Did you ever have one of those label makers? The kind with a rotating wheel that embossed a plastic ribbon with letters that you could stick to things? Labeling is so easy! I often feel constrained, however, by the chosen labels of extremist groups.Not all evangelicals are power-hungry or enemies of human welfare.This is perhaps one of the keys to the success of extremists.Camouflage has long been recognized by evolution as a most effective tactic.I have many evangelical friends who do not protest cartoons, or ride around in Trump-laden vehicles, polluting the environment like there’s no tomorrow.The problem is what to call them since the more radical wing has usurped their nomenclature.I often think of this because I eschew labels in general, but people in a collective can do quite a bit more damage than a single disgruntled individual.Perhaps “disgruntled” should be part of their name?
Religions generally begin as efforts to help make the world a better place.The historian of religions sees, however, that over time many believers begin seeing the peripherals as the central tenets of the faith.Since I’m familiar with evangelicalism, let me use that as an example.As a form of Christianity, evangelicalism began with the Reformation.Pietist groups, freed from Catholicism’s idea of communal salvation, began to worry about their individual souls and howthey might be saved.Their belief structure eventually came to include the necessity of converting others because, if you read the Bible a certain way, that’s a requirement.Over time this outlookevolved into the idea that only one group (one’s own) has truly understood the Christian message.Once numbers grow numerous, it becomes like the medieval Catholic Church—large enough to take political power.Somewhere along the line the central message of helping make the world a better place morphs into making the world evangelical only.Or whatever label we feel constrained to use.
labels are problematic
I’m not picking on the evangelicals here—this could apply to any extremists.And it certainly doesn’t apply to all evangelicals.Religion has been part of human culture from the very beginning.A good case can be made that it is one of the basic components of consciousness itself.A person has to learn how to become unreligious.We are also political animals.Who doesn’t want things their own way?We can’t all win, however, and some religions have difficulty separating, say, a savior willing to die for others and the insistence on one’s own way no matter what others want.Like most aspects of life this is a balancing act.I grew up evangelical.I have friends who are evangelical.I don’t want to insult anybody, but what can you do when you feel disgruntled by the degradation of religion into an excuse for hate?I lost my label maker long ago and I no longer know what to call things anyway.
When death’s not the final word, it’s hard to argue.This is such a basic level of disagreement between religions and culture that it may be impossible to avoid conflict.Not that I condone it, but a couple in Oregon, members of the Followers of Christ Church, let their newborn die rather than seek medical attention, according to a Washington Post article.I have to admit that the Followers of Christ is a sect of which I’d never heard—there are thousands of such groups—but I’m guessing that at the base of their refusal to seek help was a deeply held belief in the afterlife.Almost impossible to comprehend unless you’ve accepted it profoundly yourself, this single teaching is a game changer.The child who dies, although tragic from our perspective, has not, in the eyes of a religion transcending death, lost anything.
It’s sometimes difficult for us to to realize just how radical a teaching Christianity was in its early days.The myth of the martyrs may well have been overblown, but the fact is here was a sect that didn’t fear death like the vast majority of people do.Resurrection is a powerful concept.Those who truly believe in it have nothing to fear.Modern-day sects that take this seriously may respond quite differently to crises than “normal” religions.In a situation Niebuhr would’ve recognized, this “Christ against culture” outlook is never easily resolved.True believers will accept punishment on the part of secular authorities as a form of martyrdom.The fear of death on the part of the vast majority of people outweighs, I suspect, professed belief in the afterlife.
Place the current political climate into the mix and the colors will become even more vivid.Extremism is the flavor of the day.Mainstream Christianity, for all of its problems, has sought a balance between accepting the benefits of medical science—the social acknowledgment that taking an infant’s life is inherently unfair and unjust—and an official belief in an afterlife.It allows for a fairly comfortable existence of accepting belief without becoming the radical threat to a materialistic society that more extreme sects represent.In a nation where no controls exist because of the power of office favors those who believe in nothing so much as themselves, and even the rhetoric of right to life becomes meaningless.Sects and violence, to go back to my roots, sleep peacefully side by side.And when awakened, the right to be conceived can’t be extended to life beyond the womb for those who believe death’s not the final word.
As the world stumbles into another new year, my thoughts turn to Janus. The namesake deity of January (since the Romans gave us a winter New Year’s day), Janus is a poorly understood ancient deity. Since he is overseer of beginnings and endings of all sorts, he is often portrayed with two faces or heads — one facing forward and the other facing back. There are no attendant mythological stories to this god, although he appears to have been very important in early Roman religion. He comes to mind as I prepare to teach a course on mythology that I haven’t prepped for since Oshkosh; my brief holiday break has been spent reading classical mythology.
Not only to we face a new year, but the beginning (or ending, it matters not which to Janus) of a new decade. Looking back over the muck-up made of the first decade of the twenty-first century, often because of religious extremists, I wonder what Janus sees down the road. There are many who feel optimistic about our firm bridle on technology and its ability to make our lives easier. Some of us believe that society has lost its appreciation for the classical study of the humanities and that we have lost our way because simplistic religion has seized the reigns from sensible mythology. In an age of information clutter, there is no one able to synthesize reason out of any of it. Perhaps it is the human condition.
Janus likely originated in the Ancient Near East. Once he reached Rome he continued to evolve into a major deity until eclipsed by the Olympians (many of whom first appear in the Ancient Near East as well). Not ironically, religious tolerance and religious intolerance both seem to have derived from the Near East also: Cyrus the Great’s declaration of religious freedom emerged in the midst of theocidal demands on the part of jealous gods. Now as we stand on the brink of a new decade, Janus only knows which way the unfeeling pendulum will swing.