Myths and legends are not just quaint folk-tales told for amusement-even in the days before television and movies, myths always served a higher function than mere “entertainment.” Invariably, behind those stories there exists an entire worldview that deals with the fears, anxieties, and darkest desires of a culture. A single myth can explain more about a culture, than a legion of sociologists armed with surveys and clip-boards could accomplish in a life-time. Myths are powerful because they tap into the real, underlying values of a culture

The myth of the vampire is worldwide; every culture seems to have developed some sort of legend of a creature who lives off the blood of the innocent. This connection may be explained by Scripture itself telling us that the “life is in the blood.” While we recognize both the sacramental aspects of this as well as the medical, blood and life are closely associated in all human communities. Most people today are most familiar with the Eastern European version of the blood-sucking myth, especially as dramatized by Bram Stoker’s novel, “Dracula.”

When analyzing any mythology, the old Materialist’s anti-supernatural prejudice must be recognized and dealt with. Christians, by revelation, KNOW that the supernatural exists; but apart from what Scripture tells us, we must depend upon rational investigation to determine if legends or myths have any substance in reality. Since the Bible does not talk about vampires, we have no divine authentication for their actual existence. While belief in literal vampires was common throughout Europe during the Middle Ages, (most well-educated, professionals right up to the Enlightenment assumed the vampire’s existence to have been proven), the 19^th century saw a powerful reaction against anything supernatural. Vampires, being supernatural could not exist because the Materialists refused to believe in anything that was “above” nature. By the time that Stoker wrote his novel, it was just a horror story- a compilation of strange and eerie legends that could send a shiver up the spine. Granted, his novel probably touched something very basic and primordial in English and American culture; men were uncomfortable with the advancing power of Humanism and Materialism and therefore found his novel intriguing, just because it provided a culturally acceptable way of dealing with the supernatural.

And apart from certain maladjusted personalities suffering from various psychopathologies, no one in modern society really BELIEVES in vampires -though there MAY be several perfectly normal explanation for wide-spread reports of vampirism in the Middle Ages. For example, a person infected with rabies shares many similarities with the classic vampire; aversion to light, pasty complexion, insane, aggressive behavior leading to biting, etc. And like the vampires of legend, a person bitten by someone or something afflicted with rabies will contract the disease (though actually, to become a vampire according to classic mythology requires a transfer of blood FROM the vampire to the victim-again, Hollywood usually gets this wrong). However, people afflicted with “vampirism” might bite a victim, who would then die. It was assumed that since vampirism was a curse, if a person came back from the dead, as a vampire, he MUST have done something intentional to bring it upon himself, such as make a pact with the devil or willingly drunk from a vampire; either way, there was a connection between an exchange of fluids and vampirism, which is what happens when the rabies infected saliva is introduced into an open wound.

So, modern science has safely regulated the existence of the vampire to actual phenomenon misinterpreted by “primitive” pre-scientific cultures. However rural villagers in Romania have been reliably reported TO THIS DAY to routinely drive a stake through the heart of certain corpses before final burial. (As a side note, the purpose for driving a stake through the heart of a vampire is NOT to kill it, but rather to pin it to the ground so that it cannot leave its grave; again, Hollywood got it wrong).

Originally, the vampire legend, though taking slightly different forms in different cultures, universally described the creature as a genuine undead monster, creeping out of its grave to prey on the innocent. It was only with the stage and film version of Stoker’s “Dracula” especially as personified in the characterization given by the Hungarian actor, Bela Lugosi that the vampire became a “romantic” figure with suave manners and an opera cape.

In fact, due to the strictures on sexuality in the films of the time, it became quite clear to EVERY social commentator that the appeal of vampirism was that it was a euphemism for erotic seduction. All those scenes of “Dracula” staring into beautiful young women’s eyes, or entering their bedrooms at night, were deliberately staged to suggest something that the more Christianized culture at the time forbid to put on the screen. Dracula however became passé in the 1940’s; the Depression and WW II created a conservative mindset that suppressed sexuality in ALL forms and vampirism was no longer frightening without his seductive powers. “Dracula” was eventually reduced to sharing the screen with Abbot and Costello; no longer a character of fear or even seduction but simply a caricature to be ridiculed.

The Hammer Film Company in Great Britain revived the vampire genre starting in the 1950’s-60’s and with the loosening moral ties, exploited the sexual aspects of vampirism. In the early films, they might have restricted themselves to the inevitable busty female with a plunging neckline, but by the seventies, they created an entire series of films that qualify as soft-porn. Only having seen the American television versions of the Hammer films, I was shocked when I saw them broadcast, uncut on BBC and ITV while living in England. I grew up watching Peter Cushing as Van Helsing chase Christopher Lee as Dracula with crosses, cornering him and then inventively dispatching him, only to see Dracula arise in ever more creative ways in the next film. To realize that Hammer had destroyed the “innocence” of this classic battle between good and evil by deliberately injecting nudity and perversion, was just very, very, sad.

However, this sexual aspect has always been a basic underpinning of the popularization of vampirism in modern literature and film. In fact, contemporary movies actually make the sexuality the central theme. Originally, a vampire was an animated corpse, with all the attraction that implies, able to maintain a sense of “life” by feeding off the blood of the innocent. The silent film, “Nosferatu” (and its recent remake-which is a brilliant satire on Hollywood) is a far more accurate portrayal of the actual myth of the vampire; a horrible, monstrous, undead THING that preys on the living. Vampirism is clearly a curse for both the vampire and the victim.

However, modern vampirism in movies and books seems to be a blessing; one receives eternal youth, beauty, strength and power. One can have sexual relations at will with all the partners one wants. One can control others through various means as well it seems a black belt in various martial arts. Film-makers still usually make the vampire an evil character, but they seem muddled about WHY the character is evil-and often blur the line so badly that it is hard to tell the difference between the hero and villain. In fact, in popular literature (say Anne Rice’s works), the vampire is often down-right sympathetic. “Blade,” three films based on a Marvel comic book series began with the classic conception of the vampire as the ultimate evil to be destroyed, but eventually succumbed to the temptation of making them morally ambiguous. It is no accident that if one does a Google search on the Internet for “Vampire” there are literally tens of thousands of web-sites devoted to vampiric lore, clubs, fiction, art, films, etc. The average person today no longer sees the vampire as a monster to be feared, but rather the overt expression of their own dark natures; sexual and otherwise.

The appeal of the modern vampire is of power on man’s terms; the power to be strong, to kill at will, but preeminently the power to seduce. And let there be no mistake, seduction is power. The original mythology of vampires was more akin to a brutal rape; the violent assault on the innocent (which is not to say that the earlier mythology was sexual in any way). The modern version normally uses hypnosis and the promise of immortality as the main means of obtaining “blood” when it wants to portray the vampire as anything less than pure evil; but at the core, both approaches are ultimately about exercising power over others.

The modern vampire is thus popular just because it offers the greatest of all possible temptations; to be as god, unrestrained by anyone or anything other than one’s own will. The vampire is beautiful and young, sexual and strong, without conscience or inhibition and in female form, is ALWAYS perverted in orientation. Thus the modern vampire appeals to all the basest urgings and desires of the human soul, because at heart, it implicitly grants the right to be above morality.

The ethic of the modern vampire is simply the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade without all the pretentious verbiage. De Sade was not just about inflicting pain for sexual pleasure, but about imposing his will on others because he could; whatever “is” - is right. De Sade sought philosophical justification for his perversions, and even revolutionary France declared him insane and committed him to asylums. But the attack on Christian theism and morality that the revolution had unloosed could not be stemmed simply because they imprisoned its most philosophically consistent adherent. Later on Nietzsche gave a more philosophical and rational justification for the same approach to human ethics; his myth of the super-man, directly led to fascism and the death camps in Germany. Power, unrestrained by anything except man’s own will, inevitably leads to destruction. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Thus, the modern myth of the vampire is De Sade and Nietzsche come to life in the form of a monster that we secretly recognize as living inside all of us. For two thousand years, Biblical Christianity kept that monster safely chained up; the Enlightenment, Humanism, Materialism and the death of modern philosophy have released him again to prey on the innocent. It is no accident that brutal rapes, and sadistic serial killers (almost all sexually motivated), have become pandemic in modern culture. No, we cannot blame the myth of the vampire for their cause, but we can see the common ground between them. What Hollywood and popular fiction glamorize, twisted men act out in their daily life.

As mentioned previously, at the root of all human problems is a basic orientation to want to be as god, determining good and evil for one’s self exercising power over others according to one’s own will. This power might be personal, social, economic or political; but the essence of the man in rebellion to God is an unlawful desire to replace God’s sovereignty with man’s will.

In a Christianized society, this sinful orientation is inhibited and suppressed. Men are taught by Christ, through His church, to live self-sacrificial lives, serving, rather than being served, and submitting their wills, to His. It is no accident that the earlier mythology saw Christian symbols such as the cross or the Eucharist as being the ONLY effective means of combating the vampire; symbols that are routinely ridiculed as being ineffective in ALL modern movies and books. Whether they realize it or not, the contemporary producer or writer is actually making a profound statement about the role of Christianity in modern society; it is not some half-baked attempt at political correctness, but the realization that Christianity no longer provides the basic morality of society that is being attacked.

And without that Christian moral consensus, men tend to become consistent with their basic nature-and evil flourishes in the world. It is no accident that vampirism in films and literature is closely associated with violence against women in particular; the unlawful hunger for brutal sexual power, over another man’s wife or daughter.

But the sexual aspects are simply one manifestation of the deeper problem. Apart from a few superstitious people living in almost forgotten parts of Eastern Europe, no one fears the vampire today as a genuine entity. But the same philosophy and ethics behind the vampire are taught in every university and college in America and practiced in the personal ethics of most Westerners; Man is his own god, he can have what he wants on his own terms, because there is no universal moral code that binds all men.

Thus, the rejection of Biblical Christianity, and the search for morality apart from Christ, must inevitably lead us to the ethics of the vampire; seduction if possible, brutal rape if necessary, for nothing can transcend the individual’s will. And while these terms are provocative and possibly even offensive to some, only they carry the full range of emotive response to the reality of the vampire ethic being worked out in every area of life. From the university professor seducing his students into a meaningless worldview, to the corporate raider, raping a company for his assets, to the politicians who use both techniques to acquire and maintain their position, all are engaged in the same vampiric effort to exercise unlawful power over others.

The vampire as myth no longer has the power to frighten us; familiarity does breed contempt. But the vampire as ethic is as real as your local prison; and most frightening of all, this ethic is become mainstream. Modern Western culture has no defense against the vampire ethic because philosophically, they have rejected the only worldview that can consistently combat it. By the sovereign grace of God, He has chosen to restrict how consistent men become with their vampire ethic, but how long will he be patient with a rebellious and wicked people? The lands of Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, Greece, and Rome were all finally judged and destroyed because despite the local differences, at heart they had accepted the Tempter’s lie and adopted the vampire ethic. Each of these societies glorified in death, occultism, slavery, sexual debauchery and tyranny; and each, according to God’s time table were overthrown. Let us pray then, that God gives grace and a new revival or religion, lest we find that the vampire has returned and taken up residence next door.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. New Book! The Christian and the Occult
2. A Review of Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer
3. Christian Rant: It’s None of Your Business

The word “occult” means “hidden, concealed or secret” and refers to of such things as astrology, sorcery, magic, alchemy, etc that purports to give the practitioner esoteric knowledge; and with that knowledge, supernatural “powers.” Deuteronomy 18:9ff lays out God’s view of ALL occult activity, “When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft or one who interprets omens or a sorcerer or one who cases a spell, or a medium or a spiritist or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.”

Table of Reference:

•  Occultism as Power Religion
• Types of Occult Activities
• Occultism’s Worldview
• Why the Resurgence of the Occult?
• Dealing with the Occult

Clearly, God finds such activities as abominations, worthy of condemnation. In fact, He specifically states that the REASON why the Canaanites were to be destroyed was of their practice of the occult “arts”. We need to think carefully about this for a moment; was this just some obscure, ceremonial law that was relevant only to Old Testament Israel, or is there some equity today for modern Christians and the civil magistrate - How we answer this will have profound effects on our culture and our lives.

First, God hates occult activity SO much; he destroyed an entire nation just because they were deeply involved in it. Granted, ALL pagan nations are mired in the occult to some degree or another. In antiquity, Egypt was clearly committed to occult activity trying to mimic the miracles performed by Moses. There, God destroyed the entire nation through Divine judgments in the Ten Plagues. In the case of Canaan, He ordered the Israelites to be the vehicle of His judgment. Therefore SOME nations He destroys by His divine providence, while He entrusts the civil magistrates to inhibit it in others. But lest anyone think that His providence allows the modern magistrate off the hook, consider that occultism is like idolatry; God warns the civil magistrates in Romans 1:20ff that idolatry brings His curse on ALL societies, not just covenant ones like Israel. Therefore the civil magistrate, as a servant of God (Romans 13:1ff) WILL be held accountable to God on the Day of Judgment if they allow occultism to go unsuppressed; just as He holds idolatrous nations accountable. It is interesting in this light to note that even PAGAN nations, historically, often passed laws against witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

Secondly, modern cultures would do well to consider WHY God hates occultism so much. The essence of all occult activity is power through secret knowledge; power over the natural elements, over sickness and adversity, power over one’s enemies or simply power for power’s sake. From the beginning of human history, when Adam sought to be as God, wanting to determine good and evil for himself, wicked men have a “natural” bent towards the occult in the illusive search for power though secret knowledge. Gary North in many of his better books has identified the essence of Satanism as “Power Religion.” Biblical religion is based on submission to Almighty God, bringing our lives into conformity with His revealed will. Jesus said it this way, “He would be great among you must first become the servant of all.” Thus ethics is central to Biblical Christianity; as we serve God, and others, His power flows into us and through us but it is always HIS power to do HIS will.

However rebellious Men, in a vain attempt to be as God, seek power apart from God. They want power for its own sake, to be used according to their own will because they want to BE God. They recognize that power can come through a strong arm, and hard work, but they also recognize that the essence of divinity is power over the “natural” world. Occultism is not a “short-cut” to power; acquiring occult power takes decades of dedicated training to master (see Carlos Castaneda) but rather an attempt to get to the “real” source of all power. The “universe” is assumed to be power in chaotic form, which by the proper rituals and procedures can be controlled by the will of men. Man thus recapitulates God’s actions in creation, imposing order on primeval chaos for His own will. Occultism thus is the inevitable religion of paganism as it represents sinful men’s attempt to become God.

Even pagan Hollywood understands this aspect of the occult; in the very first Arnold Schwarzenegger movie “Conan the Barbarian” James Earl Jones’ evil character begins his descent into wickedness by craving the “power of steel” and raids Conan’s village because of their reputation for making the best swords. Later on, in the climatic confrontation, Jones has given up on armies and steel because he discovered that the occult and religious ritual is more powerful than swords.

It is interesting that in this passage from Deuteronomy, God promises that He will raise up for His people a prophet like Moses who shall direct and guide His people. Jesus, who was the literal fulfillment of this prophecy demonstrated as a part of His divine nature, power over the demonic, the natural world and the future. All the things that shamans, witches, fortune tellers so avidly seek to obtain were demonstrated in the life and work of Jesus. Jesus was often accused by his enemies of being a sorcerer because He demonstrated supernatural power.

But an important distinction must be made between miracles and magic; miracles are God’s intervention into human events; magic is about men attempting to exercise supernatural power on their own terms. Magic is the power to invoke, summon, or control celestial/demonic forces to do one’s bidding for either “good” or evil while miracles are an act of God through a specific individual in order to authenticate or demonstrate His sovereignty. Miracles in Scripture are never random, events. If one carefully reads through the Book of Acts, even the Apostles and their authorized agents did not perform miracles on demand. Each recorded incident is specifically given to reveal something about God, His Son or His will. Magic on the other hand, is ALWAYS about obtaining and using supernatural power for one’s own purposes. Simon Magus was specifically condemned for his attempt to purchase the abilities the Apostles demonstrated.

Thus occult practices are “detestable” to God (Deut 18:12, EX 22:18) just because they are attempts to steal His glory and honor. They are inherently blasphemous because they attribute to men, that which is reserved to the Divine nature. Occultism thus places man’s faith in his ability to imitate the divine, ascribing to himself what only God can do.

In Biblical history, one can see how God judged Israel for violating this command. Occultism was one of the sins so severe that it deserved the death penalty in ancient Israel (Ex 22:18).Occultism was one of the reasons Saul lost His kingdom (1 Chn 10:13). By consulting the witch (better translation, “medium”) of Endor, Saul sought knowledge of the future apart from God. God would no longer speak to him, so he hired a medium to call up Samuel’s ghost. As a result, his apostasy was complete and he lost both his kingdom and his life the next day. Later on in Israel’s history, occultism was characteristic of Manasseh, the worst king of Judah (2 Chn 33:6) whose depravity was the final cause of their captivity in Babylon for seventy years. It is God’s irony that because of occultism (and idolatry) the remnants of Israel were enslaved for two generations in the heart of the most occult society in the ancient world! Finally, the New Testament states that people who are involved in the occult are excluded from heaven (Rev 21:8, 22:5).

Occultism as Power Religion

This relationship between power and religion is a recurring theme in Scripture. As creatures, we have been delegated legitimate power by God; the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:26ff clearly gives man the right to exercise dominion over the earth. But we ought to note two things about the dominion mandate; first, the purpose of that power was to glorify God, not to elevate men. By subduing the earth, men would extend the beauty, harmony and productivity of the Garden over the rest of creation, thus imaging God’s work in creation.

Secondly, the means by which men were to subdue the earth was by being fruitful and multiplying, not through some supernatural accumulation of power. Men though made in the image of God, are not His equals. Even prefect, sinless men were dependant creatures created to live within the limits of a physical universe. Their dominion over the earth would be accomplished by hard (but not onerous) work-work that would be shared by future generations building on the accomplishments of their ancestors.

But occultism by nature and definition is the attempt to obtain dominion on Man’s terms by unlawful methods and procedures. It was “hidden” from the average person, and only revealed to the “chosen” ones. The beginning of ALL occultism was the Serpent’s lie to Eve in the Garden. She had revealed knowledge about God and His will, but Satan offered “hidden” knowledge that God had supposedly kept from her. Satan called God’s character into question, stating that He wanted to keep certain knowledge from Adam and Eve, knowledge that would give them the power to be as God. Satan then graciously offered to share this knowledge; eating from the forbidden fruit would make her a God. Thus occultism appealed both to her vanity and desire to have power.

In many books and discussions today, those claiming to have occult powers often insist that they use them only for good and in some cases that they are actually doing God’s work! Popular television shows such as “Charmed” or “Angel” or “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” are heavily dependant upon occult forces working against evil for “good.” However, it is not just how a power is used but rather whether God glorified by its use. God and God alone can determine what glorifies His name, reveals His character and establishes right conduct. If God has forbidden us to use certain means even to a “good” end, then such practices are wrong. Thus there is no such thing as “white” magic. But the appeal is that the occultist’s “secret” knowledge and power takes precedence over God’s revelation; hence recapitulating the original sin in the Garden.

Types of Occult Activities

In the Deuteronomy passage, Moses identifies various types of occult activity which is specifically condemned by God. The first reference is to human sacrifice; i.e., “passing through the fire” and probably is a direct reference to Molech worship. In order to gain power from the god “Molech” (which probably comes from the word for “king” hence referring to the “King of Heaven” another blasphemous reference to the One True God) pagans would sacrifice their babies by casting them into a furnace that had been super-heated by fire. The babies would be instantly consumed and this demonstration of loyalty to the “god” would therefore presumably bring the god’s favor. That favor might be sufficient rain for a good crop, victory over enemies in battle, prosperity in business, etc.

It is not hard to see sacrificing children as an obscene parody of God offering His only begotten Son Jesus. Human sacrifice is thought to be the most potent form of “magic” just because it imitates God’s own predetermined will to send Jesus to die for our sins.

A second form of occultism forbidden in this passage is divination or the act or practice of trying to foretell the future by unknown or occult means. Knowledge of the future represents power. Wouldn’t we all like to have knowledge of how the stock market will do next year, or what our enemies plan for us? But only God is the “Alpha and Omega; the first and the last, the beginning and the end” and therefore only He can know the future. For men to seek such knowledge apart from God is to attempt to manipulate that which is God’s own domain. It is to claim for one’s self the nature of God; His omniscience.

Granted, in the Bible, God did often send prophets to His people who would, on occasion and according to His will, give knowledge of future events. There was even a procedure during the tabernacle and temple years wherein one could consult the High Priests through the Ummin and Thummin to receive instruction and guidance. But the main purpose of a prophet, throughout the Bible was to declare God’s will, not to give power to people.

Sorcery, wizardry and witchcraft are the claim of the ability to use supernatural power to influence the natural world (NT pharmacopeia; the use of potions/drugs-). Again it is blasphemous because it represents a rival religion to Biblical Christianity. The sorcerer claims to be “connected” to the ultimate source of power which he can manipulate at will. He attributes to himself that which only God can do. Hence, it is always idolatrous and always contrary to revealed religion.

Mediums/spiritualists are those who consult the dead or through whom the dead communicate to the living. Death is the great curse and all men, at the center of their being fear it. Therefore those who can supposedly communicate with the dead achieve power over the living by allaying their fears about the “after-life.” As noted before, Saul’s consultation with a medium was his final act of rebellion that cost him his life. There is even a popular television show that has made its way from basic cable to broadcast TV called “Crossing Over” wherein a medium gives “messages” to a gullible audience.

Necromancy is the acquisition or use of occult powers through contact with demons, spirits and the dead. The idea that spirit is intrinsically superior to matter is not just the product of Plato and ancient Greek. Since God’s divine power and nature is clearly seen through every aspect of creation (Romans 1:18ff), men have always understood that there exists a spiritual realm and sought a connection with it. God is Spirit, and therefore, the assumption goes, the spiritual realm is more powerful than the physical realm. If one can obtain a little power there, it could mean great power here.

Demons are well known in all ancient religions; clearly men “experimenting” in this area discovered that intelligence existed in the spiritual world and sought ways to control it. In the same way, the dead, who now reside in that spiritual universe, were assumed to have access to knowledge and power unavailable on “this side” of the life and death barrier. Necromancy was the attempt to utilize that spiritual knowledge and power.

Astrology/stargazing is the art of gaining knowledge and or power through the positions, influences etc. of the stars, planets etc. In the ancient world, the stars were seen as more than physical objects in the night sky; it was widely assumed that they represented angelic or demonic beings; it was not an accident that all the planets in our solar system were named after particular Greek gods. By studying the movement and position of the night sky, men believed they could foretell future events.

Again, astrology is a blasphemous perversion of a Biblical truth. God specifically says that one of the reasons why He created the stars was to serve as “signs” and “seasons.” The “seasons” aspect we can understand well enough as fundamental to creating a reliable calendar. If one cannot precisely mark off the seasons, especially in an agrarian society (which represents 99% of human history) one cannot know the proper times for planting or harvesting; but what about the “signs” aspect? Well, there is ONE astrological sign that every Christian knows about; the star of Bethlehem. The “Wise men” from the east KNEW that the Messiah had been born because they “saw his star” in the heavens. But where was it revealed in the Old Testament that the Messiah’s birth would be foretold by a “star?”

I would argue that God’s providence governs every aspect of His creation, including celestial mechanics. We may “know” today that stars are burning balls of gas (actually, thermonuclear explosions) but perhaps they also serve another purpose? Psalm 19:1 says that the “heavens declare the glory of God” and surely this means more than we get a funny feeling in our tummies when we look at the night sky? It may well be that God DOES reveal things about Himself through the providential movement of stellar geometry, and “stars” may be more than just physical objects.

However, while the above is an interesting speculation; whatever signs God has placed in the heavens has no direct relationship to the practice of astrology. Astrology is blasphemous just because it attributes the predestination of God to some other entity; the planets and stars (or the spiritual beings believed to be behind them). While the modern astrologer may reject the association with angelic or demonic forces, the underlying presupposition remains that some entity other than God directs the course of human life. Thus to consult the stars through astrology was another form of worship and service to these false gods.

Finally, God finds occultism detestable because the content is often revolting; sexuality/sensuality, disgusting practices; grave robbing, use of body parts/fluids/excrement, human sacrifice are all part and parcel of the “magical” world. The very things God calls “unclean” in the Old Testament ceremonial laws are the essential ingredients in sorcery and witchcraft.

Occultism’s Worldview

The basic presupposition of occultism is the myth of primeval chaos and ethical neutrality. Like modern evolutionary theory, occultism believes that order arose out of chaos. Man’s will becomes the ultimate standard as he imposes order over the cosmic forces. The “supernatural” thus consists of potential energy that is available to those who understand how to use it for their own ends. In the ancient world these forces were sometimes associated with various pagan gods, demons, spirits or even just “forces” that if properly manipulated could grant the user power.

Since the ultimate nature of creation was chaos, there was no definite standard of good or evil, apart from the will of the individual who had the most power. Kings in the ancient world were seen as semi-divine connections between this world and the next. Sorcerers and Necromancers often worked FOR the King. But the worst sort of atrocities were common to both since there existed no ultimate moral standard other than the will of the most powerful

Occultism of course is not just an ancient, pagan belief. In modern society these same “forces” have been secularized by giving them a “scientific” covering: for example, the brain supposedly only uses 1/10th of the available material- could the other 90% be used in ways that are now long forgotten? Or perhaps “ESP” is an evolutionary atrophied ability lost because of man’s increasing dependence on the left hemisphere of his brain which stresses reason and logic? Poltergeists (a German word meaning “noisy ghosts” referring to mischievous or even dangerous hauntings) could in reality be the electromagnetic disturbances caused by anxiety and trauma of puberty and adolescence. The “Force” is a universal energy field created by all living creatures which the properly instructed can manipulate at will.

The point here of course is that though the explanation given is different, and more acceptable to the modern mind, ancient occultism and new age thinking, paranormal “science” etc., is really describing the same phenomenon.

Both ancient and contemporary manifestations of the “supernatural” exalt man at God’s expense; we simply replace the old gods for new ones. Romans 1:23 demonstrates that idolatry comes in many forms; men may worship animals, spirits or Man himself.

Thus occultism is ultimately deceptive because we do not live in a morally neutral universe, but rather an ethical one; i.e. if your “power” does not come from God then it must come from the adversary. But the power that God gives men is obtained by ethics, not ritual, and is to be exercised for His glory through dedicated loving service to others (Mark 10:45). Occultism however offers the temptation of power apart from God that Man can obtain on his own terms.

Why the Resurgence of the Occult?

Occultism is most closely associated with paganism and as the gospel conquered Europe, occultism was suppressed. In many places, only the most rural areas retained some of the older rituals; and even these were Christianized. The Renaissance saw however an outbreak of occultism that is seldom mentioned in most history text-books; the Italians rediscovered more than just Greek sculpture and philosophy but some of their darker secrets as well.

Alchemy was a serious attempt at discovering the “basic” nature of creation and manipulating it. The goal was not as popular imagination would have it to turn lead into gold, but to discover the “elixir vitae” that would grant immortality and spiritual power. Certainly there were attempts at matter transmutation, but how much of this was sincere, or how much was a way of getting financing from Kings and Princes is unclear. One of the most enduring characteristics of occultism is its close association with con artistry. Even the most primitive shaman dancing naked around a camp fire knows that MOST of his REAL power comes from the belief of others rather than in anything he can actually do. In fact, an argument could be made that shamans, witchdoctors, alchemists, sorcerers and necromancers were the first practical psychologists capitalizing on the gullibility of the people. After all, if people THINK you can do something supernatural, it gives you power over them, regardless of whether you actually CAN do anything supernatural.

But with the Reformation and the Enlightenment, rationalism came to rule the day. Reason, logic and clear, critical thinking are the most effective counter-agents to the occult. Reason and logic make things clear and can be shown to anyone who wants to know the truth. Occultism by its very nature defies rational categories and can be learned, only if one is initiated into the secret mysteries of the cult.

Thus, occultism went underground during the Reformation, existing mostly in secret societies that turned to political and cultural issues in the 17-18^th centuries. The theology of ALL revolutionary movements has its origin in occult thinking. In order for societies to be transformed, men must descend back into the primeval chaos that is the ultimate nature of reality. Then SOME men can enforce their will on that chaos and bring about a new political, economic or social order. As demonstrated in the book, “Fire in the Hearts of Men” all of the social revolutionaries of the 19^th century can trace their ancestry directly back to earlier occult societies.

But in the mainstream, at least in the West, occultism dwindled into fairy tale and folk-lore. Christianity and rationalism ruled the day and even in the secularizing process of the 19^th century when Materialists won many of the philosophical battles, occultism was seen as the last remnants of a primitive worldview.

But in the last half of the 20^th century, occultism returned with a vengeance. Partially, thanks to the bankruptcy of modern philosophy, many people lost the very idea of objective truth. If there is no one, all encompassing truth, then there is no place for rationalism. Reason is a useful tool, but if people begin with the basic presupposition that the ultimate nature of reality is chaos (i.e., there is NO truth), then the door has been opened for occultism to make its reappearance. Furthermore, Materialism is inherently an unsatisfying philosophy because it denies something that is inherent within every human being; the knowledge that God, and the spiritual world, exists.

Rational thought, a product of a consistent, Christian worldview, allows us to have dominion over the world by ensuring that we THINK is real, is “really” real. By thinking logically and critically, we can evaluate various claims, and therefore determine truth from error. But if there is no truth, just the subjective impression of the individual, then the chaos is king. As a result, people can believe anything, because anything COULD be true. As mentioned before, one of the marks of people involved in occultism is gullibility; as demonstrated in another article (The “Reality” of Occult Phenomenon); there is actually little real evidence to support claims of occult activity. Even Gary North in his book, “Unholy Spirits” gives undue credence to CLAIMS of occult activity that do not stand the tests of empirical research. Dr. North insists that this is due to occult phenomenon not fitting within the worldviews of modern academics; and to a degree he is most certainly correct.

There are no brute facts, only interpreted ones and one’s presuppositions will determine whether something is even considered a “fact” in the first place. Academics who are materialists at heart are not above discounting the evidence of their own eyes as not being “evidence” just because it does not fit within their frame of reference. And yet, this charge can be turned directly back at Christians. Christians who ASSUME the existence of the supernatural can often believe a certain event has a supernatural origin when in reality it is just good old slight of hand.

The answer to both problems is to think rationally and critically, like the Bereans did before believing every claim that comes to our attention. The Bereans began with the right presuppositions, the authority of Scripture, and then reasoned FROM those Scriptures to evaluate the claims the Apostles were making about Christ. This same process is necessary for all areas of life; begin with the proper presuppositions and then think clearly and logically from those presuppositions.

However, reason, logic and critical thinking are not emphasized in the modern educational system; not by Humanists, and sadly, not often by Christians. The average Christian either accepts things by appeal to an authority (pastor, teacher, popular writer or television personality) or adopts a subjective standard of truth based on whatever the “Spirit” speaks in his “heart.”

The secular world also has adopted a largely subjective standard of truth. There are many supposed “truths” out there and the only unforgivable sin is to hold one truth above another. Both errors in rationality inevitably lead to allowing occultism to flourish.

Of course, the universe is the way God made it and therefore either you live in harmony with that reality, or you suffer. Scientists, engineers and technicians have in the past provided a bulwark against mysticism and occultism because their basic presupposition was that through the scientific method, the universe would be required to give up all its secrets. The 19^th century saw the transition from a religious worldview to a secular/materialist worldview partially because of the power that the scientific method gave to modern man. Science discovered how to make rail-roads, cure diseases, mine ores, build better weapons, conquered the skies and even led us to the moon.

But there was a dark side to science. In the 20^th century, the optimistic hopes of the 19^th century were crushed by two world wars and the invention of nuclear weapons that could potentially end life as we know it on earth. Furthermore, there were limits to what even scientific enquiry could take us. The discoveries about the basic nature of the universe at the sub-atomic level destroyed the earlier Newtonian view of physics. In some way, the very act of observing sub-atomic particles determined how they would respond.

As a result of the increasing mystery of modern physics, the older materialist’s consensus was destroyed. Einstein never discovered his unified field theory which would tie all of physics together. While Science Fiction has gone from embarrassingly bad speculation unknown outside of a small audience to capturing the popular imagination, the reality is that physics has been in despair for almost a century. The world does not seem to fit into any of the comfortable categories established by the 19^th century materialists. And as a result, the possibility of occultism has to be entertained. All societies have some sort of religious beliefs about the nature of the universe and in the West, that mythology for 150 years has been scientific materialism. Therefore, for any idea to become acceptable, it MUST fit within the dominant scientific worldview. Therefore, occultism was transferred from the magician’s study to the scientific laboratory and renamed “Paranormal Research.” For years, such activity has been seen as on the fringes of scientific enquiry, but the very fact that universities take it seriously enough that they offer courses and degrees in these areas, has therefore authenticated occultism in the popular mind. The average person today who has read anything of the actual literature would come away with the clear conception that science has “proven” the existence of ESP, poltergeists, and other occult phenomenon. The reality of course is less clear, but the fact that the highest authority in Western culture, the secular university, teaches such things, therefore makes its acceptance almost guaranteed.

Another reason for the recent outbreak of occultism has to with the church adopting 19^th century materialists’ skepticism of the supernatural. Liberal theology was an attempt to adapt the Bible to the prevailing cultural norms, and in those days, that meant getting rid of the supernatural and the miraculous. This left a gaping hole in the human psyche that occultism has been quick to fill. People WANT to believe in something greater and grander than themselves, and as discussed previously, there is an innate hunger for supernatural power to bolster our inner desire to be “as gods.” What mainstream Christianity took away, cults, sects and occultism gave back; at the price of reason and rationality and the dangers of consorting with demons.

Finally, occultism found a ripe harvest because of the chaos and complexity of modern culture. From 1960 onwards, the West has been experiencing a traumatic social revolution. Sexuality, abortion, the break-down of the traditional family, the failure of modern religion, etc., all have combined to create a social situation that leaves the average person feeling confused and estranged. Occultism in its various forms promises to bring meaning to these people, to put them in touch with the ultimate nature of reality while not requiring them to abandon their most basic presupposition that the world must revolve around them. It is no accident that the fastest growing Christian churches in the world are those that PROMISE miracles to their people on a regular basis.

For the Christian, the supernatural really exists. We believe in a sovereign God who according to His own providence can and does interact with His creation. We believe that prayer really can change things. We believe in the existence of spiritual beings at war with our heavenly Father and at enmity with us. Thus, we are predisposed to seeing “supernatural” explanations of various events. When we hear people of good repute and respectable character giving reports of demons exorcized, bodies healed, or even the dead being raised, we do not immediately dismiss such accounts because they COULD be true.

Dealing with the Occult

In light of what we have discussed, what ought to be the Christian response to occultism? It is pervasive in our culture; rather boring, traditional English school stories infused with a little magic has made J. K. Rowling fantastically rich. The most successful movies and films of the past twenty-five years all have strong occult themes. The Christian cannot escape the occultism of modern society unless they withdraw completely FROM that society. So what do we do?

First, there is a lot of fear amongst many Christians regarding anything even remotely associated with the occult; unreasonable fear. Attacks have been made against J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis’s fiction because there is “magic” in their books. The “Dark Side” of Harry Potter has been popularized by many different writers all motivated by a legitimate concern that exposure to this kind of material MIGHT lead to future involvement in the occult.

But there is “magic” and there is MAGIC and we have to distinguish between the two. In Christian works, the “magic” must be understood in context of the times. Remember, these books were written before the modern resurgence of occultism when Materialism seemed destined to extinguish popular belief in ALL supernatural phenomena, including Biblical Christianity. Lewis and Tolkien’s use of good “magic” for example is always CLEARY distinguishable from the evil sorts that come from demonic associations. In Lewis especially, he uses “magic” in the sense of “miracle.”

In Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” the “wizard” Gandalf is in reality an angel sent to earth to help men battle against the evil demon, Sauron. He is severely restricted in using “magic” and his purpose is more to motivate men than it is to directly battle evil. Yes, there are “magical” rings, swords, and devices, but even here, Necromancy and Sorcery are clearly seen as evil and satanic. The “magical” devices are basically technology that is not understood by the average person. And that phenomenon is just as true of the average person today as it is in Tolkien’s world. How many people actually understand how their television works, or could explain the physics of an internal combustion engine? But we do not call such things “magic” but invoke the more acceptable term “technology.”

If there is an actual difference between “magic” and “technology” it is the application of the scientific method. Technology by definition is something that COULD be understood if a person was willing to put in the time to study it. Magic on the other hand, by its nature, is hidden from the average person and only the initiate, with the proper mind-set and conditioning can master it.

Secondly, occultism in movies and books, even when it comes from a secular source does not necessarily qualify as one of the detestable things in Deuteronomy. For example, is the comic book hero “Superman” something God had in mind when He outlawed occult activity? Superman is an alien being with powers far and above the abilities of the average human. He can fly, is invulnerable, has X-ray vision and has super-strength: does this make him an occult figure?

I would argue no, because there is in Western culture, going back to the beginnings of Christianity in Europe, myths, legends and folk-tales where people have extraordinary powers. But they are just that, stories; they are not real, we are not supposed to believe them, and nobody does. We find such characters interesting and fascinating BECAUSE they can do things that no real human can do, not because somehow we believe we can obtain such powers.

Granted, there have always been some little children who put on their Superman capes and jump off the roofs of their houses trying to fly and yes, there are a few adults with brain dysfunction who religiously attend Star Trek conventions anxiously hoping that Scottie will “beam them up.” But we LAUGH at such people just because they cannot separate fantasy from reality.

Does not EVERY little Christian boy find Samson the most interesting character in the Bible? And haven’t most of them, at least a few times, played as Samson pulling down the temple? Is it not the very fact of Samson’s unusual power, through his amazing strength the very reason why we find his story so fascinating?

Movies, television shows and books I think fall into this same category. Just because the hero may have some unusual powers does not necessarily mean that the show is outright demonic in its orientation and therefore ought to be avoided. What is of far more importance is the values and morality being portrayed. Is it not interesting that many Christians “horrified” by the thought of watching certain movies that may have some form of supernaturalism will relish romantic trash that glorifies adultery, fornication, rebellious children, etc? So which kind of film is more likely to cause serious harm to one’s soul?

Granted, there ARE such films and books that by their nature are simply evil; they glorify the occult, and romanticize evil. The most dangerous are probably the “Slasher” movies. In this genre, begun by the infamous cult film “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and made popular by “Halloween” demonically controlled human beings gruesomely murder stupid teenagers who insist on going into dark places alone. Werewolves, Vampires and Frankenstein’s monster are creatures of fiction; we know they do not exist. But homicidal, sociopaths dismembering innocent people are all too real.

As seriously as we ought to take God’s warning against occultism in any form, we need to make a distinction between the actual practice of such blasphemies and its mere occurrence in literature or films. Just because something has “magic” in it does not necessarily make it unlawful.

Bram Stoker’s famous novel “Dracula” is inherently a Christian book because it clearly identifies the main character with Satan, and he is to be opposed by Christianity. Similarly, Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” (though written by a 19 year old girl involved in an adulterous relationship with Percy Shelly), addresses a fundamental question about the relationship between science and religion; man might be able to create life, but only God can create a soul. In the BEST examples of this kind of literature, the “occult” aspects may be present, but they are addressed from a Biblical perspective, even if the writer or producer himself is NOT a Christian. They cannot help but do so because God is the ultimate source of all truth and beauty. For a film or novel to work, it must relate back to God in some way, even if it is thoroughly unintentional on the part of the author or film-makers.

The Francis Ford Coppola film version of Dracula is a wicked movie; Dracula is portrayed as a sympathetic creature, appealing and seductive. He is turned into a vampire after his wife commits suicide and he rebels against God. There are gross scenes of sexuality that serve no other purpose but to titillate the audience (and personally speaking, the reason why I usually only watch such films on our VCR or DVD, the fast forward button is a necessity). But even in this, the director to resolve his story HAD to return to Christian themes of redemption. Thus even in a most perverse and wicked film, God’s image bears through.

Furthermore, fiction CAN be a legitimate means of discussing profound theological and philosophical issues without tempting anyone to dabble in occultism. Popular films, especially ones with occult themes, can open the door to sharing the gospel that would otherwise remain firmly closed. People are hesitant about sharing their personal beliefs about God, but will often willingly engage in long conversations about films and books.

Though a tangent, perhaps this is the time to discuss the role of all forms of “entertainment.” Christians need to be able to analyze what they see on TV and films or read in books. Every author or producer has a worldview they want to present. The “entertainment” is just a means of packaging that worldview to make it easier for the audience to understand. When we watch something, or read something, we will find it “entertaining” if it meets certain, objective criteria; are there characters with whom we can identify and sympathize, are there conflicts that concern us that are resolved in a satisfactory way? Is the film well made, or book well written?

However, the crucial aspect is ALWAYS the worldview of the writer, director, producer, etc. Furthermore, since making movies is about making money, there is a limit as to how far the author or producer can push that agenda before losing their audience. And just because “in Him we live and move and have our being” even wicked men, cannot help but image the God who created them.

Either Christians just step out of the whole arena of movies and fiction, thus cutting us off from where the average person thinks and feels, or we have to learn how to deal with these worldviews that are in conflict with ours. We have to do more than just sit passively absorbing “entertainment” but instead learn how to analyze the worldview and critique it.

Furthermore, we need to learn how to show that Hollywood’s worldview is either arbitrary or inconsistent; the fatal flaws in all non-Christian worldviews. Apologetics is the full time responsibility of every Christian as he interacts with friends, neighbors and co-workers. Our goal is to take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor 10:4-5) and present the truth claims of King Jesus.

Discussing popular films, especially science fiction and those with some sort of occult theme, has thus been one of the most effective evangelistic tools I have ever found because people LIKE to talk about their favorite movies. They may not have read much philosophy or thought through their own worldview, but they have watched countless hours of movies and television. By learning how to discover the worldview of a film, and then exposing its errors, we CAN then break the ground for evangelism.

For example, several years ago an extraordinarily well made film, “The Sixth Sense” dealt with a little boy who saw dead people. He was not a medium or spiritualist and his “sight” was a terrifying experience he wanted to be rid of. This was a “haunting” film as a psychologist deals with his own estranged wife while trying to help the little boy through his horror filled days. It had a shock ending, that caught most viewers unaware, and for a while, everyone was talking about the movie. Now, not for a moment does the Christian have to give any credence to the worldview in this movie. Yes, it does have occult themes dealing as it does with a boy who sees and talks to dead people. And we know that the dead are not wandering around seeking to resolve personal problems before they move “into the light.” However, it does RAISE the issue of life after death and from the perspective of the viewer, the even more important issue of the responsibilities of life BEFORE death. We can use this movie and others to introduce the TRUTH; and we can legitimately appreciate a brilliant piece of film-making at the same time.

However, Christians seem to have fallen into the secular trap of seeing movies and TV as merely “entertainment.” Too often, they are passive recipients satisfied with watching the pretty pictures flashing across the scene, not thinking about what they are watching and why they find it interesting and “entertaining.” Granted, one can appreciate the Indiana Jones movies, even while discarding the gross misunderstanding of the nature of God that is prevalent; after all, its fun to hate Nazis! But we must not settle for this superficial level even if we can appreciate it. The issues are always deeper and ALWAYS must relate back to God.

Whether Hollywood or Stephen King know it or not, they can create meaningful, entertainment only if they assume certain things that their own worldview cannot sustain. God is the creator of all things, and His character and nature are revealed in all things. The eternal themes that make great literature or films are that which touches on the nature of God and Man.

However, many people have expressed the concern that entertainment could be the means of actually introducing people into occult activity. And yes, as mentioned previously, there are those who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality and therefore they ought to refrain from such areas; just as there are people who cannot handle drinking alcohol without getting drunk and should probably refrain from drinking, or those who cannot stop themselves from eating an entire pie ought to keep sweet stuff out of the house.

The real danger of occultism is not its mere presence in a book or film, but in a person’s view of God, and in their daily practice. Ask the average Christian their astrological sign and probably 99% know it. Perhaps not as many, but an overwhelming majority read their horoscope on a daily basis. Many Christians have had their fortunes told, or played with Ouija boards or even participated in a séances. The danger from the media is that unthinking Christians can become desensitized to the occult and accept it as normal, and eventually leading some to participate in it, thus bringing them under God’s wrath.

The average pagan however sees occultism in films and literature as an experience, not unlike the thrill of a roller coaster. If done technically well, then a “scary” movie or book makes them FEEL something-but since they do not really believe in the occult, just as they do not really think the roller coaster is going to kill them, it is a “safe” feeling.

Christians on the other hand realize that the world that occultism describes (often erroneously) is in fact real; and some times they become terribly frightened. Unlike the pagan who is just looking for a thrill, the Christian knows that there are such things as demons and rightly do not want to become involved with them.

Granted, there are certain popular role playing games that actually REQUIRE the player to indulge in sorcery and necromancy; and here the Christian parent has a right to be concerned. If God says something is “detestable” then we can rightly question whether allowing our children to role play disgusting things is lawful.

However, it appears that often, the real problem is fear; many Christians fear that they might inadvertently invite demonic activity in their homes by simply watching certain movies, reading certain books or even if they play a particular computer game.

The Christian of course ought never to give into fear because “greater is He who is in you, then he who is in the world.” The Adversary certainly has power, even power which he MIGHT occasionally share with some deluded humans; but if we walk in faith before God, repenting of our sins and trusting in Him, there is little that the enemy can do to us. Remember, the New Testament, though documenting the reality of demonic possession, places far more emphasis on the demon’s ability to DECEIVE the elect, than it does on Christians being attacked by them! To the contrary, when the gospel is preached and believed, the demons tremble and flee. We ought to have the same attitude towards the occult as the Bible itself does; recognize its reality, understand its dangers and then, just ignore it. Christians ought never to be concerned about haunted houses or spooks or curses; they need to be concerned about selfishness, arrogance, pride and willful sin. Demons cannot harm you, but a stubborn, rebellious heart CAN bring God’s judgment and that is the ONLY thing we should fear.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. The Christian and the Occult
2. How Authentic is the Occult?
3. The Christian and Vampires

OK, two quick admissions; the first being that I blatantly filed the serial numbers off the title of a book I never read for the title of this chapter. Therefore for those chuckling at the sheer outrageousness of the above; thank him, not me (and for those outraged by the humor, blame HIM, not me!). The second is that when I began the first draft of this chapter it was intended to be a sober discussion of a serious issue. While you can still find some remnants of that serious study, in the end I found that I was running out of time, was in a bad mood, and that my deadline just happened to coincide with one of those weeks when I did not like people very much.

You see the problem (at least from my perspective) is that though all of us NEED warm, loving, intimate relationships, the sad reality is that we are all a bunch of nasty, horrible sinners with an innate selfish orientation that often destroys the very pre-requisites for emotional and psychological intimacy. Add to this that all men, in all ages, can always rationalize, justify or excuse their own behavior; therefore even the “nicest” people can have hidden agendas- agendas that usually do not become apparent until you do something to annoy, disappoint or threaten them some way (whether you intended to or not). My own personal experience, limited though it may be, is that everyone wants something from everyone; and that Christians have developed an arsenal of psychological techniques (e.g., aggression, guile, flattery, manipulation, slander, gossip, etc.) to justify themselves when they try to get others to do what they want; or pay them back when they won’t. Apparently, having honest, open and trusting relationships is like seeing Bigfoot: something a lot of people believe in, but few have ever, personally experienced.

Am I being cynical and caustic? Perhaps so, but it seems that far too many of the brethren are perfectly contented in leading an “unexamined life.” By that I mean, whether they lack the ability, or the interest, most people generally do not honestly look at why they do what they do. Instead of testing their motivations, examining the attitudes and seeking to bring their inner life into conformity with God’s unchanging standards, they use their reason to justify and excuse whatever it was they said or did. Sometimes, even if they DID try to look at their motivations, they would still be clueless; they don’t know, and often, they don’t care, about the “why:” they just “feel” a certain way and then act and then justify themselves after the fact. And, if you somehow threaten that “hidden agenda,” then even your “BFF” will turn on you in a heartbeat. At best, you can lose friends, even family members because their pride was hurt and they want to hurt you back. At worst, you can make serious enemies who will actively seek to destroy you, personally or professionally for no other reason than you made them feel “bad” about themselves.

Just think with me; one person accuses another of being “arrogant.” But is the other person actually arrogant - or does that person’s confidence and success make the first guy envious perhaps because of his own underlying insecurity or personal failures? Or how about this one: there are people you just do not like therefore, when you hear something negative about them, you quickly BELIEVE the accusations and even pass them on, without even considering talking to the accused and hearing their side of the story? Studies and surveys have been done now for fifty years that demonstrate how our attitudes towards others affect how we evaluate information about them. When we like them, we dismiss or discount any negative reports; if we are negatively disposed towards them, we tend to embrace those reports, even if they are outrageous. But at heart is the issue of “Why?” Why do we respond so negatively to some people without any real reason? It could be that our “gut” is telling us something that our rational mind has not yet figured out; but it is also highly possible that something about the other person, their dress, appearance, manners, or whatever, is reacting with our own inner fears, foibles, insecurities, and jealousies. But to admit that we would have to face things that we would rather keep safely hidden; so for a lot of people, it is cognitively easier just to blame the other person, and then use our minds to justify why that person is “no good” rather than admit the nasty little truth about ourselves. As they say, apparently, “Denial” is not just a river in Egypt

Christians obviously SHOULD be better than this; but I am not sure that is as true as it ought to be. To the contrary, the average believer is most adept at self-deception, finding all sorts of high sounding spiritual reasons to justify their actions; even the most reprehensible ones. They can often find the most bizarre rationalizations why it is perfectly acceptable to hold bitterness, unlawfully accuse, criticize, gossip and slander, back-bite; even lie under oath, when it suits their purposes to do so.

So what is my point? Well, the more emotionally open and vulnerable you become with others, the easier it is for sinful men to use that information against you when they want to hurt you. If you cannot be honest with others, then you cannot be emotionally intimate with them, hence cutting you off from one of the most important aspects of living a joyous, peaceful and rewarding life. Yet, we have all learned, some from a very young age, that being open and intimate with others is a sure fire recipe for emotional scarring; people hurt us, all the time. And many of us, like wounded children, nurse those hurts, picking at the emotional scabs so that they never quite heal. And some of us, like certain types of children who scream and flounder at the smallest bump, never seem to get over the pain. We then develop emotional “calluses” to protect ourselves from being hurt again in the future.

For example, some of us become aggressive and strike out at others, before they can strike out at us. Others become desperate for attention and affection, like a whipped dog, cowering before any threat and begging to be petted. Some of us learn how to play mind games with others, using and abusing others to get what we want. The particular strategy is not as important as the underlying motivation; the sinful human goal is to unlawfully control others while protecting our own pride at any cost; even if the cost is the very intimacy that is fundamental to a healthy, Biblical way of life.

Now, apart from appearing to be a dark assessment of human relationships, what can we do about the little brat living inside us, screaming for attention? Well, first, as the exploitive (and plagiarized) title suggests; let’s get rid of the immaturity and childishness that is so common and start acting like responsible adults. A spoiled child thinks the world revolves around him, the adult knows better; or at least SHOULD know better and therefore ought to treat people better. Thus, we can start the “healing” by at least learning to take a peek at what is going on inside, recognizing the little monster for what he is, and then taking the appropriate actions God requires.

I can almost hear the objections from some of the brethren here; after all, before the psycho-babblers started insisting that we all had to be “touchy-feely” with each other, did the great thinkers of the CHurch even discuss such things? Are we not at risk of allowing the self-indulgence of modern humanist pop psychology to reinterpret our Faith? The question is a valid one; and deserves a much better development than what we can provide here. However, as mentioned previously, the short answer is that the questions we ask have a great deal to do with the kinds of answer we receive. While God’s principles never change, the questions we ask often do. Therefore, every generation has to go back to first principles and so we can both construct a reasonable, Biblical paradigm of the world, as He created it - as well as subject our own beliefs, assumptions and presuppositions to His inerrant Word.

In this case, we start at the very beginning: God created the heavens and earth to reflect His glory; to reveal Himself. He did not have to do this; our God is the great “I Am” the “Self-Existent One” Who depends on no one, and no thing for His own Being. Thus, He did not NEED to create; but He chose to reveal Himself through creation. Therefore, every aspect of the physical universe in some way reflects or reveals something about God and His nature.

Man, as the supreme image bearer in creation, is the clearest reflection of His nature and Being. Everything about us was intended to say something about God. It is significant that in Genesis chapter two, when God creates the Man, for the first time He looks at His creation and says, “It is not good for the Man to be alone.” By “not good” God probably meant that Man by himself, was incomplete; and hence, God created the Woman as a companion, a “help-meet.”

At least one of the reasons why God created Man “male and female” was that this difference between the sexes represents, reflects, and mirrors something inherent within God Himself; He is One God in Three Persons. Each of the Persons has all the honor, majesty, power and glory of God (yet there are not three Gods, but One). The Father loved the Son BEFORE there was a heaven or earth; because God is outside of time, He has always loved the Son and the Son has always loved the Father. Thus, God had a perfect relationship, based on love while also having distinct roles between the various members of the Trinity; traits that we as created beings ought to expect to see reflected in our own lives.

The “mystery” of the Trinity is at the heart of the Christian faith. Since we are finite creatures, we will never (at least on this side of Eternity) be able to fully comprehend this mystery; but in Christian marriage we have a wonderful picture of it; the Man and Woman are equals in glory and honor, yet distinct in purpose and function. The two are to become “one flesh” which surely is more than just a quaint euphemism for sexual activity. Both “need” the other to be complete; Man needs a helper, suitable for him to fulfill his dominion duties to be fruitful, multiply and subdue the earth to the glory of God. Furthermore, unlike every other creative act, God made the Woman from the Man, showing both their inherent unity, as well as their distinction from one another.

Now, what does all this have to do with the issue of “emotional intimacy?” Well, we humans are NOT self-existent; we are not independent. We need other people. Just as the Father loves the Son perfectly and relates to Him perfectly, we were created to reflect that same intimate, loving relationship in our relationships with one another. Of course, it began in marriage, but if sin had not entered the world it would have extended to the entire family and then to the broader community. Men need to work together in family, church and state to exercize dominion over the creation. It is significant that the first consequence of sin was that Adam and Eve became ashamed and tried to cover their nakedness; they had lost something when they ate of the forbidden fruit. Furthermore, when they bring children into the world, one son envies, hates and eventually murders the other.

But this is not the way it was intended to be; we were created to live together in love, understanding and kindness, where we could be open and honest with each other, helping one another fulfill our individual dominion callings. Even though inside, sin twists and distorts every aspect of our being, we all still desire and “need” that closeness, intimacy and relationship that marriage, children, family and friends were intended to fulfill.

Intimacy is simply being close to others; knowing that we can trust them, be ourselves with them, “warts and all.” The problem of course, is that as we mentioned, because of the pervasive corruption of sin, whenever we allow other people to get “inside” and really know us, we also risk them learning things about us that we would rather keep hidden. All of us have many “faces” that we show to the world, the “person” we would like others to believe we are as opposed to the person we really are. However, we also all fall short of the glory of God; and though the specifics may vary, all of us share the same fundamental problem: because of Adam’s sin, we all want to be little “gods” and have the world revolve around us, our interests, goals, ambitions and, yes, our pride. Anything that threatens that essentially selfish orientation incites us to respond in various sinful ways.

For example, it is perfectly “natural” to hurt those who hurt us; to return “evil for evil.” If others treat us rudely, then it is “normal” to be rude in return. Oh, social conditioning and individual personalities may influence HOW we respond; “nice” people may simply “seethe” inside when insulted as opposed to those who may respond with a “holy punch in the throat” but the innate response is to give back, what has been given.

And again, while in our terms this is almost always selfish and sinful, it stems from God’s own nature; His “natural” response to sin is judgment. However, what is right, good and proper with Him is not always right for us. Yes, there are times when someone has wronged us and we have a right to seek some sort of redress; the thief who steals from us, the false witness who slanders us, the bully who strikes us, etc. God has provided us the appropriate means of dealing with these kinds of sins; He has authorized both civil and ecclesiastical courts to adjudicate disputes and grievances (e.g., 1 Cor 6:1ff, Rms 12:4). He even provides us with case law examples of the kind of restitution that can be made, “An eye for an eye” or “four fold restitution” for theft, etc.

However, He has also forbidden private vengeance (Rms 12:17ff); which is exactly what most of us want, deep down inside. Because of sin, we think we are little gods, and therefore do not not want to submit to the adjudication of these courts (at least, unless we unlawfully control them). Instead, the “natural” response is to hurt others as we have been hurt. Thus, we often bicker, argue and hurl accusations against one another (Jas 4:1ff). Rather than going to an objective third party (a “court”), we tell our friends who if they want to remain our friends, better side with us, regardless of whether we were right or not. If we get no satisfaction, we either become bitter, full of malice, waiting for an opportunity to strike back or we sulk, become depressed and whine about our situation. And all of these sinful responses not only hurt others (as we think we have been hurt) but drive us apart, destroying any hope of intimacy.

While it is bad enough when we have been grievously wronged by another, often, too often, the offense is not that someone stole from us, bore false witness against us or even struck us; they simply said or did something that we found annoying, offensive or threatening to our pride. Sometimes the person may not even have known they offended us; but we still hold them accountable and we want vengeance.

Now, as an aside, not all people will “naturally” like everyone else. There are some people we tend to “like” and others that just leave us cold. It may not be a moral issue; it could be nothing more serious than that we just do not share the same things in common. Not everyone is going to be “best friends” with everyone else. In so far as it goes, there is nothing inherently wrong with this. For example, husband and wife are supposed to have a physical and emotional intimacy that by its very nature is exclusive to them. Hence, not EVERY relationship can or will be an emotionally close and intimate one.

This is just another implication of God’s creation; even in a perfect world where there was no sin, because we are limited as individuals we could never be as close with some people, as we are with others. First, there just would not be enough time or opportunity to develop such intimate relationships with EVERYONE in the world. For example, who we are all greatly influenced by our environment growing up, especially the influence of our family and friends at a young age. Thus, you have “history” with some people that others simply cannot share. I am sure you have had friends who had other long time friends. It can be a bit awkward when they get together and talk about “old times.” They can laugh and joke (or commiserate) about their experiences; experiences that you were not around to participate in and you probably felt a bit left out. Good friends of course, will take YOUR position into consideration and include you however, sometimes they do not.

The point here is that there is nothing necessarily wrong with THEIR relationship overshadowing YOUR relationship for a bit; people have a right to enjoy shared memories (even the painful ones). The problem comes in when the “inner brat” become jealous, envious and somehow feels that he is being excluded; and of course, some people are selfish and self-centered and actually enjoy excluding others because it makes them feel “special.” Now is the time to ready your inner child for the recommended “well-chucking;” you can fume, give in to jealousy, whine for attention or threaten to take your marbles and go home. Or, you can be an adult; you can realize that this person knew people before they knew you; they had a life and have a right to enjoy the memories of it. You can stop thinking about your own insecurities and instead, think about what you can do to encourage, love and help the other person.

And if your friend IS actually neglecting you, putting you on the back burner or taking you for granted; then you can also be an adult by lovingly, gently and understandingly talk to them about it at the proper time. Or you can let your inner brat drive you crazy, get all offended and eat a gallon of ice cream to shut him up while you talk to OTHER friends and whine and cry and complain your call.

Now as I write the above I realize that many “manly men” will accuse me of going all girly and the like here; after all, men talk about THINGS while women are obsessed with talking about their feelings. Manly men will drink a beer together, make bodily noises, scratch and say that they do not care one wit about “relationships.” I beg to disagree; their “inner child” may not be some wimpy sissie-boy who goes crying home to Mommy when his feelings get hurt; he may instead become aggressive, insulting, or even threatening when facing the above types of situations even though he may not want to talk about it, he is still letting his “inner brat” run his life.

Granted, generally speaking and with all due exceptions noted, most men do not naturally enjoy talking about their “feelings” nor is there any Biblical reason why they should do so. If two guys are talking and one wants to discuss their “relationship” the other one would most likely respond by first giving him an atomic wedgie, and then taking his milk money. For what it is worth, I suspect that Women, created for a relational role, just “naturally” are more inclined to find relationships central to their wellbeing; and hence need to talk about them. Men, on the other hand, created primarily for dominion, find it more “natural” to talk work, hobbies and the like. Granted, not every one fits neatly into these two categories, but as a general observation, it tends to hold up.

Men quite often find camaraderie in shared goals; two men working on a difficult project can spend hours together saying nothing more than “pass the wrench” or “want another beer” and at the end of the day, consider each other “best buds.” Thus, having and maintaining good, Biblical relationships, even being open and vulnerable with other men does not mean they have to act like women; women who want to talk and Talk and TALK about their feelings. However, the unspoken dynamic is still valid for men; for us, our inner “child” is often a competitive little brat who demands to be the one, who hits the ball the furthest, runs the fastest and can beat up everyone else on the playground or who drives the fastest car, makes the most money or owns the nicest toys!

Again, competition between men is not necessarily a bad thing; iron sharpens iron after all (Pvbs 27:17) and a good friend is one who encourages and stimulates you to become better than you are. For example, if you want to lose weight, hang out with athletic, slim people; they will help you get out of your armchair and get some needed exercise. Want to be smarter then associate with smart people people who read and think and discuss what they have learned.

However, our inner brat does not like competition; at least ones not stacked in his favor. So instead of being humble and willing to learn, we often find a group of friends where we can look good sometimes because the “competition” is subpar. And again, all that time and effort is wasted on protecting our pride, rather than on actually becoming the kind of people God wants us to be.

Maybe I am just getting old and tired, but somewhere along the past fifty years or so I began to recognize that there were profound differences between what I wanted to be, what I wanted others to see me as and what I really was. An important element of growing up is learning how the real world actually works and how YOU, as an individual fit into that world. The inner brat is often insecure, frightened and fumbling for his place in life; hence part of the reason why he responds so irrationally at times. The mature man however, knows like Solomon, that most of what we strive to obtain is just so much “grasping after the wind.” All the shiny toys that the child thinks so important are in reality, just distractions. What is really important in life is not the money you make, the positions you obtain or even achievements you accomplish; it is in fearing God and keeping His commandments.

What has all of this to do with emotional intimacy? Well, the man who knows what is truly important can rise above the inner brat and do what is right, because it is right. He is no longer a slave to his feelings, especially the sinful ones. Instead, he lives life based on the unchanging principles of God’s Word. He knows that he has nothing to be proud about; what the world thinks is so important is just so much “vanity.” Therefore since everything he possesses that is really important (and eternal) is a gift of God’s grace, he can loosen up, forget about his pride, and focus on what God thinks is important.

And as a direct result, he becomes the kind of person that others WANT to be around; at least the “right” kind of person. He does not have to be the tallest, the handsomest, the richest or the most successful; just a man who knows what is right and does it. He does not have to win every argument, or roll over in every conflict; he just does what God requires and as a result, eventually, he will find that though he is not very popular with SOME people, he “fits” quite nicely with others; the kind of people that at heart, we all would like to hang out with. Furthermore, when the godly man blows it, he takes responsibility, he does not excuse, rationalize or justify; he just confesses and repents. The “right” kind of people LIKE that sort of person, they want to be friends with him; to be close to them.

Intimacy, like love, is not found by seeking it; instead it is realized by giving it. As long as we allow the inner brat to rule our lives, we will have to keep other people at a distance; like a child who hogs all the toys even though he does not necessarily want to play with them, he is afraid that he will lose something precious if he allows anyone else to touch them. The mature man however, knows that God is always in control; that life must be lived on His terms and since one of those terms is “love one another as I have loved you” he can afford to share; he looses nothing. He does not have to play emotional mind games, justify his sin, or belittle others to make himself look better by comparison, because he trusts God.

The Apostle Paul summed it up brilliantly; “Do not look out merely for your own interest, but also for the interests of others” (Phil 2:1ff). Paul could say this because he was modeling our relationships on the way that Jesus loved us. In this same passage, he reminds the Philippians that Jesus did not think of His own glory or power but laid them aside, become a man and sacrificed Himself for us. Therefore if we are truly His servants, we must do the same for one another. This is one of the true marks of Christian maturity; to be able to live in love by doing what is right, good and proper for others, regardless of cost, BECAUSE we trust in Christ.

And as a result of trusting God, the godly man can give, rather than get. And the more he gives, the more other people learn to trust him, to be open with him, to depend on him, just as he learns how to trust and depend on others. Rather than competitors, he has allies, team mates, “friends” not just associates, fishing buddies, or co-workers he belongs because he contributes. He is not just out for himself (or the frightened little child inside) but for something greater and more wonderful; to fear God and keep His commands.

Sadly most Christians do not seem to “get it” here; they are way too satisfied with far too little. Even the one relationship that is supposed to be the most intimate, their marriage, is often distorted by that same inner brat, whining and complaining, bullying and running away; all while screaming, “I am special!” Husband and wife are often at odds with each other, holding bitterness or being unreasonably jealous because their inner child demands to be the center of their spouse’s life. Because they do not resolve their inevitable problems properly, and seek to meet the other’s needs, they grow lonely, depressed and bitter. Their relationship is often based on competition, rather than cooperation; they fight over money, sex, vacations, how to raise the kids and it is not so much about what is right or wrong, but who is right or wrong!

The problem is not so much that “My wife does not understand me” or “My husband won’t talk to me” as it is “My spouse won’t let my inner brat run the relationship.” Essentially, couples have problems because they have not thrown their individual little monsters down the well and left them there. Instead of being honest, open and kind to one another, their own selfish, sinful orientation is to demand what they want, when they want it; and as a result, they undermine the very relationship that God said was necessary to live this life as He created it.

The key to a successful marriage or a rewarding, fulfilling relationship is not “communication;” after all, the mugger pointing a gun in your face is communicating his expectations powerfully and effectively. No, it is recognizing the inner brat in all of us and not letting him terrorize the entire household it is learning that you are not the center of the universe, that life does not revolve around your feelings, desires and goals. Instead, it is discovering how to trust God, keep His commands, and love other people especially when they are unlovable!

As we stop listening to the inner brat and instead, learn how to live responsibly before God, it inevitably takes down barriers, removes calluses and gives us the kinds of relationships that we all desperately want and need. The Apostle John said, “perfect love casts out fear” and though there are a number of implications to this verse, surely at least one of them is that the more we love God and trust Him, the less we have to fear from others and if we do not fear, then we can live confidently and intimately.

And guess what; this will not change the nature of men. People will still annoy you, disappoint you, and even intentionally hurt you. But those who rest on God’s promises can take the hurt. The entire purpose of Peter’s first letter was to encourage Christians going through intense persecution and suffering. He does not minimize the pain; it was real and it HURTS! But the pain was not something to be feared; something the inner brat does not understand. The pain is there for a reason; God is always in control. His love is certain and everything that happens, happens for a reason His glory.

So therefore we can do what is right, regardless of what others say or do, or how they treat us, or whether they think we are “special.” We can do what is right because we fear God and keep His commandments. And as we fear God, we learn how not to fear men; whether physically, or emotionally. We learn how to enjoy each person for the image of God remaining in them. We discover that though others may hurt us or disappoint us, that God will never do either. We can do what is right, because His Holy Spirit indwells and fills us with His grace, goodness and love.

And in the end, we will find that we can be honest with others, open and vulnerable, never fearing that they might discover we are not perfect. Of course this will require humility, grace, kindness and mercy; there is no room for Pharisees, hypocrites or legalists in God’s family. But for those who trust God, there is righteousness, peace and joy. And really, is that not a far better way to live than giving in to the brat. Go ahead, chuck him down the well; trust me, he’ll crawl right back out sooner than you think

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Studies on the Nature of Biblical Authority
2. The Inmates Have Taken Over the Asylum
3. Christian Rant: It’s None of Your Business

A long, meandering essay that probably reveals more about the inner, psychological problems of the author, than it does about the state of the church but we were desperate and so it got published anyway

True confession time; a pastor really ought to be a “people” sort of person; you know what I mean-the kind of guy with a warm, winsome personality, gushing with compassion and kindness; that sort of thing. A pastor probably should be someone who likes hanging out with others, making small talk and actually enjoys being intimately involved in other people’s lives; but I have to admit, this is the hardest part of the ministry for me. I have watched in slack jawed amazement as friends and professional colleagues “work a room;” glad handing people and seemingly fitting right in to whatever social setting they find themselves. I on the other hand, am most comfortable standing in a corner, nursing a Diet Dr. Pepper and watching what goes on around me (and yes, sometimes offering a few, caustic comments out of the side of my mouth). Believe it or not, I am really very, very shy; I completely empathize with the Apostle Paul who said, “For they say ‘his letters are weighty and strong but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible’ (2 Cor 10:10).” Yup that’s me all right; “unimpressive” just about sums up my interpersonal skills.

Now, if during one of these gatherings, the conversation turns theological, or historical, or SOMETHING, I can make conversation with the best of them; as long as the conversation is ABOUT something. But it is kind of awkward to walk up to a stranger and ask, “quickly now, supra or infralapsarian?” It’s the whole concept of “mingling” that I just do not get; and I am constantly amazed at how well some people do it. In my more cynical days, I would have caustically commented that the kind of shallow “relating” that so many pastors seem to do so well gave reverse evidence for evolution; i.e., it sure seemed to me that their actions closely resembled a pack of baboons picking fleas off each other. But that was in my cynical days; I am much better now, thank you.

In self-defense, over the years I have developed my own little strategies for fitting in with a group of strangers; I have my list of ten most innocuous questions such as “what’s your name” or “where’re you from” and “how many angels do YOU think can dance on the head of a pin?” But to be perfectly honest, I am not terribly good at this kind of social mixing and over the years, this lack has probably cost me a lot in terms of making a good first impression or insinuating myself with the “right” people.

Part of the reason no doubt has to do with a conflict between different social mores (pronounced MORE-aes). Social mores are “folkways that are considered conducive to the welfare of society and so through general observance, develop the force of law, often becoming part of the formal legal code.” Any culture, society or organization develops mores or generally agreed upon rules or standards of conduct that are not so much taught, as absorbed. Normally speaking, we develop our understanding of mores through family, education and life experience. All of these help us to develop certain expectations of what determines appropriate from inappropriate behavior. Most of this learning actually takes place when we are very young through the process known as “socialization” wherein we develop certain core beliefs about right and wrong based upon our interactions with those around us. Mores are so “instinctual” that nobody ever has to actually write them down or formally teach them in a class; we just sort of soak them up as we associate with the people around us. Thus, the socialization process by which we develop our gut level understanding of what constitutes appropriate behavior is tied to what we learn from our parents, siblings, and friends.

Furthermore, these mores in turn are often based on the standards of our socio-economic class. Though Americans pride themselves on being a “classless” society, in reality, we have just as many social divisions as any of the historic aristocratic nations of Europe; the only difference is that unlike the Europeans, Americans have never put an upper limit on the individual’s advancement in social status. Admittance to the aristocracies of Europe was dependant upon birth; in America it was traditionally tied to merit. But the classes still exist, and each tends to develop its own particular mores.

And if you fail to meet the standards of appropriate (or inappropriate) behavior on a particular social class, then you will be alienated, ostracized, and made to feel like an outsider; in other words, you are “weird.” For example, I recently ran across some research that suggests that a person’s social class can be identified by the way that he pronounces the letter “r.” The lower-down the social-economic/education scale, the less likely one is to pronounce all “r’s” in a word (which of course really makes us New Englanders look really bad since no one there has pronounced an “r” since colonial times). Now, in casual conversation, you do not consciously make a value judgment about a person based on whether or not they pronounce all of their “r’s” correctly; but subtly, how they speak will affect how you respond to them. People who pronounce all their “r’s” distinctly identify themselves with a higher socio-economic/educated class. If you happen to belong to a lower class, you might therefore tend to think certain people are “arrogant” or “stuck on themselves” or “like to put on airs” and not know precisely WHY you think this way. You cannot necessarily point to something they said or did, specifically, that is evidence of their “arrogance” - you just “know” they are! The real reason could be that unconsciously, you are reacting to their speech; because the way they talk does not meet the standards of your cultural mores, you react to them.

In the same way, if a person does NOT pronounce all the “r’s” “properly,” then when they associate with upper-class types, they may be considered “rude, ignorant, uneducated, boorish,” etc. Now it needs to be remembered that this again, is mostly an unconscious process-a person is not necessarily intending to be mean, nasty or judgmental by making this assessment; but the cultural mores are deeply held assumptions that are rarely ever examined or thought about. Some people just “fit-in” and some people do not and the reason is that sometimes, social mores are being unwittingly violated.

If the whole “pronunciation” thing seems a bit too esoteric let me suggest a different example; table manners. The higher one’s socio-economic status, in general, the more “refined” one’s manners; i.e., upper class, Harvard-educated people are seldom found talking around a mouth full of food. If you are sitting in a nice restaurant, having taken out a second mortgage to pay for a meal the size of two dimes and a quarter, you expect the people around you to behave differently, then they do at a family barbecue. If they do not behave in the way you expect them to, then you are offended and even the most gracious of us cannot help but make some kind of value judgment about the kind of people who violate our social taboos.

What I am trying to get at here is that there is an ongoing, often unconscious process, by which we all make judgments about each other. Some behavior we deem appropriate, and others we deem inappropriate. While we might make some exceptions for very young children, or the mentally handicapped, all of us insist that everyone else must either meet those standards, or face social censures. Since the judgment happens at what is basically an unconscious level, often we do not know just what it is about someone that we dislike, we just know that they are not acting the way that we think they ought to act. If their behavior falls on the extreme end of what we deem socially acceptable, then we call them “weird.”

In the great leveling of social classes that began in the 1960’s, college professors led the attack against American culture by deliberately ridiculing and attempting to overturn certain social mores. Professors stopped wearing ties and white shirts (because such attire was associated with the “establishment”) and instead, dressed in denim to identify with the “proletariat.” Now, in and of itself, what a person wears is really, in the long term, not all that important. But the purpose of professors dressing like their students was at heart revolutionary; an attempt to overthrow the existing social order and create a new one in their own, socialist, image. And of course, for the good of the revolution, male professors also got to sleep with their female students as a practical application of their revolutionary egalitarian ethic.

Now, forty years later, we are living in a culture where the old rules no longer seem to apply, and no new ones are universally accepted. The 1960’s emphasis on individuality (millions of college students listening to the same music, reading the same books and dressing alike, with the same hair styles and fringed leather vests crying out for “individuality” is just too funny) essentially meant that we wanted freedom from the older consensus on morality. But today, there are few, if any universally recognized standards which means that everyone gets to set their own.

And hence we come to the theme of this essay; “weird” people. All of us run into people whose beliefs and behaviors do not fit within our accepted standards of appropriateness; in other words, we consider them “weird” because they violate our social mores. For example, most of us would consider a person laughing himself silly at a funeral as acting “weirdly.”

OK, granted, there is a medical condition called “schizophrenia” which when you actually examine the “symptoms” means “bizarre and inappropriate behavior;” and there is a lot of evidence that this might actually be a real disease caused by brain dysfunction or chemical imbalance. However, here we are not talking about the people who have to line their hats with aluminum foil to keep the space aliens from reading their thoughts. Instead, we are more concerned with how people in general, but Christians in particular act “weirdly” or inappropriately. And granted though there are a few Christians I have known who might have benefited from some psychotropic drug treatment, usually, extremely bizarre behavior was an attempt to hide from their sin. Leaving that group aside, there are always a number of other Christians though who just do not seem to “fit in;” their beliefs, their lifestyle, or even their ability to properly relate to others just seems “weird.”

Now, since cultural mores have been undergoing constant revision for the past forty years, it is harder and harder to actually identify a widely agreed upon, objective standard in our broader culture. Hence, many Christians think other Christians are “weird” “strange” or whatever, not because they actually ARE bizarre, but simply because they have imposed their own, subjective standards of appropriateness on others. The more “provincial” one’s social group, the easier it is to mistake local standards for universal principles. For example, having grown up in small towns in Maine where most families have lived there since colonial times, there are a great many local customs that have achieved the status of a social more. “Mainers” are often contemptuous of “outta-statahs” (i.e., “out-of-staters”) just because these people don’t know the local customs. Just try to get directions from any old “Mainer” and watch his perplexity in trying to communicate something that is so self-evident to him as to be a ludicrous question. He cannot tell you to “turn left on Main, go three blocks and turn right on Second Street” because he simply KNOWS where everything is-he just does not reason in terms of specific directions, and considers your need for such explicit detail to be further proof that you are just another “summah complaint.”

Christians however, by the grace of God actually have an objective standard in the moral law of God. Since the Law is the expression of God’s unchanging nature, therefore we ought to be able to define and establish a set of appropriate behaviors that can be universally accepted.

The problem is that since the Law of God has been largely defined out of the average Christian experience, many people are victims of the secular culture and do not even realize it. For example, they accept as “normal” that children are a burden and limiting family size is a “blessing,” that Christian children should go to public schools, that teenagers naturally rebel against their parents, that kids need “friends,” that romantic love is the only genuine basis for marriage, that the only rewarding work is that which they personally find meaningful, that church exists to make them feel good about themselves, etc.

And if you do not accept and conform to these widely accepted standards; then you are “weird” and will not “fit in” with those who hold to them. Now Christians who accept these beliefs have never tested them by Scripture or even examined them for utility; they are simply social mores into which they have been socialized and now they assume them as “normal.” Almost every home-schooling family has experienced some degree of ostracism from friends, family and fellow church-members at one point or another. Every large family has on occasion received dirty looks, or even received caustic criticism from certain people who question their “wisdom” of bringing so many children into the world.

To a large degree, part of finding the “right” church means being able to identify a fellowship whose basic social mores agrees with yours. If you find such a church, then you “fit in” and feel a part of a broader community. Even if the teaching is less than adequate, or the worship not entirely to your “taste” you tend to stay put, simply because it is so hard finding people with whom you can “belong.” If you are in a church that has different social mores than yours, then regardless of the orthodoxy of their theology or the effectiveness of their programs, you often will feel isolated and alienated-you may not know why, but your basic world and life-view, what you think is “appropriate” behavior is unconsciously being challenged by others.

When I came to faith in Christ more than thirty years ago, I understood that my previous social mores were largely inappropriate. The language I used, the values I had, the music I listened to, the way I used my money, my time, etc., were all “out of sync” with basic Christianity. There were NEW mores that I needed to adopt in order to fit in with my Christian new sub-culture. For example, I was taught that I had to pray every day, confessing my sins to God. I was taught that the Bible was His inerrant, infallible word and that I had to read it, study it and conform my life to it. I was even taught that I was supposed to be “nice” to people and that giving those I found annoying a “holy punch to the throat” was not an appropriate mechanism for conflict resolution. In effect, I was being “socialized” into the Christian community and in order to “fit in” I had to learn a whole new way of thinking and living.

However, it did not take me more than a few years before I discovered that Christianity has more than its own share of weird people in it; people who claim the name of Christ but yet do not meet the accepted standards of appropriate behavior. Yet because they had made a profession of faith, were baptized and regularly attended church, they had to be accepted as “brothers” just because I suspect that nobody else knew what to do with them.

Furthermore, I found that often, by simply trying to live consistently with what the Bible taught, I was often considered “weird!” I did not understand that there were two different sets of mores in operation; the ones people CLAIMED to accept-the ethical standards of Scripture and the ones they REALLY accepted: which were often quite different. Again and again, I found myself in trouble with people, not because I was in sin or anything, just that I didn’t know the “real” rules by which most Christians operated.

Just one example; the Bible says, “Confess your sins, one to another.” I was taught (and read in the Scriptures) that Christians are to be the most humble of all people, willingly acknowledging their sins and seeking forgiveness for offences when necessary. Since this was completely contrary to my “old” life of denying, lying, justifying and rationalizing my sin, I self-consciously tried over the years to learn how to admit my sins, confessing and asking forgiveness of God and others. I was so thoroughly convinced that this was basic to the Christian life that I have taught this same principle in seminars, at conferences, during sermons and written about it regularly. Never once has ANY Christian EVER disagreed with me, often giving me a hearty “AMEN!” when hearing me discuss this fundamental Biblical way of living.

But in REAL life, MOST Christians will do ANYTHING except admit they have sinned! To the contrary, while Christians are most willing to acknowledge that they are sinners in general, they can become quite offended if you ever actually point out any of their specific sins! In fact, the commonly assumed social more here is “I’ll pretend you didn’t sin if you pretend I didn’t.” In fact, I well remember one occasion where I was speaking to the board of a very prestigious organization and one of the members rebuked me saying, “Brian, you always have to ask for forgiveness; doesn’t that tell you that there is something seriously wrong with you!” Wow; talk about the dangers of being vulnerable! But he was right from one sense. His social more was that in the church, you can NEVER actually admit to any sins; to do so, puts you at risk by every other judgmental Christian out there.

Christians can sometimes act like cannibalistic piranha that will devour each other in an instance if they perceive anyone to be weak. One of the earliest clichés I remember learning about Christianity is that “we tend to shoot our wounded.” Most Christians have developed as a core value that “I must protect my pride at any cost” and therefore, conflicts go unresolved, bitterness builds up and intimacy and love are lost because we cannot do what God so clearly commands us to do; admit we sin and ask forgiveness.

Over the years, I have pastored whole churches full of people who might qualify as “weird” because despite the orthodoxy of their confession of faith in Christ, in real life, they insisted on living according to their own, arbitrary, inconsistent standards and then imposing those standards on others. They were “weird” because their stated values were often in direct conflict with their actual values. I was “weird” because I actually tried to live and teach consistently with those standards! Often, at the root of various conflicts was these unstated mores by which people were living, and judging each other.

At the extreme end of the spectrum are those “Christians” who live consistently contrary to God’s law. These are people who are always having trouble with relationships, are often depressed, anxious or even suicidal. They usually have terrible marriages and dysfunctional families with children who are uncontrolled and undisciplined. They are easily offended and in order to get along with them you have to learn to walk as if the floor was covered with eggshells; or land-mines. These people may sometimes be laymen in the church or even officers; but the way they look at life, they way they deal with things is NEVER productive or conducive to growing the Kingdom because, well, they are “weird.”

Sometimes these people are attracted to “weird” theologies or beliefs (see my essay on “Alternative Medicine”) just because “weirdness” attracts “weird” people. But ultimately they qualify as “weird” not because they happen to have some wacky ideas, but because their way of looking at the world is irrational and based ultimately upon their own subjective standards.

Years ago I formulated what I modestly call Abshire’s law of ministry; “weird people drive out normal people.” When a group allows, encourages or fails to correct “weird” behavior, the “socially challenged” start crawling out of the woodwork. These are people who do not want to grow in faith or love; they just want a place where nobody will confront their weirdness. They are often very proud, arrogant people, even though they will willingly share their “problems” or “trials” with anyone at any time; they love to talk about themselves. They are seldom teachable and you cannot shift their opinions no matter how carefully or analytically you try to reason with them. In other essays, I call some of these people “spiritual vampires” because they can suck the life out of you and the church. They are looking for an environment where they can be the center of attention, but where they will never actually DO anything differently than they have always done. And if you confront them, no matter how kindly, gently or lovingly, then YOU become the monster, the legalist, the harsh, nasty person because we all know that the Christian life is about love and acceptance right, no matter how disastrously we live our lives?

As long as these “weird” people are allowed to run free, they bring the entire Christian faith into disrepute. Their children are usually hellions, and often openly rebel as teenagers, dressing, acting and living like their pagan peers (using drugs, fornicating, etc). Their marriages are often dysfunctional, with the women running both the family and the church. Gossip, slander, whispering and backbiting are common in churches with weird people since openly confronting offenses is not a part of their social mores. And if they are not stopped, soon they take over the church, fellowship or ministry.

“Normal” people, that is those who just want to belong to a church where the truth is preached and people can live in peace together, are soon driven to distraction. Nothing ever seems to get done, because the “weird” people are always getting in the way. The pastors and elders spend so much time pouring water on fires, that the church never has time or energy to actually develop the ministry. Sins go un-confronted, problems are never really resolved and of course, the people in the church never actually grow in grace and godliness.

Often, the church develops a new social more where they believe that their primary function is to coddle the “weird” people rather than lovingly help them repent of the sins. More and more, the “normal” people feel vaguely dissatisfied but are often unsure why. They just know that there is something “off” with their fellow “believers.” The sermons begin to seem insipid because if the pastor every actually preached something definitive, it might offend the weird people. The fellowship is usually just not very comfortable because at all costs, problems must be buried since actually resolving them would make the weird people uncomfortable. But if you cover up problems, rather than resolve them, then there is always a lack of true intimacy, trust and love. Slowly, the normal people begin to drift away, looking for something that better “suits” them, unaware that the real problem is that the “weird” people are now in the majority; which makes the “normal” ones the outsiders.

I have seen this dynamic at work many times, in many different churches over the years. Usually, it began with a sympathetic elder or pastor, whose ministry was based on feelings rather than clear, Biblical principles. Such individuals will spend inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to “help” weird people (possibly because it makes THEM feel important), but nothing ever changes in the person’s life because the leaders refuse to actually confront sinful behavior. Furthermore, if you actually helped someone resolve a problem and grow, then they wouldn’t need YOU anymore!

Oh, such elders might confront adultery or theft if they came across it, but not anything like those who are self-indulgent, prideful people who want to gossip, slander, and whisper. The elders don’t want to confront witchy, dominating women, or weak, emasculated men. They do not want to correct fathers who are raising disrespectful, rebellious children. They refuse to instruct chronically impoverished families living beyond their means (no, that’s what the deacon’s fund is for!). In other words, these elders want to be compassionate and kind and do not want to disturb people’s comfort zone by confronting any actual sins that are making people’s lives miserable.

And so, over time, the whole culture of the church changes to accommodate this basic presupposition; nothing can ever be said at any time that will make people uncomfortable. If people are uncomfortable, then they might leave! So, the normal people find that they no longer fit in. Often, the very people who were once the backbone of the fellowship finds that they are now out of step and quietly begin to look for someplace more “normal.”

Kinds of Weird Behavior

Now in a clinical sense, “weirdness” can basically be categorized as inappropriate thinking, inappropriate emotions, inappropriate speech and inappropriate actions. In all these areas, a “weird” person’s thinking, feelings, speech and actions are not in accordance with what they should be. Weird behavior is not necessarily the same thing as sinful behavior (though a weird response to something might well also be a sinful one) but rather, something that just does not fit properly.

Let me see if I can give an example to make this mud a bit less murky; if a man looks at a beautiful woman exposing her “charms” by wearing a skimpy bikini, lust is a sinful response, but not a weird one. Men are supposed to be “turned on” by women; that is how God designed us. But God also designed us to love one woman for all our lives. Thus, it is “normal” for Christian men to turn their eyes away when a scantily clad woman walks by, because he is in submission to God’s law regarding personal purity. But if a man looks at a woman and his response is to wonder where he can buy shoes like hers, then he is weird!

OK, ok, that was a cheap shot, a silly example and perhaps not all that helpful. How about this; someone directly insults you, calling you a bad name. A “normal” person might become angry and upset in return. Depending upon one’s personality type, others might be hurt, and maybe even depressed that someone would think so little of them. Both responses are “normal.” However, a “weird” person is hurt and offended if someone forgets their birthday, or doesn’t bubble over with enthusiasm when they meet by accident on the street. A “weird” person is someone who is offended at any perceived slight. A “weird” person is someone who calls you to complain about their husband or wife, but is offended, hurt and angry if you tell them that they ought not gossip about their mate, but actually try to help them resolve the problem Biblically!

In other words, “weird” people tend to have over-reactions to slights, to brood over offenses, to make something out of nothing. It is not so much a rational problem (i.e., a problem with reasoning clearly about a situation) but a spiritual problem; at heart they think the world must revolve around them and their feelings. And when it does not, then they are offended, hurt, angered and embittered.

When the Inmates Take Over the Asylum

Now as previously mentioned, there are those who have “weird” beliefs about various things in life; specifically, those beliefs that are not widely held in modern Christian culture. But I would not consider a person “weird” simply because he may believe something out the mainstream. For example, everyone reading this essay is considered “weird” by popular culture because we believe in the Lordship of Christ, the infallibility of the Scriptures, the physical resurrection, six-day creation, etc. And there are many positions that some people hold that though may seem “weird” to many, actually have a rational basis. No, the difference between a “weird” person and someone who holds an unpopular belief has more to do with a basic character problem; the truly “weird” person at heart wants to be autonomous. Thus he may find unpopular, counter-cultural beliefs attractive, just because of this basic character defect.

The “real” definition of “weirdness” is an inappropriate and unacceptable social response. For example, someone wants to share their frustration, anger or bitterness with me about another. When I ask them graciously, kindly and gently if they have actually TALKED to that person, they become upset with me. I am “cold” and “legalistic” and “unsympathetic” because I will not give them a shoulder to cry on. Yet, when I try to explain that gossip is SIN, serious sin, then I become “mean” or “cruel.” Now, seldom will these people actually say this to my face; it usually comes around via the back-door through someone else. I then wearily have to track down the slanderous report, personally confronting the individual and asking them if they actually said, what has been reported to me that they said. They then become defensive and self-justifying; usually writing me long, bitter letters detailing my personal and professional short-comings before resigning from my church, or filing charges against me at Presbytery. Never, I repeat, NEVER, will these “weird” people actually sit down with me and share their concerns and try to work out a resolution. No, I am a “mean” person because I dared to insist that they have to obey God. And they are “weird” because they refuse to do, that which is basic to Christian ethics regarding relationships.

I have actually lost friends when I simply said, “I cannot hear your complaint about this person; now if you like I will go with you as you talk to them about your problem here; but I cannot listen to a bad report about them.” Literally, within a few days, I have gone from being a close, intimate, personal friend, to being HATED, slandered and even, in some cases, professionally ruined. Some Christians have actually instituted personal campaigns to destroy me BECAUSE I violated a widely accepted Christian social more that says gossip is acceptable.

Now I realize I am being a little self-indulgent here and may appear a bit whining when I share these illustrations. But I do so not out of a sense of self-justification, but to demonstrate that this problem of “weird” Christians is real, and a danger to the health and advancement of the Kingdom. I have even been told by professional colleagues, “Brian, as long as you keep insisting on people obeying Christ, you will never have a successful ministry.” Did you get that? If I just got rid of that pesky, personal application thing, and just preached and taught in academic generalities, all my problems would go away!

And my friend here has a valid point; whether I realized it or not, my stubborn insistence that people have to actually OBEY Christ is violating a fundamental Christian social more! The average modern Christian wants to be told that God loves and accepts him, just as he is. He wants to be thrilled with some new spiritual experience, intellectually stimulated by interesting sermons and essays, or wants to be confirmed in his belief that modern culture is going to hell in a hand-basket; but he refuses to accept personal responsibility to DO anything about it! You know, something radical and horribly difficult such as taking leadership in his home, or a wife respecting her husband, or doing daily family worship or just trying to resolve problems biblically rather than being bitter and gossipy…

Dealing With “Weird” People

I wish I had some surefire way of dealing with weird people that I could pass on; but if I knew that, I would a whole lot more popular than I am. However, there are some general principles of Scripture that if followed, will at least keep you on God’s good side.

First, when interacting with others, try to determine if your personal response to them is based on absolute, Biblical standards, or your own, subjective cultural mores. It would do no harm if all of us spent a little time occasionally hauling out our presuppositions for examination. One of the major side-benefits to doing “secret worship” the way we recommend is that every day, God gets a chance to work you over in your quiet time, as you think through a passage of Scripture. Again and again, our experience has been that when men spend quality time every day meditating on God’s word, the Lord God is gracious to profoundly and deeply change our thinking. We learn how not to assume quite so many things, and be a little more gracious in dealing with other peoples’ sins, because we learn just how gracious God is to us.

In a sense, there is a great deal of truth to the idea of “tolerance” that our modern, populist culture keeps insisting on; the problem is their underlying presuppositions. Tolerance, Biblically speaking, means that when something is not a violation of Scripture, learn to “live and let live.” The Westminster Divines describe this as “liberty of conscience” meaning that if God has not legislated in an area, neither may we. People can believe all sorts of things that may well differ from what we believe, but it does not make them wrong, silly, stupid or even “weird.” This of course will require us to learn how to be gracious and kind with one another, especially when we disagree with each other. It means learning how to appreciate someone for whom and what he is, despite the fact that he may not see everything exactly the way we see things. But this is really an application of Christian charity; loving people whose beliefs in some, unimportant areas differ from ours.

The first century church had within it both patricians and peasants; and they had to learn how to live together in love and true, Biblical fellowship despite their cultural and social class differences. Their unity in Christ was far more important than their differences either as people, or as social classes. Hence, their example ought to motivate us all to be a bit more generous with one another, taking Paul’s instruction seriously that in our personal relationships we must be patient, kind, not jealous or arrogant, nor seeking our own. Let us all try not to be provoked by others or take into account a wrong suffered but rather bearing all things, believing all things hoping all things and enduring all things (cf. 1 Cor 13:4-7). In more contemporary language, we all need to lighten up a little sometimes, and not take things quite so seriously.

Secondly, good, honest Christian fellowship delights in the truth (1 Cor 13:6) and therefore, like iron sharpening iron (Pvbs 27:17) we ought to delight in stimulating one another to love and good deeds (Hebs 10:24) with vigorous discussion about how to apply God’s unchanging principles (Col 3:16). Good Christian fellowship does not mean an absence of differences between people, but rather working through those differences in the right way. Therefore we need to learn how to deal kindly and gently with one another, being patient when wronged, and with gentleness correcting those in opposition because it is always God who brings about repentance (2 Tim 2:23ff).

Thirdly, if we are correct in our understanding that “weird people” are well, weird just because there is a spiritual problem (that of autonomy; that life must revolve around them and their feelings) then if they will not change, then perhaps the most gracious thing we can say to them is “good-bye.” Now, this may sound unkind or even cruel, and I never want to give up on anyone, but let us be realistic, we can only have a ministry in someone’s life to the degree that they will allow it. Every relationship has a cost involved, and some relationships, even though we might well LIKE the person, cost too much because it always has to be on their terms. God has a lot to say about people who will not change, cannot be corrected, refuse discipline and insist on living life according to their rules rather than His; He calls them “fools.”

And if you rebuke a fool, he will hate you. And because the fool is not constrained by God’s law, he will do whatever he can to destroy you if you make him angry enough. Rather than suffering fools, the best idea I have been able to come up with is to create an environment where they do not feel “comfortable” and hope they move on. This may sound harsh and unsympathetic but really, what other choice do we have?

Now granted, Jesus had some harsh words for those willing to hurl the epithet “fool” at others in the covenant community (cf. Matt 5:22ff) and I take Him very seriously here. Therefore we should never identify a specific person as a “fool;” just let people deal themselves in, or out of our lives as they see fit. I think there are several benefits to this approach; first, this is non-judgmental and allows for legitimate differences of opinion, values, etc., within the broader bonds of Christian fellowship. I know that I cannot minister to EVERY kind of person, so if we don’t “scratch” where a person itches, then Lord bless him, maybe the church down the street can. All I can do is what I believe God has called me to do; preach the word and then show those interested how it applies to their own lives.

Secondly in line with the above, by not creating an environment where we try to please everyone, we allow those that God has called to fellowship and serve together to focus on their ministry. We are not side-tracked by trying to keep everyone happy because coming in we are upfront about what we believe and what constitutes appropriate behavior. For example, in our local home-schooling community our church is not terribly highly regarded by certain women because we vote by covenant heads of household, not as individuals. These women find this practice demeaning and insulting and though they like a lot of other things about our church, they find this practice unacceptable. Now we could change our voting practices to accommodate these women, after all, 99.9% of evangelical churches assume as a given that voting ought to be by individuals, rather than by households, but to do so would be implicitly to give up something we think is mandated by Scripture. None of these women (and the husbands are ominously silent on this issue) want to dialogue with our books, pamphlets or essays written to support our position; they just think we are “weird.”

And you know; that’s OK! If they don’t want to be taught what we have to teach, then Lord bless them, let them go on their way and do whatever they think is right; eventually God will judge us both; for what we believe and almost as importantly, for how we believed it. So in my opinion, they can do things their way, and we will do things God’s way J (Did I really just write that? Shame on me, ruining a perfectly serious paragraph with a silly comment that has no other purpose than a cheap laugh)

Finally, let us all take a long, careful look at our own hearts. Do others think we are “weird” because we are holding to the truth, or is it because secretly, we want to be autonomous? It is one thing to be hated or ridiculed by the world because we insist on holding to Biblical truth despite modern cultural norms; but it is something altogether different to be isolated and alienated because at heart, we just want our own way all the time.

A good way to check out your real heart condition is to take a careful and honest look at how you handle criticism and correction. Can you be corrected by others? Are you always defensive, insisting that you have to be right all the time? Do you burn through relationships, churches, jobs, etc., the way a fire burns through logs? If so, then maybe you qualify as being “weird.”

And in the end, is it worth it? After all, on the great and glorious day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord, you will be held accountable for every word you spoke and every deed you did. There, faced with the ultimate standard of “normalcy” the Lord Jesus Himself, all your justifications, rationalizations and excuses will count for nothing. Isn’t it a whole lot easier to learn how to repent NOW, then it will be to face the embarrassment of facing Him, then?

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Christian Rant: It’s None of Your Business
2. Studies on the Nature of Biblical Authority
3. Iron Sharpening Iron: Romantic Theology