Sketching out my views

The “spiritual” side of humanity is, to me, something about a way of life, a way of being in this world. Something I don’t want to go into in this post. I will just resort to hoping that everyone would agree the interface between the “spiritual” side of humanity and the real, physical side of it, is in the mind.

Shofarians might believe that the “spiritual realm” is something completely independent of the mind: if we were all “mindless” matter, there would still be a spiritual realm. I don’t believe that. I believe the spiritual side of humanity is dependent upon the mind and its experiences, beliefs, and perspectives of the world… I believe that demons are in the mind, a construct of the mind. And so I agree that they can influence the person that believes in them. Beliefs can influence behaviour, as well as how observations are interpreted.

Consider for example the history and current research about pain, from the description of a course by a Dr Sean Mackay:

Pain is a universal human experience. Ancient civilizations attributed pain to demons and curses, the Middle Ages began to see evidence that pain is involved with the brain and nervous system, and Leonardo da Vinci developed the idea that the spinal cord transmits sensations to the brain. Today, Dr. Sean Mackey, who leads a multidisciplinary team of researchers at Stanford, carries that torch forward with groundbreaking studies in functional neuroimaging of pain. One study in particular that he will discuss involves the use of real time learned brain control which offers the promise of changing the abnormal pathology in the brain of patients with chronic pain.

I’ve also heard (hearsay, [citation needed]) that people used to believe the “mind”, that thing which has thoughts and pulls the “strings” of the body, existed in the forms of spirits dwelling in the empty regions of the head, in the cavities. Or what about the things that were considered as taking place in the heart, an idea that lives on in our metaphorical language? We have since learned that this is not the case, having learned that the brain controls these functions and processes the signals from our senses.

Does this take away anything of the beauty and truths that can be found in scripture from two thousand years ago? No, I don’t think so. The stories in the Bible are, to me, primarily about “profound truths”, not about science. (The Bible is not a science textbook.) We might have much more knowledge these days, we might have evolved a radically different culture, but in terms of being human, we are really no different from the ancients. Similarly, the profound truths have not changed. (Yes, something of a logical fallacy, because I have that by definition: those that change aren’t profound truths! ) The value of the stories is found in what they mean and what they stand for.

Real Live Preacher made a video clip titled Reading the Bible #6 (Demons & the 1st Century Worldview) as part of his series on How to Read the Bible wherein he provided advice to those interested in doing so. His take on demons, for those that are interested:

Moving on…

The Power of Demons

So, in one sense, I don’t “believe in demons”. However, in another sense, if working with a broad enough ontology, I’d be happy to agree that they exist — in the sense that a “demon” is a concept which has a tangible influence. As mentioned above. (Does “love” exist? It is a concept… not a physical entity.) As I mentioned, and as RLP seems to touch on in his clip, having a belief in demons is what gives the “demon” power. You find what you look for…

Thus, I think that by not believing in demons, they no longer bother you. For “conservative” Christians, that should be achievable by believing that Jesus “defeated them all”? Alternatively, pick up a good dose of skepticism or have more of a “modern scientific worldview”. To repeat myself: I sincerely believe the best way to exorcise demons is simply to stop believing in them, or if you are too fearful of that, by focusing on the positive and letting it drown out the negative: apathy towards demons.

So now you should have a good idea of how I see things…

Implications for Shofar’s PR

Many of my posts attempt to explain conflicting cultures to one another. This post is one of those. I believe I’ve sketched out not only my own beliefs, but that these beliefs adequately represent those of the majority my non-Shofarian friends, or even the general belief of the majority of the fragment of humanity that had the privilege to get a modern education. (Because yes, we’re all privileged.)

This section attempts to explain the implications of these beliefs for the way the world sees Shofar and similar churches. I ask that Shofarians understand this section in that light, as an opportunity to understand some of the criticism and concern that is directed towards the organisation you’ve chosen to entrust your spirituality to…

With regards to Fred’s letter and press release about the recent streaker and pepper-spraying incident, a number of my friends agree that streakers were being childish, irresponsible or criminal, but their alarm at the news was mostly towards how Fred May responded to it in that letter and press release, about how he dragged demons and conspiracy theories into it. One friend wrote, and I’m translating to (imperfect) English:

Wow I’m out of touch with what these people believe. These days I pretty much feel “live and let live”, but these kinds of ideas just seem so unhealthy

Shofarians, understood in the light of how we view these things, can you understand why we’re worried about it? Francois Malan (oh, I know two Francois Malan’s, this one is not in Shofar and is currently doing a PhD in the Netherlands) is somewhat more outspoken, and wrote the following (in Afrikaans, translation below):

Ek sien Shofar as ‘n middeleeuse (“dark ages”) denkskool en sekte, wat geen plek het in ‘n verligte samelewing nie. Hul praktyke val in presies dieselfde kategorie as aanbidding van toordokters. Al die gepraat van “intercessors” en “demone” is absoluut verwyderd van enige rasionaliteit en logika, asook van kritiese en vrye denke – juis die waardes wat ‘n universiteit nastreef. Hul brood en botter bestaan uit “conspiracy theories”, half-waarhede, en in die ergste gevalle leuens.

Hierdie studente het waarskynlik ook ‘n ernstige probleem met Shofar, maar met hul poging om hul minagting vir die kerk te wys, gekoppel aan kinderagtige en onverantwoordelike ekshibisionisme, het hulle vir Shofar ‘n groot guns bewys. Die studente het krimineel opgetree, en moet gestraf word. Niks kan hul gedrag regverdig nie, en was in uiters swak styl. Maar Shofar behoort, volgens my, nie deur die Universiteit ondersteun te word nie. Hulle is onder ons grondwet vry om hul geloof te beoefen, maar as daar enige sprake is van “okkulte aktiwiteite op kampus” dan is húlle die vernaamste oortreders.

Ek voel sterk hieroor…

My translation:

I see Shofar as a medieval school-of-thought and sect, which has no place in an enlightened society. Their practises fall in exactly the same category as the worship of witch doctors. All the talk of “intercessors” and “demons” is absolutely removed from any rationality or logic, as well as from critical and free thinking — exactly the values that a university strives towards. Their bread-and-butter consists of conspiracy theories, half-truths, and in the worst cases lies.

I feel strongly about this…

Shofarians, can you understand Francois’ reaction? Can you understand that, from the perspective explained above, if we were to say that demons and the occult exists, in the sense that believing in it creates it and gives it power, then yes, we would agree there are indeed demons in Stellenbosch… however, more importantly, we would then be forced to conclude that:

it was Fred May that brought them to our town.

Can you see how that conclusion is reached? Can you understand why we would feel that way? Aren’t you also antagonistic towards people that you believe brought demons to your home town?

On Monday, an ordained minister and author commenting under the initials “H J” visited this blog and left us five comments. I think it worthwhile to pick apart how this conversation got derailed, or never found rails in the first place.

Her first comment:

Cynical and uninformed. What a bore these comments are. Ever thought of checking the facts before opining? Or would that defeat the object?

Comments, plural. I’m not sure which comments exactly she was referring to. Does she include the blog post itself, or does she mean the comments? I think “Turn or Burn”’s comment was probably the most inflammatory, but she chose plural. Seems like a generally sweeping comment to me? I responded:

H J, do you have some facts to share with us?

While I was being patient, I wasn’t patient and thoughtful enough. In retrospect, I could have gone with “H J, can you be a little bit more specific, please? Is there something specific you could point at that you feel is uninformed or cynical?”

Her second comment:

Why would you expect me to do your homework for you? Seems like you have far too much time to chat baloney and party, and not enough work to do. Do your own research, washing, cleaning and cooking, and earn your own keep. By that time, you should have something worthwhile to contribute to society. Being part of the solution instead of part of the problem will make you feel better about yourself, and more positive about living on the planet. Then people will be interested in what you have to say. At the moment the only people who take note are those who share the same grouchy couch potato attitude, and those who happen to land here by coincidence – like me. Here’s hoping you get a life soon.

Now isn’t that a direct personal attack, if you ever saw one? Completely and utterly uninformed, unresearched, unwarranted. Angry? This comment rubs me up the wrong way in so many ways, I don’t even think I should start explaining.

In fact, just revisiting this comment requires me to breathe deeply and calm myself. At this point I didn’t know she was an author (of Christian books) or a minister, or female for that matter. But she obviously considered herself a Christian, valiantly defending Shofar. And unfortunately another giving Christianity a terrible name.

I thought it possible to open a conversation with such a person, both at the time of commenting there, and starting this blog post (at which point I wondered “wait, who is H J?”, and I did a quick Google search based on her email address).

Kenneth was the first to come to the defence of our little community (me the blogger, and my readers and commenters):

The above comment is both cynical.
And uninformed.
Pot, meet kettle.

Her next comment had her dishing out advice to me, which in retrospect makes much more sense if you realise that’s the role she typically plays. But again, her advice is premature, because she doesn’t know me. She calls me angry, warns me to keep seeking and avoid becoming a close-minded bigot. She says I have a backlog to catch up, as I received no training in the humanities (being an engineer). But, apart from that, I think some well-meant words of encouragement. Including this cute sentence:

Words create atmosphere, and your negativity and judgementalism about things you do not understand, are attracting negative things to you.

The problem was, in her previous comments, her words had created an atmosphere of negativity and judgementalism of my friends and I, people she does not understand, and this attracted some negative attitudes back to her.

What we must realise is, often people that find themselves in the “One True Church”(TM) or something of similar persuasion, really do believe they have the one truth. They are used to constant reinforcement from their friends and community. A direct and pointed challenge to their claims and ways is something they really are not used to. Now what do you think happens when you attempt to directly and blatantly point out to an ordained minister and Christian book author their own hypocrisy? You don’t get to start a conversation…

Sometimes you have to swallow the abuse other people hurl at you, and return nothing but compassion. After creating a relationship, after building some dialogue and interaction, only then can you find enough to build on to get to the point of explaining how the other’s words came across, carefully and gently.

H J’s last comment was this:

Oh and Hugo is allowed to insult and defame and spread false rumours about Shofar, brand anyone who believes the Bible as a foam at the mouth fundamentalist and offend them. That is perfectly ok. Everyone who disagrees is a troll according to you. Yeah yeah. Same tune, same chorus. It was not entertaining, enlightening or in any way worth the effort. Closed mind. Close the door. What a waste. Ho hum and so goodbye to you.

I would like to understand what she’s so upset about. Apart from the things she seems rather sensitive about: did I even call anyone a fundamentalist, anywhere in the past… many months? I’ve been consciously avoiding name calling for quite some time, and would like to have it pointed out to me if anyone perceives something I did not intend. And yet, “foam at the mouth fundamentalist”…

I realise the other problematic and likely unknown word is “troll”…

H J, I would like to apologise for coming on so strong in my blog. I didn’t mean any disrespect to you, but it is hard to remain completely calm when you and your friends have been accused of a number of horrible things. I’m sure you can appreciate that, as it seems you experienced a similar offence (even if it was not meant). I would still like to converse, if it is at all possible.

Hoping to hear from you,
Hugo

This story has spread widely, I’ve been informed about it by about half a dozen people, and received a letter which includes Shofar’s press release, from three or four different sources. One of my friends (Cobus, can I call you a friend already? ), a theology student at Tukkies, already wrote an Afrikaans blog post about it earlier this week, titled fundamentaliste en cheap ateïste. The writing of this blog post was prompted by Shofar’s letter and press release.

And I would like to join Shofar in condemning this despicable act. The childish and irresponsible exhibitionism, combined with the pepper spray attack, is most certainly criminal. And they did Shofar a huge favour, because Shofar thrives on this kind of thing.

Cobus wrote in the second-to-last paragraph of his blog post (please do read the whole thing, if you read Afrikaans):

O, en as iemand daai lot van Wilgenhof sien, wens hulle asseblief geluk. Want al wat hulle nou reg gekry het is om die Shofar lot die victims te maak. Enige teoloog wat sy sout werd is sou hulle kon waarsku dat as jy martelare van ekstremistiese groepe maak dan veroorsaak jy simpatie vir hulle, wat op die langduur tot versterking van die groep lei. So, vir daai 6 ouens, as julle idee wat om ontslae te raak van Shofar, geluk! Julle het presies die teenoorgestelde nou aan deelgeneem.

Translated:

Oh, and if anyone sees that lot from Wilgenhof, please congratulate them. Because all they managed to achieve was to turn the Shofar bunch into victims. Any theologian worth his salt could have warned them that by making martyrs out of an extremist group, you create sympathy for them, which in the long term leads to a strengthening of the group. So, for those six guys, if your idea was to get rid of Shofar, congrats! You’ve participated in the exact opposite.

I don’t think their intentions were anywhere near that “noble”, I think it is more likely that they are just a bunch of self-centred jerks looking for cheap thrills.

Witness the result in Shofar’s letter and press release — and read it at that link first if you want it all uninterrupted, this post is the interrupting kind:

OCTOBER 29 :2008

Dear Friend

I’ve just been through the most disgusting display of desecration and blasphemy ever. I’m forwarding detail of it in the prepared statement below. We’ve held back with it to give the university authorities time to react, but a week and a half later it’s clear that they don’t feel the need to. Which is why I’m writing to you.

PRESS STATEMENT BY SHOFAR CHURCH

On Sunday 19 October, between 19h00 and 20h00, during the second evening service of Shofar church in Stellenbosch, six stark naked male students rushed into the building bent on disrupting the service.

While four of the men were successfully warded off, two managed to make their way into the auditorium where they attacked shocked church goers with pepper spray. One of them mounted the platform where he disrupted the Face to Face music group who led the time of worship. In the ensuing emergency traumatised church goers, now afflicted with asphyxiation and burning eyes, were evacuated. Several of the elderly and children had to be carried out.

All attempts to subdue and remove the assailants from the scene were met with violent resistance. The response of the police and ADT security service, however, was commendably swift. As a result three of the attackers were arrested while the others managed to escape in a vehicle of which the registration plates were removed. By all accounts the attack appeared to be well planned.

After serving this community for the past sixteen years, we wish to believe this to be an isolated incident. However, we do have a concern for the questions raised by it i.r.o. a perceived climate of intolerance and criminal impunity which is allowed to flourish. For this reason Shofar sent an urgent request to the Dean of Student Affairs at Stellenbosch University to issue an official statement in support of religious freedom, respect for all religious persuasions, and the denunciation of violence and victimisation. Thus far no official response to this request has been forthcoming. The church as chief organiser of the Angus Buchan event at Newlands in September managed to raise a 1000 strong volunteer corps comprising mainly Matie students.

Many students at the university are living lives of exemplary witness for Jesus Christ. And it is this very encouraging trend among students here that makes this incident all the more deplorable. As a church community we are sorely grieved by the blatantly blasphemous attempt to insult and to injure. It certainly points to an alarming degree of moral declension within certain academic circles.

I certainly support religious freedom. It’s the only way. And I’m glad it sounds like Shofar does the same. Though, I can’t help but wonder how many Shofarians took part in the mass hysteria that led to the firing of the reporter Deon Maas, when he wrote a column that campaigned for religious freedom? (For those people not aware of that event, I’ve found an English translation of the column that got him fired.)

Thus concludes the part that is the press release. The letter continues:

For me personally, this is that one step too far. I and the intercessors sense the hand of God in this. The Holy Spirit wants to alert us to the need to focus our prayers on a stronghold of wickedness in this town that must be broken down in the spirit – NOW! The intercessors at both meetings in the week had visions of the Free Masonry obelisk crumbling under the power of God. The attack left me feeling sexually violated. Of the intercessors had the same sense. The act of horror was aimed at the violation of the bride of Christ. It certainly has the marks of an occultic ritual.

For those not aware of the lingo: the way I understand it, intercessors are people that are busy praying to ward off evil in the constant battle between good and evil. Because Stellenbosch, and the world, in the eyes of a church like Shofar, is a spiritual battlefield with demons and angels continually fighting.

Free Masonry…? Yay conspiracy theories. One Shofarian once explained the whole conspiracy to me… apparently the Catholic Church is in on it as well. If you go up high enough in the Catholic hierarchy, there are actually a bunch of Satanists at the top, controlling it all, in this cosmic spiritual struggle. Now, I doubt this is official Shofar doctrine. In fact, I welcome complaints that I’m painting Shofar in a bad light with this (on the grounds that it isn’t what Shofar believes), because the main point I want to make here is that once you start teaching your congregation conspiracy theories, you certainly have to bear some responsibility if they take it further than you intended. Not so?

Now about feeling “sexually violated”: I know some of my friends find this rendering hard to understand and grasp. I also met someone who I’m sure would freak out at such an “abuse of emotional language”, having had first-hand experience of what it is like to be sexually violated, and commenting on how none of the people involved in using this metaphor here have any idea what it really feels like. But… I don’t personally have much of a problem with this metaphor.

There are many parallels between the Christian tradition and sexuality or eroticism, a rich and diverse tradition. (Now what was that book that Theo recommended to me the other day? I did note it down somewhere, I’ll find it. It was about religion, and I think it had “eroticism” in the title.) The metaphor of marriage is used in the New Testament as metaphor for the relationship between Jesus and the Church, his Bride.

But then the letter starts to introduce the occult again, hearkening back to the church’s roots (more on that at the end of this post)… Every random act of idiocy by students like those involved, gets pulled into a picture sketching out this titanic struggle between the stronghold of wickedness in Stellenbosch, and the intercessors praying against it, led by pastor Fred May. (Dualism. There’s a blog post on its way about dualism. Give me a few weeks though, please.)

I was interceding in the foyer at the time. I ordinarily do it backstage when I’m not ministering, and not usually during the time of worship. But on this particular night the worship was so special. The Holy Spirit was present so palpably that I felt led to pray in the foyer instead. That’s when the attack happened.

The other reason I’m convinced of it being a deliberate, demonically inspired attack was because I received clear warning in this regard by the Lord the previous weekend. I was on my way to Namibia when I felt strongly to alert the pastors and elders of a pending attack – in the evening service – by satanists. That was the previous weekend. For that reason we were mobilised and ready. So while I’m open to have been wrong about the timing, I’m still convinced that it is of spiritual significance in that it is a plan hatched and executed by people who are enemies of the cross of Christ. I too, like the intercessors, feel that the act is somehow symbolically representative of the act of rape – in keeping with the phallic obelisk of Freemasonry. Thence the naked intrusion by 6 naked men at a most intimate moment of worship.

And so it becomes a “demonically inspired attack”. Clear warning the previous week? How clear? What precisely did Fred alert the pastors and elders the previous week? “A pending attack by satanists”? The wording in this paragraph is interesting, though also quite typical. It is quite a normal way for them to communicate. Watch how this technique works:

Fred felt strongly to alert the pastors. But did he? The text doesn’t actually say that he did, giving enough scope for the credulous to believe God warned Fred in great detail, and he passed on the message to his elders in detail, and they were therefore prepared. At the same time, the text provides enough of a loophole that it wouldn’t technically be lying, even if Fred didn’t tell anyone about the warning. Felt strongly to alert them does not mean he actually did. Even the next sentence, “for that reason we were mobilised and ready”, does not factually claim he actually told them, just that they were ready because he received word from God.

(Credulous: a word meaning something similar to “gullible”, but “gullible” to me is negative. I simply mean to neutrally refer to those inclined to believe Fred, as opposed to those inclined to be skeptical.)

I’m sorry to have used this bit as an example, I don’t mean to question the factuality of what this paragraph seems to claim, I only mean to sketch out the communication technique because it is so pervasive. If you learn this communication technique, you can get away with making many more sweeping statements and dubious claims, even ones that are factually untrue, without actually lying. It lets the audience jump to incorrect conclusions, conclusions you point them at, but didn’t actually give them.

Yes, I recognise subtle word choice and phrases, because I have my own way of dealing in subtle word choices and phrases. I wish more people would call me on it when I do it, rather than jumping on the first interpretation that springs to mind. (/me apologetically winks at Ben, who dislikes word games.) Moving on:

With regards to receiving “clear warning” the previous weekend, a skeptic might point out that with the benefit of hindsight, Fred could reinterpret past emotions in new ways to confirm this narrative in his mind, and thereby completely and genuinely believe what he is sharing, while it might actually rather be a case of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is extremely potent and I’d suggest an often useful trait in the human psyche. Or in potentially clearer words: we remember the hits and forget the misses — seeing what you want to see, or seeing what you need to see. These biases are big pains when doing science, which needs to be objective, so the scientific method includes numerous techniques to overcome this hurdle of human subjectivity.

And then back to the rape symbolism. Which as I mentioned, I’m fine with, because I also like using the metaphor (maybe because I have also been fortunate enough to not experience real, physical rape in my life). For example, I find my mind raped by creationism seminars.

But freemasonry? One friend wrote in an IM: “wtf het die freemasons daarmee uit te waai”. (WTF do the freemasons have to do with it?) A sentiment which seems to be a theme amongst a number of my friends: “free masonry? wtf” “omw shofar is obsessief oor free masonry”. I share those three’s sentiments.

What’s with the freemasonry?

I’ve heard about freemasonry many times from Shofarians. The only other time, was… I think… one of those two Nicholas Cage conspiracy/treasure hunting movies, “National Treasure”? (Yea, I confess, I’ve seen both.)

Consequently it is understandable and expected that the whole incident and its media coverage, the lack of action against the offenders, and the complete lack of outrage on the part of the university or the criminal justice authorities, is to be expected. The offenders even staged a mock appearance at an NG church as a decoy strategy. However, I fail to see how one sexton (Afr. = koster) will stop six grown, determined men armed with pepper spray! It clearly is a ruse.

In the light of “I’m still convinced that it is of spiritual significance in that it is a plan hatched and executed by people who are enemies of the cross of Christ” and this paragraph, it would seem like the media and the university, and the criminal justice authorities, are all in on the conspiracy. Oh, and the theological faculty, I forgot about that. And the Dutch Reformed church as well, which served as decoy to make it look like this wasn’t a targeted attack on the one true church? Or no, sorry, maybe they are all just puppets in the spiritual war, and their own skepticism about the big conspiracy theory makes them unaware of how they are being manipulated by demons? Is that about right? (Say, might there be some Catholics in Stellenbosch? )

Yes, I’m being reactionary, and I’m extrapolating some of the claims to potential conclusions. Shofar might not mean it this way, but a number of people will certainly experience it as such.

On the day after the incident, I received this word from Jeremiah 1:17-19 NIV: “Get yourself ready! Stand up and say to them whatever I command you. Do not be terrified by them, or I will terrify you before them. Today I have made you a fortified city, an iron pillar and a bronze wall to stand against the whole land—against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests and the people of the land. They will fight against you but will not overcome you, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the LORD.

That’s why I’m asking you to pass this mail to as many people as you can. I believe God wants to mobilize many people in the Body of Christ to stand together in prayer to see a dark and ancient stronghold break over this town. That’s why He has allowed this outrage so as to stir us to prayer and action.

Thank you so much for your concern and support. I feel we should resist the spirit of lawlessness operating here on another level. As Christian citizens we’re also expected to be custodians of morality, to maintain civilized values.

Yours in Him

Fred May

Polarising action. It suddenly becomes a case of “you’re either with us, or against us”. And those that are not with them, those that are skeptical, those that think “wait a minute, I don’t think this quite makes sense…”, or those that “wish to believe this is an isolated incident” rather than a huge demonic conspiracy, as the press release states but the letter to “friends” forgets, get painted as “enemies of the cross”. Yea, why don’t we just hand over all those that disagree with Shofar over to be crucified?

Dear Fred May,

Shalom,
Hugo

I forgot, I had promised to point out Shofar’s roots, which shows how this is just the church coming full circle. Take a look at the About page of Shofar’s website from November 2004, which is no longer on Shofar’s current website but is still available courtesy of the wayback machine:

In 1989 the Lord led Pastor Fred May and his wife Lucille to settle in the Stellenbosch area. Both Fred and Lucille had been actively involved in ministry since their conversions and were enjoying a sabbatical at the time. During this break the Lord placed a burden to intercede for Stellenbosch on Ps. Fred’s heart, especially when he saw that occult practitioners had become bold enough to gather in public séances and do door-to-door visits.

By the middle of 1991 Ps. Fred had started to disciple a small group of converts who joined him in spiritual warfare and intercession. The Holy Spirit directed them through prophecy to focus their prayers on the University of Stellenbosch and to take to the streets in praise and worship. In March 1992 God opened a door for this fledgling ministry to register as a student society and start ministering to the students in all earnest.

God, in His wisdom, had chosen to reach the community of Stellenbosch, which was greatly influenced by dead religion and racism, through a life-giving church that was born out of Ps. Fred and Lucille’s cross-cultural marriage. Despite initial misgivings the community of Stellenbosch – which to a large extent is the cradle of traditional religion and apartheid in South Africa – has embraced Shofar Christian Church and its calling to reach all nations and generations.

Shofar reached thousands of students through disciple making and leadership development and in 1998 did its first church plant by multiplying itself to the university’s Tygerberg campus. Shofar Christian Church has since grown into a fully-fledged family church and has planted churches in Worcester, Pretoria, Windhoek and London, while ministries in Retreat, Franschhoek and Macassar have recognized Ps. Fred’s leadership and also joined the ever growing Shofar Family.

Shofar uses Foundations, Cell Groups and Bible Schools to fulfill its vision of taking the whole gospel to the whole world!

Notice again all the loaded language, dead religion, racism, the cradle of traditional religion and apartheid. And the occult practitioners. Wherever they were hiding. Only Shofar can see them.

And outsiders, ridicule is pointless. Please don’t ridicule. I care about insiders, and I don’t want them ridiculed. The challenge is this: try to find ways to patiently show them how you see this letter. Try to patiently show them what effect it has, or can have. (And if that includes “this looks absolutely ridiculous to me”, that’s okay, say it that way then, but please differentiate from “you are being absolutely ridiculous”. That doesn’t help communication, and I want to open communication channels, not shut them down. From their perspective, we are the ones that are deceived. And yes, maybe I suck at following my own advice, but I try. And I try even harder in comments than in posts, as posts aim to evoke discussion and frame it.)

*sigh*. What’s the point? The point is to TRY. But I can prophesy that if this discussion does actually take off, I’ll end up pointing some people to a previous post: Crossan’s Definitions for Literalism and Fundamentalism. So why don’t y’all go watch that video clip now before commenting, if you haven’t already done so?

So how does a label-agnostic approach such claims then?

1. You are addicted to computer games.
2. Atheism is a religion.
3. Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist.
4. Shofar is a cult.

You are addicted to computer games

I’m borrowing the first example from a friend, whose mother was concerned about his World of Warcraft “addiction”. Apparently the debate then centred around what an addiction is, and whether his behaviour with regards to World of Warcraft is formally an addiction or not. My label/word-agnostic approach to the statement is to rather dig into what his mother meant when she used that particular label to describe his behaviour. What is it that his mother is referring to, when she makes that assertion? Is her concern a valid one, irrespective of whether she’s using the “supposedly correct” definition of “addiction”? Or, in other words, in what ways could he be said to be addicted?

Atheism is a religion

I had planned to blog about this specific claim. However, considering adherents of our local pentecostal church claims they’re not religious, that religion kills — claiming that their “relationship” is something different from “religion” — I decided the local definition of “religion” is anyway too enigmatic for such a discussion to be of much use. Locally, that is, and that’s one aspect of my blog’s focus. So some pentecostals claim they’re not religious, while some religious people call atheism “a religion”, thereby indicating yet another definition of “religion”, in my opinion. So does it matter? When does it matter?

Here’s the crux, pointed out succinctly by Steve’s comment on my old “Is Atheism a Religion?” post:

Calling atheism a religion means nothing unless the people doing this “name-calling” use this “fact” to draw conclusions.

Thus the relevant definition of religion for this question actually depends on these people who typically claim atheism is a religion – what do they mean by religion?

Discussing the question for other definitions of religion is not likely to be very fruitful…

I had one particular example I wanted to use in a follow-up to that post, it was this: an example where a court ruled that atheism was a “religion”. This is a great illustration of how important the context is, because this ruling was in fact in favour of the atheist involved: see Court rules atheism a religion. (For those too lazy to follow links: too bad. I can recommend learning web-surfing techniques like opening links in new tabs — middle click does the trick in Firefox, but not everyone uses a three-button mouse and Firefox: try shift-click and ctrl-click.) So for that particular context, for that particular purpose, atheism is indeed a religion. Context.

Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist

I’m guilty of having done this kind of name-calling. And I realise that it is very dependent upon the definition, and I have repented, and don’t do this (as often) anymore. The definition the “New Atheist” movement typically uses, deals with how prepared you are to change your viewpoints, when given convincing, empirical, verifiable evidence. By their definition, they are not fundamentalists.

Rather the question then, in what ways could they be considered fundamentalistic? Empirical fundamentalism? Reality fundamentalists? — You know, they’re fundamentalistic about having their world-view being based on “reality”… A George W. Bush aide famously used “reality-based community” in a pejorative sense (from a New York Times Magazine article by Ron Suskin, pilfering references from Wikipedia):

The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

I think someone’s been too busy watching things like “What the Bleep Do We Know?” or reading books like “The Secret”.

So what exactly is it that earns the “New Atheist movement” the label “fundamentalist”, fairly or unfairly? What is it that people mean by that, what is it that they’re pointing to and upset about? I think it is probably mostly the way they present themselves. Passionately and with confidence, maybe… and upsetting to people that disagree. As such, I suspect this version of the “fundamentalism” word has much to do with tolerance or intolerance for diverse viewpoints (irrespective of whether it is justified or not), and the perceived attitude of “I’m right and you’re wrong”. A perceived lack of humility. A perceived air of superiority… Something like that.

I suspect people want a more “neutral” approach, something that doesn’t come across as condescending of their beliefs, more sensitive to their sources of meaning in life. The next post considers this particular point with regards to how I’d like to handle differences of opinion on this blog. (That post inspired me to write and publish this one first.)

Shofar is a cult

This is another assertion I don’t care that much about. It doesn’t really make any difference to me whether Shofar is a cult or not. To some it might. Hypothesize for example the existence of an “anti-cult task force”: if their mission statement is to dismantle cults, they’d first need to decide whether an institution in question is a cult or not.

But I’m not part of that kind of task force. And I’m label-agnostic. Like I said, I couldn’t care less whether Shofar is formally a cult or not. Frame humanity in a particular frame, and we can claim “humanity is a cult”. (Yes, frivolous, I’m just sharing how I feel.) What difference could it possibly make if some people conclude “yes, Shofar is a cult”, or others conclude “no, it isn’t”? Is there any real value in this semantic debate?

Why I’m Wrong

Maybe everyone involved couldn’t really care less about formal definitions… maybe it is like the typical stale-mate debate on whether God exists or not. That debate never reaches a conclusion, it ends in a stand-off. However, what should not be overlooked, is the value of the arguments that are exchanged in the process of debating the label. The very debate of the matter ends up answering the question in what ways might Shofar be considered a cult?, irrespective of any eventual conclusion. The assertion has value in sparking discussion wherein people’s opinions and perspectives of Shofar can be shared, and the curious can observe to gain some insight.

Epilogue

But this is no court case. There is no defence. The defence doesn’t want to play by the prosecution’s rules. Presenting a defence would be acknowledging that there is something to defend, thereby granting the prosecution’s arguments too much attention. So they avoid that debate, or play by different rules. With no defence, there is no court case, and with no court case, there can be no conviction. Strategically, often the best way to not risk loosing, is to not play in the first place. It makes very much sense.