In my last post, I shared about an experience in which I thought that I might be able to believe in God again. I shared about how I prayed. I prayed earnestly that if God truly exists, that he reveal to me his existence.
Well, I received no response to my prayer, and that's ok. Moving forward, I'm comforted by the fact that if the biblical god were to exist, he would know (better than myself) each and every reason behind my unbelief. He would know exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence. And if he were to allow me to remain in unbelief, there wouldn't be anything I could do to change that.
Friday, 1 August 2014
Monday, 21 July 2014
I prayed last night...
I prayed last night. That's right, I prayed like I haven't prayed in a long, long time. It's been about a year and a half since I became agnostic. In all honesty, it's been quite hard letting go of the god that I had believed in for so long. And every once in a while, I seem to think that maybe, just maybe, I can believe in him again; last night was one of those times.
I was walking in the forest yesterday evening. I love getting out into nature where I can think and reflect. Almost as soon as I started on my walk, I began to realize how much I missed my relationship, or rather, what I thought was a relationship, with my god and with Christ. Before I knew it, I was begging and pleading that if this god truly exists, that he reveal himself to me.
Probably the easiest way to describe my prayer would be to write it out. Of course I can't remember it word for word, and it was a lot longer than what I am about to write out, but the gist of it is as follows:
"Yahweh Elohim (Lord God), if you are there, please, PLEASE, reveal yourself to me. Please show yourself to me. Notions and ideas are not good enough for me. 'Signs' are not good enough for me. If you are there, I need you to reveal yourself to me in a way that can't be explained away or reasoned away. If you, the god of the bible, are real, then you know what it will take to make me believe again. You know better than anyone how much I loved you in the past. You know that I would have sooner died than deny the name of Yeshua ha Mashiach (Jesus the Christ). And if you are real, you know fully the reasons that I am no longer able to believe in you. So if you are real, please, PLEASE, show yourself to me. Send an angel if you must, but please DO SOMETHING. If you are there, why are you ignoring me? Why would you let me wander in unbelief? You know how much I would love you if I were able to believe in you. If you are there, why are you letting me waste my life in unbelief? Please, PLEASE, if you are there, I need you to reveal the truth to me. A whisper won't be good enough; I need something powerful and undeniable. Please..." and so on and so forth.
That continued on until I got to the top of the hill I was walking. I turned around and headed back down the hill in silence, fully open to the possibility of receiving some kind of answer to my ardent prayer. But the silence continued for the remainder of my walk, interrupted only by the occasional verbalization of my own thoughts and reasonings. I suppose silence, in itself, is an answer.
I was walking in the forest yesterday evening. I love getting out into nature where I can think and reflect. Almost as soon as I started on my walk, I began to realize how much I missed my relationship, or rather, what I thought was a relationship, with my god and with Christ. Before I knew it, I was begging and pleading that if this god truly exists, that he reveal himself to me.
Probably the easiest way to describe my prayer would be to write it out. Of course I can't remember it word for word, and it was a lot longer than what I am about to write out, but the gist of it is as follows:
"Yahweh Elohim (Lord God), if you are there, please, PLEASE, reveal yourself to me. Please show yourself to me. Notions and ideas are not good enough for me. 'Signs' are not good enough for me. If you are there, I need you to reveal yourself to me in a way that can't be explained away or reasoned away. If you, the god of the bible, are real, then you know what it will take to make me believe again. You know better than anyone how much I loved you in the past. You know that I would have sooner died than deny the name of Yeshua ha Mashiach (Jesus the Christ). And if you are real, you know fully the reasons that I am no longer able to believe in you. So if you are real, please, PLEASE, show yourself to me. Send an angel if you must, but please DO SOMETHING. If you are there, why are you ignoring me? Why would you let me wander in unbelief? You know how much I would love you if I were able to believe in you. If you are there, why are you letting me waste my life in unbelief? Please, PLEASE, if you are there, I need you to reveal the truth to me. A whisper won't be good enough; I need something powerful and undeniable. Please..." and so on and so forth.
That continued on until I got to the top of the hill I was walking. I turned around and headed back down the hill in silence, fully open to the possibility of receiving some kind of answer to my ardent prayer. But the silence continued for the remainder of my walk, interrupted only by the occasional verbalization of my own thoughts and reasonings. I suppose silence, in itself, is an answer.
Friday, 28 March 2014
EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATION WITHIN THE CHURCH
When I was still a Christian, I worked for many years as a music-minister in my church. In this entry, I want to discuss the role that music has in manipulating people within the church.
I am a trained musician and am quite aware of the emotional impact that music can have on a human being. I love music. I love the fact that music has such an impact on the emotions.
Here is what I don't like: I don't like the fact that churches are playing on the emotions of countless people in order to accomplish their mission. Week after week, churches everywhere are psychologically and emotionally manipulating people in some way or another. One of the key tools used to manipulate people is music.
Countless times, as a music leader, I would be meeting with my pastor to plan the upcoming church service. Over and over again, I was encouraged to play music that would have the greatest emotional impact on the congregation in relation to the theme of the service.
Now wait a minute, pastor, are you relying on the holy spirit or on emotions to affect the lives of your congregants? You claim to rely on the holy spirit to affect change within the heart of a person. Yet, in practise, you rely on the emotions to affect change. Is the "almighty" holy spirit's power limited to the emotional power of a song or hymn? It always seems that the holy spirit's "power" is directly proportional to the emotional magnitude of the music or message presented during the church service.
Even when I was still a Christian, it bothered me somewhat that we had to rely so heavily on the effect of music in order to reach people for this "almighty" god. Now that I'm on the outside looking in, I find it sickening that churches are manipulating and toying with people in such a way.
Here's an example of a typical church service that I would have been involved in: As an intro to the service, we would generally do an upbeat song to get everyone going. After the opening prayer, announcements, and often a scripture reading, we would do a number of songs. These songs would form the core of the "worship" portion of the service. The first couple of songs are generally fast or upbeat to get everyone going. Then the songs become slower and more melancholy. After one of these slower, emotional songs, it is prayer time. Now that the music has gotten everyone emotional and vulnerable, the prayer leader can really start to manipulate the congregation and trick them into believing that their god is speaking to them or that they are feeling the holy spirit. Perhaps, after the prayer we would do one more slow song. After a short coffee break, we would do one more song as a prelude to the sermon. Naturally, this song is usually related to the theme of the message being preached. Now, the last part of the service can go one of two ways. If the sermon is more of an inspirational or motivational (rah rah rah) theme, we would generally end with an upbeat, rousing song to send everyone off with. If the sermon is meant to convict the hearts of the congregation, the preacher will usually spend the latter portion of the message poking and prodding at the hearer's heart. The service will end with a slow, emotional song to solidify the mood of the service.
I'm not super concerned about the upbeat, motivational themes. The effects of these services, in my experience, are usually quite superficial. Although, I suppose it is possible that a person can get so ramped up that they go out and do something stupid.
I am concerned, though, about the emotionally penetrating themes. This emotional manipulation (achieved through the partnership of the music, praying, and preaching) will impact each individual differently. Some people will be made to relive past trauma. Others will be made to feel a heavy weight of guilt or shame (in which case they would be encouraged to repent). And those going through present trauma are vulnerable to a wide range of damaging effects. This kind of manipulation often borders on and may even cross over into psychological abuse. Depending on the degree of damage done, those affected by such manipulation may need and should seek the help of a licensed psychologist.
All over the world, week after week, this thing goes on and on again and again... And I'm so sorry that I used my talent to help enable this kind of thing for so long.
I am a trained musician and am quite aware of the emotional impact that music can have on a human being. I love music. I love the fact that music has such an impact on the emotions.
Here is what I don't like: I don't like the fact that churches are playing on the emotions of countless people in order to accomplish their mission. Week after week, churches everywhere are psychologically and emotionally manipulating people in some way or another. One of the key tools used to manipulate people is music.
Countless times, as a music leader, I would be meeting with my pastor to plan the upcoming church service. Over and over again, I was encouraged to play music that would have the greatest emotional impact on the congregation in relation to the theme of the service.
Now wait a minute, pastor, are you relying on the holy spirit or on emotions to affect the lives of your congregants? You claim to rely on the holy spirit to affect change within the heart of a person. Yet, in practise, you rely on the emotions to affect change. Is the "almighty" holy spirit's power limited to the emotional power of a song or hymn? It always seems that the holy spirit's "power" is directly proportional to the emotional magnitude of the music or message presented during the church service.
Even when I was still a Christian, it bothered me somewhat that we had to rely so heavily on the effect of music in order to reach people for this "almighty" god. Now that I'm on the outside looking in, I find it sickening that churches are manipulating and toying with people in such a way.
Here's an example of a typical church service that I would have been involved in: As an intro to the service, we would generally do an upbeat song to get everyone going. After the opening prayer, announcements, and often a scripture reading, we would do a number of songs. These songs would form the core of the "worship" portion of the service. The first couple of songs are generally fast or upbeat to get everyone going. Then the songs become slower and more melancholy. After one of these slower, emotional songs, it is prayer time. Now that the music has gotten everyone emotional and vulnerable, the prayer leader can really start to manipulate the congregation and trick them into believing that their god is speaking to them or that they are feeling the holy spirit. Perhaps, after the prayer we would do one more slow song. After a short coffee break, we would do one more song as a prelude to the sermon. Naturally, this song is usually related to the theme of the message being preached. Now, the last part of the service can go one of two ways. If the sermon is more of an inspirational or motivational (rah rah rah) theme, we would generally end with an upbeat, rousing song to send everyone off with. If the sermon is meant to convict the hearts of the congregation, the preacher will usually spend the latter portion of the message poking and prodding at the hearer's heart. The service will end with a slow, emotional song to solidify the mood of the service.
I'm not super concerned about the upbeat, motivational themes. The effects of these services, in my experience, are usually quite superficial. Although, I suppose it is possible that a person can get so ramped up that they go out and do something stupid.
I am concerned, though, about the emotionally penetrating themes. This emotional manipulation (achieved through the partnership of the music, praying, and preaching) will impact each individual differently. Some people will be made to relive past trauma. Others will be made to feel a heavy weight of guilt or shame (in which case they would be encouraged to repent). And those going through present trauma are vulnerable to a wide range of damaging effects. This kind of manipulation often borders on and may even cross over into psychological abuse. Depending on the degree of damage done, those affected by such manipulation may need and should seek the help of a licensed psychologist.
All over the world, week after week, this thing goes on and on again and again... And I'm so sorry that I used my talent to help enable this kind of thing for so long.
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
The Fickleness of Knowing (poem)
The Fickleness Of Knowing
I used to know that I knew
Yet these things
I now know that I didn't know
And thus
Is the fickleness of knowing
Bryan Johns
A short poem
I used to think
That there may be a god.
Then for a time
I knew him.
Now I'm convinced
This god is not real.
So all my life
I've been alone.
Sunday, 7 July 2013
Some Things For Christians To Ponder
It is vitally important for every person to know what they believe and why they believe it. It hardly makes sense to believe something just because it feels good to believe it. One's belief system should be based on reason and evidence.
At very least, a belief system should be derived from a credible source. In the case of Christianity, that source is believed to be the bible. However, I have come to question the credibility of that source. It should be reasonable that any source of religious belief be able to withstand some solid scrutiny. Following are just a few issues that I had to work through while investigating my own belief system.
If the bible was truly authored by a god in order to impart absolute truth and salvation to humanity, why is it so open to interpretation? Think about it- under the label of Christianity there are many different religious traditions. Let's name a few: mainstream Evangelical Christianity (Baptists, non-denominational groups, Calvinists, Lutheran, some Pentecostal groups, etc.), Seventh Day Adventists, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses (though they don't call themselves Christians, they do adhere solely to their translation of the bible), Catholicism, and the Orthodox Church, to name a few. The trouble is, amongst these different traditions, there are fundamental differences in key doctrines. Each of these traditions interprets the bible differently and claim to have the truth. I would propose that if a god desired to communicate such vital truths to humanity, he would do so via a better, more fail-safe method. Does that seem reasonable?
The bible is one of three things: It is either completely true, completely false, or it contains some truth and some falsehood. One must determine which of these three views applies to the bible. From there, a person needs to be able to provide a well reasoned defense of their view.
I would submit that the bible contains both truth and falsehood. By studying archeology, it is perfectly reasonable to determine that a few historical events recorded in the bible actually took place. On the flip-side, however, archeology also seems to indicate that the biblical record, in many areas, is either false or greatly distorted. Yet many people assert that the bible is entirely true, simply because it records certain historical events that actually took place. Can you see the flaw in this logic? A historical fiction novel will often narrate actual events throughout the course of the plot. And yet the novel is still fictional. A few true events (or even a whole bunch of them) don't automatically make a story true. How and why is the bible any different in this sense?
Christians will often use fulfilled prophecy as proof that the bible is true. I have come to realize a couple of problems with this logic. Firstly, many biblical prophecies are veiled in so much symbolism and imagery that one can easily interpret them to mean whatever they want them to mean. Secondly, (and this should be fairly commonsensical) it would be relatively easy to fulfill certain prophecies when one knows which prophecies are waiting to be fulfilled. Many old testament prophecies would have been well known to religious people in the biblical eras. In fact, the gospels record a number of cases where Jesus would supposedly do or say something "in order that the prophecy would be fulfilled." Does this not expose a fatal flaw in the argument of fulfilled prophecy?
When looking at these issues, one must make a serious point of being objective. For a long time, I thought that I was being objective in the defense of my faith. However, my objectivity was very much tainted by my religiosity. Quite simply, I had brainwashed myself into believing that I was objective and reasonable in this regard. It wasn't until I took a step back, and became truly objective, that I was able to begin seeing the flaws in my Christian reasoning.
I can't stress it strongly enough: Make it a priority to be truly objective and reasonable in the consideration of these issues- the truth depends on it.
At very least, a belief system should be derived from a credible source. In the case of Christianity, that source is believed to be the bible. However, I have come to question the credibility of that source. It should be reasonable that any source of religious belief be able to withstand some solid scrutiny. Following are just a few issues that I had to work through while investigating my own belief system.
If the bible was truly authored by a god in order to impart absolute truth and salvation to humanity, why is it so open to interpretation? Think about it- under the label of Christianity there are many different religious traditions. Let's name a few: mainstream Evangelical Christianity (Baptists, non-denominational groups, Calvinists, Lutheran, some Pentecostal groups, etc.), Seventh Day Adventists, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses (though they don't call themselves Christians, they do adhere solely to their translation of the bible), Catholicism, and the Orthodox Church, to name a few. The trouble is, amongst these different traditions, there are fundamental differences in key doctrines. Each of these traditions interprets the bible differently and claim to have the truth. I would propose that if a god desired to communicate such vital truths to humanity, he would do so via a better, more fail-safe method. Does that seem reasonable?
The bible is one of three things: It is either completely true, completely false, or it contains some truth and some falsehood. One must determine which of these three views applies to the bible. From there, a person needs to be able to provide a well reasoned defense of their view.
I would submit that the bible contains both truth and falsehood. By studying archeology, it is perfectly reasonable to determine that a few historical events recorded in the bible actually took place. On the flip-side, however, archeology also seems to indicate that the biblical record, in many areas, is either false or greatly distorted. Yet many people assert that the bible is entirely true, simply because it records certain historical events that actually took place. Can you see the flaw in this logic? A historical fiction novel will often narrate actual events throughout the course of the plot. And yet the novel is still fictional. A few true events (or even a whole bunch of them) don't automatically make a story true. How and why is the bible any different in this sense?
Christians will often use fulfilled prophecy as proof that the bible is true. I have come to realize a couple of problems with this logic. Firstly, many biblical prophecies are veiled in so much symbolism and imagery that one can easily interpret them to mean whatever they want them to mean. Secondly, (and this should be fairly commonsensical) it would be relatively easy to fulfill certain prophecies when one knows which prophecies are waiting to be fulfilled. Many old testament prophecies would have been well known to religious people in the biblical eras. In fact, the gospels record a number of cases where Jesus would supposedly do or say something "in order that the prophecy would be fulfilled." Does this not expose a fatal flaw in the argument of fulfilled prophecy?
When looking at these issues, one must make a serious point of being objective. For a long time, I thought that I was being objective in the defense of my faith. However, my objectivity was very much tainted by my religiosity. Quite simply, I had brainwashed myself into believing that I was objective and reasonable in this regard. It wasn't until I took a step back, and became truly objective, that I was able to begin seeing the flaws in my Christian reasoning.
I can't stress it strongly enough: Make it a priority to be truly objective and reasonable in the consideration of these issues- the truth depends on it.
Friday, 31 May 2013
Newly Agnostic
Even as I write this, I am stunned that I now call myself an agnostic. One year ago, the concept of being agnostic would have been absurd to me. Let me give you some of my background.
I was not born into a Christian family. My mom was introduced to Christianity in 1996 by a new friend who she would marry later that year. I too became a Christian that year (96). I have no doubt that my original belief was nothing more than childlike gullibility. However, throughout my teenage years, my faith grew and I became more aware of what I believed and why I believed it. As an adult, I have become familiar with most of the common apologetic arguments. 1 Peter 3:15 makes it clear that I am required to give an account of my belief system. I have taken very seriously the charge of knowing what I believe and why I believe it. In 2010 I completed a three year theological training program within my denomination. I serve in several churches as a guest preacher. In just these past months, however, I have been finding it harder and harder to cling to my belief system. Mainstream apologetics just don't seem to stand up.
The biggest issue I seem to be wrestling with right now is the Bible. Sure, if you look at it just right, explain it in just the right way, and "properly contextualize", you can almost make it appear as if there are no contradictions. Fine. Here's my issue: If God is who he says he is, and if he desires to impart absolute truth to humanity, why would he use a method that is so open to interpretation? Globally, there are many traditions under the label of Christianity. Key beliefs, however, vary widely between these different traditions. Again, why would such important truths be open to such a wide range of interpretation?
And so, here I am, agnostic. My worldview has changed dramatically.
I was not born into a Christian family. My mom was introduced to Christianity in 1996 by a new friend who she would marry later that year. I too became a Christian that year (96). I have no doubt that my original belief was nothing more than childlike gullibility. However, throughout my teenage years, my faith grew and I became more aware of what I believed and why I believed it. As an adult, I have become familiar with most of the common apologetic arguments. 1 Peter 3:15 makes it clear that I am required to give an account of my belief system. I have taken very seriously the charge of knowing what I believe and why I believe it. In 2010 I completed a three year theological training program within my denomination. I serve in several churches as a guest preacher. In just these past months, however, I have been finding it harder and harder to cling to my belief system. Mainstream apologetics just don't seem to stand up.
The biggest issue I seem to be wrestling with right now is the Bible. Sure, if you look at it just right, explain it in just the right way, and "properly contextualize", you can almost make it appear as if there are no contradictions. Fine. Here's my issue: If God is who he says he is, and if he desires to impart absolute truth to humanity, why would he use a method that is so open to interpretation? Globally, there are many traditions under the label of Christianity. Key beliefs, however, vary widely between these different traditions. Again, why would such important truths be open to such a wide range of interpretation?
And so, here I am, agnostic. My worldview has changed dramatically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)