt and Death: An existential phenomenology of religion) there are three types of 'religion'. That is, three types of quest for a resolution of existential contradictions in the quest for a satisfying life.

1. Exilic - religions that conceive resolution as absorption into a great anonymity, monism. Often 'the universe' impersonalized. Salvation by absorption into the 'all'.

2. Mimetic - semi-worldly religions that merge the 'creation' and 'salvation' in perhaps time-independent manner. Paganism both ancient and modern (environmentalism, veganism, atheistic materialism, scientism, evolutionism).

3. Covenental - form a type of relationship with the creator/God that is both worldly (takes the real world as real and valid) but needing resolution in relation with the creator in some way. Salvation by external action.

In a way all religions seek the same thing: resolution of the human existential dilemma. The route is: ignore, own effort, external savior.

The first two fail on the face of it: ignore solves nothing, own effort seeks the solution in the very problem (while perhaps pretending to deny the problem).

To the pub

The church study group that I attend is planned to meet in the local pub (bar/hotel/alcohol joint) to 'be in the community' and maybe have some conversations with the denizens.

Firstly, I doubt that we would have any useful conversations with the denizens, but perhaps.

Secondly, if we want to visit the pub for a social evening, all well and good. Just don't drink too much and don't get into any fights (more a problem in some places than others).

Thirdly,  "whaaat?!" As the 'medium is the message', as Marshall McLuhan has written, we submerge our message into a contradictory medium and align it with a dissonant message. The message of the pub is not the message of study. I wouldn't have gone to the pub to study my finance textbook so why would I go there to study the Bible?

This would be a 'show-off' stunt. Most patrons would see it as seeking to show them up as lesser people, even with a jar of ale on our table.

Moreover, if we prayed, we would be praying on the street corner for all to see, against the word of our Lord in Matthew 5:5-6:

When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

 In fact, the whole thing would be a street corner event. Not good.

In none of the pagan cults I've encountered was this ever a recruitment approach. Sure some members might have gone to pubs for quiet conversations as individuals; but generally their intake was via free talks about self-serving quasi spiritual techniques and success stories, or 'club' type events, entertainment evenings (music, film) and supper afterwards with no pressure, some promotions for innocuous weekend courses or 're-calibration' meditation, etc. but no pressure.

What might work is a parson in the pub event monthly from, say, between Easter and Advent, as long as the parson brought a few pals to order beers and was a great raconteur.