Etching by G. Scotin and J. Cole after H. Gravelot and J.B. Chatelain, 1743.
The License to Name
“ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” -Genesis 2:19, New Revised Standard Version, updated edition
“Things die a little when we name them.” -Ben Okri in Astonishing the Gods
From naming flows claiming and taming.
The bald eagle is not bald. Devil’s Lake is not demonic. To name Ukraine Russia does not make it so.
When colonizers gave their own name to Indigenous peoples and their sacred sites, they lost their capacity to know who those people and places truly were, while revealing who they, the colonizers were. By naming, they were making claims of dominance and ownership.
When Donald Trump gives someone a disparaging nickname, he loses all capacity to see them for who they are, while revealing who he is. One who relishes asserting power over others.
And so, it has been learned, ask of every living thing and every place you encounter, “Do you have a name? How do you prefer I refer to you?” Listen carefully. Respect what you hear and when there is nothing to hear.
Naming obscures all but the namer, whose heart it reveals.
“Without the Bible, there is no America.” -Sen. Josh Hawley (NBC News, Allan Smith, Sept. 23, 2022)
Sixty-one percent of Republicans and 17% of Democrats think the US should declare itself a Christian nation, according to a recent U Maryland survey. This, despite many recognizing that it would violate the Constitution.
Why would Christians think their religion should dominate a nation? Hawley is right that much of it is derived from the Bible, which has functioned as the playbook for Christian nationalism. While liberal Christians choose to think he is wrong about that, the American myth may not have the qualities discussed below if it were not for the Bible.
Christians get to judge
In the Gospels (Matthew 18:18), Jesus told his followers that whoever they condemn on earth will be condemned in heaven and whoever they forgive on earth will be forgiven in heaven. So they have gone around the world taking it upon themselves to be the judge of others, as if their judgment is God’s judgment. Considerable outright condemnation of others has followed, as if with Godly authority.
Enemies of Christ
Jesus also said that whoever is not for him is against him. We now know this to be a toxic binary. It has motivated war against all non-Christians, whom the popes declared “enemies of Christ” in the Doctrine of Discovery. If you are not a friend of Christ, you are an enemy of Christ – a toxic binary if ever there was one.
The position of Christians declaring “as we judge you, so God judges you” is foundational to Christian nationalism. A clear statement of that is Requieremiento, (Requirement: To be Read by Spanish Conquerors to Defeated Indians). Written in 1510 by the Council of Castille, it stated that what the conquerors were doing was ordained by God, and that the Church was “the Ruler and Superior of the Whole World.”
Christians went on to condemn non-Christian Indigenous for such things as how and whom they worshipped to how they had sex. They judged Indigenous spirits to be demons. They even judged the Indigenous relationship with the earth to be sinful because they were not exploiting all of the earth for human use. This posture toward the earth continues today among Christian nationalists, based on passages in Genesis where God told humans that everything is here for our use. Causing environmental damage is then no problem. The sin is to leave valuable resources not extracted.
Christian nationalism is a logical outgrowth of this posture of judging with godly authority The state, a large state, can function as the agent and executor of such judgement. While traditional conservatives favor small government, Christian nationalists favor the power and reach of large government.
False Attribution
What is denied here is that religion is the invention of humans. As such, humans must take responsibility for it. A part of that is that the sacred texts are human inventions. Again, human beings must take responsibility for their influence. When this is denied, we believe the words of humans are the words of God, an extremely dangerous proposition. My will is God’s will can follow. Like Genghis Khan, who convinced the religious leaders of those he vanquished that he would not have succeeded if it were not the will of God.
Bible as Rorschach
Then you add the Biblical narrative of a chosen people with a promised land that was adopted by Christians toward America. Christopher Columbus, the story goes, landed with the cross and the flag of his nation to claim ownership – Christian nationalism. Liberal Christians would prefer to believe that this is based on a misunderstanding or misuse of Bible passages. But this is not an academic exercise. Lives have always been at stake over it. The Bible is not only a human invention, reading it is like looking at a Rorschach. We can project all kinds of things onto it and believe they are there.
The bases for Christian Nationalism, and Manifest Destiny and the Doctrine of Discovery before it, were seen in the scriptures by millions of ordinary Christians, as well as religious leaders. It doesn’t get us anywhere to argue about whose interpretation is correct. The alternative is to apply moral criteria. Criticize the Bible and say it is wrong about these things, just as we do with passages that support racism. The Bible is riddled with atrocities committed by humans but attributed to God or God’s will. But criticizing the Bible just isn’t safe in most parts of this country. Proof that our society is under the thumb of the hubris that a human invention is ordained by God.
Applying a Moral Standard
If we can lighten up a bit, perhaps we can apply the moral standard Jesus taught, to know them by their fruits. When a religious belief brings harm, question it on that basis. If a Bible passage supports doing harm, question it as lacking moral authority. The passages supporting Christian nationalism in any way just do not pass the test of moral authority.
After hearing testimony that Mike Pence and many other key Republicans took their oath of office more seriously than his wish to stay in office, now he attacks them as being rigid. He does enjoy labeling people and takes pride in coming up with the analogy of “human conveyor belt” to describe Pence’s supposed rigid behavior for following the Constitution. Curiously, this analogy does imply his agreement that he was asking, no, demanding, that Pence and others violate the Constitution. In charging them with rigidity, he once again reveals that he is no ethicist.
In Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to Do the Right Thing, Barry Schwartz and Kenneth Sharpe do argue that wisdom may require deviating from standard principles under certain circumstances. But one of those circumstances is not personal gain, following unsubstantiated claims, or trying to avoid the wrath of a bully. The testimony in the January 6 hearings reveals that Pence and other Republicans Trump tried to corrupt did deliberate about whether this situation justified breaking their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. They determined rightly that it did not. The evidence they asked for was not there. This is not rigidity; it is wisdom and integrity, just what we need from public officials.
But he isn’t trying to be. He seeks infamy.
But of course, Trump is not even trying to be an ethicist. His claim is that Pence “missed his opportunity for greatness,” to do something that has never been done before. No Vice President, as President of the Senate, had ever single-handedly decided the results of a Presidential election before. Presumably usurping a valid election would have been great because Trump is great. Even if these Republicans still believed Trump was great after seeing how out of touch with his oath of office his ego had got him, one of the features of doing the right thing is that you very often lose something in the process. Al Gore is an example of that. He could have become President of the United States by pulling the stunt Trump was demanding of Pence. Pence lost out on making history. Trump wasn’t willing to lose being the most powerful person in the world. Infamy is one type of greatness, I suppose.
“We never thought to include remembering our enemies who died in our Memorial Day service. We have crosses for us, but not for them. It just never occurred to us.” -Vietnam Vet
When we remember all those who have died in military actions and armed conflicts, perhaps our understanding of the cost of war will include the cost to other lands and peoples, not just ours.
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill is falsely claiming that the attack on Ukraine is needed to defend human salvation. (Daily Beast 03/22/2022) Further, in response to the head of the World Council of Churches request that he intervene to help bring peace, Kirill reminds the Council they are not to take issue with a member church, such as his. Krill refuses to be held theologically accountable for dangerous spiritual claims some hold to be toxically false. Separate from whether claims such as his are true or not is the test Jesus put: you will know them by their fruit. The fruit of Kirill’s theological assertion is death. He has no problem with that. We should.
Kirill has thus engaged his office in psychological/theological warfare with Ukraine, whose Orthodox clergy have been increasingly initiating separation from his flock. This is occurring elsewhere outside of Russia. So he is not an objective witness. To him, not only is this a just war, it is a morally necessary one. And he won’t engage in dialogue about it with religious colleagues. This suggests that the issue may really about power. But he is making it a war over human salvation.
“If we see [Ukraine] as a threat, we have the right to use force to ensure the threat is eradicated,” Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill recently preached to his church’s 90 million faithful followers. “We have entered into a conflict which has not only physical but also metaphysical significance. We are talking about human salvation, something much more important than politics….” As the patriarch sees it, Ukrainians are a threat to human salvation. (Daily Beast 03/22/2022)
A threat to human salvation? The fall is a myth. Its doctrinal offspring, original sin, is rightly contested. The other side of its coin, salvation, is likewise a contestable idea, though it rarely is. Regardless, in no way is it justification for invasion of another’s land and the slaughter of its inhabitants, not with Jericho, not with Kiev.
As Karen Armstrong points out, to love one’s enemy means to commit to protect them from harm. This goes for perceived religious enemies as well. If Krill really sees Ukraine as a spiritual threat, as a spiritual leader, he should extend his protection to Ukraine first and then go from there. Other voices need to be heard.
I recall a Sunday when someone came up to me in church and asked, “Aren’t you Dr. Mahlberg?” I replied, “Not today,” and told them they could call me Arden. In situations like mine, some people politely ask how I would like them to refer to me. When I am in my role, it is Dr. Mahlberg. When not, it is Arden.
Mehmet Oz complains that some news sources are not referring to him as Dr. Oz as they report on his campaign for office. They have rules against using such titles outside their context. When they report on him engaged in the practice of medicine, they refer to him as Mehmet Oz, MD, or Dr. Oz. When not in that role, they refer to him as Mehmet Oz. In doing so, they are treating him as they do anyone else. He is protesting that, thinking he should always be Dr. Oz.
Whatever egalitarian motives we have as a society are well served by not allowing people to have their professional titles be used as their social identity. It is all about status, and status brings deference and power. That is why they want it. But outside professional practice, it is gratuitous and works against an egalitarian society. Some people with titles understand and agree with that. Others object and push for their way.
Identity is very important, and people should be allowed to claim and assert their identities. But not when they claim a social identity that puts them above others. Respect for the person does not obligate us to comply with such wishes. Respect for the role does not either when the person is not in their professional role. This is what belief in an egalitarian society requires of us.
It is also good for individuals. The healthiest identities are those that create the greatest resilience. I’ve spoken with many people who have moved after they retired and complain, “No one here knows who I am.” In their previous location, they had successful careers and were given social status because of it, which they embraced. This did not serve them well in the long run. We need not contribute to this unhealthy practice for ourselves, for others, and for the sake of an egalitarian society.
“Armies of certitude.” That is how columnist David Brooks describes what we will face when the Supreme Court’s makes its decision about abortion rights. (“Abortion: The Voice of the Ambivalent Majority,” New York Times, Dec. 2, 2021) Certainty. What is it? Is it a good guide to being right? Unfortunately, certainty is no indication we are right.
I remember the feeling. I was struggling to figure out how to structure my dissertation research so I could answer the questions I had. Late one afternoon in the library, it came to me. I was excited to have finally solved the problem. It was clear. I wrote down a sketch of how it would work so I could fill it in the next day.
Certainty. As you might have guessed, the next morning I discovered that the idea I had been so certain about wouldn’t work at all. I was befuddled as to why it felt like an “ah hah!”
One would hope that the feeling of certainty would be strongly correlated with being right. Right? Imagine my disappointment years later when I reviewed the research on certainty and found that it has no relationship with being right. Certainty cannot be trusted. Certainty is just a feeling. It is not a sign of being right. Drat!
Not enough people seem to realize that. In a time of vehement polarization over so many things, the problem is not that people disagree. The problem is that too many people feel highly certain they are right. Their minds are closed. Dialogue is not possible. New information is twisted to support their beliefs. People who think differently are idiots, sheep, paranoid, or whatever dismissive term works. Then we are simply engaged in a destructive power struggle.
The one thing I have found that can soften things up is a four-step process, when that is possible. Let’s take abortion as an example.
Step 1: What are your thoughts about abortion?
“Abortion is wrong.”
Step 2: Why do you think that?
“Because it is murder.”
Step 3: How strongly do you feel about that?
“Very Strongly.”
Step 4: Why do you feel so strongly?
“I was an only child. I always wanted a brother or sister. When I was older, I asked my mother about it, and she told me that she didn’t want another child but had an unwelcome pregnancy and had an abortion. She was so matter of fact about it. It really hurt.”
The last ‘why?’ is a different one from the first ‘why?’. It is not a reason; it is the personal experiences that shape the position. Reasons are impersonal. The last ‘why?’ can be highly personal and highly charged. It feels like if you don’t care about those experiences, then you don’t care about me. You only care to have your way prevail.
When people feel compassionately heard about the personal and emotional parts of their position, they relax. Then, they may be open to hearing that depth in another person’s position.
Certainty is no indication we are right. Get the word out. Certainty cannot be trusted, and should not be respected.
I got up well before dawn and stood at the rim of the Copper Canyon in Mexico to hear the Rarámuri on the canyon floor, far below, drum the sun up. The drumming began faintly until the canyon itself became a sound chamber. Before long, my body, moving with the rhythm surging through me, I felt engaged as a participant as well.
When the drummers see the sun peek over the canyon rim, they abruptly stop. The sun is up. What a thrill!
The experience of sharing in drumming the sun up on a feeling level gave me an entirely different sense of prayer that still informs me. Prayer is a form of participation. Speaking with a Rarámuri elder about their ritual reinforced for me that the drummers were not engaging in magic, as if the sun coming up required their drumming. They knew better than that. They were participating with gratitude in the wellbeing of what sustains their lives. Drumming as participation. Prayer as participation.
Prayer, to be wise, involves both receptivity and initiative. Without receptivity, initiative can be harmful, like the bull in the China shop. We can falsely believe we know what needs to happen for ourselves or others. Without initiative, receptivity can be inert, like the complaint about naval gazing.
The goal, then, is to balance and combine receptivity with initiative. Receptive forms of prayer, like contemplation and Centering Prayer, strengthen our awareness of ourselves and beyond ourselves.
Prayer is a form of participation whether or not we believe that prayer has some causal power. Drumming the sun up is not a causal factor and maybe neither are our prayers for health, justice or peace. But drumming the sun up can evoke gratitude and strengthen our shared vulnerability with all forms of life that depend on it.
Praying for others strengthens the bond of compassionate awareness. It may trigger other ways to help. Also, knowing that we are being prayed for or are in the thoughts of others while being wheeled into surgery does help, whether we believe in its causal power or not. We are not alone. Others are connecting with us, and we with them. Prayer is a form of participation.
Praying for ourselves strengthens our caring relationship with ourselves, including parts and histories we may wish we did not have. It can evoke other helpful ideas. The same is true for prayers of joy and gratitude. By sitting with them, finding images for them, sounds and words, we amplify the feelings. The receptivity to them leads to ways to live them out.
Many people won’t believe in non-ordinary causality unless it is decisive. If there is a God, that God must be all-powerful. If nothing is all-powerful, then there is no God, or so the logic goes.
We require prayer to overwhelm all other causal factors that are at play. It must be able to create fire from wet logs in a rainstorm, or it is unworthy.
Alternately, some people regard their prayers and positive thoughts as one factor in the mix of many factors that do influence outcomes, some scientific, some not. Prayer may or may not tip the scale. We can’t know that. If not, perhaps it is still better to pray than not.
Prayer is a form of participation when other options are not immediately available. And, when other options are available, prayer is an additional, meaningful dimension of participation, both with receptivity and with initiative.
Arden Mahlberg is a psychologist devoting himself to the psychology of spirituality and justice. He blogs at beyonddisavowing.org and ardenmahlberg.com.
Veterans Day 2021 – I just drove past a memorial to soldiers from our state who died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The organizers placed a white cross for each of our citizens who died in those wars. I guess it is presumed that they were all Christians.
Several years ago, I spoke with one of the organizers of such a memorial to all the American troops who died in Vietnam and Iraq. It was a massive display of white markers, in this case, not crosses. I asked him if they included markers for the enemy dead and civilians who died in the wars. “We never thought of that.” But he wished that they had.
I have been in countless church services where we prayed for the safety of our troops. Never, “We pray for the safety of the enemies of the United States.” This despite Jesus telling us to “love” our enemies. As Biblical scholar Karen Armstrong clarifies, this injunction. It technically means that we are to treat our enemies to the benefit they would have if we had a peace treaty with them. At the time of Jesus, that included the “love” clause of protecting our enemies from harm.
This is an especially important principle to promote now. Steve Bannon and Donald Trump have called for the punishment of legislators who voted for the infrastructure bill. They would have supported if it had been done by a President of their choice. People are harassing and punishing officials who uphold the validity of the last election.
In the current context, to pray for the safety of our enemies and vow to protect them from harm draws a clear line with the religious right. They believe they are contending with a cosmic enemy, Satan. From that point of view, to pray for the safety of one’s enemies and vow to protect them is to do the Devil’s work.
The same is true when Christian and Muslim communities protect each other from harm. To the fanatics, they are aligning themselves with The Enemy.
May we have the will to protect our enemies from harm!
