If you'll allow me to ramble with you, when I began reading here my mind immediately went to the need -- the requirement -- to confront certain situations, however uncomfortable that might be. Jesus set the example, repeatedly confronting and even shaming the Pharisees and other who were saying and doing terrible things, until they finally had him killed. Temporarily.
And while not about saying terrible things, 1 Corinthians 14:29 suggests potential confrontation during assembly: "Have two or three prophets speak, and have the others pass judgment." What brought it into focus for me, however, was the book _Making Peace: A Guide to Overcoming Church Conflict_ by Jim Van Yperen. It explores in depth the consequences of avoiding necessary and proper confrontation. Such avoidance of the discomfort of confrontation has repeatedly destroyed churches, in a very predictable way.
I started to offer a couple of examples from my large-group study experiences, one where confrontation worked and another where it was not possible, but I think saying something about what you are calling "cognitive dissonance" might be better. I hadn't used that term for it, but it fits and it is uncomfortable. My focus lately has been upon "milk" vs. "solid food". It's apparent now that the sermons must generally be at the "milk" level, because that's where, it appears to me, much of the congregation is and remains.
A "service" consists of some of scripted singing followed by a short lecture on the importance of "tithing", justified through proof-texting, since there is no new covenant tithe to one's church, and a justification must be invented because how else could they afford the expense of their church campus for which no example exists in the NT. Most of my giving goes and has gone to local missionaries, and a big chunk of what I was giving to the church now goes directly to someone in need, in accordance with scripture, someone that the church could not help because it was against their rules.
Then finally there is an extended lecture by a "pastor" standing on an elevated platform, preaching down to a passive audience, affording little to no opportunity for interaction, any interaction usually being scripted anyway. All of this adheres to a set "order of service", none of it biblical. In a biblical assembly, the Holy Spirit leads as all participate.
This is the institutional church of the past 1700 years at work. At mine, some of the sermon material is excellent, and some of it not so much, but when it's over for the morning most people instantly turn to talking about what else they're going to do, and whatever discomfort they may have experienced from cognitive dissonance is dispelled. They don't even wait for the postlude. The solution for that, lately, has been to shorten the postlude.
There is, however, a large team of volunteers actively supporting the service, for which the experience is somewhat different. I've survived by being a part of that, although now I'm having to back way off because I can't physically sustain it any longer. I still run "screens" (ProPresenter, for the projection screens) once a month, and when it's my week, I get to control when the service starts, because I start the countdown timer. What a feeling!
Well no, actually, my point is that all this stuff is ABOUT CONTROL. The reformers patched up some of the mess, but they couldn't give up the control afforded them by the institutional church. This is contrary to scripture, and therein lies quite a bit of your cognitive dissonance, for anybody that actually reads and studies scripture regularly.
Some of us go off to the aforementioned large-group study after the service, and there is a rather sizeable small-group study on Tuesdays for those who are available then and want to gather to discuss the sermon. There was another such study on Wednesday mornings, but church rules eventually required the leader to step down, once they discovered the violation, because control. I took over that role, having conformed to that particular rule, but then the group could no longer be advertised because -- new rule -- someone might happen to drop in, then raise an objection to me with the elder board, and the elders would be made uncomfortable.
So now I am simply mentoring the one other person that remains. Both of us qualify as "little ones", the "least of these", the despised of society (and of evangelicals drenched in the culture), so it's a good match and the elders are safe for the moment, apparently not concerned about what Jesus said about causing little ones to stumble.
A new scripted large-group study will be starting on Wednesday evenings to address, I think, part of the "milk" issue at a time when more people are available. What am I going to do about all of this? Go where I am directed. Cognitive dissonance? Sure. Lament? Lots. Uncomfortable is good. Comfort is deadly.
What I see here is a mess, but it is a mess that God still works with, and there is still a need to gather in community. The "rules" interfere, but they can't stop what God is doing, and I'm OK with that, and I've received signs that I should stick with it, although with less involvement than before as I age.
Who are the present-day "holy ones", the saints? How many will come out of this alive? I don't know. Scripture says few, and scripture says many, at least among the martyrs. OK, settled. Next.
So it sounds like you are uncomfortable too. Good for you.
"It is entirely my love for women that makes me stand in awe of how God has chosen to script their role in the story of His Creation. But I don’t expect anyone to understand what I’m saying at this point.":
I don't, coming from you but I do, coming from another direction.
My housemate and I have begun a study of women and Paul, working with a book from a lesser-known commentator that focuses on the Greek and on ordinarily-ignored context, and the almost entirely avoided 1 Cor 7 (because Paul says the wrong things there). It's my second time through it, and her first. She likes it. There is so much to enjoy once past the interference that I mentioned above.
"Let me ask you, what would you do if God began killing millions of people again, like He did in the Old Testament?":
Millions are actively being sickened and murdered now, but not according to the "authorities", so it's kind of like it isn't happening. This produces cognitive dissonance, and one result of that is that a great many have ceased taking the poisons, even if they don't know exactly why, but not according to the authorities so it's kind of like it isn't happening. But the stock market says otherwise and the authorities are feeling it. Such is our world. And there's more to come. And new kinds of poisons to be fooled by.
"Come to think of it, maybe church should be more like a stand-up comedy open mic night. Maybe then we could actually talk about the things that matter to us, instead of keeping everything repressed and pretending that we’re okay with Reality."
As opposed to the regular stand-up comedy sermon with no open mic, but containing plenty of humor if well done? It already is that. You're describing the "stump the pastor" sermon, with audience mics, or just cards to be filled out and passed to the front, or text messaging (more control that way). That's not the answer either. There are plenty of answers in scripture, and the indwelling Holy Spirit is here to teach us whatever else we need. I think that's the bottom line.
I enjoyed that rambling. Thank you for your testimony, I love to find out how people are dealing with the current state of churches.
And I didn't even consider that somebody might actually do a stand-up comedy style of sermon. I just wanted to make a point that Christians should be at the forefront of exposing what's going on in reality, but instead it falls on comedians who aren't believers. I almost envy the stand-up comedy rooms for being able to address what people are actually feeling and thinking.
The institutional church service format is what has put me off attending church in many instances. Sing a few songs, collect money to pay for buildings and wages etc., listen to a sermon designed for new believers or those thinking of joining but no meat to grow those in the church who have believed for some time. All followed by a morning tea or shared lunch. My experience has been that there are generally nice people attending and its very social, but I don't go for the nice chat and a cup of tea. I want and need to feel Jesus and the Holy Spirit in my place of worship. I want to be rocked to the core of my being or is that to the core of my soul. Anyway, such a church is hard to find. I pray on it often. God did speak to me in one Church one Sunday and clearly told me to get out, to leave early in the sermon. It took all my physical strength to not run there and then so I waited until the end of the service and never went back. But that's another story and now I am the one rambling. Institutional churches are not for me. I prefer organic church.
The urge to run. Cognitive dissonance. A longing for organic church. Yes, nice ramble.
Having left quite a number of churches previously, the directive I have now is to stand and fight, not open warfare but pushing back strategically as opportunities present, drawing attention to both what is good and what is not about what is going on in that place. Not my preference, but my task for now.
And there are some rather bad things happening there. The urge to run is strong. But it could negatively affect three other people in my life that attend there, and might lead to their stumbling and, knowing scripture, my preference is not to be a cause of that.
Instead, we each spend time together, mostly separately, the four of us, on campus or off. Two is all it takes. That's the organic part, for now.
I’m fairly new to Christ and the Bible. I find myself in the throes of cognitive dissonance almost every time I sit down to read the Bible. I’m learning that this struggle is its beauty. The insurmountable challenge that God places before us, on so many of those pages, is his Glory. Thank you. Terry.
Sometimes it feels selfish and ridiculous of me to even ask for answers to the remaining mysteries of "why" -- considering we already have the Bible translated into our own language and the power of the Internet to study for free, chat together, etc. We have all the information we "need" openly and freely, and the mysteries that remain feel like they're almost in reach. But I can't help but want to know everything!
Overall, I agree that: "Today’s “worshipers” are more afraid of controversy than they are of God." The church teaches incorrect doctrine and theology in order to keep from making people uncomfortable. Most people, rather than diving in deep with an open mind and open eyes, just want to accept what they've been told the Bible says. People have built their idenities around false beliefs of who God is and they can't/won't change that now. It is idolatry and that's a new way of putting it that I hadn't considered before. It's a false God. I'm interested in further exploring the notion of: "lamenting God’s judgments as a form of worship." I'm also very intrigued by your list of paradoxes. Paradox always intrigues me. There's always going to be naysayers, Terry. I, myself will likely disagree with you at times. However, uncomfortable thought experiments are good for all of us. So, I say, carry on.
That's very encouraging, thank you. I'm still not sure how to approach the topics, and I feel like I don't have nearly enough time. But since you are interested, I feel like I should test some approaches on this Substack and see how it works out.
Yes, it sounds like a lot to uncover. Plus, the added challenge of having to put it out there without instantly and completely turning people off. Or even sounding crazy, right? It's funny because I'm in a season where I feel that God has been revealing to me some uncomfortable truths about himself. As hard as it has been to accept these things, it's an even harder thing all together, trying to explain it to my friends and husband. I don't disagree with being cautious in your approach and the truth is paramount to our faith. It would be tough to know how to move forward. Pray about it, and I will pray for you too.
I'm still reading, but "Lot pleaded for God to spare the people of Sodom"? In the passage beginning at Genesis 18:22 it was Abraham, pleading directly with God. This was intercessory prayer. (WBC)
Lot, for his part, at Genesis 19:8, bargains with the mob at his door, offering them his daughters. “Now look, I have two daughters who have not had relations with any man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do not do anything to these men, because they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (NASB)
Again from the WBC, "'For this reason' (כי־על־כן) is almost redundant semantically (cf n. 18:5b-b.), but it serves here to underline how committed Lot is to protecting his guests. Putting their welfare above his daughters’ may have been questionable, but it shows just how committed he was to being a good host."
OK, I'll have to remember that when we have people over, but not the best possible view of women! I like the "may have been questionable". I guess you had to be there. Although hospitality seems to have been an issue. Ezekiel 16:49-50 (NASB) hints at that - “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, plenty of food, and carefree ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. So they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." (Possible Leviticus 18 situation -- WBC)
The cognitive dissonance of Christians with that story is a prime example of what I mean. Lot was considered one of the only worthy people in the city to be spared... and yet he was going to give the horde of evil men his daughters? And then he goes on to have sex with them after they escape and his wife dies? The critics of the Bible have a field day with that, but Christians just want to gloss over it.
I listened to a livestreamed Sunday service last weekend where the sermon was on the story of Lot and the offer of the daughters. Again, the emphasis was on the obligations of hospitality. The pastor said that the obligation he felt was so strong that he offered the thing that was most precious to him - his daughters. So it was still about him - no mention of what it would actually be like to have your dad hand you over to a mob to be brutally raped and killed. Difficult.
One uncomfortable thing I think about (because the issue remains hard for me too) is how you talk to a non-Christian about predestination. It seems to me that you almost have to lie by omission, because you can hardly say to someone 'there's a 98% chance that you were predestined, before you were born, to die a hideous death in a lake of fire, for things you wouldn't even think were serious. However, I'm telling you about the gospel on the offchance that you are among the two percent who were predestined to not share this horrific and unavoidable fate'.
So that would be among my lamentations. I have others, largely related to the ones you mention, like instructing people to dash the heads of babies and sucklings against the rocks.
Yep, when you really boil down the issue, it makes you wonder why there even will be a Judgment Day if everything was predestined!
As for how to talk to non-Christians, it reminds me of Jesus saying not to throw pearls before swine. Is this the kind of stuff you're just not supposed to share?
My excuse, in my mind, is that if you told them that you'd lose them straight away. If they accept the Gospel, they can find out in due course, and if they don't it won't make any difference. The very idea of Hell has made more atheists in the modern world than anything else, I think - I presume in the distant past it possibly had the opposite effect.
We're still working on predestination here. First it has to be untangled from Calvinism.
Psalm 137:8-9 is a different kind of problem. I have tended to read it as recalling what Babylon had done to those of the southern kingdom. I don't own a major commentary on Psalms, but here is some of what the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible has to say about it:
137:9 The dark realities of warfare in the ancient Near East often doomed the innocent to destruction. While soldiers and men were often subject to dismemberment and impalement, women and children might also be ravished and slaughtered (Hos 10:14). Pregnant women might be lacerated in order to extract the fruit of their wombs, and infants were smashed on the ground (2Ki 8:12; Hos 13:16; Am 1:13; Na 3:10)—all to eliminate the next generation as well as the present one. The psalmist is borrowing imagery from prophetic descriptions of judgment announced against Babylon for the atrocities it committed against Jerusalem (Isa 13:16; Jer 6:11; 51:56). The use of such language is a graphic description of the cruelty of warfare in the ancient Near East...
And this is from the CSB Study Bible:
137:8 Who pays you back what you have done to us reinforces the concept of (Lat) lex talionis, or receiving a punishment equal to the crime (Ex 21:23–25; Mt 5:38–42). God pays back those who reject him (Dt 7:10; 32:35; Is 65:6), and he specifically promised to repay Babylon for their crimes against his people (Jr 51:56).
137:9 This imprecation is startling. Out of the psalmist’s intense emotional state, seething with righteous anger, he called for the execution of just vengeance against the wicked who had perhaps done the described acts (takes … and dashes) to Israel’s little ones.
Hey Terry, speaking of the topic on women, yesterday I was reading through Hebrews, and I came across chapter 11, where you can find this passage: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."
Before these verses, some names of faithful servants of the Lord are mentioned, including Sara: "Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised."
Some verses later: "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace."
Considering this book is directed at the jews who were struggling to continue with Christ, I wouldn't simply discard the importance of having them mentioned here alongside other names like Abraham, Noah, Moses, and so on. Not suggesting this is definitive proof of anything, but I thought that if there's anything you could've possibly overlooked, I had to share it to you for second opinion.
Excellent, thanks for that. Those of us who try to comprehend God's judgments should definitely not "simply discard" anything in the Bible, that's for sure. We have to remain open to as much as we can, praying and studying to try to figure it out.
One of the most challenging aspects of this is that I don't want to allow my own sensibilities (of compassion and modern Christian assumptions) to steer the whole topic. We also have to remain open to possibilities that aren't pleasant.
I call it blessed to know you Terry and I don’t believe it to be accident. From the beginning of mu christian walk, the first book I explored, the first book that interested me was Revelation. It still does and is my favorite one (which is why I have committed myself to memorizing it).
God knew my soul wouldn’t mind exploring controversy and lamentation, so he brought me to you at the right time from the beginning.
I wish I could pick your brain on every controversy or paradox. My iron would be so sharp exploring the things I tend to gloss over when I casually read the bible.
I’ve never liked superficial witnessing and giving unbelievers milk. Its sounds wrong, but I would rather discuss interesting/philosophical topics that lead into bible and I’ve had more success in that then saying, “everyone has sinned but Jesus died for your sins.”
I guess i put the cart before the horse, but in my experience people will believe what they believe and saying what they’ve heard over and over just doesn’t work (for me). I have only met a select few who even though they have different perspectives, they are willing to consider other ones and I say that those people aren’t far from the Kingdom, maybe they believe they are serving the kingdom.
Much more to say, but I’ll leave it here. (Still writing that essay).
I wish I could have those long discussions with you to my friend, I know that you have a lot of ideas and want to get into studies with you and some others who are passionate about it. As you know, my goal was to somehow be able to do this full time, and not have to work 40 hours a week and squeeze this in. Now when I do have free time, I'm usually occupied trying to get my own thoughts out, rather than contemplate other people's ideas and follow their logic. I feel like I'm "behind schedule" with everything I want to say, and even just keeping up with global politics and conspiracy research eats up so much energy.
Imagine if we could have a real "assembly" like the original church, where men could gather and share their ideas, pray together, and let the Spirit guide us. Each of us would be able to speed up our studies so much faster, I'm sure.
This is intended to be a constructive observation. What is your point? Maybe you should lead off with a concrete example of what you mean by cognitive dissonance. What is a scenario that screams "cognitive dissonance"? And what would it look like when cognitive dissonance is ameliorated? As I read through the many paragraphs here, it is so abstract and vague that, again, I ask "what is your point?" If you want to write a 2000 page book, I say "go for it." But it would help to provide enough substance and clarity on page one so that the reader would think it worthwhile to continue. Please accept this in the spirit it is offered, and hopefully the haters won't be excessively hostile toward me for commenting. I'm not a fan of religious debate as blood sport (it seems so juvenile to me, when it blows up in comments on sites like this), but I can tell you have a strong desire to share your thoughts on this subject (whatever it is). You might as well find an effective way to do that.
You have convinced me that I shouldn't try to write the book. I only have a few hours a day of free time, I don't want to waste them on something pointless.
I would not want anything I said to lead to that conclusion. Nor should it. If I didn't sense the value on a certain level, I would not have taken the time to comment. It was a sincere question on my part, because I do want to know. But now, I see how it could be taken in a way I didn't intend. My bad. Look, I've stayed up until 4:00 AM many nights with a mission to write. I posted a lot, published a little, received a comment once in a while and heard from more than one reader who came away with an entirely different interpretation of what I was trying to say, which astonished and disappointed me. I'd want to write a 2000 page book myself, but would have to find someone generous and patient enough to help me assess my drafts from a reader's point of view. On my own, I'm lousy at that, so these days I've quit posting anything new, finished up a couple of pieces to my own satisfaction, taken a break from words to work in the woods instead and think about whether it would be possible to communicate anything meaningful in a five second Tiktok video. I have to accept that my scribblings don't warrant a span of attention much longer than that in today's marketplace of ideas. And of course the frustrating part is that I'm as guilty as anyone else on that count: losing the ability to pay attention. I just read the stellar reviews of your book and I am a little embarrassed by my spur of the moment comments. Please know that everything I've said comes from a place of humility and goodwill...
No offense taken, Perry, I didn't take it as an insult or discouragement. But rather I agree that I need to get to the point, somehow, and until I figure out how to do that, I just can't afford to spend the hundreds of hours it would take to wrangle these ideas and put them into something edifying. Giving examples is a good suggestion, but the risk is that people will look at the examples and say, "Oh, that's it? I'm not concerned about that. This isn't worth my time" or "He's really that bothered by this? What a weird thing to get worked up about".
Because you see, people think that not being bothered is the same as having confidence. And so when you list examples without taking the time to paint the picture and make a person realize why something is controversial, they can just dismiss it. Weirdly, my task is to get a person to lower their defenses and become willing to wade into negative feelings. Who wants that?
I'll give an example here, to demonstrate.
According to the World Health Organization, around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. That's 73,000,000 babies who are murdered in cold blood every single year, voluntarily, by their own mothers.
We can say that's bad, and we can blame whoever we want, but at the end of the day, this is the reality that God has allowed to happen. Why does He allow 73 million babies to be murdered by their mothers every year? He does have the ability to prevent it. He's the Almighty.
Of course Christians do hate abortion, but they aren't willing to say that God bears some responsibility for why things are so bad. When you trace the origin of human evil back far enough, you get to Adam and Eve in the Garden, where God could have easily prevented the problem. You have a million opportunities since then to intervene. And even today, there is nothing stopping Him from divinely intervening in the world -- nobody could stop Him!
These problems are easy to dismiss, and difficult to take to heart. It's like trying to push something buoyant deeper underwater. It just wants to fly up to the surface and float there, relaxed. So it does feel pointless, because even people who have read my book (or this Substack) tend to move along quickly and forget about it.
That's a great point, or points., and a lot to ponder. Certainly, in the wake of recent events even the overwise secular people are asking "why has God allowed this to happen?" And if we're honest, any Christian answer you hear can have a hollow ring to it,. Not incorrect necessarily, but not entirely satisfying. Not quite perfect. And so, instead of acting like we're comfortably in that perfect zone, we need to acknowledge there'll be some real-life time in the not quite perfect zone. And, struggling with that uncertainty and incompleteness of that space, it is all the more reason to draw closer to God.
I say that now, but tend to move along quickly and forgetfully turn to anything but God. Do we all do that with our best platitudes?
One big missed intervention this week has dominated my thoughts ever since. I find it hard to accept that I live on the same planet as people who are celebrating. Confronting a few of them, one-on-one, I've discovered the futility of an appeal to reason or an appeal to human sympathy. It really is a spiritual battle and requires far more than a convincing argument or a recitation. of Ephesians 6.
But for now, I'm going to re-play Erika Kirk's remarks. My baby boom generation really went off the rails, and it looks like a younger generation just might embark on the restoration of truth, goodness and beauty in ways us boomers botched. I thank God for that.
"Even though this world is plunging into collapse and depopulation, with psyops and conspiracies overtaking everything, my mind can’t stop thinking of how much else I have left to lament about. I wish that I had more time to cope with the problems that have always been around, never mind the end of the world! In fact, I am relieved by the end of the world, and I am troubled by the beginning of it!"
"In fact, I am relieved by the end of the world, and I am troubled by the beginning of it!" I really like this quote, but I'm not sure why. I have had deep anxiety about the end of the world. I have even been hospitalized because of my anxiety and paranoia. I feel I am a bit like you in the fact that I have trouble expressing myself and find myself starting sentences and then not finishing them without sharing 2 or 3 more thoughts mid stream that are connected but not coherent. I have wanted to start blogging for a few years but never seem to get started. I think it would be a good way to express my thoughts in a more coherent manner than trying to talk with someone and end up babbling on very incoherently.
Can I ask why you are troubled by the beginning of the world?
It's not about the "beginning of the world", it's about the beginning of the end. Now that's the scary part, because we don't know the full extent of evil that could be unleashed out there.
I'm very confused by how the term "cognitive dissonance" is being used here.
The meaning of the term "cognitive dissonance" as I understand it is something like psychological discomfort caused by a recognition that two firmly held beliefs are contradictory. Which means at least one, or possibly both, of those beliefs must be false, and it's difficult and stressful to face up to being flatly wrong about something I felt strongly about.
Or there's another sense in which cognitive dissonance relates not to holding two conflicting beliefs, but rather acting in violation of a strongly held belief — recognizing oneself as a hypocrite basically.
But you talk about cognitive dissonance as being an "unwillingness to acknowledge things because they are uncomfortable" and then refer to people who "shut out arguments and let cognitive dissonance shield them from the controversies." But cognitive dissonance is not an unwillingness to face something uncomfortable. It's kind of the opposite, a discomfort from being forced to face a fatal flaw in your worldview, value system, etc. And cognitive dissonance cannot be a shield from controversy — it represents in inescapable internal controversy which is unbearable.
Let me try to clear up the confusion. In theory, the contradiction in people's beliefs creates discomfort and the person feels it consciously; they become aware of their hypocrisy and struggle to deal with it. That would create stress.
But in reality, psychologists have pointed out that people simply deceive themselves in order to escape that stress. Rather than dealing with the stress or reconciling their beliefs, they dodge the problem and bury the feelings.
This is a simplified page explaining it, with examples:
"To reduce this uncomfortable feeling, people often change their thoughts or justify their behavior to make everything feel more consistent."
They give an example:
Cognitive dissonance was first studied by Leon Festinger during a participant observation of a cult that believed the Earth would be destroyed by a great flood.
The research focused on what happened to the members—especially the deeply committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs for the cult—when the flood did not occur.
While less committed members were more likely to admit they had been mistaken and simply “learned from the experience,” the most devoted members tended to reinterpret the outcome to fit their beliefs.
They claimed the flood didn’t happen because of their faithfulness, reinforcing their original conviction rather than abandoning it."
If you'll allow me to ramble with you, when I began reading here my mind immediately went to the need -- the requirement -- to confront certain situations, however uncomfortable that might be. Jesus set the example, repeatedly confronting and even shaming the Pharisees and other who were saying and doing terrible things, until they finally had him killed. Temporarily.
And while not about saying terrible things, 1 Corinthians 14:29 suggests potential confrontation during assembly: "Have two or three prophets speak, and have the others pass judgment." What brought it into focus for me, however, was the book _Making Peace: A Guide to Overcoming Church Conflict_ by Jim Van Yperen. It explores in depth the consequences of avoiding necessary and proper confrontation. Such avoidance of the discomfort of confrontation has repeatedly destroyed churches, in a very predictable way.
I started to offer a couple of examples from my large-group study experiences, one where confrontation worked and another where it was not possible, but I think saying something about what you are calling "cognitive dissonance" might be better. I hadn't used that term for it, but it fits and it is uncomfortable. My focus lately has been upon "milk" vs. "solid food". It's apparent now that the sermons must generally be at the "milk" level, because that's where, it appears to me, much of the congregation is and remains.
A "service" consists of some of scripted singing followed by a short lecture on the importance of "tithing", justified through proof-texting, since there is no new covenant tithe to one's church, and a justification must be invented because how else could they afford the expense of their church campus for which no example exists in the NT. Most of my giving goes and has gone to local missionaries, and a big chunk of what I was giving to the church now goes directly to someone in need, in accordance with scripture, someone that the church could not help because it was against their rules.
Then finally there is an extended lecture by a "pastor" standing on an elevated platform, preaching down to a passive audience, affording little to no opportunity for interaction, any interaction usually being scripted anyway. All of this adheres to a set "order of service", none of it biblical. In a biblical assembly, the Holy Spirit leads as all participate.
This is the institutional church of the past 1700 years at work. At mine, some of the sermon material is excellent, and some of it not so much, but when it's over for the morning most people instantly turn to talking about what else they're going to do, and whatever discomfort they may have experienced from cognitive dissonance is dispelled. They don't even wait for the postlude. The solution for that, lately, has been to shorten the postlude.
There is, however, a large team of volunteers actively supporting the service, for which the experience is somewhat different. I've survived by being a part of that, although now I'm having to back way off because I can't physically sustain it any longer. I still run "screens" (ProPresenter, for the projection screens) once a month, and when it's my week, I get to control when the service starts, because I start the countdown timer. What a feeling!
Well no, actually, my point is that all this stuff is ABOUT CONTROL. The reformers patched up some of the mess, but they couldn't give up the control afforded them by the institutional church. This is contrary to scripture, and therein lies quite a bit of your cognitive dissonance, for anybody that actually reads and studies scripture regularly.
Some of us go off to the aforementioned large-group study after the service, and there is a rather sizeable small-group study on Tuesdays for those who are available then and want to gather to discuss the sermon. There was another such study on Wednesday mornings, but church rules eventually required the leader to step down, once they discovered the violation, because control. I took over that role, having conformed to that particular rule, but then the group could no longer be advertised because -- new rule -- someone might happen to drop in, then raise an objection to me with the elder board, and the elders would be made uncomfortable.
So now I am simply mentoring the one other person that remains. Both of us qualify as "little ones", the "least of these", the despised of society (and of evangelicals drenched in the culture), so it's a good match and the elders are safe for the moment, apparently not concerned about what Jesus said about causing little ones to stumble.
A new scripted large-group study will be starting on Wednesday evenings to address, I think, part of the "milk" issue at a time when more people are available. What am I going to do about all of this? Go where I am directed. Cognitive dissonance? Sure. Lament? Lots. Uncomfortable is good. Comfort is deadly.
What I see here is a mess, but it is a mess that God still works with, and there is still a need to gather in community. The "rules" interfere, but they can't stop what God is doing, and I'm OK with that, and I've received signs that I should stick with it, although with less involvement than before as I age.
Who are the present-day "holy ones", the saints? How many will come out of this alive? I don't know. Scripture says few, and scripture says many, at least among the martyrs. OK, settled. Next.
So it sounds like you are uncomfortable too. Good for you.
"It is entirely my love for women that makes me stand in awe of how God has chosen to script their role in the story of His Creation. But I don’t expect anyone to understand what I’m saying at this point.":
I don't, coming from you but I do, coming from another direction.
My housemate and I have begun a study of women and Paul, working with a book from a lesser-known commentator that focuses on the Greek and on ordinarily-ignored context, and the almost entirely avoided 1 Cor 7 (because Paul says the wrong things there). It's my second time through it, and her first. She likes it. There is so much to enjoy once past the interference that I mentioned above.
"Let me ask you, what would you do if God began killing millions of people again, like He did in the Old Testament?":
Millions are actively being sickened and murdered now, but not according to the "authorities", so it's kind of like it isn't happening. This produces cognitive dissonance, and one result of that is that a great many have ceased taking the poisons, even if they don't know exactly why, but not according to the authorities so it's kind of like it isn't happening. But the stock market says otherwise and the authorities are feeling it. Such is our world. And there's more to come. And new kinds of poisons to be fooled by.
"Come to think of it, maybe church should be more like a stand-up comedy open mic night. Maybe then we could actually talk about the things that matter to us, instead of keeping everything repressed and pretending that we’re okay with Reality."
As opposed to the regular stand-up comedy sermon with no open mic, but containing plenty of humor if well done? It already is that. You're describing the "stump the pastor" sermon, with audience mics, or just cards to be filled out and passed to the front, or text messaging (more control that way). That's not the answer either. There are plenty of answers in scripture, and the indwelling Holy Spirit is here to teach us whatever else we need. I think that's the bottom line.
I enjoyed that rambling. Thank you for your testimony, I love to find out how people are dealing with the current state of churches.
And I didn't even consider that somebody might actually do a stand-up comedy style of sermon. I just wanted to make a point that Christians should be at the forefront of exposing what's going on in reality, but instead it falls on comedians who aren't believers. I almost envy the stand-up comedy rooms for being able to address what people are actually feeling and thinking.
The institutional church service format is what has put me off attending church in many instances. Sing a few songs, collect money to pay for buildings and wages etc., listen to a sermon designed for new believers or those thinking of joining but no meat to grow those in the church who have believed for some time. All followed by a morning tea or shared lunch. My experience has been that there are generally nice people attending and its very social, but I don't go for the nice chat and a cup of tea. I want and need to feel Jesus and the Holy Spirit in my place of worship. I want to be rocked to the core of my being or is that to the core of my soul. Anyway, such a church is hard to find. I pray on it often. God did speak to me in one Church one Sunday and clearly told me to get out, to leave early in the sermon. It took all my physical strength to not run there and then so I waited until the end of the service and never went back. But that's another story and now I am the one rambling. Institutional churches are not for me. I prefer organic church.
The urge to run. Cognitive dissonance. A longing for organic church. Yes, nice ramble.
Having left quite a number of churches previously, the directive I have now is to stand and fight, not open warfare but pushing back strategically as opportunities present, drawing attention to both what is good and what is not about what is going on in that place. Not my preference, but my task for now.
And there are some rather bad things happening there. The urge to run is strong. But it could negatively affect three other people in my life that attend there, and might lead to their stumbling and, knowing scripture, my preference is not to be a cause of that.
Instead, we each spend time together, mostly separately, the four of us, on campus or off. Two is all it takes. That's the organic part, for now.
I’m fairly new to Christ and the Bible. I find myself in the throes of cognitive dissonance almost every time I sit down to read the Bible. I’m learning that this struggle is its beauty. The insurmountable challenge that God places before us, on so many of those pages, is his Glory. Thank you. Terry.
Sometimes it feels selfish and ridiculous of me to even ask for answers to the remaining mysteries of "why" -- considering we already have the Bible translated into our own language and the power of the Internet to study for free, chat together, etc. We have all the information we "need" openly and freely, and the mysteries that remain feel like they're almost in reach. But I can't help but want to know everything!
Insurmountable by us. "Take it to the Lord in prayer." Unceasingly.
Overall, I agree that: "Today’s “worshipers” are more afraid of controversy than they are of God." The church teaches incorrect doctrine and theology in order to keep from making people uncomfortable. Most people, rather than diving in deep with an open mind and open eyes, just want to accept what they've been told the Bible says. People have built their idenities around false beliefs of who God is and they can't/won't change that now. It is idolatry and that's a new way of putting it that I hadn't considered before. It's a false God. I'm interested in further exploring the notion of: "lamenting God’s judgments as a form of worship." I'm also very intrigued by your list of paradoxes. Paradox always intrigues me. There's always going to be naysayers, Terry. I, myself will likely disagree with you at times. However, uncomfortable thought experiments are good for all of us. So, I say, carry on.
That's very encouraging, thank you. I'm still not sure how to approach the topics, and I feel like I don't have nearly enough time. But since you are interested, I feel like I should test some approaches on this Substack and see how it works out.
Yes, it sounds like a lot to uncover. Plus, the added challenge of having to put it out there without instantly and completely turning people off. Or even sounding crazy, right? It's funny because I'm in a season where I feel that God has been revealing to me some uncomfortable truths about himself. As hard as it has been to accept these things, it's an even harder thing all together, trying to explain it to my friends and husband. I don't disagree with being cautious in your approach and the truth is paramount to our faith. It would be tough to know how to move forward. Pray about it, and I will pray for you too.
I'm still reading, but "Lot pleaded for God to spare the people of Sodom"? In the passage beginning at Genesis 18:22 it was Abraham, pleading directly with God. This was intercessory prayer. (WBC)
Lot, for his part, at Genesis 19:8, bargains with the mob at his door, offering them his daughters. “Now look, I have two daughters who have not had relations with any man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do not do anything to these men, because they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (NASB)
Again from the WBC, "'For this reason' (כי־על־כן) is almost redundant semantically (cf n. 18:5b-b.), but it serves here to underline how committed Lot is to protecting his guests. Putting their welfare above his daughters’ may have been questionable, but it shows just how committed he was to being a good host."
OK, I'll have to remember that when we have people over, but not the best possible view of women! I like the "may have been questionable". I guess you had to be there. Although hospitality seems to have been an issue. Ezekiel 16:49-50 (NASB) hints at that - “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, plenty of food, and carefree ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. So they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." (Possible Leviticus 18 situation -- WBC)
Back to reading...
The cognitive dissonance of Christians with that story is a prime example of what I mean. Lot was considered one of the only worthy people in the city to be spared... and yet he was going to give the horde of evil men his daughters? And then he goes on to have sex with them after they escape and his wife dies? The critics of the Bible have a field day with that, but Christians just want to gloss over it.
I listened to a livestreamed Sunday service last weekend where the sermon was on the story of Lot and the offer of the daughters. Again, the emphasis was on the obligations of hospitality. The pastor said that the obligation he felt was so strong that he offered the thing that was most precious to him - his daughters. So it was still about him - no mention of what it would actually be like to have your dad hand you over to a mob to be brutally raped and killed. Difficult.
I remember being stunned at that explanation when I was a kid. I looked at the girls around me like, "Aren't you gonna demand a better answer?"
One uncomfortable thing I think about (because the issue remains hard for me too) is how you talk to a non-Christian about predestination. It seems to me that you almost have to lie by omission, because you can hardly say to someone 'there's a 98% chance that you were predestined, before you were born, to die a hideous death in a lake of fire, for things you wouldn't even think were serious. However, I'm telling you about the gospel on the offchance that you are among the two percent who were predestined to not share this horrific and unavoidable fate'.
So that would be among my lamentations. I have others, largely related to the ones you mention, like instructing people to dash the heads of babies and sucklings against the rocks.
Yep, when you really boil down the issue, it makes you wonder why there even will be a Judgment Day if everything was predestined!
As for how to talk to non-Christians, it reminds me of Jesus saying not to throw pearls before swine. Is this the kind of stuff you're just not supposed to share?
My excuse, in my mind, is that if you told them that you'd lose them straight away. If they accept the Gospel, they can find out in due course, and if they don't it won't make any difference. The very idea of Hell has made more atheists in the modern world than anything else, I think - I presume in the distant past it possibly had the opposite effect.
We're still working on predestination here. First it has to be untangled from Calvinism.
Psalm 137:8-9 is a different kind of problem. I have tended to read it as recalling what Babylon had done to those of the southern kingdom. I don't own a major commentary on Psalms, but here is some of what the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible has to say about it:
137:9 The dark realities of warfare in the ancient Near East often doomed the innocent to destruction. While soldiers and men were often subject to dismemberment and impalement, women and children might also be ravished and slaughtered (Hos 10:14). Pregnant women might be lacerated in order to extract the fruit of their wombs, and infants were smashed on the ground (2Ki 8:12; Hos 13:16; Am 1:13; Na 3:10)—all to eliminate the next generation as well as the present one. The psalmist is borrowing imagery from prophetic descriptions of judgment announced against Babylon for the atrocities it committed against Jerusalem (Isa 13:16; Jer 6:11; 51:56). The use of such language is a graphic description of the cruelty of warfare in the ancient Near East...
And this is from the CSB Study Bible:
137:8 Who pays you back what you have done to us reinforces the concept of (Lat) lex talionis, or receiving a punishment equal to the crime (Ex 21:23–25; Mt 5:38–42). God pays back those who reject him (Dt 7:10; 32:35; Is 65:6), and he specifically promised to repay Babylon for their crimes against his people (Jr 51:56).
137:9 This imprecation is startling. Out of the psalmist’s intense emotional state, seething with righteous anger, he called for the execution of just vengeance against the wicked who had perhaps done the described acts (takes … and dashes) to Israel’s little ones.
Hey Terry, speaking of the topic on women, yesterday I was reading through Hebrews, and I came across chapter 11, where you can find this passage: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."
Before these verses, some names of faithful servants of the Lord are mentioned, including Sara: "Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised."
Some verses later: "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace."
Considering this book is directed at the jews who were struggling to continue with Christ, I wouldn't simply discard the importance of having them mentioned here alongside other names like Abraham, Noah, Moses, and so on. Not suggesting this is definitive proof of anything, but I thought that if there's anything you could've possibly overlooked, I had to share it to you for second opinion.
Excellent, thanks for that. Those of us who try to comprehend God's judgments should definitely not "simply discard" anything in the Bible, that's for sure. We have to remain open to as much as we can, praying and studying to try to figure it out.
One of the most challenging aspects of this is that I don't want to allow my own sensibilities (of compassion and modern Christian assumptions) to steer the whole topic. We also have to remain open to possibilities that aren't pleasant.
I call it blessed to know you Terry and I don’t believe it to be accident. From the beginning of mu christian walk, the first book I explored, the first book that interested me was Revelation. It still does and is my favorite one (which is why I have committed myself to memorizing it).
God knew my soul wouldn’t mind exploring controversy and lamentation, so he brought me to you at the right time from the beginning.
I wish I could pick your brain on every controversy or paradox. My iron would be so sharp exploring the things I tend to gloss over when I casually read the bible.
I’ve never liked superficial witnessing and giving unbelievers milk. Its sounds wrong, but I would rather discuss interesting/philosophical topics that lead into bible and I’ve had more success in that then saying, “everyone has sinned but Jesus died for your sins.”
I guess i put the cart before the horse, but in my experience people will believe what they believe and saying what they’ve heard over and over just doesn’t work (for me). I have only met a select few who even though they have different perspectives, they are willing to consider other ones and I say that those people aren’t far from the Kingdom, maybe they believe they are serving the kingdom.
Much more to say, but I’ll leave it here. (Still writing that essay).
I wish I could have those long discussions with you to my friend, I know that you have a lot of ideas and want to get into studies with you and some others who are passionate about it. As you know, my goal was to somehow be able to do this full time, and not have to work 40 hours a week and squeeze this in. Now when I do have free time, I'm usually occupied trying to get my own thoughts out, rather than contemplate other people's ideas and follow their logic. I feel like I'm "behind schedule" with everything I want to say, and even just keeping up with global politics and conspiracy research eats up so much energy.
Imagine if we could have a real "assembly" like the original church, where men could gather and share their ideas, pray together, and let the Spirit guide us. Each of us would be able to speed up our studies so much faster, I'm sure.
This is intended to be a constructive observation. What is your point? Maybe you should lead off with a concrete example of what you mean by cognitive dissonance. What is a scenario that screams "cognitive dissonance"? And what would it look like when cognitive dissonance is ameliorated? As I read through the many paragraphs here, it is so abstract and vague that, again, I ask "what is your point?" If you want to write a 2000 page book, I say "go for it." But it would help to provide enough substance and clarity on page one so that the reader would think it worthwhile to continue. Please accept this in the spirit it is offered, and hopefully the haters won't be excessively hostile toward me for commenting. I'm not a fan of religious debate as blood sport (it seems so juvenile to me, when it blows up in comments on sites like this), but I can tell you have a strong desire to share your thoughts on this subject (whatever it is). You might as well find an effective way to do that.
You have convinced me that I shouldn't try to write the book. I only have a few hours a day of free time, I don't want to waste them on something pointless.
I would not want anything I said to lead to that conclusion. Nor should it. If I didn't sense the value on a certain level, I would not have taken the time to comment. It was a sincere question on my part, because I do want to know. But now, I see how it could be taken in a way I didn't intend. My bad. Look, I've stayed up until 4:00 AM many nights with a mission to write. I posted a lot, published a little, received a comment once in a while and heard from more than one reader who came away with an entirely different interpretation of what I was trying to say, which astonished and disappointed me. I'd want to write a 2000 page book myself, but would have to find someone generous and patient enough to help me assess my drafts from a reader's point of view. On my own, I'm lousy at that, so these days I've quit posting anything new, finished up a couple of pieces to my own satisfaction, taken a break from words to work in the woods instead and think about whether it would be possible to communicate anything meaningful in a five second Tiktok video. I have to accept that my scribblings don't warrant a span of attention much longer than that in today's marketplace of ideas. And of course the frustrating part is that I'm as guilty as anyone else on that count: losing the ability to pay attention. I just read the stellar reviews of your book and I am a little embarrassed by my spur of the moment comments. Please know that everything I've said comes from a place of humility and goodwill...
No offense taken, Perry, I didn't take it as an insult or discouragement. But rather I agree that I need to get to the point, somehow, and until I figure out how to do that, I just can't afford to spend the hundreds of hours it would take to wrangle these ideas and put them into something edifying. Giving examples is a good suggestion, but the risk is that people will look at the examples and say, "Oh, that's it? I'm not concerned about that. This isn't worth my time" or "He's really that bothered by this? What a weird thing to get worked up about".
Because you see, people think that not being bothered is the same as having confidence. And so when you list examples without taking the time to paint the picture and make a person realize why something is controversial, they can just dismiss it. Weirdly, my task is to get a person to lower their defenses and become willing to wade into negative feelings. Who wants that?
I'll give an example here, to demonstrate.
According to the World Health Organization, around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. That's 73,000,000 babies who are murdered in cold blood every single year, voluntarily, by their own mothers.
We can say that's bad, and we can blame whoever we want, but at the end of the day, this is the reality that God has allowed to happen. Why does He allow 73 million babies to be murdered by their mothers every year? He does have the ability to prevent it. He's the Almighty.
Of course Christians do hate abortion, but they aren't willing to say that God bears some responsibility for why things are so bad. When you trace the origin of human evil back far enough, you get to Adam and Eve in the Garden, where God could have easily prevented the problem. You have a million opportunities since then to intervene. And even today, there is nothing stopping Him from divinely intervening in the world -- nobody could stop Him!
These problems are easy to dismiss, and difficult to take to heart. It's like trying to push something buoyant deeper underwater. It just wants to fly up to the surface and float there, relaxed. So it does feel pointless, because even people who have read my book (or this Substack) tend to move along quickly and forget about it.
That's a great point, or points., and a lot to ponder. Certainly, in the wake of recent events even the overwise secular people are asking "why has God allowed this to happen?" And if we're honest, any Christian answer you hear can have a hollow ring to it,. Not incorrect necessarily, but not entirely satisfying. Not quite perfect. And so, instead of acting like we're comfortably in that perfect zone, we need to acknowledge there'll be some real-life time in the not quite perfect zone. And, struggling with that uncertainty and incompleteness of that space, it is all the more reason to draw closer to God.
I say that now, but tend to move along quickly and forgetfully turn to anything but God. Do we all do that with our best platitudes?
One big missed intervention this week has dominated my thoughts ever since. I find it hard to accept that I live on the same planet as people who are celebrating. Confronting a few of them, one-on-one, I've discovered the futility of an appeal to reason or an appeal to human sympathy. It really is a spiritual battle and requires far more than a convincing argument or a recitation. of Ephesians 6.
But for now, I'm going to re-play Erika Kirk's remarks. My baby boom generation really went off the rails, and it looks like a younger generation just might embark on the restoration of truth, goodness and beauty in ways us boomers botched. I thank God for that.
And thanks, Terry, for this conversation.
This line hit me like a ton of bricks. Powerful!
"Even though this world is plunging into collapse and depopulation, with psyops and conspiracies overtaking everything, my mind can’t stop thinking of how much else I have left to lament about. I wish that I had more time to cope with the problems that have always been around, never mind the end of the world! In fact, I am relieved by the end of the world, and I am troubled by the beginning of it!"
"In fact, I am relieved by the end of the world, and I am troubled by the beginning of it!" I really like this quote, but I'm not sure why. I have had deep anxiety about the end of the world. I have even been hospitalized because of my anxiety and paranoia. I feel I am a bit like you in the fact that I have trouble expressing myself and find myself starting sentences and then not finishing them without sharing 2 or 3 more thoughts mid stream that are connected but not coherent. I have wanted to start blogging for a few years but never seem to get started. I think it would be a good way to express my thoughts in a more coherent manner than trying to talk with someone and end up babbling on very incoherently.
Can I ask why you are troubled by the beginning of the world?
It's not about the "beginning of the world", it's about the beginning of the end. Now that's the scary part, because we don't know the full extent of evil that could be unleashed out there.
I'm very confused by how the term "cognitive dissonance" is being used here.
The meaning of the term "cognitive dissonance" as I understand it is something like psychological discomfort caused by a recognition that two firmly held beliefs are contradictory. Which means at least one, or possibly both, of those beliefs must be false, and it's difficult and stressful to face up to being flatly wrong about something I felt strongly about.
Or there's another sense in which cognitive dissonance relates not to holding two conflicting beliefs, but rather acting in violation of a strongly held belief — recognizing oneself as a hypocrite basically.
But you talk about cognitive dissonance as being an "unwillingness to acknowledge things because they are uncomfortable" and then refer to people who "shut out arguments and let cognitive dissonance shield them from the controversies." But cognitive dissonance is not an unwillingness to face something uncomfortable. It's kind of the opposite, a discomfort from being forced to face a fatal flaw in your worldview, value system, etc. And cognitive dissonance cannot be a shield from controversy — it represents in inescapable internal controversy which is unbearable.
Let me try to clear up the confusion. In theory, the contradiction in people's beliefs creates discomfort and the person feels it consciously; they become aware of their hypocrisy and struggle to deal with it. That would create stress.
But in reality, psychologists have pointed out that people simply deceive themselves in order to escape that stress. Rather than dealing with the stress or reconciling their beliefs, they dodge the problem and bury the feelings.
This is a simplified page explaining it, with examples:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
"To reduce this uncomfortable feeling, people often change their thoughts or justify their behavior to make everything feel more consistent."
They give an example:
Cognitive dissonance was first studied by Leon Festinger during a participant observation of a cult that believed the Earth would be destroyed by a great flood.
The research focused on what happened to the members—especially the deeply committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs for the cult—when the flood did not occur.
While less committed members were more likely to admit they had been mistaken and simply “learned from the experience,” the most devoted members tended to reinterpret the outcome to fit their beliefs.
They claimed the flood didn’t happen because of their faithfulness, reinforcing their original conviction rather than abandoning it."