Harold Campings response to the non-doom's-day-judgment-day of May 21, 2011 was that it did happen. It was just not as "dooming" as he had predicted.
There are a number of ways to approach and discuss this that are appropriate. Sympathy for his followers and those that may now pull away from Christianity, as well as a hope for the Kingdom are a certainly a couple of ways, but Camping's response, in particular, seems quite consistent with the increased commitment as a justification for his prediction that I discussed yesterday.
May 24, 2011
May 23, 2011
Wisdom on the Second Coming (UPDATED)
...from Alistair Begg.
UPDATE: I updated the link that takes you to the both of the two parts of his sermon. Click on part one and part two. The original link just took you straight to part one of his sermon.
UPDATE: I updated the link that takes you to the both of the two parts of his sermon. Click on part one and part two. The original link just took you straight to part one of his sermon.
When The World Does Not End
One of the things that I try to do on this blog is comment on current/socio-cultural events that take place from the different perspectives that I occupy (as a Christian, as a Libertarian, and as a social psychologist). Harold Camping's doom's day prophecy seems to necessitate some understanding from multiple layers. I'll tackle it from a social psychology and Christian perspective here.
From a social psychology perspective, I'm most interested in seeing Camping's follow-up statements/actions in the wake of the failure of his prophecy. What is particularly intriguing is that Camping painted himself in a corner. He acknowledged that his 1994 prediction of the world's end was wrong. He said that his book (1994?) was published with a question mark because he wasn't sure about that date. He was, however, sure that May 21, 2011 was the day. (I can't seem to find the link where I am getting his statement about the question mark on his book. I read it last week, and can't seem to locate it now).
What it seems, then, is that he now needs to offer some explanation. In addition, his followers/believers need to respond. You might imagine that he and his followers must be embarrassed and ashamed. (I'm making the assumption that Camping was quite sincere in his beliefs, and he wasn't just trying to scam people out of money or motivated by fame).
In a past doom's day prophecy failure, a social psychologist by the name of Leon Festinger joined the cult/group. Marion Keech (as she became to be called) believed that the world was going to be destroyed, but her followers would be picked up by an alien space-craft. When the day came and went, she had another revelation that her and her follower's faithfulness saved the day! You might expect that she, or at least, her followers would become a little suspicious and then angry (many had sold their possessions). Instead, they became even more committed to their beliefs. Psychologically, in order to justify their effort/beliefs, they became more steadfast in their beliefs to justify their actions (see cognitive dissonance theory).
Similarly, then, we might predict Harold Camping and his followers to do something similar. Camping, however, has been quiet as far as I can tell, and a short article that I read in the newspaper reported on believers who said that they were skeptical to begin with (granted, these were people that had traveled across the country to go to California to wait for the rapture).
From a Christian perspective, I am troubled. I, again, am making the assumption that Camping was quite sincere in his beliefs, but nevertheless, I'm troubled because I believe that the message the world hears is harmful to the mission of the Church. Those outside the Church are mocking Camping and his followers, but the reality is that they mock the very idea of the Church, the Gospel, and the ultimately the return of Jesus. These are mythical, fairy-tale, cult-like, and naive beliefs to them. Camping ignored the explicit message that we do not know the time by trying to explain that he could decipher the messages or hints left in the Bible in due time.
While there is certainly something to be said about the importance and reality of the destruction of the unrepentant (see here and here), the message of the Gospel is not a message about the fear of destruction. Instead, the Gospel message is about the realization of sin, the need for the Savior, and a life that reflects their citizenship under Christ. That is to say, Camping's "new converts" may have "lost their faith," upon the failed prophecy or said more accurately, had no faith, but only a fear of destruction. Thus, to the extent that the message moves people to a false faith, this isn't the message of the Church.
On a brighter note, I think there might be two points to raise to redeem value in this incident. First, it seems that Campings mispredictions should serve as a catalyst to raise important questions: If the world had ended, would you have gone to heaven? If you believe so, what is your basis for this belief?
Second, the hour of 6:00 approached on the east coast, I was out mowing my lawn. I thought that if the world were to end at 6:00 (and I knew it), how would I be spending my last hours. I looked across the street at my neighbors outside and the people around me. I would hope that my last minutes would be spent presenting the Gospel. Upon further consideration, though, because we don't know the time, every minute could be the last. As such, the thought occurred to me that an urgency to present the Gospel should be in us at all times.
From a social psychology perspective, I'm most interested in seeing Camping's follow-up statements/actions in the wake of the failure of his prophecy. What is particularly intriguing is that Camping painted himself in a corner. He acknowledged that his 1994 prediction of the world's end was wrong. He said that his book (1994?) was published with a question mark because he wasn't sure about that date. He was, however, sure that May 21, 2011 was the day. (I can't seem to find the link where I am getting his statement about the question mark on his book. I read it last week, and can't seem to locate it now).
What it seems, then, is that he now needs to offer some explanation. In addition, his followers/believers need to respond. You might imagine that he and his followers must be embarrassed and ashamed. (I'm making the assumption that Camping was quite sincere in his beliefs, and he wasn't just trying to scam people out of money or motivated by fame).
In a past doom's day prophecy failure, a social psychologist by the name of Leon Festinger joined the cult/group. Marion Keech (as she became to be called) believed that the world was going to be destroyed, but her followers would be picked up by an alien space-craft. When the day came and went, she had another revelation that her and her follower's faithfulness saved the day! You might expect that she, or at least, her followers would become a little suspicious and then angry (many had sold their possessions). Instead, they became even more committed to their beliefs. Psychologically, in order to justify their effort/beliefs, they became more steadfast in their beliefs to justify their actions (see cognitive dissonance theory).
Similarly, then, we might predict Harold Camping and his followers to do something similar. Camping, however, has been quiet as far as I can tell, and a short article that I read in the newspaper reported on believers who said that they were skeptical to begin with (granted, these were people that had traveled across the country to go to California to wait for the rapture).
From a Christian perspective, I am troubled. I, again, am making the assumption that Camping was quite sincere in his beliefs, but nevertheless, I'm troubled because I believe that the message the world hears is harmful to the mission of the Church. Those outside the Church are mocking Camping and his followers, but the reality is that they mock the very idea of the Church, the Gospel, and the ultimately the return of Jesus. These are mythical, fairy-tale, cult-like, and naive beliefs to them. Camping ignored the explicit message that we do not know the time by trying to explain that he could decipher the messages or hints left in the Bible in due time.
While there is certainly something to be said about the importance and reality of the destruction of the unrepentant (see here and here), the message of the Gospel is not a message about the fear of destruction. Instead, the Gospel message is about the realization of sin, the need for the Savior, and a life that reflects their citizenship under Christ. That is to say, Camping's "new converts" may have "lost their faith," upon the failed prophecy or said more accurately, had no faith, but only a fear of destruction. Thus, to the extent that the message moves people to a false faith, this isn't the message of the Church.
On a brighter note, I think there might be two points to raise to redeem value in this incident. First, it seems that Campings mispredictions should serve as a catalyst to raise important questions: If the world had ended, would you have gone to heaven? If you believe so, what is your basis for this belief?
Second, the hour of 6:00 approached on the east coast, I was out mowing my lawn. I thought that if the world were to end at 6:00 (and I knew it), how would I be spending my last hours. I looked across the street at my neighbors outside and the people around me. I would hope that my last minutes would be spent presenting the Gospel. Upon further consideration, though, because we don't know the time, every minute could be the last. As such, the thought occurred to me that an urgency to present the Gospel should be in us at all times.
May 18, 2011
May 13, 2011
May 12, 2011
The Average Person
@ Yahoo! Video
National Geographic put together this video, based on research of the typical face.
The researchers conclude that a male, 28-year-old Han Chinese man is the most typical person on the planet. There are 9 million of them.A body of social psychology work by Dr. Judith Langlois shows that the averaged (or composite) face is found to be more attractive. Go here to see how the greater the number of faces added to the composite image, the more attractive the face becomes, and start here to watch faces "morph" together.
(Thanks to one of my lab students--Anh Tran--for passing this link along to me).
May 11, 2011
May 9, 2011
The Science of Morality
An email I got this morning from a professional list-serve I am on recommended this book by two of our social psychology colleagues. The book is on morality research. The surprising finding: people do good and bad things.The comments that my colleagues endorsing this book have made direct our attention to this message. Dan Gilbert of Harvard says:
"This smart and lively book uses cutting-edge research in psychological science to reveal the hero and the villain that live inside each of us." (emphasis added)Paul Bloom of Yale says:
"It shows how laboratory research is undermining the very notion of a fixed moral character..."(emphasis addedFinally, Peter Salovey, also of Yale says:
"It is not unusual to think of someone as either a moral or immoral person, of good character or not. David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo make the intriguing argument instead that the world is not filled with saints and sinners, but rather there is good and bad in all of us." (emphasis added)Before I comment further, I should qualify all this by saying that I have not read the book. I am only commenting on the premise of the book and the reactions by those who presumably have read the book.
On the one hand, this book is a fount of wisdom. Indeed, it is the very idea that people are good and bad that creates an enormous misunderstanding about who Christians are and the purpose of the Church. That is, I think the notion from those outside the Church is that those inside the Church think they are good and those outside the Church are bad. The reality is, though, that Christians are not good people; they are repentant people--people that have acknowledged their sin and relied on Christ for forgiveness. Thus, Christians would/should rightly agree that there is good and bad that reside in those outside and inside the Church. The difference between Christians and non-Christians is not the lack of and the presence of sin's stain, respectively.
On the other hand, however, the content of this book will likely foster an improper view. I suspect (note the emphasis) that the social psychologists who read this book will come away with an entirely different message than that I have laid out above. I suspect that the message they will get is that we are all good and bad. There is no difference between those who are "religious" or "non-religious;" thus, morality is another product of human psychology that is influenced by contextual variables the same way that any other psychological process is. (For they, I suspect believe that morality is what religion is about, you see). While I do not deny that contextual cues do this, the message without the proper context (of theology) may undermine the theological significance of sin, and in turn, the necessity of Christ.
In my duel role as a social psychologist and a Christian, I often confront these seeming tensions. In this example, I find it interesting that my social psychology colleagues find this premise (i.e., that saints are sinners) fascinating. It seems as though they believe they've got something on Christians (undermining what I think they believe is the Christian's perception that they are good), but in reality, such findings make theological sense. Thus, in this case (as is in many cases), there is no tension between the discoveries made in psychology and Christian theology.
May 6, 2011
May 5, 2011
That's Not Me in This Video...
...but it might as well be.
Alright, some of the things doesn't apply (e.g., I wasn't the president of the young Republicans at Harvard), but you get the idea. I considered myself as a conservative for a long time. I believed that the U.S. was always fighting for truth and justice. We were the good guys; they were the bad guys. Most of all, I considered myself a conservative because I hold socially conservative values in my personal life.
Ron Paul, like he did and does for so many, though, awakened me to a philosophy of peace and liberty. I've read a few of Wood's books too. Through these and other works, I see that a non-interventionist policy is more moral and ethical than the current foreign policies, and that liberty should be extended, such that my values (and what I hold personally) should not be legislated (something that also fits with a tradition in reformed theology). For these reasons, I'm proud to identify with something other than a conservative as my political philosophy, but I think Wood's message isn't to reign in the Republicans to be true conservatives, but to reach those on the right.
Alright, some of the things doesn't apply (e.g., I wasn't the president of the young Republicans at Harvard), but you get the idea. I considered myself as a conservative for a long time. I believed that the U.S. was always fighting for truth and justice. We were the good guys; they were the bad guys. Most of all, I considered myself a conservative because I hold socially conservative values in my personal life.
Ron Paul, like he did and does for so many, though, awakened me to a philosophy of peace and liberty. I've read a few of Wood's books too. Through these and other works, I see that a non-interventionist policy is more moral and ethical than the current foreign policies, and that liberty should be extended, such that my values (and what I hold personally) should not be legislated (something that also fits with a tradition in reformed theology). For these reasons, I'm proud to identify with something other than a conservative as my political philosophy, but I think Wood's message isn't to reign in the Republicans to be true conservatives, but to reach those on the right.
May 4, 2011
A Dollar Just Doesn't Go As Far As It Used To
The Economists' 'daily chart':
"THE dollar’s recent decline has taken it to new lows. The chart shows the nominal exchange rate, in trade-weighted terms (ie, against the country’s trading partners). The index is now 30% below its level when the Bretton Woods system was abandoned in the early 1970s and the dollar has halved since 1985, when leading nations adopted the Plaza Accord to drive it lower. There was a rally in 2008 when the dollar attracted “safe haven” flows during the financial crisis, but that now looks like a blip in a 40-year decline..." read the rest.(emphasis added
May 3, 2011
Duel Citizenship, Duel Analysis, Same Conclusion
In yesterday's post, I tried to articulate the concern I had with rejoicing about the death of our enemy. Interestingly, in reflecting on this a bit, it seems as though the concerns about such action as citizens of God's Kingdom and as members of the U. S. nation-state seem to parallel each other. That is to say, that rejoicing over the death of OBL is not consistent with Christian action, and it is also not consistent with wise foreign policy and relations.
This duel analysis and same conclusion does not always happen when you come from my perspective as a Christian and Libertarian. For example, my stance on the drug war does not do this. As a Christian, I don't condone the abuse of drugs, but as a Libertarian, I oppose the State's prohibition of drugs. Thus, how I view this issue at two different levels of analysis comes to different conclusions. So, in a rare event, I find myself arguing for the same position from two different levels of analysis.
At the 'citizens of God's Kingdom analysis,' it weakens our testimony to the world, at the very least. That is, it does not stand out as living differently. "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" (Matthew 5:46).
At the member of the U.S. nation-state level of analysis, our actions threaten peaceful existence. Our military actions (i.e., our freedom fighters) are their terrorists. Agree with their perspective or not, it does not change this reality. To have Americans line the streets praising the death of another Muslim does not sit well in the global context. Moreover, our perpetual war (and our likely increase in military action) will only reinforce these ideas. If OBL was the man we are after, then we should leave. Our further presence makes it embarrassingly hard to deny that the U.S. is an empire.
This convergence in conclusion struck me this morning as I read D. G. Hart's (an OPC member) commentary on OBL's assassination from a theological perspective and the liberal Glenn Greenwald's commentary on the effects of OBL's assassination for war and civil liberties. They are both worth reading. These two bright men would likely disagree on many things, but their principled stance from their perspectives comes to the same conclusion (ultimately). Such convergence is a rare treat for me.
This duel analysis and same conclusion does not always happen when you come from my perspective as a Christian and Libertarian. For example, my stance on the drug war does not do this. As a Christian, I don't condone the abuse of drugs, but as a Libertarian, I oppose the State's prohibition of drugs. Thus, how I view this issue at two different levels of analysis comes to different conclusions. So, in a rare event, I find myself arguing for the same position from two different levels of analysis.
At the 'citizens of God's Kingdom analysis,' it weakens our testimony to the world, at the very least. That is, it does not stand out as living differently. "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" (Matthew 5:46).
At the member of the U.S. nation-state level of analysis, our actions threaten peaceful existence. Our military actions (i.e., our freedom fighters) are their terrorists. Agree with their perspective or not, it does not change this reality. To have Americans line the streets praising the death of another Muslim does not sit well in the global context. Moreover, our perpetual war (and our likely increase in military action) will only reinforce these ideas. If OBL was the man we are after, then we should leave. Our further presence makes it embarrassingly hard to deny that the U.S. is an empire.
This convergence in conclusion struck me this morning as I read D. G. Hart's (an OPC member) commentary on OBL's assassination from a theological perspective and the liberal Glenn Greenwald's commentary on the effects of OBL's assassination for war and civil liberties. They are both worth reading. These two bright men would likely disagree on many things, but their principled stance from their perspectives comes to the same conclusion (ultimately). Such convergence is a rare treat for me.
May 2, 2011
Blood-Thirsty Americans Take to the Street
It's hard to imagine that the perception of those outside the U.S., and particularly in the Middle East, Pakistan, and Afghanistan would see this response to Bin Laden's assassination as anything other than the title of this post. Don't get me wrong. I'm not shedding tears over the death of Bin Laden. I understand that he took the lives (or more precisely, orchestrated the taking of lives) of thousands. It is the response that I feel uneasy about.
Consider the reported celebration of many Palestinians in response to the attacks on 9/11/01. From my perspective and to most in the U.S., we find such jubilation in the face of death as barbaric and even evil. I know the counter-argument is that they are celebrating an unprovoked assault on civilians; whereas, the U. S. is celebrating the death of an accused murderer. I get that, but I suspect that those that celebrated the 9/11/01 attack did not see it as an unprovoked attack. They find the same justice in that, as we do in this case.
Let us move away from the tit-for-tat argument, though. The reality is that when the Palestinians celebrated the 9/11/01 attacks, the people of the U.S. saw this as a reflection of the Muslim religion. When the U.S. celebrates the assassination of Bin Laden, they see this as a celebration by Christians. Even those closer to home have already mocked Christians' hypocrisy.
Whether or not these are Christians celebrating and whether or not justice has been served, I think the Christian response should be very tempered. I think such a proper response would be, not only our obligation, but a powerful witness.
Ultimately, justice does not come here on earth. While the civil magistrate plays a role as the sword bearer, our response under the state and as citizens of God's kingdom should be quite different than jubilation in the streets.
As for the role of the state, if justice has been provided, the soldiers should begin to pack-up and come home, but the CIAspokesmen analysts on Morning Joe were already warning about new threats, new targets to hit, and an acceleration in the war. This should be disconcerting. For the liberties lost in the first decade have been significant. Regardless of the reality, this action is seen as "a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood." For that reason, one may argue justice was served, but liberty and peace were certainly not and won't be until we end the war.
Consider what a powerful statement it would be for the U.S.'s military occupants in those countries to pack up their bags and gear and move out of these countries now that the perpetrator of these crimes is gone.
Consider further, what a powerful statement an outpouring of love from Christians would make in a fallen world.
Consider the reported celebration of many Palestinians in response to the attacks on 9/11/01. From my perspective and to most in the U.S., we find such jubilation in the face of death as barbaric and even evil. I know the counter-argument is that they are celebrating an unprovoked assault on civilians; whereas, the U. S. is celebrating the death of an accused murderer. I get that, but I suspect that those that celebrated the 9/11/01 attack did not see it as an unprovoked attack. They find the same justice in that, as we do in this case.
Let us move away from the tit-for-tat argument, though. The reality is that when the Palestinians celebrated the 9/11/01 attacks, the people of the U.S. saw this as a reflection of the Muslim religion. When the U.S. celebrates the assassination of Bin Laden, they see this as a celebration by Christians. Even those closer to home have already mocked Christians' hypocrisy.
Whether or not these are Christians celebrating and whether or not justice has been served, I think the Christian response should be very tempered. I think such a proper response would be, not only our obligation, but a powerful witness.
Ultimately, justice does not come here on earth. While the civil magistrate plays a role as the sword bearer, our response under the state and as citizens of God's kingdom should be quite different than jubilation in the streets.
As for the role of the state, if justice has been provided, the soldiers should begin to pack-up and come home, but the CIA
Consider what a powerful statement it would be for the U.S.'s military occupants in those countries to pack up their bags and gear and move out of these countries now that the perpetrator of these crimes is gone.
Consider further, what a powerful statement an outpouring of love from Christians would make in a fallen world.