Sweden and the Costs of Self-Promotion

When trying to prove that atheism is fruitful, atheists appeal to the “atheistic” country of Sweden for support. (Obviously, they can’t invoke the militant atheistic communist nations!) That’s why I was delighted to meet an engaging Swedish woman at a hostel in Krakow, Poland, who I assaulted with a series of questions.

She quickly dismissed that assertion that Sweden was atheistic, affirming that most Swedes believe in God even though they aren’t church-goers. Nevertheless, she acknowledged that the Christian faith was continuing to shrink away from the Swedish public arena. Even though not a Christian, she acknowledged that the public disappearance of the faith was associated with the growth of social ills:

• The youth have been taught to think that they are #1 and that they can do all things. Consequently, they can’t deal with setbacks.

She explained that their unrealistically high expectations have not prepared them for failure. Besides, failure undermines the very foundation of their self-concept and therefore, it is too painful to endure. It boldly tells them that they are not superior.

This made me think that Sweden was not very much different from the rest of the West, although it might have played a pioneering role. But why do we find this tendency so prevalent in the West?

It seems that when a culture minimizes God, a vacuum is created – a vacuum that needs to be filled. If the West can no longer rely on God, what then can it rely on if not the self! If God is no longer the answer to our hopes, then we are forced to pick up the reigns. Our dreams and hopes must now be fulfilled by us.

While this “captain of my ship” orientation is greatly esteemed, the costs are seldom considered. Yes, there are costs! My Swedish friend noted a few of them – alienation, loneliness, and the breakdown of community.

However, at first glance, there seems to be no causal link between these social ills and believing in oneself. It would seem that self-trust and self-esteem might even provide some extra confidence in navigating the threatening waters of social interaction, but this might not be the case. A study performed in the U.S. about 18 years ago found that only 10% admitted that they lacked a friend to whom they could share their innermost concerns. When the survey was repeated 15 years later, that percentage had climbed to 25%, despite higher reported levels of self-esteem.

What can account for such a troubling upturn? Self-esteem costs! When we attempt to fill the God-vacuum, we have to deny and suppress disturbing truths about ourselves. These truths clearly tell us we are not gods and can’t trust in ourselves. Instead, we fight an ongoing battle against our perceptions in order to believe the unbelievable about ourselves. It becomes too painful to acknowledge that we have weaknesses and failings that we have not been able to overcome. Consequently, we suppress the painful and accentuate those things that bring us psychological comfort.

This is not guesswork. Many surveys have demonstrated that the mentally “healthy” live lives of self-delusion. For instance, in one study, the subjects were asked to rate themselves according to numerous characteristics. Then others who knew the subject well rated him. The subject’s rating was almost always higher than those who knew him best.

How would a heightened self-image affect relationships and alienation? Here are several thoughts:

1. If we are in a constant battle to define our artificially high self-image, we might feel threatened by how others would regard us and isolate ourselves. Defensiveness interferes with relationship formation.

2. It is hard to relate to someone who doesn’t share the same reality, namely, our self-image. This would produce dissonance and consequently, social isolation. Just think of the problems trying to relate to someone who thinks that they are the next Einstein.

3. When someone is engaged in trying to heighten their self-esteem, we will either feel coerced into helping them or we will also feel the need to prove ourselves in face of such arrogance.

4. If we feel superior to others, we will not value them sufficiently.

5. In contrast, humility is self-accepting and non-coercive. It esteems the other. It also allows our associate to lay down his guard and to be himself.

It is hard to play God. It also seems to be costly. We are not equipped to play God but rather to be the beneficiary of His mercy. Therefore, Jesus warned:

• “For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:14)

Consequently, to reject God is to reject ourselves and the hope of real attachments and community.

A Religion of Peace and Love

To one dear friend, the religions of the world are in conflict, each claiming that they are right, and this creates a hostile, war-prone climate. In contrast to Christianity, which has a fixed set of non-negotiable truths, he offers:

•  “an evolving conscious curious compassionate loving kind forgiving reasoning faithful generous non-narcissistic human being, regardless of the accident of birth or faith, or similarity of race, color or class or persuasion or pre-existing unconscious conditioning--should keep re-searching--with reason and love.”

I asked him if his faith also expresses non-negotiables – areas where he feels that he is right and others are wrong:

•  We are both concerned about man’s inhumanity to man. However, do you believe that your faith is more capable of addressing this problem than is mine? Don’t you also believe that you are right about your faith and that others are wrong, maybe even the cause of the problems?

His faith is a common and popular one. It is appealing because it seems to remove the potential for conflict, allowing people to lovingly live together. However, the same problems might be inherent in this formulation.

If he believes that his faith is the correct one, then he will regard those who do not believe this way as the impediments to peace, just like the religions he criticizes! Such “progressives” are even talking about eliminating opposition, as “progressives” had done during the French and Russian Revolutions.

Even if they take a less extreme position – it’s only an “evolving” faith, and we therefore have to be very humble and uncertain about it – such a faith invites other problems. There is a group of Christian who call themselves “Christian Agnostics,” because they cannot be sure of what they believe. However, if they cannot be sure of anything, anything goes! They have become havens of permissiveness for many things that they should not permit – pedophilia, lying, cheating, robbing, manipulations, and hypocrisy.

To stand against evil, we must stand solidly for something. Oddly, with the exception of the one stipulation of an “evolving” faith, my friend has described the Christian ideal. Let us pray that we can show the world many such Christian communities, where we put the needs of the other above our own needs!

Building Multi-Racial, Multi-Ethnic Churches

It deeply troubles us that the evangelical support for our Black brethren trapped under Jim Crow segregation laws was so minimal. There are many reasons to grieve over this great injustice. Perhaps worst of all, racial discrimination violates righteousness and the Gospel itself:

• Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;  one Lord, one faith, one baptism. (Eph. 4:4-5; John 10:16; 17:11; Romans 12:4; 1 Cor. 10:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14-20)

In Christ, we are all one, but our actions didn’t always demonstrate this, to our great regret and detriment. Jesus insisted that the welfare and witness of the church depended upon maintaining our unity – our oneness. He prayed:

• “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one… Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

People are more alienated and lonely than ever, according to recent surveys. They are desperately seeking community – the very thing that we have to offer them. We need to be the light of the world, demonstrating that Christ can bring people together from many diverse backgrounds, neutralizing the hate and dissension. When they find unity among us, the world will more clearly know and believe that the Savior is in our midst.

We all have a responsibility “to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace!” And I think that all true believers accept this responsibility. However, we differ regarding the “how” question. How do we maintain the unity we share in Christ – our mystical oneness as members of His glorious body?

Some pastors promote a worldly solution involving a form of reverse discrimination – affirmative action re-shaped for the church. One pastor claimed that it wasn’t enough to accept one another as equals. Instead, the long-favored racial group had to make it up to those racial groups that had been disfavored. Consequently, merit, gifting and calling would no longer determine the composition of church leadership but primarily, racial quotas.

This is very different from requiring parties who had been guilty of racism to confess their sins and to even make reparations. Instead, reverse discrimination would place the onus, by virtue of race, even on those who had absolutely no responsibility for the evils of Jim Crow.

The pastor explained that if we want unity within the body of Christ, we are required to give the highest seats to those who had been disadvantaged by the color of their skin. However, such counsel is not consistent with the light of the Gospel. James wrote in favor of impartiality:

•  My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? (James 4:1-4)

Any form of favoritism – whether social, racial or ethnic - has no place within the body of Christ, unless justice requires some form of reparation.  Instead, we are called upon to care equally for one another, granting each his voice irrespective of any racial assessment. Moses was clear that neither poverty nor riches should twist justice:

• “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” (Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:17)

The prohibition against favoritism is not simply a Mosaic concept of justice; it extends into the church as well:

• I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. (1 Tim. 5:21-22)

Paul forbade favoritism even in regards to the “laying on of hands” – the commissioning to church office and service! It shouldn’t be according to friendship or racial preference.

Nevertheless, there had been a need for affirmative action. Many Blacks had been unjustly discriminated against. Justice required that their cases and resumes be re-examined so that they would be given those things to which they had been entitled, along with reparations.

This is a matter of justice. However, racial quotas have not and will not heal the wounds of Jim Crow. Nor will racial distinctions maintain biblical unity – the very thing that we should all long for! If anything, these distinctions will simply perpetuate the divide. After all, how can racial preferences eliminate racism! Instead, they have served to perpetuate our problems.

Even more problematic is the insistence that we have to bring racial distinctions into the church. Not only are these interventions racially discriminatory, they also displace our God-given solutions. These require us all – not just the underprivileged - to build the church. We all must forgive; we all must put others’ needs before our own; we all must put Christ first before any worldly solutions:

• Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Eph. 4:29-32)

This didn’t come naturally for me. I had experienced much anti-Semitism and had been painfully aware of the history of genocide that had stalked my people for centuries. I responded with hatred. It was so deep that I thought that white folk actually had a different odor – a nauseating one. (I grew up around only Caucasians.) I therefore entered the church very reluctantly, convinced that each white person who shook my hand was a hypocrite who hated Jews.

However, that was 36 years ago. Since then, the Lord has taught me to love His thoughts and to gladly disdain my own! This has become my prayer for His beloved bride – His multi-racial church.

Atheists Reluctantly Acknowledge the Superiority of the Church

The contempt that atheists have for religion is well know. The Dictionary of Contemporary Mythology (DCM) contains a typical quip:

• The difference between faith and insanity is that faith is the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with the evidence, whereas insanity is the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with the evidence. (Quoted from Pique: Newsletter of the Secular Humanist Society of New York, Sept 2012. All other quotes are taken from this newsletter.)

In other words, faith is insanity! Likewise, atheist Walter Balcerak writes, “As a secular humanist, I believe religions are mainly harmful delusions.” Surprisingly, he acknowledges that some good comes out of religion. Balcerak quotes the atheist professor of psychology, Jonathan Haidt:

• According to Haidt, religion does more than unite people. He says studies indicate that religiously observant Americans “are more generous with their time and money, especially in helping the needy, and they are more active in community life.”

• Research on 19^th century communes demonstrates the cohesiveness of religious groups, he asserts, because they were much more likely to survive than secular ones. Of the 400 communes studied, 20 years after their founding only 6 percent of secular groups had survived, compared to 39 percent of religious groups.

The difference between the experience of the Secular and the Christian (I’m assuming that almost all of what are called “religious” are Christian) groups is profound. However, Balcerak and other atheists believe that secularism can merely borrow certain techniques from these Christian groups, like brushing your hair to the left instead of the right side. The secularist can easily implement this change, but it’s doubtful if this will favorably impact secular communities.

Atheist Sara Robinson goes even further:

• There is simply no other organizational form that encourages people to share their time, energy, and resources so quickly, completely, or enduringly; or aligns so much conviction toward the same goal.

Most atheists seem to think that all they merely need to change the “organizational form” – a mere superficiality – and they will experience the same benefits. However, Robinson acknowledges that change will require more than a mere face-lift:

• If you want to change the world, this is the kind of group – deeply bound by faith, trust, love, history, and a commitment to each other and to the world they envision that transcends life and death – that’s most likely to get it done. Religion is the best way going to get people to consecrate themselves, body and soul, to a larger cause; and to take on the kind of all-or-nothing risks that are often required to really change the world.

This is where Robinson parts company from the New Atheists. Consequently, the editor of Pique appends the article with a “solicitation”:

• Okay, readers, now that you’re outraged, send your rebuttals – approvals? – to editor@shsny.org.

Nevertheless, Robinson regards religion as a matter of “superstition,” and superstition is a matter of delusion, even “insanity,” according to DCM. We are therefore left to wonder how being insane and the deluded:

• Is the best way going to get people to consecrate themselves, body and soul, to a larger cause; and to take on the kind of all-or-nothing risks that are often required to really change the world.

I hope you are able to see the disconnect.

Integrity and the Unitarian Church

The church was dressed in the banner, “Community of Love,” and the sermon was exquisitely crafted. She argued in favor of the need for integrity. Our insides had to match our outsides - what we say and do. Anything less is hypocrisy, and it can be smelled for miles.

How to achieve integrity? This is where things got a bit fuzzy. The preacher admitted that she didn’t always carry herself with integrity. Sometimes, the image that she was presenting to the world didn’t match the internal substance, but this dissonance is just an unavoidable product of the complexities of the age.

However, she did finish her sermon with some admonitions about acquiring integrity – walk in the rain, feel the wind and even taste some soil.

Perhaps it was only me, but I found something lacking and wondered if others sensed as much. I approached some of the congregants as winsomely as I could, although I’m sure that others would have performed much better than me.

After assuring them that I really was very impressed with the sermon – and perhaps this was somewhat lacking in integrity – I asked if they were satisfied with the pastor’s final admonition? However, they seemed to be a bit confused by my question, and so I spelled it out:

• By advising people to merely feel the wind and the rain, even though she just meant this poetically, do you feel that she was able to give the congregants something that they needed?

The first two gentlemen were evidently not intrigued by my question and promptly excused themselves. The third gentleman was more patient. He explained that she was trying to be a peace-maker, rather than instructing people what they had to do. Perhaps, puzzled by m question, he asked about my religious background, since I clearly wasn’t a Unitarian.

I explained that I am a Christian, although I had been raised Jewish. I was hoping that he would have asked me for my testimony, but instead he asked, “What type of Christian are you?”

I didn’t want to be overly provocative by answering with that despised term, “Fundamentalist,” and so I answered, “Evangelical.” I went on to explain:

• It is so true, as the pastor had preached, that integrity is so elusive. There are just so many things pulling upon us – so many psychological forces that prey upon us.

He nodded approvingly. I wrongly took this as encouragement to continue:

• Integrity had been completely unreachable for me for many years. I so desperately needed the approval of others that I could not longer distinguish façade from the reality of who I was. It was only through the assurance of the love and forgiveness I have found through Jesus the Messiah that I have been able to accept the truth about myself – that I am not the deserving person that I had tried to believe that I was.

The gentleman cut me off:

• Although I can respect the fact that this has worked for you, everyone you see here is unable to accept this answer, and you can’t expect them to!

I wanted to explain that some realities are just so forceful and pervasive that we aren’t free to choose our own ways. Instead of inventing another more congenial way, we have to conform to that one reality. Like\wise, we are not free to re-envision the laws of physics to suit ourselves. Instead, we have to conform to them. We can’t jump off of a building, expecting that gravity is going to conform to our tastes. Instead, we have to conform to the workings of gravity.

However, with a good-bye touch to my shoulder, he too was gone, and I also left the church, passing the “community of love” banner. I guess it was "just an unavoidable product of the complexities of the age.”