Skip to content

Monthly Archives for September 2006

Sentio ergo sum

Most of us are aware of the famed motto of rationalism, cogito ergo sum, better known as “I think, therefore I am.” In some ways, I wish that this were actually true; it would certainly change the role of the news media.

What we really have is something closer to sentio ergo sum, or “I feel, therefore I am.” I’ll even go a step further, and probably butcher Latin grammar in the process, but how about this: “sentio ergo cogito.” Whether that’s good Latin or not, perhaps the point is still made. The situation in Iraq, a.k.a. the war against terror, has made it really clear that our approach, not to existence (most of us are actually egotistical enough to believe that “I am that I am” refers to us), but to our concept of truth. Reality seems better defined by what we feel, than by what logic and facts dictate.

Consider ex-President and philanderer Bill Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace last Sunday night. By most accounts – even other, seemingly liberal news outlets – all Wallace did was ask a simple question, and Clinton “lost it.” According to a Newsweek (not Fox) commentary, Clinton was reacting to ABC’s (not Fox) “The Path to 9/11″ which apparently portrayed Bill and his boys as wimps. It would seem that Clinton was playing the part of Marty McFly (“Back to the Future”): “Nobody calls me chicken!”

The real news, however, is the reporting and analysis of the interview. Clinton has always been a cold, calculating, actor when it comes to the press, and I don’t doubt that this was just another performance. For the most part, the media seems to be falling (they always did) for Clinton’s act, and somewhat surprisingly, taking Chris Wallace’s (who is a Fox News reporter) side.

Except for Keith Olbermann. Now, even though I disagree with Olbermann’s politics, I generally like him. His show, Countdown, is fresh, original, and Olbermann has a sarcastic wit that could compete with Dennis Miller (now, that would be a news team…). But, sometimes he really blows it, especially when his sentio gets in the way of his cogito.

KO’s opening sentences in his column for today are:

The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.

It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

What is this? Sandbagged? Perhaps he uses a different dictionary than I do. He goes on say how Clinton finally spoke the truth about 9/11. Perhaps Keith should spend a little time actually reading the 9/11 Commission’s report. What I think Olbermann has done is let his feelings – that he dislikes Bush immensely and is against the Iraq thing – take the place of his intellect.

He’s not the only news commentator to let their feelings control their thinking – Dan Rather comes to mind, as does Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity (it happens to conservatives, too). It’s hard to do, when we feel so strongly about an issue, or even a person. It’s hard to acknowledge that a difference of opinion based on the same set of facts is possible, and so we fall into ad hominem thinking.

But, as intellectual as we claim to be, the truth remains that we often draw our conclusions, not based on facts, but on our feelings. We don’t like war, so war is wrong. We don’t like Bush or Clinton, so they are wrong.

Now, I could be accused of the same type of thinking – and, I freely admit that I share the same human tendency. However, as much as I dislike Clinton personally, I think some of the things he did as president weren’t that bad. On the other hand, his administration did set the country up for some failures that we have had to deal with since then. And, I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of what Bush has done.

But, I’ve changed my views on some things, including war. I’ve been a lifelong pacifist, but have had to accept that this position can’t really be supported Biblically, without being selective about what verses you read. Sometimes (actually, fairly often) my feelings are wrong (although, sometimes my reasoning is off, too…).

While my frist response is usually sentio ergo sum, I am trying to use the reasoning skills God gave me to think my feelings through. I am not falling into the deception that I can reason everything out – but, “to him who is faithful with little, much will be given.”

Sum, ergo cogito.

Written on 26 September 2006 by me under Politics/Current Events with 2 Comments

The Daniel Amos Chronicles

I live in my room, it’s warm here in my room
World is spinning, spinning like a big top
I have got a secret, I will slip it
Under the door, slip it to this wicked wicked world
My Room – Words and Music by Terry Taylor
©1981 Paragon Music Corp./ASCAP

You may or not be familiar with the band Daniel Amos, probably the most “edgy” of the Christian bands to come out of the Jesus Movement in the 70′s. Starting out as a country-rock quartet, by the early 80′s they were anything but a country band, cranking out some great alternative rock (back then, it was called “new wave”).

Besides the fact that they were great musically, Terry Taylor’s lyrics were not your typical, syrupy, “pop” lyrics. In fact, there’s a good chance that there’s something there to offend (or at least challenge) everyone.

I’ve lately been re-listening to 2 of the 4 “Alarma Chronicles” albums, and have been struck by their continued relevance. So, a new series of posts will offer reflections on “my own personal religion” as inspired by Daniel Amos.

The concept of “my own personal religion” is summed up very nicely by the song “My Room,” which really needs no further commentary.

There’s many little rooms, with people like me
We often get together, in a bigger room
We harmonize, we harmonize
We know it’s real, we know it’s real

So until next time, I sit in my little room, slipping truth under the door…

Written on 19 September 2006 by me under The Daniel Amos Chronicles with 1 Comment

Thoughts on justice

I can’t improve on this.

Written on 12 September 2006 by me under My Own Personal Religion, Politics/Current Events with No Comments

The lost episodes of The Lone Ranger

Episode I

Some called him a madman. To others, he was just an abusive S.O.B. who had created his own high-security compound outside of town. Whatever the case, he was a known outlaw, who had been known to have ordered the killings of people in his own gang. The rest of the people in his compound were kept as prisoners, and often abused. Occasionally, he had assaulted his neighbors. The state police had fought him back into his own compound, and for several years had kept him contained. Part of the “deal” they had cut with him was that he would disarm; however, he had either failed to disarm or at least worked hard to give that impression. He continued to mock the state authorities, throwing them an occasional bone but remaining defiant and incompliant. Most communities in the area were in favor of leaving him alone, as long as he only abused the hostages in his own compound.

Enter the Lone Ranger and Tonto. What do they do? Listen to public opinion and do nothing, or take action and set the hostages free?

Episode II

A large band of outlaws – renegade soldiers, rustlers and gunfighters – had been terrorizing the area settlements for years, striking suddenly, and leaving death and destruction in their wake. Their only motivation appeared to be a hatred for civilization; their leader, Black Bart, expressed ideals that were nothing more than a facade for sociopathic attitudes. These outlaws roamed the countryside in smaller groups, often living among the settlements disguised as ordinary, hard-working citizens. As such, the local sheriffs were either unable or unwilling to take them on.

As the story begins, the Lone Ranger and Tonto just broken the stronghold of the outlaws and had sent them running. Several times the Lone Ranger, with the cooperation of a few brave lawmen, had been able to successfully thwart their plans. Now, Black Bart, in true outlaw style, sent word out to all of the settlements that he was out to get the Lone Ranger and any who would help him. Suddenly, our hero finds himself being distrusted and even hated by those who live in fear, or who naively believe that they will be safe, if only the lawmen would leave Black Bart’s band alone.

But …

Most of you have picked up on the allegories, and yeah, I know, the Lone Ranger doesn’t always wear a white hat. However, here’s the point of all of this: very few of us, in a more localized setting, would take a side against those who believe they have a moral obligation to enforce the law. I don’t know of anyone who’d support disbanding our local police force (or disarming them) so that the criminals would roam free. Will the police ever rid the city of crime completely? I don’t think so; however, is that any reason not to enforce the law?

Paul admonishes us to support our government, because it is their task to protect us and to fight evil. As Paul says of those in authority, “he doesn’t bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13). So, obviously God is not opposed to the State use of force to control crime. Now the question is, if we have the ability to fight evil and rescue the oppressed outside of our borders, where does our moral obligation lie? Do we take a “pacifist” stance? Who is more moral?

Things are not always so clear when they are put into different contexts. One of my sons last night commented that one of the things that makes Christianity so plausible was that there are so many things that are not clear (a false religion would take steps to do away with the gray areas).

We can debate wisdom, we can question intent – but, we definitely err if we assume things are black or white.

So, Kemo Sabe, what now?

Written on 11 September 2006 by me under Politics/Current Events with 9 Comments

Suggestive spirituality

This weekend I went to our State Fair, which is always an enlightening experience. It’s always amazing to me how many kinds of food you can actually get on a stick, or how exciting some people can make waterless cookware sound. I did have a somewhat enlightening experience, but nothing to do with deep-fried twinkies or cookware.

Mainly, I enjoy walking around, watching people, and taking hundreds of photos that I will probably never look at again. We had to leave the fair before I had a chance to view the photography exhibit, so I went back later on and walked around after dark, where I got some interesting shots of the midway lights. It was then that my attention was directed toward the one and only Travis Fox, the hypnotist.

Usually I avoid hypnotists; I recall going to these traveling shows as a kid, always being slightly spooked by the weirdness. I’m not quite so spooked now, as I’m older, hopefully wiser, and have been exposed to a number of revival meetings that were way spookier than any hypnotist. However, this guy was not your standard, sleazy, hypno-fake; he certainly could be a fake, but he wasn’t sleazy, and besides, I had nothing better to do. (I looked him up online after the show, and found that among other things, he’s got a Ph.D. in psychology.)

It is not a new thought to me that many “spiritual” experiences that people have are not unlike a hypnotist’s act. Watching the show, seeing how easily people were controlled and the amazing power of suggestion, I thought again of many of the weird “Christian” things I have seen over the years, plus many things that perhaps are not so weird.

On the Christian extreme, we have the various pentecostal performers/ministers; in the old days, it was Charles & Frances Hunter (“The Happy Hunters”); more recently, we have Benny Hinn, and many more lesser known folks. Are they sincere? Probably, for the most part. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t using the same techniques to elicit responses; people will respond extremely quickly to suggestion (and even to their own expectations).

Things I’ve seen include falling over (including injuries resulting from falling over), various odd and not-so-odd physical responses, laughter, and making animal noises. These, by the way, don’t include the things I’ve seen in “exorcisms,” which I think often drift into the hypotrance arena. I’ve also witnessed people being controlled by various “words” spoken over them.

The power of suggestion, especially in a therapy / ministry situation, is extremely powerful and dangerous; however, most ministers (and many therapists) fail to recognize it, rather choosing to believe that these manifestations are always signs of God’s work.

The power of suggestion in ministry worries me. Our church has recently announced a class in some kind of inner healing method with a new-agey name; have you ever wondered why there is no inner healing in the New Testament? (I’ve often wondered if it’s because we’re finally at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy.) All of this emphasis on prophetic words, guided imagery, and so on worries me; it’s all too easy to manipulate people. And, those who minister are people, too – we all long to be effective, and the temptation is always there to manipulate manifestations in order to affirm the minister.

I’m not saying that all spiritual experiences are phony – I’m just saying that one of the gifts that is seldom displayed is that of discernment. If I want to see a hypnosis demonstration, I’ll go to the fair; I’d rather not see it in church.

Written on 05 September 2006 by me under My Own Personal Religion with 6 Comments