The Fuller Integration Lectures: Part 1, Can We Believe in God Non-Violently?

Two weeks ago it was my privilege to deliver the 44th Annual Integration Lectures for the School of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary. I delivered two lectures regarding my recent book The Slavery of Death.

In many ways, in the US at least, Fuller is ground zero for the integration of psychology and Christianity as Fuller was the first faith-based institution to offer an APA-accredited PhD in Clinical Psychology. So it was quite an honor to be invited to deliver the lectures this year, which was also the 50th anniversary of the School of Psychology as well as the 25th anniversary of the Travis Research Institute at Fuller.

I've engaged with the work of many of the scholars working at Fuller, in both the School of Psychology and in the Seminary. So it was wonderful to finally meet many of them. And it was a rich experience having psychologists, biblical scholars and theologians sitting in the audience for the lectures.

I thought I'd take a few posts this week and next to share some reflections about the lectures and some of the breakout sessions I attended.

I'd like to start with a few posts sharing thoughts I had about the four responses to the lectures, which were all quite stimulating and helpful to me.

In this post I want to reflect a bit on a part of Dr. Winston Gooden's response to my first lecture. Specifically, Dr. Gooden, Dean of the School of Psychology at Fuller, wondered about how our beliefs in God can be held non-neurotically and non-violently.

If you don't know my work well let me quickly explain the issue. In both The Authenticity of Faith and The Slavery of Death I make the case made by Ernest Becker, and supported by the empirical work of what is known as Terror Management Theory, that our self-esteem is constructed by the pursuit of "cultural heroics," the ways in which any given culture defines a good and meaningful life. However, according to Becker this pursuit of significance is, at root, a flight from death as the pursuit of significance and meaning is being driven by a desire to "matter" in the face of death. We all want to make a dent in the universe, to have the cosmos recognize our life, to register that we existed.

By and large all that is a good thing as our neurotic pursuit of significance leads to culture creation. We build, work, and create. Psychologists call this sublimation, where neurotic anxiety is channeled into culturally valued outlets.

But there is a dark side to all this. Specifically, the cultural worldviews that support our pursuit of significance can become challenged and relativized by out-group members. People and cultures who don't share our metrics of "success" threaten the foundation of our self-esteem projects. And this makes us anxious.

So in the face of that anxiety we engage in what Terror Management theorists call "worldview defense." Basically, we denigrate, demean and demonize out-group members in order to protect our self-esteem projects and, thus, continue to experience meaning and significance in the face of death.

Importantly, this is no mere speculation. Worldview defense has been observed in the laboratory. For example, in a study I focus on in The Authenticity of Faith Christian participants have been found to become increasingly anti-Semitic--denigrate Jewish persons--when they were made to ponder their eventual death.

All this goes to Dr. Gooden's question. If our worldviews are being driven by neurotic anxiety and this anxiety makes us violent how can we believe in God non-neurotically and non-violently? Because, as we know, religion often sits at the heart of our worldviews.

How, then, can our faith be emancipated from, in the words of Hebrews 2, our "slavery to the fear of death"? A slavery that makes us violent toward others?

This was a question I tried to answer in The Authenticity of Faith. But in many ways that answer wasn't wholly satisfactory. In The Slavery of Death I try to improve upon that answer and it's the answer I gave at Fuller to Dr. Gooden's question.

In The Authenticity of Faith my argument is that doubt is what protects us from believing violently. That is, if you hold your beliefs provisionally you'll retain your openness and curiosity toward out-group members.

However, there is a cost to be paid for that openness. Specifically, if you hold your beliefs provisionally you'll forgo the existential benefits of conviction, certainty and dogmatism. Doubting makes you more open and hospitable toward others but doubting also leaves you open to a lot of uncertainty in the face of death.

Basically, The Authenticity of Faith posits a trade-off between hospitality and anxiety. The more open your are to out-group members the more existential anxiety you'll have to carry. Conversely, the more dogmatic you become the less anxiety you will feel but at the cost of being less welcoming and tolerant of those who disagree with you.

That's where I left things in The Authenticity of Faith. But in many ways that's not a very satisfactory ending place. Specifically, while doubt may be a prerequisite of love--by creating an openness toward difference--doubt doesn't pull you into love. A lot of doubting Christians are 1) spiritually spinning their wheels (e.g., they don't know if they are Christians or agnostics) or 2) emotionally suffering (often to the point of clinical depression) given the weight of existential anxiety they are carrying.

So in many ways The Slavery of Death is a sequel to The Authenticity of Faith in trying to retain openness toward others but situating the provisionality of belief in a more helpful way.

If you've read The Slavery of Death (or recall the earlier blog series) you know the crux of the argument I make: eccentricity.

Specifically, using the work of Arthur McGill and David Kelsey, I use the notion of eccentricity to contrast an identity rooted in either grasping or gift. That is, if God is a possession of the faith community then God needs to be protected from the threat of others. This is why belief becomes violent. If God is owned by a faith community then they can assert their proprietorial rights over God over against others. That's the root of dogmatism: We have God and you don't. God is for us and against you. God is here experienced as a possession.

And this is the the important thing to note: possessions have to be defended. Because possessions can be lost or damaged.

If, however, God is received as gift then the faith community can never possess God. This is the notion of eccentricity, that God is outside the boundaries of the faith community. And if God is outside the boundaries of the faith community then the faith community has to wait on God. The faith community is always looking for God outside of herself. And this expectant searching keeps us looking for God in the world and in the Other. It's a Matthew 25 orientation. God is always showing up in unexpected places and faces.

God is found in the stranger.

This, in my estimation, the how The Slavery of Death improves upon The Authenticity of Faith. Doubt is replaced with the experience of gift.

Critically, gift keeps the provisionality of doubt. Gifts are never certain. They are hoped for, but they are not under our control. You can never be certain of gift. You can't be dogmatic about gifts. And you can't protect a gift you don't possess.

Let me be concrete. Consider the relationship between a belief in heaven and death anxiety. Shouldn't our belief in heaven help us with our death anxiety?

Well, that all depends. As I argue in The Authenticity of Faith for many a belief in heaven is, in fact, symptomatic of a fear of death. Belief in heaven is being clung to because it is a comforting belief in the face of death. But the problem, as we've noted, is that if belief in heaven is being motivated by fear you'll behave aggressively toward anyone who threatens that belief. In that instance the belief in heaven is comforting--it reduces anxiety--but it also makes you violent.

Phrased in the categories I use in The Slavery of Death if heaven is possession, if it is something you control and possess, then that possession has to be protected from threats.

But if heaven is experienced eccentrically, if heaven is a gift rather than a possession, then I don't have to protect it from others. Because I don't possess heaven. I have to wait for it as the gift. And because heaven is outside of my control--because it's a gift rather than a possession--I can't guarantee heaven. Or be certain of it. All I can do is cultivate a posture of openness and surrender, to say with Jesus "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

So that's the root of the answer I gave to Dr. Gooden.

How can we believe non-neurotically and non-violently? By cultivating eccentricity.

To experience God and heaven as gift rather than possession.