Dr. David Wilbur: Power and Illusion: Religion and Human Need. Part 6
by Ervin Taylor
This is Part 6 of the summary of Dr. Wilbur’s book. It should be emphasized that all of the text in this series of blogs in bold font in the body of the text of the chapter summary has been kindly provided by Dr. Wilbur. If there are any of my own comments, they will follow in regular type.
Summary for Chapter 5: Religion’s Corruption and Abuse
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Pascal
In the eternal struggle of good and evil that occupies much of human energy religion always claims to be on the side of the good. All powerful human institutions are of course at risk of being diverted to serve private interests in conflict with their announced goals. In my judgment, a religion is being corrupted when it is used in ways that decrease the quality of human life. The commentator Charles Kimball has suggested that religions gone or going bad often share some common characteristics such as claims of absolute truth, special knowledge of supernatural timing, insistence on “blind obedience,” ends justify means and the necessity of Holy War.
Violence in the Traditions
The Bible and the Qur’an are replete with violence by God himself or at his command. God’s people are repeatedly admonished to destroy various groups of unbelievers. The Bhagavad Ghita also presents a violent deity and a justification of violence when it is one’s “duty.” These models are helpful to those who would mobilize religion to support violence—for some supposedly good cause. Christianity or at least some believers have used these ideas to justify things like the Inquisition and destruction of the native peoples of the Americas.
The Support of Hierarchy
With our earliest recorded history we find religion supporting the ruling class in Egypt, Mesopotamia and China. These claims have continued through the millennia and are still found in some places. Religion has usually sought approval of the civil authorities and vice versa. Thus oppression by the state may and has often been supported by an entrenched religion—for instance Mussolini and Hitler had religious support including that of the Catholic Church.
The Suppression of Inquiry and Reason
From Socrates to Galileo and beyond religious belief systems if they find themselves in disagreement with new information (mainly scientific) have a difficult time adjusting since they have claimed supernatural authority for their beliefs. The passage of time usually finds subsequent generations without all the emotional baggage of the past, able to making adjustments—and the church apologized for the Galileo episode.
Religion and Terrorism
The worst atrocities have their source in the zealous pursuit of a sublime ideal that is believed to be so majestic, so magnificent, and so grand, that it is worthy of every sacrifice, every hardship, and every abomination. (Shadia B. Drury in the preface to Terror and Civilization)
Religions that seek to define one right belief system, such as Christianity and Islam, find it hard to control belief. Terrorism against those who don’t share the “right belief” is one way of trying to control this. In the last 30 years there have been strands of terrorism justified by Christians, Jews, Islamists and Sikhs. Promises of personal immortality may also facilitate recruitment of terrorists.
The Exploitation of Believers for Private Gain
There are many religious organizations or ministries operating in North America and maybe elsewhere and providing a luxurious life style for their leaders justified by claims of divine blessings for the followers. Exposure of the arrogance and deceit of the leaders seems often to have little effect on their success. Religion’s usual support of hierarchy and demands for faith and belief along with rejection of skepticism poorly prepares people to evaluate scams, especially ones associated with clerical leadership.
Religions are powerful systems for manipulating the human world. They usually maintain the illusion that what they approve is approved by God and for our good. Led by corrupt or rigidly dogmatic leaders they may be used to make a hell on earth for those who disagree. Fundamentalist strands of religion seem most interested in power and one victim of fundamentalism (Salman Rushdie) says that fundamentalism isn’t about religion, it’s about power.
Comments (ET): It seems to me that the last suggestion of Dr. Wilbur quoting Salman Rushdie to the effect that fundamentalist religions are not about religion, they are about power is especially insightful. The truth of such a statement is evident in so many decisions of institutionalized religious bodies over many hundreds of years. Obviously, the only institutional religious entity for which I have direct knowledge is the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. However, one reads about such institutional behavior in many much larger and older religious traditions as well. The Adventist illustration of such behavior can be read over and over again in its history.
For example, the elimination of John Harvey Kellogg as a major player in institutional Adventism in the early part of the 20th century was essentially all about power and had little to nothing to do with theology, even if the “cover story” given out to the ordinary Adventist lay person was that it was about pantheism.
Historically, most “theological” debates are really about who shall control the official “party line” of a given religious body. In Adventism, one reads the views of the dominant political establishment in the pages of the Adventist Review. Typically, the politically dominant party of the church takes control of the principal propaganda vehicle and its version of “truth” is the one published. One has been able to see this clearly very recently in what is and is not being published in the Adventist Review as a consequence of the “election” of Ted Wilson as GC President. Within six months of his coming to power, the number of right-wing voices suddenly increased in its pages.
Perhaps the most famous example in recent memory goes back several decades. It involved the responses of a majority of Adventist scholars in their general agreement with many of the views advanced by Desmond Ford at the Glacier View Conference. However, what was reported as happening at that meeting in the pages of the Adventist Review had little in common with the actual contents of the discussions. What was published was what the hierarchy who controlled the political system of the church at that time wanted the average Adventist to know about what had happened. The opinions of the majority of scholars attending that meeting were largely ignored in the “official” reports.
Dr. Wilbur has captured the essence of all religions that seek power to control its members. This varies at different times in history according to the size and influence of a particular religion. Just as in the Middle Eastern countries that all claim Islam as the religion, the various branches are fighting each other with ferocity to seize control.
Where religion has power over the government they are loath to secede control and often merge as definer of religious practices as well as civil. The common denominator of all the religions that seek power and control are the fundamentalists who seek to enact laws restricting anything that they find offensive to doctrinal purity and punish those who defy them.
I have read (I believe it was Neil Ferguson, no relation, and a similar point has been made by Cheree Blair) that part of the reason Americans are much more Christian and attend Church is because the US has no official Church. Thus, in the US, Churches that don't put their money where their mouths are, who are corrupt, incompetent and unchanging, eventually suffer the consequences with people voting with their feet. By contrast, Churches in Europe, which historically weilded temporal as well as spiritual powers, were victims of their own earlier sucessors, as power ideed does corrupt, and the corrupt, incompetent and unchanging Churches of Europe are now mostly empty.
The interesting thing is, though, is the rise of US Churches, and how they have now begun to wield even greater temporal political power – both directly and indirectly through lobbying. The interesting obversation will be whether this will eventually backfire on US Christianity, in the same way it ultimately backfired in Europe.
Moreover, as the SDA Church becomes more mainstream, eccumenical and accepted (something I do personally support, as I assume most AT writers), it will be interesting to see if this ultimately backfires for us as well? I do remember an athropology uni class many years ago, where the lecturer made the point that low-tension (i.e. mainstream) religious groups had many disadvantages compared with high-tension (i.e. sect or cult-like) groups, even though low-tension groups have the advantage of greater temporal power.
"It involved the responses of a majority of Adventist scholars in their general agreement with many of the views advanced by Desmond Ford at the Glacier View Conference."
Can I ask some of the wiser folk who have been around for a while perhaps a pretty obvious question. Why was Desmond Ford treated in such a manner, being effectively fired, followed by a great purge of ministers (especially in my own country of Australia) over the Investigative Judgment; however, Adventist theologians are able to openly preach and teach theistic evolution, or open theism, or Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare (aka Deliverance Ministries) or a range of other beliefs and practices (which for the avoidance of doubt I have no problem with)? My point is, the IJ seems pretty obscure and academic, and really pretty 'non-essential', especially compared with say theistic evolution.
So why did the Church hierachy come down like a tonn of bricks on Ford on such a minor doctrine idea yet are fairly silent (comparitively) on other issues? Indeed, this issue would appear to demonstrate the point, that often it is more about politics than doctrine.
I believe the answer Stephen, is that Dr. Ford seemed to attacking the Historicists’ Method of prophetic interpretation. Notice I used the word, seemed. I know from personal discussions with him he feels that he has not attacked the Historicists’ Method. In any case, Historicism is the key empirical key to demonstrate the Biblical Prophecy is true and that God has at truly spoken, Which is no small matter!
Yes, the investigative judgement was important at the time, as well as the authority of E.G. White, but the larger issue for many was the devaluing of prophetic scripture, I believe.
Thanks Darrel. But why was that more a threat than say theistic evolution or other ideas presented but where the presenters are not excommunicated?
Where the Bible is not clear and only one of many interpretations is chosen should be a sign of a cult. Any religious system that arrives at a unique interpretation never applied in 2,000 years should raise questions of its application that fits in with a previous prediction that religion has made inherent in its message/.
Well, if one view being understood as true, constitutes a cult, we all are a cult!
During GV TheisticEvolution within Adventism was not on the radar, and Today because theologically trained leaders have little background in science, so I am wondering if
leaders (some) don't understand the issues with TheisticEvolution and can't distinguish it from Intelligent Design.
Yes that sounds quite logical.
Actually, I believe Spectrum Magazine has an article about this very subject, where it says Church leaders want to take on LSU and other institutions over the teachings of evolution, but are cautious lest it get out of control like it did in the Ford Controversy. For example, I believe something massive like 1 in 3 pastors and seminary students left in Australia during the Ford spat, which even the GC is probably keen to avoid. I pray they do be a bit reasonable.
"One has been able to see this clearly very recently in what is and is not being published in the Adventist Review as a consequence of the “election” of Ted Wilson as GC President. Within six months of his coming to power, the number of right-wing voices suddenly increased in its pages."
If religion is often about power, not doctrine, and this is seen by Pres Wilson's actions – what is his likely agenda or goals do you think?
Stephen Ferguson
While it may be true that there "seems" to be a right turn (I am not sure that there is in all cases), I would suggest that AR has always been subject to the administration since they own it. It's like certain newspapers side with one political party and don't print on anything opposing it. It's that way with TV stations–we have to check out all, since some of them hide or down play those things that are against their political perspective.
The AR in the last couple of decades has generally stated its purpose to be the building up of the church spiritually rather than addressing issues it feels divisive. In other words if one is fed spiritually, they will be able to decide on the issues. Under the new editor, the magazine is discussing issues and has opened its pages to ordination pro and con.
One thing you may not notice, however, is that the magazine's circulation is not what it should be. Therefore, when issues are discussed, they receive many, many letters from those over 80 who are the core of their circulation and are threatened by change. A large percentage of membership is also in the camp of folks like Doug Batchelor who is quite popular. And since we are a diverse group, they have the right to follow whomever they want. We need to be tolerant of one another. There is a place for the academic, the maintenance man, the career person outside church work, the scientist, the plumber, electrician, CEO, etc. Can you imagine trying to meet the needs of this diverse group?
Remember any of you can send an article to AR and get a hearing as long as it is not too far afield and above all has a spiritual component.
Sorry another question for you anthropological-sociological types – what is a 'religion' exactly?
Do all of these observations of Dr Wilbur, about how religous power can corrupt, leads to the support of heirarchies, supression of inquiry (i.e. censorship), and even terrorism (or censorhsip, notably exclusion from the community, probably best seen in the notion of excommunication), also apply to sub-groups and quasi-religious institutions?
Would say a university be a 'religious institution' upon which Dr Wilbur's factors might apply? What about a theological society? What about a lay ministry, say 3ABN – could we expect to find official and unofficial 'orthodoxy', heirarchy, supression of inquiry (with official and unofficial taboos), and official and unofficial threats of enforcement (including exlcusion)?
Do these observations by Dr Wilbur apply equally to conservative and liberal religious groups – or is it just a liberal thing? Using one's sociological immagination, would it be naive and Orwellian to say these problems are only found in conservative religious organisations?
What about the leading publication ministries within the SDA Church, including Spectrum Magazine and, dare I say, AToday? Would Dr Wilbur's observation apply to them as well?
Stephen, do you ever sleep? Your brain is so fertile & active.
Tribes & clans survived and grew strong by increasing their numbers.The natural leaders, those with the higher intellect & dexterity, ruled supreme by developing shamanistic practices which kept the rank & file in subjection. The old story of Fear & Greed. The fearful always cowering because of the unknown and the Shaman glorying in his power to seduce & control. This has been very successful in Popery, from the top triple crown to the parish priest, the SJ being the militant arm. After early man, the most successful in power control were barbarian tribes, and warlords, which still exist in the world. Then of course the Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Ottomans, and standing armies & navies et al.
The mainlin churches in the USA are in increased decline, and overtime just the hierarchy will be left with the deeds for all the real estate. John Wesley, if brought back to life, would not recognize the Methodist church he founded. By uniting with other groups for survival, they have lost their way. Many of their large membership churches have maybe 20 – 100 members each today. They have been supporting militant factions in Angola, & other areas, where killing is a daily mission.
Re: Glacier View. Just my opinion, i believe the GC became very concerned that the intelligensia and
prominence of Avondale, and the highly successful Australian SDA pastors, were getting to much power, so on the IJ point of view they cited Ford & others of not following doctrine. This removed the threat to GC leadership, by demonstrating their authority & power. The GC MEETING WAS A SHAM, THE DECISION WAS MADE LONG BEFORE THE MEETING. The fear resulting has kept teachers & pastors inline since. Those who couldn't stomach the result, left, and th SDA church is the loser.
Desmond Ford’s Glacier View scalping was a Very Big Deal – as was the dealing of Walter Rea and his aftermath – not to mention the infamous Davenport Scandal involving millions of SDA tithe monies !!!!!!!!!!!! It was several decades later that I was able to access truth about what really happened. Here we are, years later and wondering what the big deal was all about?? Dr. Raymond Cottrell’s final interpretation of the IJ came in 2002. During the years 2000-2004 (300,000 SDA’s leaving the church each year). Ted Wilson, an extremely conservative person is the leader – attempting to retreat from mainstream Christianity. The December Adventist World has presented two articles regarding auditing membership. They have labeled those leaving the SDA church as being “Lost Twice”. The “Remnant Church” views those leaving as apostacizing. It would be refreshing to see the remnant church review the 28 FB’s and do an internal audit as well – and wish people well if they find enlightenment and embrace the New Covenant in mainstream Christianity.
The power of an institutional church is quite evident when you realize that the names of Ford, Rea, Davenport and Cottrell never are seen in the pages of the Adventists Review, which plays the role that Pravda did in the old Soviet Union. (By the way, I was once told that Pravda in Russian means "Truth")
But what is a religous instiution? What is a church institution? Isn't AToday a type of church institution, just as much as 3ABN – in a manner of speaking?
I see from a blog in Spectrum, about how 'evil' Avondale College has become in teaching theistic evolution, that the names Fritz, Bull and indeed Taylor, are supposedly mentioned. Last time I checked Avondale was a church institution.
Funny thing is the conservative blogger was making the same sort of complaint but in reverse.
The power of this institutional church is at risk with a mass exodus of membership (300,000/year from 2000-2004). The Dec. issue of Adventist World highlighted plans and strategy for membership auditing and membership retention (bringing back the discouraged into the fold). The article mentioned that those who decide not to come back are "LOST TWICE". This is an unfortunate tactic to blanket Christians with guilt and shame.
In light of the many insightful comments made by Dave Wilbur and his discussants, it is no wonder that polls show that an increasing number of Americans eschew religion in favor of spirituality. And spirituality is generally a splendid quality, bespeaking humanness, generosity, humility and gratefulness. However, spirituality is also deeply personal–and therein lies both its genius and its limitation, the later deservising a further word in light of this discussion thread. Precisely because we humans treasure our "spiritual" experience, we want to perpetuate it and see it survive beyond the often inchoate, inarticulate, intuitive form that personally warms us–and so we institutionalize it, and it become "religion." If this trajectory is true at all, is it surprizing that denominations are subject to all the criticism we rightly give all institutions?
But where would we be without our institutions? For they are the hallmark of civilization.
One thing puzzles me about Dr. Wilbur's comments (at least the ones presented here). He targets religion as being guilty of all this control and evil but says nothing about the other great (and failed) movements through history. The major one would be atheistic communism which suffers the same demons as religion. History is replete with movements, tribes, nations–any situation where people divide into groups and persecute others; anywhere there has been a us-them mentalitiy and denial of freedom of the other side. It seems like he has expounded on only half the problem of corporate evil and left out the most evil like Nazism. (Perhaps he considers all of these religions.)
"He targets religion as being guilty of all this control and evil but says nothing about the other great (and failed) movements through history. The major one would be atheistic communism which suffers the same demons as religion."
Dr Wilbur does later on in chapter 13. I am looking forward to that topic, provided Dr Taylor still firm to going through the whole book. I am also looking forward to the reactions and comments of our ex-Adventist, atheist/agnostic commentators to that topic.
Just a minor point: I believe that Dr. Wilbur is targeting primarily institutionalized religious systems not religion as such. Perhaps someone might point out to me statements from the book or from one of his summary statements posted here which does not support such a conclusion about his primary target.
Religion is institutional; spirituality is personal. Conflating them results in wrongful expectations.