The Flipside of Godspeak: Theism as Constructed Reality

The Flipside of Godspeak:Theism as Constructed Reality

John F. Crosby

the flipside of godspeak Theism as Constructed Reality

Copyright © 2006 John F. Crosby. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf & Stock, 199 W. 8th Ave., Eugene, OR 97401.

ISBN 10: 1-59752-849-8

ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-849-8

EISBN 13: 978-1-4982-7097-7

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

For those who know they don’t know.

I deeply appreciate those who have given me constructive feedback at different stages along the way. Thanks to Janet Meacham for her encouragement and editing of the initial draft and to Leora Baude for her deft hand in copyediting the final product.

The religious intolerance so characteristic of Western religions . . . has led to a new form of idolatry. an image of god, not in wood and stone but in words, is erected so that people worship at this shrine.

Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion, 1950

The idea that there is one people in possession of the truth, one answer to the world’s ills, or one solution to humanity’s needs has done untold harm throughout history.

Kofi Annan, in his speech receiving the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize.

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

Voltaire, 1694–1778

The essential functions of the mind consist in understanding and in inventing, in other words, in building up structures by structuring reality.

Jean Piaget, Psychologie et Pedagogie, 1969

Other books by John F. Crosby

Witness for Christ. Westminster Press, 1965.

From Religion to Grace: The Doctrine of Justification by Grace Through Faith. Abingdon Press, 1967.

Illusion and Disillusion: The Self in Love and Marriage. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973, 1976, 1985, 1991.

Choice and Challenge: Contemporary Readings in Marriage. (Ed. with Carl Williams) William C. Brown Company, 1974, 1979.

Sexual Autonomy: Toward a Humanistic Ethic. Charles C. Thomas, 1981.

Reply to Myth: Perspectives on Intimacy. (Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, 1985.

When One Wants Out and the Other Doesn’t: Doing Therapy With Polarized Couples. (Ed.) Brunner/Mazel, 1989.

Grounds For Marriage: If Only I Had Known. AuthorHouse, 2005.

Introduction

Entering the Constructivist Arena

I am an apostate. I am no longer a theist. Nor am I a deist. ¹ I am a non-theist. ² I no longer subscribe to a notion of transcendent force or being beyond this world or to an immanent force personally active in the affairs of humankind. I am an agnostic, because I claim to have absolutely no knowledge of any force or being that cannot be validated and verified via scientific methodology. I am also a humanist, an evolutionist, and an existentialist. These three terms translate into my belief that human existence is a given without any reference to the supernatural.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam hold both to transcendence and immanence, be it in Yahweh, God, or Allah. In the name of Yahweh, God, and Allah, humankind continues to wage war with increasingly lethal weapons of mass destruction, to oppress and enslave women, to oppress and enslave children, and to rape and squander the environment and the natural resources of the planet. In the name of Yahweh, God, and Allah, the greatest social issues and problems facing humankind remain not only unsolved, but tragically ignored by those political and religious leaders who are in a position to promote meaningful change. These issues include world overpopulation, poverty in the Third World, treatment of females as second-class citizens and/or chattel, lack of procreative health for both mothers and neonates, torture and extraordinary rendition, pollution of the environment and its resources, and total failure in energy conservation. Each of these religions, too often in league with the political establishment, clings to dogma asserting the will and purpose of its God-Author while at the same time teaching and proclaiming with near-hatred the inferiority of those who differ in worldview, be they homosexuals, pro-choicers, pacifists, or liberals of all descriptions.

Within Christianity there is a living pope, who claims infallibility in all ex-cathedra pronouncements, and a paper pope, consisting of scripture that is hailed by the faithful as being both without error and to be taken as literal truth in the most minor detail. Islam also has a paper pope, the Koran. Within Islam we find even greater enthusiasm for the subjugation of women and an apologia for the fighting of a holy war of terrorism.

All of the above exists in our American culture, which inherited the wisdom of such great Western philosophers as Socrates, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, to name only a few. We live in a society whose media, including television and motion pictures, and political and patriotic rhetoric pander to the taste and preferences of a general public with an eighth-grade reading level. At most recent glance, the public thirst for violence appears to be at a third- or fourth-grade level.

Theism and its increasingly popular godspeak are a major part of the problem facing the world today. Godspeak is the easy reference to deity and the will of deity, ranging from attributing natural and human events to God to the familiar praising of God and blessing of God, including the invoking of God’s blessing upon certain groups of humans. Godspeak is the sum total of speaking in familiar and intimate terms about the purposes of God and the will of God.

The fusion of popular godspeak with political rhetoric proclaiming the kingdom of God in alliance with the alleged supremacy of capitalism and capitalistic democracy has led to a nationalistic theology characterized by pietism and patriotism. This national religion has reached such an extreme expression that criticism of political policy and an open questioning of religious dogma is labeled unpatriotic at best and treasonous at worst. Devotees of the nationalized God of Western capitalism look upon atheists, agnostics, and humanists as both unpatriotic and blasphemous.

My deep distrust and disdain for this nationalized patriotic piety and a renewed awareness of how and why believers and devotees allow it to guide and direct their thought processes led me to delve more deeply into claims concerning the authority of the biblical scriptures, the selection of the canon, and the orthodoxy that grew out of the councils of the fourth century, especially the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.³ What leads people to embrace the rightest theologies and the conservative agendas that are today so pervasive in our society? What leads people to eschew sound biblical scholarship in favor of acceptance of a wooden literalism and belief in the inerrancy of scripture? The further I traveled into the world of constructivist theory, the more committed I became to the task of understanding theistic theologies in the light of the basic epistemological question, how do we know what we believe we know?

The thoughts contained in The Flipside of Godspeak are not necessarily new, nor are they unique. They are, however, foreign to the aforementioned pietistic and patriotic devotees of the neo-cons, the religious conservatives, the religious far right, and the rapturists.

In writing The Flipside of Godspeak, I present myself as an apostate, because I was once a devout Christian believer. Looking back, I regret that I ever endorsed the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The most significant exception to this is my acceptance of what we can know of the historical Jesus. Looking back, I’m now certain that I believed in the Christian message, the kerygma, for psycho-emotional reasons, even though I always considered myself a liberal and free-thinking Presbyterian. As my thinking evolved, I have grown to the point that I no longer need whatever meaning, peace, and emotional security the Christian message ever held for me.

In the pages that follow, I shall attempt to take the reader with me as I retrace my steps on my theological journey that has its roots in philosophy and psychology. Specifically, this volume is an application of psychological and philosophical constructivism to the question of the existence of God.⁴ A recent dictionary definition of a construct is something constructed by the mind.⁵ For constructivists, all communication and all understanding are a matter of interpretive construction on the part of the experiencing subject.⁶ Constructivism refers to the filtering and processing of all sensory and mental images. Constructivism posits that an organism is never able to recognize, depict, or mirror reality, and that it can only construct a ‘model that fits.’⁷ In short, we do not know reality directly. All we can do is take in the data from outside ourselves and process it through our mind. In this process we form an internal mental image of what we think reality is.

I shall attempt to challenge the reader to see the dogmas and myths of revealed religious faith, including belief in a personal deity, as constructs of the human mind.⁸ These beliefs are the result of early indoctrination, education, and socialization. I do not question or doubt that the Bible and other sacred literature, such as the Koran, the Vedas, and the Tao Te Ching, will always remain repositories of ancient wisdom. However, having said this, I must emphasize that there is no authority other than one’s own human mind that has the power to bind the conscience and will of an individual, unless a person chooses to cede this authority to a force or power outside the self.

In my transition from Presbyterian cleric to constructivist, I have learned from many respected writers and thinkers, including philosophers and therapists, physicists and logicians. In my last two years as a minister, I immersed myself in the writings of Erich Fromm, Rollo May, Karen Horney, and Viktor Frankl. To this day I count those four as my primary life teachers. Much of what I have included in this small volume is a reflection of an attitude and viewpoint about life that I learned from them. Additionally, I grew to appreciate Sigmund Freud’s The Future of An Illusion. I also administered to myself a strong dose of Herman Hesse and a modest dose of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Kafka, and Camus.

A new world opened to me when I was doing my doctoral work at Syracuse and first discovered the wisdom and research of Jean Piaget, a major force in understanding the basic assumptions of constructivism. New vistas continued to open up as I took seriously the writings of Richard Dawkins, ⁹ Carl Sagan, and Ernest Becker.¹⁰ In the 1970s and ’80s I became increasingly immersed in family systems theory. My ongoing work as a professor of family studies and as a marriage/family therapist brought me face to face with the basic principles of systems theory and the related thought of constructivism. By the late 1980s, constructivism became the most salient influence on my thinking as I continued to struggle with the great questions of human existence, including the question of the existence of God.

I was strongly influenced by Paul Watzlawick, who constantly reminded me that in politics, international relations, theology, and family therapy, the solution frequently becomes the problem.¹¹ In terms of post 9/11 foreign policy and in the conduct of America’s war on terrorism and the shameful Iraq experience, the solutions have compounded the problem. This is because attempted solutions such as preemptive strikes and invasions, increased arms production, and foreign policy based on America’s presumptive right to impose its will around the globe (the Pax Americana) have done nothing but make the problem worse. This has happened to such an extent that America has lost the respect not only of its time-honored allies, but also of benign adversaries and Third World nations.

I began to apply the principles and insights of family systems theory and constructivism to issues and problems of both a political and theological nature. Murray Bowen’s eighth premise of his family theory, the principle of societal regression, holds that societies go through similar processes as families in coping with anxiety and stress, i.e., the greater the threat to the balance of the family, the more emotional and irrational the consequent reaction.¹² I found Bowen’s application of family systems theory to the issues and problems of societies a refreshing analysis of modern-day political efforts to solve the pressing issues facing the nations of the world, especially Westernized industrial nations.

I then challenged my own thought processes by asking the question: What would it look like if we applied the principles and premises of constructivism to theological and ontological issues? For starters, these issues include the entire range of beliefs about the nature of God, the condition of humankind, the foundation of ethics, the meaning of death, and the meaning of life.

Constructivism became my paradigm of choice in seeking to understand how we think and why we