One More Betrayal Of Trust

[R. S. Martin]

I'm not sure where to post this. I want it in a safe place where Christians are not allowed to attack. Mods, feel free to move if another place is more appropriate. Here is what it says on the front page:

 

Help encourage someone else who is trying to deprogram themselves from religion - tell them how you did it or are doing it.

 

That is what this is about. Deprograming. I'll try to explain a very complex situation so it's simple enough to understand.

 

First about myself for those who don't know. I come from a horse and buggy community and had to leave because I needed more intellectual stimulation than they allowed. I deconverted some time ago but am still struggling to heal and deprogram. My story is here.

 

My "ticket out of hell" was going back to school and getting a university education. I've been studying religion inside out. My education has helped me learn what happened to me and why but an important piece of the puzzle was still missing and I was down to my final paper before getting my degree. The professor I've been working with for about four or five years understands my need to deprogram/make sense of my experiences even though he is a Christian. But another professor who is also supposed to be helping me, and who promised that he can work with me even though I deconverted, has put a block in my road.

 

It is a very complex situation and I will try to explain. I just feel very hurt and betrayed yet again.

 

The paper I'm writing is called a thesis.

 

It's in theology and the school is called a seminary. I enrolled while still a Christian. All my teachers (professors) are Christians.

 

The thesis is the very last project I have to do, and then I graduate. I am almost done with the paper (despite the block) so I am determined to finish.

 

Three professors supervise my work. They are called the Committee.

 

Committee Members:

 

Committee Member #1: Supervisor: top guy or boss with whom I work very closely. Very sympathetic and open-minded person. Senior position in seminary. I've been taking courses with him for nearly four or five years. Theologian.

 

Committee Member #2. Reader: second in command. I've taken a few courses with him before, and worked closely with him. He is probably younger than I am, but he is also a very sensitive and open-minded person. We discussed religious beliefs and he told me very specifically that he does not think it is his job to convert me. I think he is in the top position in the chapel. Theologian.

 

Committee Member #3. External Reader: third in command. Evangelical by religious persuasion. Sociologist.

 

I wanted to study fundamentalism--the history, theology and sociology. For this I needed a sociologist on the committee who was interested in fundamentalism. This professor was recommended to me by someone outside the theology department because he specializes in this.

 

************

 

Here's my problem.

 

PART 1

 

I have not yet seen any scholarly literature on 9/11, or the War on Terrorism. I know it takes time to do scholarly research and write books, but this has been going on long enough for things to have been written. It happened in 2001, after all, six and a half years ago.

 

I know sociologists would be studying the subject because I was in a sociology of religion class when it happened. My professor said it was a holy war. The evangelical on my Committee (Member #3) is the same field as my professor in Sept. 2001.

 

I met with the evangelical on Feb. 26 this winter--about four weeks ago. I wanted to read some literature on this war for my paper. I asked what has been written. I asked for names of authors, titles of books or articles. I begged--BEGGED. Finally, because I wouldn't be put off, he reluctantly gave me the names of a few journals in another university, but he refused to give any specific titles and authors. He denied that anything really worthwhile has been written. He said things can only be written after the event and that we were still in the middle of it. He also told me that religion had nothing to do with this war and provided an argument to prove it.

 

You get the picture. We discussed this thing in detail. I wasn't taking no for an answer and he wasn't going to give in. His arguments did not sit right with me at all, but I could not think of answers on the spot. I told him I had not thought of it that way and would have to think about it some more. And I did. Eventually, I knew why his answers about the war were wrong but my paper is not about the war per se. So it's not worth the fight to get back to him on that.

 

PART 2

 

My paper is on fundamentalism. He told me I had to define what I meant by fundamentalism. My supervisor had told me I don't have to define it. So I said I wasn't going to. I'd read a lot of scholars and no two of them came up with the same definition. I didn't tell him that because I knew he'd read all of the authors I had read--he had recommended them. Sometimes, in order not to be offensive, I had used the term "conservative Christians." Would you believe it--he had a problem with that.

 

To say the least, I didn't feel too good after that meeting.

 

Several weeks later I emailed my supervisor how things had gone and asked if the evangelical can be replaced. I told him about the problems, and how he tried to over-ride the supervisor's own ruling. (Surely that would do the political trick if anything would; I did not mention the war.)

 

He replied by email that no, in the 30+ years of his experience one doesn't fire a committee member at this point of the game unless the person is dying. He provided guideance on how to deal with the problem of definitions. He recommended a few books and authors that would provide good definitions.

 

I went straight to the library. The best book on the market he knew about was out. BUT--and this is the real kicker--all he wanted me to read was one chapter of that book and that chapter had been reprinted and made into a totally new book. And THAT book was on the shelf. I found it. He had not known about it.

 

And THAT book says upfront--the first line in the introduction and on the back cover--that the war on terrorism is caused by fundamentalist religion around the world. That book is based on solid sociological research.

 

That book also contains a solid definition of fundamentalist.

 

WHY DID THE EVANGELICAL DENY ME THIS INFORMATION?

 

He promised that he could work with me even though I have deconverted. He promised that religion would not play a role in his academic advisory position with students. At least, that is what it amounts to in my mind. Yet here he was withholding information I was begging for all because he did not agree with it and because it would reinforce my position against his religion.

 

That is the only thing that makes sense to me. There is one chance in ten thousand that he did not know about this book.

 

For those familiar with the field, I'm talking about the Fundamentalist Project done by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby. The book I found is Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World, published in 2003, authored by Gabriel A. Almond, R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan. In the introduction, they say:

 

Fundamentalisms Comprehended [final volume of Fundamentalist Project] concludes with a four-part essay by the present authors that serves as a capstone statement of the Fundamentalism Proiect. Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms around the World presents a revised and elaborated version of this earlier attempt at defining and "explaining" the rise and growth of fundamentalisms (Almond et al, 2003:14).

 

It feels like one more broken promise by a christian, one more betrayal of trust, especially since I am trying so hard to come to terms with the life I've been handed.

 

[florduh]

Ruby, you sound surprised that a Christian would be so devious!

 

In all religions, the faithful, happy followers who know nothing and like it that way, aren't the true picture of the organization and power structure. There is always somebody hidden in the back somewhere, shaking the tent!

 

It's been some time since I had a brush with academia, and I'm sure your specific school situation is unique due to the religious veneer they must uphold for practical reasons (money). Maybe approaching someone in the appropriate department at a normal university with no axe to grind could be more helpful.

 

You have much to contribute to society in general and I hate to see you impeded by anything, particularly small-minded religious people.

 

All the best,

 

- Chris

[Legion]

Oh Ruby what a kick in the ass.

 

For some reason this phrase came to mind... "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

 

I have had so many dissapointments with so many professors. I once thought that the goal of the university was to acquire understanding. I was largely mistaken I think. In this world power prevails.

 

What will you do now?

 

Oh, and if a Christian says that your deconversion is not a problem then I think they are probably lying.

[Ouroboros]

How about we move it to Ex-Christian life? That's a broad topic section, and I think we don't allow Christians to attack there. It can also stay in the section, I'm fine with that.

[R. S. Martin]

Ruby, you sound surprised that a Christian would be so devious!

 

In all religions, the faithful, happy followers who know nothing and like it that way, aren't the true picture of the organization and power structure. There is always somebody hidden in the back somewhere, shaking the tent!

 

It's been some time since I had a brush with academia, and I'm sure your specific school situation is unique due to the religious veneer they must uphold for practical reasons (money). Maybe approaching someone in the appropriate department at a normal university with no axe to grind could be more helpful.

 

You have much to contribute to society in general and I hate to see you impeded by anything, particularly small-minded religious people.

 

All the best,

 

- Chris

 

Chris, you bring a smile to my face. Thank you.

 

I won't need to appeal. I just needed a bit of support here where it's safe to speak my mind. I need this in order not to say the wrong thing to the wrong person in real life. You know.

 

I'm days away from finishing my degree. I've been working on this for ten years. Can't do anything to jeopardize it now. But I am writing an Epilogue for my paper to reflect what I learned from the new book. I make no reference whatsoever to the discussion, religion, or person of the evangelical. Here's the title of one part of the Epilogue:

Regarding the Fundamentalist Mindset and the Pattern of its Development in North America: Enlightenment to Post-9/11

 

 

I use a passage from the introduction of the book to analyze a nineteenth-century theologian, the history of fundamentalist Christianity in North America, the Old Order Mennonite community into which I was born, and incidents from my own life to prove that the Old Order Mennonites are fundamentalists according to these authors' definition. I point out in what way the officially pacifist Mennonites are in reality militant, except I put it as a question as in "Given this [certain incidents they have done], how are they not militant?"

 

I also state that the authors think fundamentalist religion around the world, including fundamentalist Christianity in the United States, contributed to and has implications for, the Terrorist attack and following war.

 

That's the epilogue.

 

My supervisor helped me write a prologue, which is basically a disclaimer stating that I am not attempting to be a historian or theologian or specialist on fundamentalism or conservative Christianity; I am only one person who is trying to make sense of my life and that I am doing this by using this theologian as a reference point, etc. and that the goal of this paper is to accomplish another stage of healing.

 

This is a significant change of plans from the original, and it was made only Wednesday of this week. My supervisor has this idea break upon him in the morning because I was having such serious writer's block that it was very obvious that there was something seriously wrong. He discussed it with Reader #2 Wed. morning and told me about his idea when I met with him in the afternoon. I agreed to the plan. Was almost in tears that he would understand. He promised to communicate the change of plans to the evangelical.

 

It's not really a thesis. The official name is Comprehensive Paper. The word "comprehensive" is an elastic term and this supervisor is playing around with the definition of that term in various ways. He is calling the paper comprehensive in that it is a way for me to comprehend my life experience via academic readings. It is also comprehensive in that it draws on the main themes of the progams; it is comprehensive. His colleague agrees that this is acceptable in my case.

 

My supervisor will also communicate to the evangelical about the seminary's understanding of a Comprehensive Paper. The evangelical is at another school and must submit to the seminary's rules on this.

 

I think all my bases are covered. At the same time, I think my message will come through loud and clear. If he had been honest and open as he had promised, as academia has performed in my experience for ten years, the message would in all likelihood be much more subtle and nuanced; his feelings would probably be spared more than this way. I had six weeks at the point of the meeting with him and could have worked the theories in much more subtly. Now I'm down to deadlines.

 

Is this all about money? If so, then money makes some people do some amazingly good things. I cannot see into people's hearts beyond a certain point. I prefer to think he is sincere. Suspicion eats away at the soul (one's inner self) in unhealthy ways.

 

One more thing. My supervisor will see the paper before the evangelical. I will draw his attention to the epilogue. If he thinks it's a bad idea he can warn me in time to make changes before submitting it.

[R. S. Martin]

How about we move it to Ex-Christian life? That's a broad topic section, and I think we don't allow Christians to attack there. It can also stay in the section, I'm fine with that.

 

ExChristian Life would probably be more appropriate if no attacks are allowed there. I just wasn't quite sure about the rules. It's not biological family I'm dealing with here but it is a situation of exChristian dealing with Christians where it matters most--the-o-logy.

 

I will be so GLAD when this degree is done.

[R. S. Martin]

Oh Ruby what a kick in the ass.

 

For some reason this phrase came to mind... "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

 

Yup, playing the politics game to the hilt.

 

I followed what I once thought was the holy spirit but I now think is my inner intuitive hunches or whatever. And it led me to the one person in the world who was able to provide me with what I needed when I needed it.

 

Academic politics can be pretty abstract and confusing so I don't know if my other post makes sense to anyone but myself.

 

Long story short, my supervisor is solidly on my side. He is doing what he can to make sure I can graduate this spring and that the evangelical cannot block me.

 

My supervisor is in a senior position in the school and I think he is bending the rules just a tiny bit. If I wanted to go on and do a PhD, I would be asking some hard questions (investigating) regarding the precise standards of the paper he is proposing.

 

I would want to be sure that the University of Toronto accepts it as fulfillment of a Masters degree. Since I am NOT interested in further studies at this point, I am only too glad to accept the conditions. I can always make up for it later.

[wonderer]

Hi Ruby,

 

I'm a college educated, ex-fundamentalist/ex-Pentacostal youth minister, and a veteran (US Army). Just a few reflections, for what they're worth:

 

Finishing school in a seminary, when you are no longer a Christian: A mighty tough row to hoe, because you are hip deep in both worlds, and you are doing great! You are extremely fortunate that two out of the three committee members are secure enough in their own humanity to give you the space you need to explore your own relationship to the universe, and still complete your courses. The 3rd member is good to have, also, because he challenges your independence, which can only make you stronger.

 

The war on terror: I would submit that the terrorists' war on us is arguably a holy war; our war on terror, on the other hand, is about what all wars about: power, wealth and greed.

 

 

Your thesis, and whether or not you need to define fundamentalism: I think the need to do that can only be established within the context of the thesis parameters. I assume you set them. If you are going to make an argument based on religious fundamentalism as a social phenomenon, then you can simply compare different brands of fundamentalist religions, or at least the behavior of people who subscribe to them. (The simplest definition, I think, is an unthinking and uncritical devotion to a particular religious doctrine, to the point of obsession.) However, if you are going to argue a particular point about a particular fundamentalist viewpoint, then how can you draw any conclusions without first defining what you mean by the word? I'm a bit confused on this one.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

Rob

[R. S. Martin]

Hi Ruby,

 

I'm a college educated, ex-fundamentalist/ex-Pentacostal youth minister, and a veteran (US Army). Just a few reflections, for what they're worth:

 

Finishing school in a seminary, when you are no longer a Christian: A mighty tough row to hoe, because you are hip deep in both worlds, and you are doing great! You are extremely fortunate that two out of the three committee members are secure enough in their own humanity to give you the space you need to explore your own relationship to the universe, and still complete your courses. The 3rd member is good to have, also, because he challenges your independence, which can only make you stronger.

 

Rob, thanks for introducing yourself. I still identified as a Christian when I applied for the program but in no way was I orthodox. I had already taken a few courses with them before I applied for their program, so I knew they were very open-minded and tolerant. If they weren't, I would hardly have applied.

 

Your thesis, and whether or not you need to define fundamentalism: I think the need to do that can only be established within the context of the thesis parameters. I assume you set them. If you are going to make an argument based on religious fundamentalism as a social phenomenon, then you can simply compare different brands of fundamentalist religions, or at least the behavior of people who subscribe to them. (The simplest definition, I think, is an unthinking and uncritical devotion to a particular religious doctrine, to the point of obsession.) However, if you are going to argue a particular point about a particular fundamentalist viewpoint, then how can you draw any conclusions without first defining what you mean by the word? I'm a bit confused on this one.

 

Rob, your definition sounds fine with me but I need to be able to defend it and for that I will need solid evidence either in the form of a formal research project with statistical analysis, which I don't have the skills to do, or evidence from the literature to back up my claim.

 

What I'm trying to do is get at the logic, or lack thereof, underlying the fundmentalist mindset. I am looking at a specific theologian, Charles Hodge, and a specific community--the one I was born into, and trying to understand how people who profess so much love for their people can commit such hateful crimes against humanity.

 

I know we deal with that question all the time on here but I wanted to do an indepth scholarly research on the topic and I don't regret having undertaken it. There's nothing like facing the giant and analyzing every feature of his anatomy and finding that it really is all bluff and nonsense.

 

My mind is so constituted that I cannot, for the life of me, accept anything on authority.

 

I have now provided two definitions for fundamentalism for those who are interested. My supervisor suggested that sort of thing.

[Guest knightmyst]

certainly there been religious fundamentalism rising all over the world

but now just looking at 9/11 in the religion perspective doesnt help

we have to understand new world order too

lets suppose 9/11 is cause by religion n new world order isnt true, then we are jsut fighting a religious war

If 9/11 happens cause of new world order, then religion is certainly a tool used by the govt for their own profits

 

so to do thorough understanding of 9/11 we have to include new world order as well

to understand what new world order is abt, do watch http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

if new world order is really true, then we going be in for a very very very difficult time T_T

[wonderer]

Hi Ruby,

 

In my case (Pentacostal), fundamentalism meant professing to believe every word in the King James version of the bible to be the inerrant word of god. Since the bible is full of contradictions, that meant the pastors had to interpret those passages that seemed to be contradictory, and make the contradictions go away. The more we studied the bible, the more contradictions we found, and the more rationalizing everybody had to do to get around those passages. This ultimately led to something closely resembling mental illness. It was compounded by the fact that not everything in the bible was followed to the letter (we never stoned any adulterers, for example), while at the same time everyone claimed to be following everything to the letter. This led to more mental and emotional distress, since anyone with the capacity of reason could plainly see that we were professing to believe every word was the inerrant word of god, and yet we were behaving contrary to the words we claimed to believe were straight from god. Eventually, the only respite from this constant effort to rationalize everything was to stop thinking about any of it, and just go along with whatever we were told.

 

Then there were the prophecies and "words from god." These were spoken by members of the congregation during services, and even though most of these so-called prophecies never came to pass, we never stoned any of these false prophets. In fact, no one ever even mentioned them, even though I tried to get the pastors to admit that these were all being made up. I was soon told to be quiet, since I was causing confusion, and confusion is "not of the Lord." And since confusion was not of the Lord, the inescapable conclusion was that I had a demon in me that needed to be cast out.

 

The absolute worst mind game of all, though, was the doctrine known as "claiming." we were supposed to claim our healing, claim prosperity, claim a job, a house, a car - you name it. We were shown the appropriate scripture that backed up this practice, and the ultimate argument was that, since we were the children of god, how could god with-hold these blessings from us? Of course, if we remained ill, or didn't get that job, or the mill shut down and we couldn't pay our bills, it could only be because of hidden sin within us. In other words, any misfortune that befell us, from illness to financial problems to accidents to depression, had to be caused by our refusal to "let go and let god." This led to despair for the poorer members of the church, and let the wealthy members off the hook so they didn't have to help them. the result was that we had wealthy people sitting in the pews, right next to people who had no fuel oil for the furnace in the dead of winter. Any yet, everyone claimed to be "filled with the holy spirit," and we were all brothers and sisters in the Lord.

 

And on, and on.

 

My greatest regret is that I became a youth minister, and spread this mental illness among the teenagers in my small town.

 

That's one strain of the disease known as fundamentalist, Pentacostal Christianity.

 

Rob

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks for your story, wonderer. I'm getting to the end of this paper. Thought I'd finish it today but I'm not quite there yet. I've got it all written and I could send it via email. But I'd like to read it one more time just to be sure it all hangs together and that there are no typos, etc. Maybe tomorrow I can think more clearly for this.

 

I've been taking some of the advice given here and just deleted some of the stuff I wanted to write because it really is not good to "bite the hand that feeds you." My prof has made some amazing consessions but still......I'm studying at their institution by choice. I'm asking for a degree from a Christian school. I do have to play by their rules as best I can. There's some amazing and supportive people here at exC. Thanks for all of your support, everyone.

 

Burnedout, I read your post several times. I know what you mean. It helped me to just delete some stuff. I may want to say certain things but I want my degree even more.