Religion as an Addiction??

[righter1]

This was on one of the threads that I belong to outside of CW, and when I read it, I thought it was thought provoking, even if I think the guy is completely wrong.

Maybe some background would be helpful--this is from the Lawrence Journal-World in Kansas. Lawrence is the 'liberal mecca' of the Midwest, IMHO. Home of the University of Kansas, there's all kinds of nuts who live there.

I don't believe I'll be picking up this guy's book, however. But, I would like to know what everyone else has to say about the article. :)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/aug/04/higher_power_addiction/

[Tommie Lyn]

Those who disagree with others often use ridicule to discount them and their ideas, as this fellow has apparently done -- I'm going by what was said about him in the article, since I have not read his book. Nor do I intend to read it, having learned something of his opinion from the article.

I find it interesting that when someone enjoys sports, focuses upon supporting and cheering a particular team, spends a considerable sum going to that team's games, buying paraphenalia with the team logos, etc., that person is called a fan.

But when someone focuses upon spiritual matters, goes to church, supports the activities of a congregation, etc., he is ridiculed and called a fanatic. And, now, this fellow is adding "addict" to the derogatory terminology directed at Christians he doesn't like.

It probably shouldn't surprise us that Christians who adhere to the teachings of the Bible are labeled this way. Actually, it's not so much surprising as it is aggravating that this man has a state-funded platform from which to do it.

[lynnmosher]

Amen, Tommie Lyn. No, I won't be buying his book either. I have many thoughts about this article but I'd better keep them to myself.

However, he contends that liberals' reactions to conservatives are 1) not wanting to offend them, 2) wanting to be nice to them, and 3) to love them more. Number four was for liberals to educate the conservatives. That he got right. They'd like to educate us, for sure!

In the case of the other three, I think he's one oar short...forgive me. I don't like to talk negatively about someone, no matter how insane they sound.

His wish for sparking conversations among the entire religious spectrum will certainly pan out.

I never could understand how professors of religious studies at universities never studied religion.

[Lookin^Up]

His wish for sparking conversations among the entire religious spectrum will certainly pan out.
That's almost precisely what Dan Brown said about The Da Vinci Code, too. Don't they think we have enough to talk about without muddying the waters a little more?

Wasn't it Karl Marx who called religion an opiate of the people? This is the same kind of half-baked thinking retooled for a new generation. I agree that he's a little short of logic (I'm being nice) in saying liberals "want to" love us more. More often than not, the opposite is true.

Other significant items: One of his books is titled “Gay and Healthy in a Sick Society.” Makes me wonder about the author ... hmm ...

“The fix never lasts,” Minor says, “so you need another issue.” The conflict never stops because people like Dr. Minor keep inventing new issues!

Minor doesn’t profess to be a psychologist ... Ah, there's the rub.

some fundamental Christians believe they “deserve eternal child abuse from a heavenly father” ... This one made me laugh. Child abuse??? Surely not!

The two pastors quoted made some excellent points, but unfortunately, the article ended with Minor's quote, leaving the impression that the writer sided with him, wanting people to buy his book. Not me.

Pray for him and everyone who thinks he's right.

[tlm]

He compares the conservative Christian to a Cocaine addict. Hmmm, the cocaine addict will kill, steal, deceive to get the money to get his high. The Christian will feed the hungry, nurse the sick, GIVE HIS MONEY to charities. Perhaps there is a small flaw in his comparison.:eek:

[Phy]

He compares the conservative Christian to a Cocaine addict.

Well, let's be fair. His quote in the article is 'some members of the religious right', and in that, I agree. He follows it up with a fairly damning quote:
“It’s like any addiction,” he says. “At some point, it doesn’t do the trick for you, so you need to strengthen it. Religion wasn’t enough for them, so they entered politics to get a stronger affirmation of righteousness.”

“A high of righteousness,” he adds, “is the same as a high of cocaine.”

There is some question of who he's referring to when he waves his arm at the 'religious right':
Bill Bump, pastor at Lawrence Free Methodist Church, 3001 Lawrence Ave., says he doesn’t consider himself part of the “Christian right.” But, after reading the online version of Minor’s book, he says he feels uncomfortable with the broad generalizations Minor makes.

“I think he’s writing from his perspective, which is fine,” Bump says. “But it’s not a book I would read or recommend. I think he paints people with too broad a stroke, talking about their personality. I can’t say everybody has the same psychology, whether they’re Democrats, Republicans, liberal or conservative.”

Whenever we talk about religion, I am quick to point out that religion and spiritual belief aren't necessarily the same thing. One can be religious about anything, from football to politics to your favorite food. I don't consider myself a religious guy. Rather, I am a man of faith who has a personal walk with Jesus Christ.

I, too, have severe concerns with the radical right getting into politics, especially when one worships their denomination more than Jesus himself. I don't see it in scripture, and personally believe our time would be better spent following the last marching orders we were left with, the Great Commandment, and the Great Commission.

Thanks to opinions here on other threads, I'm writing my own treatment of this issue in a near-future sci-fi noir story called The Jeremiah Man. The last time (http://www.wayfarersjournal.com/cook.htm) I wrote something with spiritual / futurist implications, it took me a full year to get it all worked out in my head, so it will likely be awhile before this new story sees the light of day.

[Tommie Lyn]

I, too, have severe concerns with the radical right getting into politics
Why is that?

And, how do you define "radical right?"

[Phy]

Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez springs to mind. The hatred for homosexuals is another. This idea that conservative Christians should mobilize and storm government and change the political landscape ourselves.

To be clear, I don't endorse homosexuality, but I have seen far too many conservative Christians throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one, and it is easy to see why the country thinks that Christians hate homosexuals. Non-Christian writer Eric (Websnark) Burns noted this (http://www.websnark.com/archives/2007/07/requiescat_in_p_2.html) about Tammy Faye Bakker, that despite her outlandish makeup and her part in the excesses of the P-T-L club, when it all came down around her, one thing remained--her determination to demonstrate God's love to all people:

The thing is? She meant it.

She really did. Oh, she wasn't pure and innocent of all the goings on. There were rumors of prescription medicine and addiction. There was a clear opulent lifestyle she embraced. This is not to exonerate Tammy Faye Messner of the choices she made.

But when she said that God loved you? And loved me? And loved everyone? She meant that. She meant it with all her heart. And she felt that included everyone. The rich and the poor. Criminals and the innocent. The healthy and the sick. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, people of all creeds and races. Everyone. During the heyday of The P-T-L Club in the eighties, when AIDS was mysterious and homosexuality denounced by most evangelists as dirty and sinful -- with the implication that HIV was a divine judgement against them -- Tammy Faye Bakker had gay men and women on her show. She had AIDS victims appear. She exhorted her audience to pray for these people -- not to abandon their sinful lives, but to be healed of their illness, like any Christian should pray for any sick person.

They say you are known by your enemies. Jerry Falwell, for all his quirks, managed to get this one thing across to Larry Flynt, and when Rev. Falwell died and it seemed like the entire Liberal media was shamelessly bashing a man who was not there to defend himself, it was his 'archenemy' who stood up and set the record straight (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-flynt20may20,0,2297247.story?coll=la-opinion-center). He wrote an open letter entitled "My friend, Jerry Falwell":
THE FIRST TIME the Rev. Jerry Falwell put his hands on me, I was stunned. Not only had we been archenemies for 15 years, his beliefs and mine traveling in different solar systems, and not only had he sued me for $50 million (a case I lost repeatedly yet eventually won in the Supreme Court), but now he was hugging me in front of millions on the Larry King show.

(later)


My mother always told me that no matter how repugnant you find a person, when you meet them face to face you will always find something about them to like. The more I got to know Falwell, the more I began to see that his public portrayals were caricatures of himself. There was a dichotomy between the real Falwell and the one he showed the public.

He was definitely selling brimstone religion and would do anything to add another member to his mailing list. But in the end, I knew what he was selling, and he knew what I was selling, and we found a way to communicate.

(later)

I'll never admire him for his views or his opinions. To this day, I'm not sure if his television embrace was meant to mend fences, to show himself to the public as a generous and forgiving preacher or merely to make me uneasy, but the ultimate result was one I never expected and was just as shocking a turn to me as was winning that famous Supreme Court case: We became friends.


Perhaps this is the 'render unto Caesar' argument.

Jesus did not demonstrate a policy of using politics to achieve his goals, rather, he displayed and taught a personal, one-on-one idea of lifechange discipleship. Politics is concerned with the horizontal, belief is concerned with the vertical. In Romans (and other places), we are urged to leave in peace with our governments, even the corrupt ones, and obey God. If we leave government alone and concentrate on lifechange, we accomplish things that are lasting.

I rather support Christian Reconstructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism), but not Dominionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism). I'd love to see a Christian nation, but think it should grow organicly out of personal discipleship and lifechange and not as a result of politic heft or force. And ultimately, this is why I don't think we'll see such a thing, because we know that there are some who will not choose Christ.

The one common thread in all I've written here is this; the unconditional love of a personal God. We saw it in Tammy Faye Bakker. Larry Flynt saw it in Jerry Falwell. If our neighbors--even the homosexual ones--are to see that in us, it will be because of personal contact and conduct, not because of well-intentioned legislation.

This is something we must do ourselves.

[Tommie Lyn]

I have a problem with those who attempt to deny Americans with whom they disagree a right to participate in their own government.

And the trend of recent years toward silencing those who voice beliefs that are not "politically correct" is alarming, more alarming to me than expression of beliefs I don't like nor agree with.

And that's what it boils down to -- an attempt to "shut up" those who say things we don't like and only allow those who agree with us to have a voice.

When I was growing up, there was a saying about what it meant to be an American, you may have heard it: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

When the freedom to voice our opinions and participate in our government is doled out only to a select few, the removal of our other rights and freedoms will follow. Like, the freedom to worship God as we see fit.......

[tlm]

And that's what it boils down to -- an attempt to "shut up" those who say things we don't like and only allow those who agree with us to have a voice.

I think George Orwell referred to it as "newspeak."

I am constantly amazed at how realistic his look into the future actually was.

[Tommie Lyn]

I am constantly amazed at how realistic his look into the future actually was.
Me, too.

I once had trouble accepting his concept of doublethink -- no one could do that, I thought, no one could hold two diametrically opposed ideas in one's mind at the same time, believing both of them. Until I saw someone actually DO it, before my eyes.

[tlm]

I thought, no one could hold two diametrically opposed ideas in one's mind at the same time, believing both of them.

Don't they do that a lot at political conventions?

[Tommie Lyn]

Don't they do that a lot at political conventions?
LOL! Too funny!

[ProfessorAlan]

To bring this back to the original theme of the thread, I have known people for whom the practice of the Christian religion became a habituated activity -- I try to very rarely use the word "addictive" because it is a very strong word and means something very specific.

Anyway, I have a number of people in mind who brought the same personality traits that led them to a life of dependance into the church, and became un-healthily attached to the church, leaders, members, activies, etc ... I am not in any way endorsing the view of the author/artice referred to in post #1, but the title of the thread made some sense to me.
--------------
On politics, if anyone is keeping score, I am with Phy on that one.

[Tommie Lyn]

Anyway, I have a number of people in mind who brought the same personality traits that led them to a life of dependance into the church, and became un-healthily attached to the church, leaders, members, activies, etc.
I haven't seen this happen. I'm not doubting that you have seen it, but I haven't. I have often looked for the kind of centeredness and closeness that the early church exhibited, being like a very large family, and have found some congregations that were closer than others, but not to the extent that the New Testament congregations were close.

On politics, if anyone is keeping score, I am with Phy on that one.
That rather surprises me. Are you stating that you also believe that there are certain Americans who have no right to be involved in their government, have no right to the liberty and self-governance that was the reason the Founding Fathers declared independence from a government in which they had no say? That, because of their beliefs, they should be excluded from the political process and therefore be dictated to by those who hold "approved" opinions and views?

[Phy]

That rather surprises me. Are you stating that you also believe that there are certain Americans who have no right to be involved in their government, have no right to the liberty and self-governance that was the reason the Founding Fathers declared independence from a government in which they had no say? That, because of their beliefs, they should be excluded from the political process and therefore be dictated to by those who hold "approved" opinions and views?

Not at all. I don't see it as a 'rights' issue, but a 'responsibility' issue. And the spiritual responsibility outweighs the political right.

In other words, I'm merely saying that as Christians, I personally believe that our focus should be on the the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. If you still have time for politics after that, you are a better person than I. ;)

I look at Christ's example and he doesn't even show a blip of concern for political things. He was always more concerned about mentoring the twelve, healing the sick, converting the unpopular and the outcast, strengthening the body, going for lifechange. That's where I believe the real impact is felt.

Unconditional love will change things, not politics. (imho, ymmv.)

[Tommie Lyn]

Not at all. I don't see it as a 'rights' issue, but a 'responsibility' issue. And the spiritual responsibility outweighs the political right.
I DO see it as a 'rights' issue -- if we lose the right to worship as God commands, and lose the right to tell others the Good News because we have abdicated our political responsibility, I believe we have also abdicated our spiritual responsibility and will have to answer for it.

In other words, I'm merely saying that as Christians, I personally believe that our focus should be on the the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.
Why should taking an interest in protecting our rights and freedoms as Christians preclude our fulfillment of the Great Commission? Without religious freedom, our ability to fufill the Great Commission could be taken away, as it has been in other places.

If you still have time for politics after that, you are a better person than I.
Are you saying that you don't do anything else but preach the Word every hour of the day? That you don't spend hours each day working for a living? That you don't spend time writing? Working on favored projects? If you do spend time on those things, why do you single out political activity as the only activity which would take time away from preaching the Word?

Some Christians may have an ability to write for the glory of God, others may have an ability to work through political avenues to protect the freedoms of all Christians. Each ability (and many others besides) is needful to the Body of Christ, IMHO. He gives us different abilities, different interests, all to be used for His glory.

Unconditional love will change things, not politics.
Unconditional love can change lives. Politics can change situations. Each is needful. One does not preclude the other. The Founding Fathers, through political means, secured for us the right to worship as God commands, a right we are now in danger of losing. Already, there are moves underway to silence preachers of the gospel in their pulpits.

[Phy]

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times--that the people in countries where there is religious persecution pray for /us/ in our ease.

My comments about politics are largely restricted to the perils of full-blown Dominionism, where one religious perspective would be mandated on the country through political means. That's not what Christ had in mind. I do like the ability to worship freely. I do not like the idea of mobilizing the nation to create a political theocracy.

Getting back to the article, the author is right about one thing; if people are addicted to mere religion, they are missing out on the purpose, a genuine, perpetual relationship with Jesus Christ. I like what Neal Anderson says in this regard; having one goal, to be the person God meant for us to be, and leaving everything else as a Godly desire. That keeps things in focus and prevents us from becoming addicted to anything other than Christ. Even worship of something holy-sounding like denomination can take our eyes of the prize, worship of--and relationship with--Jesus Christ Himself.

[Tommie Lyn]

I do not like the idea of mobilizing the nation to create a political theocracy.
Nor do I.
Getting back to the article, the author is right about one thing; if people are addicted to mere religion, they are missing out on the purpose, a genuine, perpetual relationship with Jesus Christ.
I don't believe that is his concern. If it was his concern, why did he, as a liberal, limit his concern to people who disagree with him? Why didn't he address "radical liberal addiction," too? I believe he created a bogus issue to use as a means to convince people that anyone with views other than liberal views should be excluded from having a political voice. That is dangerous.

[Lookin^Up]

To those outside of the faith, as this author clearly is, "religion" is a broad term encompassing all belief in God. But we as Christians, if we have any experience in it at all, know that Christianity is not a religion so much as a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Only we are saved by grace through faith, not by works. Only we have the secrets of God's mercy and grace, both undeserved, when it comes to His forgiveness and salvation. Only we promote the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. And above all, only we have a Leader who not only died, but rose again; and in dying, absolved us of all our sin. Who else can say that the man they follow lives in their hearts?

If that's an addiction, sign me up for rehab! On second thought, don't!

[ProfessorAlan]

Are you stating that you also believe that there are certain Americans who have no right to be involved in their government, have no right to the liberty and self-governance that was the reason the Founding Fathers declared independence from a government in which they had no say? That, because of their beliefs, they should be excluded from the political process and therefore be dictated to by those who hold "approved" opinions and views?

I'm assuming that this is a rhetorical device to advance your argument, and that you don't really believe that I want to muzzle certain beliefs and exclude people from the political process.

Of course I believe that all people in the US have the same right to be involved in their gov't -- not that conservative Christians have more rights than secularists, humanists, atheists, evolutionists, etc ... -- just that they have the same rights.

Where you and I diverge is that I don't think that an over-reliance on the political process is an effective way to lift up the name of Christ, bring people to Him, and encourage righteous behavior. Christians and political power has rarely been a good combination over the last couple of thousand years. A reasonable separation of church and state protects the church.

[Phy]

A reasonable separation of church and state protects the church.

I've heard it said that the separation of church and state is a bad thing. I couldn't disagree more, as I believe you can find this philosophy in the 'Render unto Caesar' statement.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Well, I was about to reply...

But, like usual, others have said what I was about to say anyway.

I'll just say that the guy who wrote this article brings up points we would do well to pay attention to, whether we agree with them or not.

On the side, I have a book (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Christian-Nation-Political-Destroying/dp/0310267315/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5276214-0838369?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186409969&sr=8-1) I couldn't reccomend enough to many Christians. Perhaps some of us could check it out from the library and see what the author says...

[DrRita]

The more the church is involved in government, the more government will be involved in the church.

Having said that, each of us must follow our convictions. Too many Christians, when convicted by the HS to get take action on some issue attempt to lay their personal convictions on other similarly unconvicted Christians. therein lies the main problem, especially when it comes to involvement in politics. Thankfully some of our brethren (and sistren) are led by the Lord to become politically active while others are not. It's a matter of calling . . . not responsibility. Our responsibility as Christians is to pray for our leaders and obey the laws as long as they do not overstep God's law.

Each of us have our own political views which may be disagreeable to another. Instead of throwing rocks over the fence, we should celebrate and encourage our separate enlistments. I am convinced that one day the government shall hold our Christian feet to the fire and begin to strip our churches of their tax exempt status unless they adhere to the current politically correct attitudes and practices (ei. hiring policies, discrimination policies, equal opportunity policies, etc.) To date, they have pretty much let us follow God's rules and left us alone. However, I believe such governmental grace is coming to a close and when that happens, the church will be put to the test. I pray for the American church that it will not be a choice between serving God or Mammon. :o

[Tommie Lyn]

I'm assuming that this is a rhetorical device to advance your argument, and that you don't really believe that I want to muzzle certain beliefs and exclude people from the political process.
I was asking a question based on what you and Phy had said. He said he had severe concerns with what he called "the radical right" getting into politics. And you said "On politics, if anyone is keeping score, I am with Phy on that one." I don't believe any Americans should be kept out of politics, even those with whom I vehemently disagree.

Of course I believe that all people in the US have the same right to be involved in their gov't -- not that conservative Christians have more rights than secularists, humanists, atheists, evolutionists, etc ... -- just that they have the same rights.
I agree.

Where you and I diverge is that I don't think that an over-reliance on the political process is an effective way to lift up the name of Christ, bring people to Him, and encourage righteous behavior.
You apparently misunderstood what I said. I do not believe that politics is a way to lift up the name of Christ. What I believe is that Christians must be involved to ensure that our freedom to worship is maintained. In the past, that was not a concern -- today, it is.

Christians and political power has rarely been a good combination over the last couple of thousand years.
Except in the instance of the formation of our country, I agree with you.

However, our country was established by men of faith who wielded that faith in the formation of the country (one has only to read the various writings of the Founding Fathers to understand what a large role their faith played in the decisions they made in forming the country and the form of government we have). I believe that people of faith today must be vigilant in protecting the legacy they bequeathed to us.

And I have another problem with the concept of "separation of church and state." For instance, school children aren't taught anymore about the role of the Christian faith as it pertained to the Founding Fathers and the country they established -- that has been eliminated from public school textbooks. The whole truth is not taught in public schools these days, all in the name of "separation of church and state."

[ProfessorAlan]

Except in the instance of the formation of our country, I agree with you. I don't see us being that special.

And I have another problem with the concept of "separation of church and state" ... Look at the state of the church in Europe and you'll see the results of co-mingling of church and state: empty churches, high levels of atheism, etc ....
--------------------
I became a believer at college in the 80s, in central Virginia, halfway between Falwell and Robertson -- I was turned-on to the pro-life cause, so was in the Religious Right for a while, as all of my pro-life evangelical friends were.

But then a strange happened. Because of the political parties in the US, I found myself supporting things I didn't agree with, just because I was pro-life and identified with the party that was pro-life. Then a few years later (10+ years ago now), I asked myself some questions. These are just a few of them:

Just because I'm pro-life, I have to be for big business?
Just because I'm pro-life, I can't be pro-environment?
Just because I'm pro-life, I have to want to de-fund the National Endowmnet fore the Humanities?
Just because I'm pro-life, I can't question whether using the US military in a particular case is wise?
Just because I'm pro-life, I have to support eliminating the estate tax?

I saw evangelicals become just another interest group in hock to one party, and decided that wasn't for me.

[Tommie Lyn]

Look at the state of the church in Europe and you'll see the results of co-mingling of church and state: empty churches, high levels of atheism, etc ....
I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. My problem with "separation of church and state" is when it is carried to the lengths that denies the history of the Christian beliefs and ideals that formed this country, when, using that slogan as a cover and an excuse, the truth is twisted or ignored altogether.

And I don't necessarily agree that the co-mingling of church and state is the source of the ills you mentioned in Europe. There is a combination of many factors, not all of which are apparent.

But then a strange happened. Because of the political parties in the US, I found myself supporting things I didn't agree with, just because I was pro-life and identified with the party that was pro-life.
I'm a supporter of various issues, but not a supporter of any political party nor ideology. There is no group of humans on this earth that will agree on everything and it is unrealistic to expect to find that in a political party.

What guides my political support for candidates is my beliefs and the issues I believe are important, not an affiliation with a group.

[whitehawke]

We all have differing views on many things. I think this thread has run its course so I am closing it. Have a great day working on your latest wip's folks.