Good Dog - Bad Dog

I am recently reminded, by stories in the papers and blogland, about a story or parable I have heard repeated many a time in evangelical churches. You may know it... the one about the good dog and the bad dog inside us all. Pointing to the capacity of good and evil within the heart of everyone. The line that the church preaches on this subject is simply: The dominant dog will be the one that you feed the most. i.e if you feed bad dog most it will dominate. If you feed good dog most then the good dog will dominate.
Recently after rethinking most things church, I began to think about the idea of the starving dog. This viewpoint seems to be grossly overlooked by the simple feed the good dog or feed the bad dog line.
A starved dog if you have ever seen one is as you could imagine a very formidable beast. Getting more and more nasty the hungrier it becomes. Not necessarily weaker as the Church viewpoint suggests but more dangerous and difficult to deal with.
So following this idea through and applying it to the heart I am wondering if this church line is a healthy one. Does it clearly portray the human heart for what it is? Does it allow for the hearts capacity for evil or does it try to deny it? Does it portray a false idea that all evil can be expelled from the heart by our own action?
I suggest that this simplistic line of thinking is denying the reality of the heart and its impulses toward evil, even for the most 'good' or 'Godly' person. I also suggest that the more a person denies these impulses within themselves the more susceptible they become to such impulses.
So by continually pushing a simple line of: starving the evil dog within; are churches unwittingly forming a culture of denial. A dangerous denial for the capacity for evil and thereby turning a blind eye to it. Much like dropping ones guard, or dropping the armour as portrayed vividly in Romans.
When I read recently about Mike Guglielmucci and his very public and shameful fall from a high place in Australia's AOG ministry. I guess I should not be surprised. I believe the system of church has pushed a small group of hierachy into such an unrealisic pressured lifestyle of perfectionism and 'Godliness' that those chosen few come to a point of desperation that they would do anything to maintain the facade. Under this light the unthinkable acts like: faking disease and; forming a facade of supernatural healing, become understandable and remind me that they are human afterall. I feel that I would be more connected to Mike now that he's 'back on Earth' with us rather than previously when he was cramped into a supernatural and unrealistic lifestyle. A life that he had to lie about just to keep up the lofty expectencies of those around him.
The real shame of all this is that really good people with the best of intentions are continually eaten up by these systems. It's this (church) system that I despise most. I don't think Jesus' idea for his Church looked anything remotely like the systems we have in place these days.
Thank Christ there are movements and leanings to alternatives!

Embracing Ambiguities

Yes its been a while since I posted last.
I've been stewing a little.
Stewing on a couple of books I've been reading.
A thinking man's assault on the Christian Right in America
and another on the "New Athiests"
And more recently appreciating a story of an obscure songwriter and poet Bob DYLAN as portrayed by 6 different characters in a recent biopic.
Interestingly enough both books and the film have a similar undercurrent of wisdom pertaining to the ambiguities, the uncertainties, the mysteries that life throw at us.
Late in his book I Don't Believe in Atheists, Chris Hedges makes a very good point about these ambiguities and throws light on them pointing out the book of Ecclesiastes where the author Koheleth saw the pathetic, vain projects we spend a lifetime constructing. Warning man that "all the deeds that are done under the sun; all is vanity and chasing after wind. Nothing is certain or permanent, nothing real or unreal. Koheleth points out that "all things are wearisome, the eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the ear with hearing." "What has been is what will be and what has been done is what will be done." The King that asked God for wisdom and got what he asked for (Solomon) reinforced these points with his own life and the story it told.
Koheleth goes on "what is crooked cannot be made straight and what is lacking cannot be counted." Ecclesiastes points out that it is not so much what we do in life but what we do with what life hands us. We have limited real choices. We carry our human flaws to the grave. Our attempts to become Godlike by denying the emptiness, rythms and cycles of life are vanity. The best we can do is endure with compassion, wisdom and humility and accept the ambiguity and ultimate mystery of existence.
In the film I'm not there the caricature of Dylan played by Kate Blanchette sitting in an old style black taxi driving through city streets answering questions put to him/her?? by an inquiring journalist makes the same point. "the music is full of mysteries." "There are contradictions."

Chris Hedges argues in both books the dangerous practices professed by two differing ideologies (Christian fundamentalism and New Atheism). The expression of fundamentalist certainty. Ideas portrayed by a selected portion of humanity instituting a moral superiority and the omnipotence of human reason. Practices that become dangerous when non believers or the non enlightened are made separate and placed on a lower plateau. The natural progression of this is to suppress the alternate ideas of the lesser, the lower, the unenlightened and when they won't be silenced...use force or more commonly use the more accepted method of drowning them in a sea of irrelevance and obscurity.
The first step of both ideologies is to ignore the ambiguity. To formulate a faith of certainty. Where followers are absolutely right and all outsiders are not. A powerful motivator when you think about it. Tapping into a person's primal drive for control and certainty when facing questions of mortality, spirituality and the supernatural.
Another danger posed by these ideologies is the tendency to externalise evil. Placing emphasis on the perceived evil of the non believing outsiders while ignoring the reality of an internal struggle that takes place in the human heart. The believer of either ideology falling prey to self righteousness.

Another sobering point that Hedges explores is the deadening effect of visual distraction (i.e. TV, internet, video gaming etc) on the Western Capitalist Psyche. He draws an interesting idea from Niel Postman (Author: Amusing Ourselves to Death) contrasting George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books, what Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who would want to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would be a captive society. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture preoccupied with some equivalent of positive feelings, pornographic delusions and an egocentrically generated utopia. In 1984 people are controlled by inflicting pain. In A Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared what we love will ruin us."

With that I'll be off to deaden myself on the PS2 shortly!

Here's a clip of Kate's Dylan performance. The section I'm talking about is in the last 2 minutes. I recommend you check out the full feature.