Evangelists at the bus stop

This has been quite a varied week of thoughts for me. Without going into undue detail, as it happens I've been studying various areas (related to worship - surprise!) which have elements of dualism. That will be the eternal struggle for believers - facing the incomprehensible evil in this world. As I've said in the past, though I'm what Dawkins would call a "dyed in the wool faith head," there are days when I'd find deism very restful - or see the appeal in Gnosticism because it provides an explanation (not quite so weird for its day as one might expect) for evil where Christianity leaves only a question mark.

I have a great respect for all religious and philosophical traditions. I am not extensively acquainted with faiths other than Christianity and Judaism (in fact, I don't know terribly much about Islam - but I'm light in my knowledge of any traditions other than those of children of Abraham.) Yet, however much I disagree with many points, there is a treasure of mysticism and wisdom that deserves a look. I sometimes remind the 'would be mystics' who email me (...usually fascinated to hear that mysticism has any relation to Christianity... no wonder I never held a professorship, and ended up teaching, of all things, computing...) that, in every tradition, mysticism was understood as requiring great discipline, a high regard for and immersion in scriptures and the wisdom of those who 'went before,' and guidance from some variety of learned elder. It requires a degree of self forgetfulness - awareness of the limitations of vision - which would hardly appeal to those looking for odd phenomena.

Having established that I understand the appeal of dualism, I shall recount an unexpected encounter which I had on Sunday. (I was half asleep at the time, I might add. Though there is no reason that I have to be up before the cock crows - except perhaps in order that I recall Peter and remember never to be smug - I tend to be awake very early. This is a hindrance because my mind doesn't kick in until late afternoon.) I was waiting for a bus, and two young, impeccably well-mannered, smartly dressed men were approaching those of us as at the stop. (I may not be an old frump - but, considering that others in their age group there all seemed to be using filthy language as they chatted on mobile phones, and a few were sharing very intimate details of how they had - or, possibly, wished they had - spent Saturday night that the courtesy of these guys was unutterably appealing.)

In a nutshell - these guys were evangelicals (of the variety who believe that the 'end is near' because of unprecedented wickedness in the world, and that Satan rules the universe), and were after getting me to "accept Christ," with whom I've had a more than passing acquaintance, lest I end up in hell. They provided me with a convenient pamphlet... and I'm pleased I didn't say, "well, repentance and amendment in five minutes... heavenly crown pre-shrunk ... another miracle, praise the Lord!" I'm also pleased that I didn't give them a capsule course in my seeing Gnostic elements in their approach.

Nonetheless, with good manners equal to theirs (I'm actually not at all argumentative - I only like 'arguments' in the academic sense), I mentioned that their stance that Satan rules the world is rank dualism. When one of them reminded me of Jesus' reference to the 'prince of this world,' I couldn't help responding that Jesus is King of Kings. Fortunately (for them and me, I think), I boarded the bus around then, leaving them only with what probably was the first reference to deification to which they'd been exposed.

I'm not about to explore such areas as demonology - it frightens me half to death. (Yes - I know that God is supreme, and that even if one were possessed the demons could not touch their will... but I prefer not to dwell on any thoughts of evil spirits.) Still, I think (and indeed mentioned to these young evangelists - they need to cut their teeth on the likes of me before they proceed to the atheists I assume they have some mission to try to convert...) that most of the wickedness in this world is not of demonic origin. History (by which I'm including the headlines on any day) strikingly illustrates that humanity (though basically good) has incredibly wicked actions to show - and these are not actions of evil spirits. We can do it all too well on our own. I think that what most perverts us is a desire for power - and deceit.

What I do not understand is why anyone would think that wickedness is anything new - or that some golden age existed just a short time ago. (It seems to me that, from the beginning of recorded history, there was an idea that a much more wonderful time existed in one's youth, and that it ceased around the time one hit thirty.) Indeed, technology makes slaughter possible on a much larger scale than in the past - I may enjoy reading certain Victorian history and religious works, but the "To become perfect is to have changed often" optimism of even Newman (who was speaking a half truth, since much change is not positive) certainly would be alien to those of us who lived to see, or were born after, Auschwitz and Hiroshima. But the inclinations to wickedness are on every page of history, and I really cannot see (particularly considering that there was no time when the majority of people were more than garden variety sinners) that we are any worse than we ever were.

The sincerity of these young men did impress me. (Perhaps, since I was wearing tie dye, fuchsia shorts, and large earrings - not to mention smoking a cigar - they thought I was some ageing New Ager and hadn't expected a Christian - though I might not be Christian by their definition.) That did not keep me from seeing their viewpoint as distorted. In fact, though I'm sure this was not their intention, they not only were giving Satan undue credit, but were casting the true God in a demonic light! Their god seemed to be a trickster - creator of all things, yet assigning his creation to a default location of eternal torment. They would say Christ died for our sins - yet one could not benefit from this without knowing a secret formula. Why, as well, did they think conversion was a quick, one-step procedure?

God casts no one into hell. If we want no part of Him, that is our doing (and I think very rare.) I'm speaking somewhat figuratively here. Conversion is constant - the more devout one is, the more likely that one has a pet sin or inclination in that direction which is all the more insidious for learning to masquerade as a virtue. But I am not speaking of any ultimate 'hell' - much of our indulged weakness (the sort of vengeance, rage, jealousy, deceit, and power displays which, before monotheism, those confused, as we are, by evil assigned as traits to the old gods) creates demons of its own.

There are many paths - I hope I do not sound superior, because, if these young men see their vocation as evangelisation, they well may be more faithful than I have been to my own. (I'll spare all of you my old essay on how union with God is in no way a matter of achievement... whenever I end up with tracts, I fall into highly old school and anthropomorphic language. I'm glad those kids didn't know that I am very glad to live in the age post-Dead Sea Scrolls, serious scripture scholarship, Essays and Reviews, ecumenism... there are a few positive things to say about 20th century religion...) ;) I'm very sorry that they cannot see that their version of god seems like a fiend - and that they are giving a devil supposed control of the universe. It may seem odd that I can deal with, indeed study with interest, the dualism of certain Eastern traditions - I shall even admit that, when I read Irenaeus, I kept getting confused because I couldn't always sort out what was Gnostic and wasn't. I suppose I'm far more troubled when a world ruled by the demonic is presented as being the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

This post is sadder than I had intended, so I'll close on a note of humour. (This is a true story, as are all those on my site.) I learnt, very early in life, never to expect that even Atlas himself would have the strength to argue with Jehovah's Witnesses (and remember what I said earlier - the only form of argument I enjoy is academic.) That doesn't mean that I didn't 'cheat' a little, some years back, when one appeared at my door, and began showing me the first chapter of the gospel of John(my very favourite.) I went through the text from memory, in Latin, then Greek.

Yes, I know a huge amount of liturgical texts and psalms in Latin - but I'll admit that I by no means have the New Testament committed to memory (in any language, let alone Latin.) And those of you who have followed me through the saga of the exams for my divinity degree will recall that my Greek is poor. In fact, that particular passage is the only one in the entire bible which I knew from memory in Greek. My reciting these texts had no real value, of course. When I spoke with the fellows at the bus stop, I hoped I'd at least get them to think a bit, and reconsider their approach. Showing off in front of a Jehovah's Witness accomplishes nothing... except an inward giggle.

(I know nothing of the history of that sect... but I have this odd feeling that their numbers probably topped 140,000 by now... I wonder how they'd like to hear me speak of what Paul McPartlan, among many other distinguished scholars, wrote of the Apocalypse?)