Baptists Are Like Cats: Comments
July 15, 2004

I asked interested parties to offer comments and feedback after publishing Baptists Are Like Cats: Some Stray Thoughts on the Psychology of the "Born Again". So far we have three takers.

Shelley Swanson
Olean, NY

I came to your article on "Baptists are Like Cats" after looking at the Spirituality section on paganism, Gaia and Wicca. So in other words, I was preparing my Christian sensibilities to be offended.

To my surprise, I read the opening paragraph, which explained my own salvation experience right down to the details (perhaps the only exception being the name of the pastor). There is not enough space here for me to communicate how much I can relate to everything you wrote and how much I appreciate that you said it. My parents are the converts and my only sibling is among the natives. I may be a native, but I do submit to you that perhaps there are other categories.

Let me call mine the "angels." The angels are incredibly repressed individuals who are highly skilled at living in a tiny box of perfection. Yes, we have all the "major" sins covered. We can avoid sex, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gluttony of almost any form, gossip, etc. We have the Ten Commandments mastered. Well, at least the commandments that seem to count among the Christians. Things like coveting thy neighbor or worshiping other gods don't really seem to be a big deal. As you know, Christians love to hang out in the realm of the obvious.

Angels are high achievers. We excel in school, work, marriage, and even have time for daily prayer and devotions. The facade of perfection is stronger than the walls of any Biblical fortress. The problem that the angels encounter (at least some of the weaker angels) is that like the walls of Jericho, things can start tumbling down. And that is the story of this angel.

Actually, it's not really a tumbling. It's more of an avalanche.

I resent the converts for their spiritual enthusiasm and that they "got away" with all that sin and now it's just somehow cancelled out. I resent the natives for their ability to participate in the sin-and-ask- forgiveness cycle. Yet, more than anything, I resent the Church and the lies it sold my convert parents. It seriously screwed me up and convinced me that I was inferior.

Anyway, that's my own little sermonette. Not really a testimony that the ladies' Bible study wants to hear. Thanks for the article and for challenging me. It will have me thinking for quite some time.

John Shelton Lawrence, Ph.D.
Berkeley, CA

I think you're on to something with the psychology of the convert. I see parallels in the levels of patriotism exhibited by immigrants as opposed to the natives. (This was more true in the period of high anti-communism.) It seems reasonable that those who make a conscious choice to be something will be more assertive about it than those who just fall into through the accident of birth. As a fellow ex-Southern Baptist raised in Texas, I am one of three born-in-the-First Baptist Church of Amarillo who became something else – or less than something in the opinion of those we "left behind" in the church.

Putting this in the framework of doubt/faith/certainty, consider this possibility: we are more certain psychologically about what is more doubtful objectively (as a function of evidence). The belief that one has left sin behind (preposterous in the light of Romans 3:23 ("For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," which both native church members and converts love to toss at others) generates the tension between evidence and hope. You would love to be sin free because you have had the course, experience the self-destructive results, and want out. So you say that you have moved beyond your sinful PAST LIFE all the more intensely to reassure yourself that you really have left that miserable state. Viewed from the outside, the expression of certainty (psychological) is a symptom of uncertainty (logical). They aren't really sure that they have left their past, and they truly aren't consistent with their own doctrine of original sin as expressed in Romans 3:23. They're just more in your face with their joy about their holiness.

Consider this paradox that arises in the foreign policy context. The same group of ultra-conservatives who love to throw literal Bible truths about sin in your face are by and large extremely patriotic. If America is off somewhere killing somebody the conservatives are by God sure that the nation should support it. Because America never acts for mere reasons of conquest (to quote our current prez), material acquisition, etc. We have then the miracle of nationalism in the form that blends the cross and the flag. The nation, made up all of those miserable sinners, manages to become, of all things, the redeemer nation in history. Millions of sinners combine, on the world stage, to be a saint. You can read all about in Ernest Lee Tuveson's REDEEMER NATION or for a more recent treatment, CAPTAIN AMERICA AND THE CRUSADE AGAINST EVIL by yours truly and Robert Jewett.

More than a hundred years ago the philosopher Josiah Royce wrote CALIFORNIA: THE STUDY OF AMERICAN CHARACTER (1886). He thought that the U.S. had seized California by pretext in the Mexican War – much as the U.S. would seize the Philippines in 1898 – and wrote these remarks about the national predisposition. "The American as conqueror is unwilling to appear in public as a pure aggressor; he dare not seize a California as Russia has seized so much land in Asia or as Napoleon, with full French approval, seized whatever he wanted. The American wants to persuade not only the world but himself that he is doing God service in a peaceable spirit, even when he violently takes what he is determined to get." (p. 119, Heyday Books edition, Berkeley 2002). I don't think that Christianity or evangelical Christianity – both of which contained factions behind abolitionism, the civil rights movement, the sanctuary movement in the 1980s, the nuclear freeze movement in the 1980s that helped reign in Reagan's apocalypticism in foreign policy – should take the rap that Royce is laying on American nationalism. But the evangelical right today, which has captured the heart of the president, seems to have just the character that Royce saw in America's hypocritical greed. And part of the certainty about America's rightness in the world comes from the certainty of the convert – of which the president is a prominent example. He fell out of his rich man's religion that nurtured his playboy tendencies into a very simplistic faith that allowed him to walk soberly and think about "ridding the world of evil" as the task of America. Truly the faith of a convert applied to the power of a nation.

Mike Pecaut, Ph.D.
Redlands, CA

I'm not sure I would limit it to religion. Just about any idea that evokes a strong emotional response would work (e.g. nazi socialism, racism, etc). Come to think of it, all you really need is 1) a leader who has had a life-changing experience and/or has made a life-changing decision, and 2) an audience and/or community.

I'm also leaning toward including in that event or decision another factor: the displacement of one addiction/need for another (e.g. alcohol addiction with god in Alcoholics Anonymous, or poverty with power and supplies in Germany after WWI). For instance, I haven’t gone out and done a survey but I wouldn’t be surprised if most rabidly “born again” types (whether Christian, Pagan, or otherwise) have addictive personalities. And those that aren't might simply be denying their biological or psychological needs (Can you say gay-bashing Kansas ministers, boys and girls? I knew you could.)

Kizzy
(LiveJournal: whiskchick)

My theories on the "born again" movement are similar to yours. I'm neither a native (in that I didn't grow up in the Bapist or other evangelical church) nor born-again, but close friends of mine considered themselves the latter for awhile and yes, it infiltrated every aspect of their lives. In some instances it was scary to witness; in others, there were aspects which were so loving, so peaceful that they, for all intents and purposes, transformed into a wholly new people.

In my experience there is also a lot of truth to what your third commenter pointed out – trading one addiction for another. I've noticed that many converters (but not all) have a bit of that within them.

My take? The movement certainly serves its purpose, and when it doesn't have the whole arrogance/political/witnessing aspect to it, I tend to respect it more. Overall, though, that doesn't happen very often.

indigojo
LiveJournal: indigojo

growing up...i attended both the methodist church and the baptist church of our town at different times...and it tended to be somewhat sporadic at times...i hated that my attendance or lack of seemed more important than the message.

at this point in my life, i've come to understand that i've always been very spiritual... it's just in me... (sort of like that faith thing... it's just there)...and the fact that it was there at a young age was probably the reason my church attendance being more important to others than the actual message at church any given sunday irked me so much.

i'm a deeply spiritual soul... i don't think i'm in the least religious...for me religion is life inside the box... spirituality is life outside the box...for me, spirituality lets me reach for more in my life...i don't believe it puts me above anyone who follows a religion...it doesn't make anyone for whom religion works less than me...we're all searching for what works for us...the very fact that there are so many paths that have some of the same similar themes or threads running through them are there by design, i think... so each can find the path that works for them.

personally... i don't know what to call myself...i seem to have taken in bits of this philosophy and pieces of that form of spirituality...somehow it works for me.