It is true that generalizations are often untrue, if they are taken literally (although generally they cannot be) and that they often put whomever they are directed at on the defensive, but if I could finish my statement about generalizations without incidentally creating one, it would be to say that there is often some sort of truth behind every generalization. (If there were not, it would not be a generalization, but merely a lie - are all generalizations lies?)

There are two comments I would like to make on Good’s comment. Firstly, it must be remembered, that he disclaims very early in the book that he can only speak for the mainline denominations with which he is familiar, and although my memory may fail me, he implies that he can only speak for his observations of the churches/ leaders with whom he is familiar, and also that he may be wrong, and also, that he is only pointing out what he calls a possible cause for the problems he has seen, and hopes that his suggestions/ ideas, will be considered, researched, etc, and that time will tell if his thesis bears any truth or not. With this disclaimer in mind, one must remember to take all generalizations with a grain of salt, and look for the truth or spirit behind it. Also, also, if this is his attitude/ perspective than it bears no relation (in mind at least) to Dan Brown’s or the Da Vinci Code (who I doubt is either a scholar, or interested in bringing about a better future for the church).

Secondly, suggesting clergy may hold a subconscious fear of weakness or not having all the answers, etc, is not the same as saying they are “hungry for power.” I do not personally believe in the existence of of a subconscious mind, only deep emotions which influence many of our decisions whether we want them to or not, which function for all intents and purposes like the subconscious suggest by many people.

Good proposes that clergy/ those educated in seminary, etc. have discovered that they do not know everything. That there are holes in ideas, doctrines, beliefs, that do not have clean answers yet. Although many of these people understand or believe that they can have a living and vital faith, belief in God, etc, even though they do not know the answers, they also may sometimes fear that if admit to their congregations that they do not know all the answers, that the people will leave and look for some one who does “have the answers.” That even though they respect other’s ability to find truth on their own, they are well aware that if given that power completely and unlimitedly, many will come to radically different conclusions, and answers that are, many times, at fundamental odds with their own conclusions.

Take, for example, 1 John 2:27
“As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”

and
1 Thessalonians 4:9
Now as to the love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another;

and perhaps, Jesus’ statements about the Spirit of Truth, that apparently, will lead us into “all truth” (John 16:13, John 14:26)

Where would we be if these statements where taken to their logical conclusions? Where does this leave anyone who leads, teaches, etc, when we are told that “we don’t need anyone to teach us.” It would seem if truth were accessible directly to anyone who had a sincere and pure desire to find it, then we might not have any need for teachers. In fact, it rather seems like Jesus forbids us to call anyone a “teacher” (Matt 23:10). And if the spirit truly has the power to lead us into “all truth” then are teachers, sermons, doctrines, and bibles, also necessary. The interpretation that is commonly accepted is that the spirit is necessary but not sufficient to lead us into truth. Alone, it or he can lead “some” of us into “some” truth, but most people need these other things.

Dave mentioned that he believed many (almost all) of those he knew to be in leadership where not even subconsciously hungry for power. I would like to suggest the opposite, that not only in leadership, but in the people inside the church, outside of the church, and in the majority of all humanity, secular and religious, there lies a profound and deep fear of powerlessness. A fear of being helpless, lost, not knowing the answers, alone, weak, and destitute. Since it is a strong fear, and associated with pain, we all will do anything we can to avoid those feelings. This may not seem the same as power-hunger, but in affect, it accomplishes the same thing.

We do not want to admit (emotionally) the possibility that many of the things that we believe are wrong. If we give up everything we know that is not certain or proved beyond doubt where does that leave us? If we no longer find ourselves with the keys to truth, how will find it? It is too difficult to give up everything, and so we take the easy way out, and leave things the way they are, or at least sift through the hay-stack of our beliefs with a needle, when we need a pitch-fork or a fork-lift. In the case of religious teachers, the easy way out is often to teach things of which we have no idea, to give answers which do not satisfy ourselves, speak of things we have not heard, show things we have not seen. (If this seems harsh, read Matthew 23 again)

I take myself as a case study. I believe that truth can and will be found by a sincere seeker and knocker. I know (it goes without saying) that I don’t know all truth, I also know that not everything I do know is true, but I also know that what I believe myself to have discovered so far is not exactly conducive to the goals and aspirations of most supposedly well-meaning pastors. For example, I no longer believe any of the five fundamentals of fundamentalist christianity (as per wikipedia.org), I don’t feel or believe that there is any need for the church in its current form (or in any of the forms that I have heard proposed in said churches), and of course, on these points I don’t feel particularly wrong or deceived, but merely believe what seems to be natural based on my current evidence, experience, and probably, biases.

So, let me give a possible paraphrase of the last part of Good’s statement above, as it appears to me.
“A laity that is well-informed might challenge entrenched bureaucratic priorities and denominational dogma”

-

“A laity that is well-informed might not want to support church structures or even go to church and may not believe any of the things that they are ’supposed’ to believe.”

If this is true, and it seems to be in my case, than is it not a valid fear and something which leaders may want to work against, given that they have motivation to defend the church and/or some of said beliefs?