The Unshakable Truth
Lorin Friesen, March 2020
I recently read through The Unshakable Truth by Josh and Sean McDowell. An accompanying website says that “Josh McDowell, along with his son, Sean, have drawn on a lifetime of work to create The Unshakable Truth, a clear vision of what Christians believe, why we believe it, how it is relevant to life and how we can pass it on to the next generation.” It describes this book as “the crowning work of Josh’s 50 years of ministry”. These comments suggest that it is appropriate to regard this book as representative of the thinking of the McDowells. Because this book has been written by father and son, we will refer to the authors as McDowell.
Josh McDowell is known for his extensive work in apologetics. Therefore, this book represents what can be regarded as state-of-the-art in American evangelical Christendom. This essay will analyze this book from a cognitive perspective. The goal is not to attack or denigrate the McDowells, but rather to understand more clearly the state of American evangelical Christendom.
In brief, my conclusion is this would be a great book for a late 20th century audience. But it is inadequate for the 21st century post-Christian world. More specifically, it describes the concrete experiential side of Christianity, but it lacks the abstract theoretical side of Christianity. This is a strange conclusion, because Josh McDowell has made a career out of teaching others that Christianity has a rational side and can be based in rational thought.
Relationship
One of the first things I look for when examining a book is the fundamental idea—the concept, word, or phrase that an author repeatedly uses. McDowell talks extensively about relationship. One can see this in the following quotes:
Adam and Eve “experienced a longing for an emotional connection, a bonding of the inner spirit, an intimate attachment of the soul. In short, they experienced a desire for a loving relationship” (p.68).
Cognitive development starts with relationship. A “report stated that 100 percent of all the studies they analyzed showed that from the moment a baby is born his or her brain is physically, biologically, and chemically hardwired to connect with others in relationships. That shouldn’t surprise us, since we were created in the image of a relational God, for the purpose of relationships” (p.38).
Life revolves around relationship: “Everything that is around us and in us reflects the fact that we were made for relationship. You can talk about moral values or the creation around us – whatever it is, it is based in God’s relationship with us” (p.78).
Relationship is significant for evangelism: “One of the keys to leading a person to Christ or nurturing someone to spiritual health is developing a relationship with that person” (p.234).
The Bible should be viewed from the perspective of relationship: “To sum it up: Scripture is the means by which God has chosen to introduce and reveal himself to you, so he can enjoy a relationship with you. God’s word – the record of all his ways – is given to you for a relational purpose: so you may know him and enjoy all the blessings of a relationship with your loving Creator” (p.88).
Relationship is key to personal transformation: “Our goal as a Christ-follower shouldn’t be focused so much on acting like Jesus, as on being in Him and with Him. It’s about being in relationship with Him, which naturally results in acting like Him” (p.330).
Looking at this cognitively, a general Teacher theory uses a simple statement to bring order to a complexity of situations. McDowell’s most general statement appears to be that of relationship, and all the concepts in the book are tied together by this single overarching theme of relationship.
Mental symmetry suggests that a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general theory in Teacher thought applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. Relationship qualifies because it is a general theory, and relationship, by definition, describes the interaction between various personal identities.
Consistent with this, McDowell uses relationship to define the character of God: “God, consisting, as he does of three persons, shows that that intimate relationship has existed eternally. God didn’t create humans because he needed a relationship; he already had relationship. He exists in relationship. The Father has always infinitely loved the Son. The Son has always infinitely loved the Father. The Holy Spirit has always infinitely loved both the Father and the Son. A continuous cycle of perfect relationships is ever being experienced within the Godhead. While we are unable to comprehend such a perfect and continuing love relationship fully, all of us long to experience this kind of relationship ourselves” (p.317).
And relationship also defines how humans are made in the image of God: “God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’ (Genesis 2:18). He had made humans in His image, and the image was reflective of the perfect relationship of the three persons of the Godhead – a relationship so infinitely loving that are produced in intimate oneness, a bonding, a togetherness, and a connectedness unparalleled in the universe. What he desired for his human creation was a oneness, similar to His” (p.317).
Relationship is important. But is it the most important? Is relationship the ultimate general theory? One can address this question by looking at the example of the Internet. The Internet is a worldwide inter-net of computers, in which billions of computers have relationships with one another. The Internet has transformed modern society, which means that relationship is significant. But the Internet is still a relationship between computers. Computers could exist without an Internet, but the Internet could not exist without computers. Thus, a computer is more fundamental than the Internet. The Internet has affected computers in a profound manner. For instance, I remember going to the local computer club in the 1990s to copy programs off floppy disks. This local computer club existed in a physical place, one had to physically travel to this place, and all the files were stored on physical floppies which one had to physically insert into physical computers. Zillions of times more information is now available at the click of a mouse, thanks to the Internet. (The Internet is currently estimated in 2020 to hold about 17 Zettabytes of data. 1 ZB is 1,000,000,000,000,000 megabytes, and each of the floppies in the computer club held about 1 megabyte.) But the Internet is still composed of computers; computers are still more basic than the Internet.
Applying this to relationship, the existence and character of each individual person is more fundamental than the relationship between people. Applying this to God, the existence and character of the three persons of the Trinity is more fundamental than the relationship between these three persons.
An Overgeneralized Concept of God
In contrast, McDowell says that relationship defines God while the character of God is fundamentally incomprehensible:
“It is impossible for us to comprehend the Trinity. We can’t muster up enough imagination to grasp such a perfect union of love and relationship. We tend to think of relationships in terms of position, hierarchy, authority, and who is responsible to whom to fulfill what roles” (p.320).
McDowell adds that divine character is incomprehensible. But we can learn some things about divine relationship: “God’s unity in the Trinity is the secret to unlocking how relationship is meant to work. While we can never comprehend God’s oneness in relationship in an absolute sense, we can gain enough insight into this mystery to experience the true meaning of relationship. Uncovering the mystery of the Trinity is like peering into the very heart of God” (p.317).
He states that what one learns about divine relationship is that it expresses transcendent unity: “It is this infinite love and perfect relationship that produces a oneness beyond our comprehension. It is not a relationship with a leverage of power and authority. It is not some hierarchical chain of command. It is a circle of relationships that looks out for the best in each other because of a deep abiding love for one another. In their infinite love, the three persons of the Trinity are so intent on pleasing one another that the very essence of their beings is indistinguishable. Speaking in math terms, they are one to the infinite power” (p.318).
Notice the sweeping language in the previous quote: infinite, perfect, oneness, beyond comprehension, one to the infinite power, very essence indistinguishable. Terms such as these are illustrations of overgeneralization. Teacher emotion comes from order-within-complexity; the more general a theory, the greater the associated Teacher emotion. Therefore, Teacher thought is emotionally driven to make sweeping overgeneralizations—simple statements that apply to many specific situations.
Perceiver facts limit Teacher overgeneralization; Perceiver thought can come up with counterexamples that contradict the sweeping statements of Teacher thought. For instance, suppose that I make some mistake and Teacher thought within my mind comes up with the sweeping statement that ‘I always do things wrong’. This kind of overgeneralization can be limited if Perceiver thought points out the fact that I successfully carried out some difficult task last Thursday.
However, if one insists that some sweeping statement transcends rational thought, then nothing will stand in the way of Teacher overgeneralization. This describes the cognitive basis for mysticism, which makes the sweeping statement that ‘all is one’ and then states that this cosmic unity transcends the facts of physical existence.
One can see this characteristic of a sweeping statement that transcends rational thought in McDowell’s previous quotes regarding the relationship of God: “It is this infinite love and perfect relationship that produces a oneness beyond our comprehension”. Going further, he says that the loving relationship within the Trinity transcends even human imagination and not just human rational thought. “It is impossible for us to comprehend the Trinity. We can’t muster up enough imagination to grasp such a perfect union of love and relationship.”
And he states that the overgeneralized unity of God transcends even facts about the character of God: “In their infinite love, the three persons of the Trinity are so intent on pleasing one another that the very essence of their beings is indistinguishable”.
McDowell mentions the Jewish Shema when discussing the oneness of God: “For century upon century, faithful Jews have begun their daily prayers by reciting the shema, the phrase Moses spoke to the Israelites after delivering the Ten Commandments to them: ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one’. These words are sacred to a Jew” (p.116). McDowell explains that “God cannot be separated. He cannot be divided. His perfect oneness in loving relationship is not something he strives for; it is not even something he manufactures. It is something he is” (p.117).
It is vital to recognize that there is one God. Cognitively speaking, one is recognizing that a single universal theory in Teacher thought rules over all of created existence. And the Jews were the first to spread the idea of monotheism. But I suggest that one must not subscribe to the Jewish version of monotheism. That is because Jewish thought equates a monotheistic God with a mystical, incomprehensible God of mysticism. This is explored further in the essay on Kabbalah. And one can make a case for suggesting that Jewish belief in proto-mysticism during the time of Jesus was at least partially responsible for causing the Jewish leaders to reject God’s plan and crucify the Son of God.
I am not saying that Jews are Christ-killers. Instead, I am pointing out that Judaism has embraced mysticism and suggesting that this had major ramifications for the plan of God and the Jewish people. One can learn many things from Judaism, but one should not adopt the Jewish concept of an incomprehensible God. And just to show that I am not overstating the case, consider the following quote: “The Kabbalah is about understanding God. This brings us to a major paradox, because how can we -- who are finite, understand God, who is Infinite… God is termed Bal Tachlis -- He is not bound in any way. This doesn't just mean that His powers are not limited in any way, but, more deeply, that we cannot contrast God with any experience known to humanity… The same is true of God’s essence. No amount of comparison, illustration, or metaphor will bring His reality closer to our understanding. He is simply Ein Sof -- indefinable, period.”
Mysticism is incapable of providing factual content, because it transcends facts. But mysticism can provide a defining emotional experience. Repeating an earlier quote, “While we can never comprehend God’s oneness in relationship in an absolute sense, we can gain enough insight into this mystery to experience the true meaning of relationship. Uncovering the mystery of the Trinity is like peering into the very heart of God” (p.317).
However, even though mysticism claims to transcend rational scientific thought, it often attempts to increase its emotional status by making pseudo-scientific statements. One can see this illustrated by McDowell’s comment that “Speaking in math terms, they are one to the infinite power”. Mathematically speaking, one can multiply one by itself as many times as one wishes and the result remains one. What this really means is that one cannot derive the complexity of creation if all one has is a concept of divine unity. If the only number that exists is one, then can one cannot come up with any other numbers, unless one assumes that something else exists in addition to the divine one—which contradicts the concept of divine unity. (Kaballah attempts to come up with a system of content while starting with the incomprehensible one-ness of a mystical God. It does succeed to some extent, but it has to add the idea of a creation that is independent of God.)
I suggest that a better mathematical analogy of the Trinity would be the mathematical equation that eπi = -1, otherwise known as Euler’s identity. This equation takes three of the fundamental strange numbers in math (e, π, and i) and says that if one combines these numbers in the right manner, then one ends up with the simple result of -1. This is an example of order-within-complexity. (This may not be a perfect analogy of the Trinity, because there does appear to be a deep, fundamental unity in the three persons of the Trinity which one does not see when comparing the numbers e, π, and i. However, it is a better illustration than one to the infinite power.)
I am not suggesting that McDowell practices or preaches mysticism. On the contrary, the fundamental premise of apologetics is that it is possible to make rational statements about the nature of God and religion. However, every theologian (in every religion) that I have encountered so far appears to hold on to a core element of mystical thought. Christianity has more rational thought than other religions because it is based in the rational content of theology, and it teaches that God came down to earth to live among humanity in a form that is compatible with rational human thought. And apologetics emphasizes the rational side of Christianity. However, these quotes illustrate that a core of mystical thought exists even within Christians who have followed a lifetime of pursuing apologetics.
My best guess is that the three persons of the Trinity are all composed of the same divine essence, but this same divine essence is organized in three different ways, leading to the three persons of the Trinity. Going further, the three persons of the Trinity are infinite while created beings are finite. As mathematicians will point out, infinity is not a number; there is a fundamental difference between finite numbers and infinity.
However, I suggest that a distinction needs to be made between infinite and incomprehensible. One can understand what this means by looking at the physical universe. The universe may not be infinite in size, but it is very very big compared to a human. It is possible for finite humans to comprehend rationally how the universe behaves. We learn this when studying physics. But it is only possible for finite humans to use the laws of physics to predict how a few items will behave and interact. It is utterly impossible for finite humans to predict how many objects will interact, let alone the entire universe. In contrast, God as an infinite being can predict how all of the objects of the universe will interact. Going further, comprehending how something works is also different than knowing what it is composed of. Physics can be used to explain and predict how the natural world behaves, but we do not really know what the natural world is ultimately composed of. We do not know its essence.
Similarly, I suggest that one can use the theory of mental symmetry to rationally comprehend the nature of God, as well as the interaction between the persons of the Godhead, even though God is infinite and composed of divine essence. In simple terms, God the Father uses Teacher thought, God the Son uses Contributor thought, and God the Holy Spirit uses Mercy thought. Going further, a finite being with a fully integrated mind is capable of guessing intelligently how God would probably behave in a specific situation. However, it is utterly impossible for a finite human—no matter how mature—to guide the course of history the way that God does, because there are simply too many interactions for finite human thought to consider. In addition, the infinite God is aware of the thinking that is occurring within every finite human, whereas humans have to use theory of mind to guess what their neighbors are thinking and feeling.
Summarizing, I suggest that God is comprehensible, but infinite and divine. And I mean comprehensible in a general manner and not exhaustively comprehensible. One can get an intelligent, general idea about where God is going, and why God is doing what he is doing. This will always be a partial and incomplete picture, but I suggest that it can also be reasonably accurate.
Relationship and Perceiver Thought
That brings us back to the matter of relationship. What exactly is a relationship, cognitively speaking? We can start by asking where McDowell gets his concept of relationship. This concept probably does not come from Teacher thought, because when one examines the Teacher thinking of McDowell, one ultimately finds overgeneralization and not rational integration. Instead, McDowell’s concept of relationship probably involves Mercy thought, because he consistently presents relationship within the context of one person relating to another.
Looking at this cognitively, the mind uses mental networks within Mercy thought (MMNs) to represent people. (If the concept of mental networks is new, please look at this introduction.) Two aspects of mental networks are important for our discussion: First, when more than one mental network is activated at the same time, then one of the mental networks will impose its structure upon the others. This leads to an emotional hierarchy of mental networks, with core mental networks imposing their structure upon lesser mental networks. Second, there are two kinds of mental networks: Mercy mental networks (MMNs) provide the basis for Mercy feelings of culture, personal status, and personal identity. In contrast, a Teacher mental network (TMN) emerges when one continues to work with a general theory in Teacher thought.
Science is based in the TMNs of general theories. Thomas Kuhn describes how this functions in his book on paradigms and paradigm shifts. We have seen that McDowell does not ultimately have a paradigm. Instead, what lies at the core of Teacher thought is an overgeneralization about the nature of God in Teacher thought. Going the other way, normal secular society is emotionally driven by MMNs of personal status, idolatry, culture, and power. Repeating part of an earlier quote, McDowell makes it clear that the relationship of the Trinity goes beyond this: “It is not a relationship with a leverage of power and authority. It is not some hierarchical chain of command. It is a circle of relationships that looks out for the best in each other because of a deep abiding love for one another” (p.318). With power, some ruling group or person is imposing MMNs of personal status upon the minds of people. A hierarchical chain of command formalizes the relationship between MMNs of personal status by arranging people in a Teacher structure of rank and privilege. One sees this in a military system of rank.
The angelic realm does seem to involve Teacher concepts of hierarchy and rank, because when the centurion in Luke 7 describes the supernatural realm using concepts of rank and authority Jesus responds by describing this as great faith. But Jesus also makes it clear in Luke 24:24-27 that one achieves rank in the kingdom of heaven through service and not through MMNs of personal status.
McDowell’s concept of relationship appears to involve Perceiver thought. That is because Perceiver thought looks for connections between Mercy experiences. This happens at an objective level with object recognition. For instance, if one repeatedly notices a flat surface placed upon four upright sticks, Perceiver thought will eventually conclude that this relationship of Mercy experiences defines a table. Looking at this more generally, truth can be defined as repeated connections between Mercy experiences that one notices in many different contexts and different societies, and universal truth can be defined as repeated connections that one notices in all contexts and all societies. For instance, the law of gravity is an example of universal truth because dropping an object is consistently followed by that object hitting the ground. This happens in all cultures all over the world and also on different planets and even in different galaxies.
It is also possible for Perceiver thought to discover repeated connections between Mercy experiences within the emotional realm of MMNs. This is more difficult to do, because Perceiver thought finds it hard to function in an emotional environment. McDowell’s concept of relationship appears to involve using Perceiver thought within the emotional environment of personal MMNs. This can be seen in the word relationship itself, which implies connections between people. It can also be seen in the title of the book: The Unshakable Truth. Truth is based in Perceiver connections. An unshakable truth is a Perceiver connection that does not change. And one can also see this in the work of the McDowells. Both father and son have been spending most of their lives attempting to interact with people on a factual level while discussing emotional topics.
This combination of Perceiver truth and emotional Mercy experiences can be seen in the following quote: “As relational beings we think and we feel. We have both a mind and a heart. I told my pastor friend that truth was meant to be proclaimed in the context of relationships so it would reach both our intellect and our emotions” (p.39).
This is a significant concept. The average person functions within the Thinking/Feeling split of MBTI, in which one either follows Perceiver facts or embraces Mercy emotions. This split between objective and subjective characterizes Western society. McDowell made his comments to the pastor about relational truth in response to an example of this split. He was speaking at a large church, and “as I approached the entrance, I noticed a huge banner hanging across the building. It read, ‘We preach the truth – and the truth only!’… I’ve heard enough similar statements to be suspicious when pastors make declarations about preaching truth only… I asked why [the pastor] was placing such an emphasis on truth only. He explained that he was concerned about a gospel that was emotionally driven to make us feel good about ourselves, but never really addressed people’s minds. He wanted to get back to the early church emphasis of proclaiming the truth and only the truth” (p.39). Notice that the pastor is trying to move from Feeling to Thinking; he is attempting to balance overemphasis upon one side of the split by emphasizing the other side of the split.
Looking at this from the other side, McDowell also emphasizes that one should not follow Feeling at the expense of Thinking. “Most Christians are not looking to the biblical text in order to know the truth; they are actually looking for ‘their truth’. The vast majority in our culture, including many professed Christians, say there is no objective moral truth. In a world with no objective moral truth… the best we can do with the Bible is use it as a foil to determine a personal truth that meshes with our own way of thinking, and thus has meaning only ‘to me’” (p.42).
In contrast, McDowell is trying to integrate Thinking with Feeling. One cannot simply choose to integrate Thinking with Feeling. Instead, combining these two is like going through a weight training program. McDowell (both father and son) can do this because of years of emotional ‘weight training’, in which many similar emotional situations have been encountered in apologetics that have trained Perceiver thought to come up with solid connections. As one continues to look for Perceiver facts within an emotional environment, one gradually gains the ability to use Perceiver thought and Mercy thought at the same time. This principle is described in a book I wrote back in 1997.
McDowell describes objective Perceiver thought as Hellenistic thinking and says that this form of thinking pervades Western society: “Today, practically all modern education in North America, including that of most churches and Christian schools, employs a form of teaching based on a Hellenistic model. Greeks shaped much of how we think today about education and disseminating information. Essentially, this Hellenistic approach is to present a student with rational and logical constructs of information that he or she is required to absorb intellectually” (p.40). I would agree that this describes modern Western thought (which is in the process of being replaced by postmodern thought).
McDowell suggests, in contrast, that “The Christian faith was then and still is an integrated and organic cycle of intimately knowing the truth, being the truth and relationship with God and others, and living the truth before the world around us, starting in our own families” (p.41). In other words, Perceiver truth must be acquired and practiced within an emotional context of personal MMNs. I fully agree with this statement, but I suggest that McDowell is missing the concept of Teacher emotion.
Modern Western education and learning is usually presented as a collection of rational, objective Perceiver facts, and Western Christian faith is often presented as intellectually assenting to a collection of rational, objective, Perceiver doctrines. But what really drives the scientific mind is the TMN of a general theory in Teacher thought. Looking at this more carefully, academia appears to follow abstract technical thought with its ‘rational and logical constructs of information’. But every technical specialization is emotionally driven by the TMN of some paradigm—a general theory in Teacher thought which provides the theoretical basis for that specialization. As Thomas Kuhn observed, a scientist cannot exist without a paradigm. One can tell that a paradigm is emotional, because the supposedly rational and logical academic will typically resort to emotional attacks of sarcasm and belittling whenever the underlying theory of the technical specialization is threatened or challenged.
I suggest that it is the emotional Teacher attraction of a paradigm which attracts Christians to the systematic theology of Calvinism. And McDowell observes that is the absence of a paradigm which causes many people to reject Christianity: “Teenagers were asked, ‘Why did you fall away from the faith in which you were raised?’ They were given no set of answers to pick from; it was simply an open-ended question. The most common answer – given by 32% of the respondents – was intellectual skepticism... Answers included such statements as ‘It didn’t make sense to me’; ‘Some stuff is too far-fetched for me to believe in’; ‘I think scientifically there is no real proof’; and ‘There were too many questions that can’t be answered’” (p.24).
Summarizing, we have now come up with three ways of forming a theory in Teacher thought. One can use overgeneralization to make sweeping statements that ignore facts in Perceiver thought. McDowell does this when talking about the nature of God. One can motivate technical thought with the Teacher theory of some paradigm. And one can also use Perceiver connections to look for general patterns. McDowell does this when looking at people, leading to the general concept of relationships. (There is a fourth way which involves Server actions of righteousness. McDowell gets close to this method, but does not fully describe it in this book. We will look at righteousness later in this essay.)
Perceiver Thought and Morality
We have seen that McDowell’s concept of relationship involves Perceiver connections. Perceiver thought looks for connections that are independent of Mercy emotions and personal status. This can be seen in McDowell’s definition of love. “Love is making the security, happiness, and welfare of another person as important as your own. This is Godlike love, pure love that protects the loved one from harm and provides for his or her good” (p.266). The phrase ‘as your own’ is significant because it indicates that one person is being treated like another. This same phrase can be seen in Matthew 22:39, where Jesus says that “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
McDowell emphasizes this concept by listing 35 scriptural passages that talk about ‘one another’, such as love one another, forgive one another, care for one another, serve one another, honor one another, and so on.
Looking at this a cognitively, mental symmetry suggests that Perceiver truth can be defined in one of two primary ways. First, Perceiver thought can look for repeated connections between Mercy experiences. One could refer to this method as universal truth. Thus, for instance, one table is like another table. This is the default method when dealing with non-emotional situations such as physical objects, but Perceiver thought find it difficult to function in the middle of strong emotions.
Second, Perceiver thought can be overwhelmed by Mercy emotions into accepting the ‘facts’ of some person or situation as true. This method can be described as absolute truth. For instance, if Dr. Rev. Smith, whom I highly respect, tells me that the moon is made of green cheese, then I will ‘know’ that this is ‘true’, whereas if my neighbor Fred tells me that the moon is made of green cheese, then I will doubt his words. Absolute truth is naturally accompanied by self-denial. That is because I will only continue to believe in truth as long as my source of truth in Mercy thought has much greater emotional status than personal identity; I will only continue to believe the expert as long as I feel that I am a nobody compared to the expert. If my personal status rises relative to the status of the expert, then I will start to doubt the truth of the expert. This typically happens when a child becomes a teenager and begins to question the statements of parents.
McDowell contrasts these two forms of truth in the following quote: “In our culture there are two distinct models for knowing that something is true. Each model affects how we see and apply God’s word. The two models actually represent two radically different and opposing worldviews. Model #1: Truth is defined by God for everyone; it is objective and universal. The truth is known through discovering God and his word. Model #2: What is true is defined by the individual; it is subjective and situational. Truth is known by simply choosing to believe it” (p.106). On the one hand, universal truth is the same for everyone, while on the other hand, subjective truth is based in MMNs of status and personal experience. Notice that McDowell says that universal truth comes from the Bible. We will discuss this concept in a few paragraphs. Until then, I suggest that a distinction needs to be made between regarding the Bible as the only source of truth and regarding it as an accurate source of truth.
A holy book or textbook is an intermediate form of knowledge that juxtaposes absolute truth with universal truth. On the one hand, the emotional status that Mercy thought gives to the source of the book causes perceiver thought to treat the book as the source of absolute truth. This happens with a holy book, but it also happens with textbooks. On the other hand, studying a book will encourage the development of Perceiver facts and Teacher understanding, because a book is composed of words with meanings that are arranged in a structured manner. Thus, a textbook or holy book can be an effective way of taking a person from absolute truth to universal truth—if the content of the book describes a rational Teacher theory.
Applying these two forms of truth to the definition of love, universal truth will conclude that one should love one’s neighbor as oneself, while absolute truth will feel that one should deny oneself for one’s neighbor.
McDowell describes the inadequacy of self-denial: “I always tried to rescue hurting, struggling people. When I became a Christian, I continued this unhealthy behavioral pattern, but I didn’t realize it was unhealthy. Each time I saw someone hurting, my compulsion kicked in. But I didn’t know it was a compulsion; I thought it was compassion. I thought I was exhibiting Godlike love” (p.269).
McDowell mentions three results of making a transition from absolute truth to universal truth. First, one acquires a concept of self. McDowell describes this by contrasting a burden from a load. “The Greek word for load is different [than burden], however; it refers to a military knapsack, the supply pack a soldier would carry into the field. It represents something each of us is responsible to carry. It’s yours, it’s assigned to you, and bearing it is your responsibility alone” (p.269). Looking at this cognitively, when Perceiver thought discovers solid connections, then this organizes Mercy experiences into categories. For instance, one notices that a table is different than a chair. When Perceiver thought gains sufficient confidence to function within the emotional realm of personal MMNs, then it becomes possible to distinguish self from others, and my load from the loads of others. In contrast, when absolute truth guides the mind, then personal identity will always be emotionally troubled by various feelings of guilt and duty, as illustrated by McDowell’s description of his compulsion to help others.
This leads to the second result, which is emotional freedom: “When I realized that loving others as Christ loved didn’t mean I was responsible for other people, then I was set free to be responsible to others – and particularly to those who are hurting” (p.269).
The third result is that it becomes possible to be guided by Perceiver facts when thinking about self and others. Instead of being guided by feelings of compulsion or duty: ‘I must do that’, one becomes guided by connections of moral cause-and-effect: ‘this is a consequence of that’. As McDowell says, “When we fail in our responsibilities – by using poor judgment or making wrong choices or harboring bad attitudes – we must face up to the consequences. To step in and remove the natural and corrective consequences of people’s irresponsible behavior may rob them of valuable lessons – lessons which may be critical for their continued growth and maturity” (p.269).
This third result of moral cause-and-effect requires Perceiver thought, but extends beyond Perceiver thought to include Server thought. Server thought performs actions, and an action takes time. One can see from the diagram of mental symmetry that Contributor combines Server and Perceiver. Perceiver thought comes up with solid connections which subdivide Mercy experiences into different categories or objects. Contributor thought modifies Perceiver connections by combining them with Server actions. This leads to a sense of cause-and-effect: Perceiver thought notices that one Mercy experience is consistently connected with another Mercy experience, but this connection occurs over time and involves a Server action. Perceiver thought notices that cause is connected with effect, while Server thought knows that cause leads to effect through some action. Cause-and-effect is a basic building block for concrete Contributor thought. Moral cause-and-effect emerges when the mind gains sufficient confidence to determine principles of cause-and-effect in the presence of strong Mercy emotions.
For instance, ‘This is a rock and that is a table’ is an example of Perceiver object recognition. ‘If I drop the rock, then it will fall to the ground’ is an example of cause-and-effect. ‘If I drop this rock on top of your table, then I will damage your table’ is an example of moral cause-and-effect.
When moral cause-and-effect is based in absolute truth, then the punishment for violating the rule comes from some person. For instance, mother may tell the little child that ‘If you take a cookie, then you will get a spanking’, or a government may tell its citizens that ‘If you steal a car, then you will go to jail’. In both cases, the law is being imposed by a person, and the punishment also comes from a person.
When moral cause-and effect-is based in universal truth, then the punishment is built into the crime. That is because Perceiver thought is recognizing that there is a repeatable connection between crime-and-punishment. For instance, ‘If you eat too many sweets, then you will get fat’ or ‘If you fall off the cliff, then you will be injured or die’. In both cases, the punishment is not being administered by some person, but rather results automatically from the crime.
McDowell describes this attribute of universal cause-and-effect: “The truth of God conforms to reality. It does not accommodate personal beliefs at variance with it. It is not subject to opinions or personal views of it. It is what it is, and either we conform and live in accordance with that absolute reality, or we substitute our own version of truth and live with the consequence of defying reality” (p.107). Using cognitive language, moral cause-and-effect is based in Perceiver connections that are independent of Mercy feelings of culture.
Going further, McDowell emphasizes that moral cause-and-effect is based in personal well-being. “The relevance of God’s Word to each of us is simply this – it is for our good! Looking down from an eternal, omniscient perspective, he can see things that we cannot… every truth, every rule, and every guideline coming from God’s Word issues from a loving heart and character of God for our own good” (p.108).
Turning to the positive side, “being obedient to God’s Word does not mean giving up the pleasures of leisure or satisfaction, or liberty; it means being free to enjoy maximum leisure, maximum satisfaction, and maximum liberty—in the way God intended” (p.112).
Looking at this cognitively, if moral rules are based in absolute truth that is imposed by people, then this means that some person is stopping me from having fun by imposing a rule with its punishment upon me. If this is the case, then my enjoyment will increase if I rebel from the rule. In contrast, if moral rules are based in Perceiver connections of universal truth, then these rules allow me to predict how the world naturally works. Moral rules are then like warning lights that warn of impending disaster. Heeding the warning light makes it possible to avoid personal disaster.
This is an important distinction and is also a fundamental principle taught by mental symmetry. But I suggest that McDowell is inconsistent when examining the source of universal truth. McDowell ties together a number of statements in the following quote: “We know a standard exists for settling claims about moral knowledge – a standard for right and wrong that exists outside, above, and beyond ourselves. That standard is the nature of God himself, as revealed in the Scriptures. So the relevance of God’s Word as our standard for living provides both a means to know God for who he is, and the way or guidelines to live in a godly manner – which results in God being honored and us living a life of joy” (p.108). Notice the various aspects that are being equated: 1) There is a standard of universal moral cause-and-effect. 2) This moral standard corresponds with the nature of God. 3) God reveals himself in the Bible. 4) Following the moral standard of the Bible leads to personal joy and also honors God.
Mental symmetry would agree with the first two statements, but would suggest that the last two statements are incomplete. In brief, mental symmetry suggests that the Bible is an accurate source of universal truth, but not the only source. That is because it is possible to use the theory of mental symmetry reformulate all of Christianity. More specifically, if one uses mental symmetry to examine the path that individuals and society must follow to reach mental wholeness, then one can derive Christianity. This is not a hypothetical statement. This reformulation has been done. Going further, if one compares the concept of God that emerges when the mind becomes whole and compares this with the description of the Trinitarian God in the Bible, one finds that they match. And if one examines the deep structure of key disciplines such as physics, biochemistry, psychology, and neurology, one discovers that they are consistent with the theoretical reformulation of Christianity.
Putting this together, one can derive McDowell’s four points from a theoretical perspective without having to present them as religious doctrine: 1) There is a standard of universal moral cause-and-effect based in the structure of the mind. Notice that I said mind and not brain. There is a deep correspondence between the structure of the mind and the wiring of the physical brain. But it appears that the mind is not the same as the brain. 2) The structure of the mind appears to be consistent with the character of God as described in the Bible. Notice that I said structure and not content. Personal transformation requires reprogramming the content of the mind so that it is compatible with the structure of the mind. 3) God has revealed himself in the Bible, but the revealed truth of the Bible can be reformulated as a rational theory based in the structure of the mind. If one approaches the Bible as the source of absolute truth, then this mindset will actually cause one to misinterpret the content of the Bible. 4) Pursuing the path of mental wholeness will naturally lead to personal fulfillment, and it will also honor God, because it will cause the mind to be driven by a concept of God that is consistent with the God of the Bible and the God of creation.
I am not suggesting that the theory of mental symmetry makes the Bible irrelevant, or that I have an exhaustive understanding of the Bible. On the contrary, I continue discovering new principles whenever I revisit biblical passages. However, I can conclude that the theory of mental symmetry makes it possible to come up with rational explanations for many Christian doctrines and biblical passages which are regarded currently as incomprehensible mystery. And my respect for the Bible has gone up and not down. I can now state with considerable confidence that the Bible had to have a supernatural origin, because it is too clever to of been written by humans. Finally, being guided by a rational theory in Teacher thought does not eliminate the need for grace, or diminish the role of God. One still needs divine prodding, assistance, and providence to continue walking the path towards greater mental wholeness. And one remains a finite human trapped in a decaying physical body in desperate need of the salvation of God.
Perceiver thought evaluates new information by comparing it with facts which are known to be true. McDowell illustrates this using the example of the standard meter, an example which I have also used. “The International Bureau of Weights and Measures... establishes and ensures reliable standards for all physical measurements… If you wanted to be absolutely certain that the millimeter divisions on your ruler were accurate, you would compare them against the bureau’s linear standards” (p.107).
But what is the source for the reference standard against which all other measurements are compared? McDowell says that it is the Bible: “In a similar manner, we know a standard exists for settling claims of a moral knowledge – a standard for right and wrong that exists outside, above, and beyond ourselves. That standard is the nature of God himself, as revealed in the Scriptures” (p.108).
After having analyzed a number of systems and books from a cognitive perspective, it is possible to state with considerable confidence that the Bible is by far the most accurate and insightful book that I have analyzed. It legitimately deserves the title of holy book. But this does not mean that one will find truth only in the Bible.
The Bible as the Source of Absolute Truth
McDowell describes how fastidiously the Bible has been copied over the millennia. “The overwhelming weight of evidence affirms that God has preserved his Word and accurately relayed it through the centuries so that when you pick up an Old Testament today, you can be utterly confident that you are holding a well-preserved, fully reliable document” (p.96). I have mentioned that concrete Contributor thought is based in principles of cause-and-effect. Abstract Contributor thought is based in precise definitions. (These two can also be referred to as abstract technical thought and concrete technical thought, because technical thought emerges when Contributor thought takes control of the mind.)
One of the characteristics of Contributor-controlled thought is that it requires sufficient certainty—which will then be interpreted as total certainty. Perceiver thought, in contrast, is able to function with partial certainty. One can see this illustrated by the common game of Chinese whispers or telephone, in which person A whispers something to person B, who then whispers it to person C, and so on. The final person then compares what was heard with the original message. McDowell uses this game as an illustration of the transmission of the Bible on page 465. Obviously, the last person will only get an accurate message if every step in the process of transmitting the message is done with sufficient certainty. Saying this another way, because technical thought demands sufficient certainty, it is possible to follow chains of logic. In contrast, Perceiver thought with its partial certainty cannot follow long chains of logic, because the information becomes garbled after two or three stages. Perceiver thought uses a different method to increase certainty, which is independent verification. If the same partially certain fact is encountered in several fields that are different from one another, then this increases the probability that one has discovered a universal truth. This is the method that is used by mental symmetry, because the same cognitive principles can be discovered in many different fields that are considered to be totally unrelated.
Concluding, McDowell talks about the reliability of the Bible using the standards of technical thought. This is significant, but Contributor-controlled technical thought is not the same as Perceiver thought; chains of logic are not the same as truth.
One of the characteristics of technical thought is that every field of technical specialization is based in a set of assumed axioms, or fundamental truths, which cannot be logically proven. What typically happens is that Perceiver thought will start with some collection of absolute truths, which are based in some personal authority with great Mercy status. Perceiver thought will then be used to evaluate information guided by this collection of absolute truths. If these Perceiver facts are defined with sufficient clarity, then abstract technical thought will emerge: some collection of beliefs and facts will turn into a technical specialization. This technical thinking will eventually be used to re-analyze the absolute facts which formed the initial basis for this technical specialization. Technical thinkers will then discover to their horror that there superstructure of technical thought is based upon a non-rigorous foundation. The technical specialization will then through go through a major crisis in which it either deconstructs into mere methodology, or else finds a better basis for its technical thinking. During this crisis, technical thinkers will attempt to resolve the crisis by continuing to use technical thought. This will be futile, because technical thought cannot be used to prove the assumed foundations for technical thought.
Now let us apply this to the thinking of McDowell. Christian theology is currently a major crisis, which is a byproduct of the shift of Western civilization from modern to postmodern thought. All systems of absolute truth are being questioned, including holy books such as the Bible. It is significant that the Bible is a reliable text, and it can be shown that the Bible has been copied much more carefully than any other ancient text. But this is still a case of attempting to perform the impossible task of using technical thought to try to prove the assumed foundations for technical thought. This does not solve the underlying problem, which is that one is building upon a foundation of assumed absolute truth; one is still building a system of technical thought upon a foundation of absolute truth.
This contradiction can be seen in the following quote: “Because the Bible has been reliably passed down from one generation to another, we can believe with confidence that it reflects an accurate revelation of God and his truth” (p.149). The fact that the Bible has been reliably passed down makes it possible to study the biblical text using the rigorous thinking of abstract technical thought. We can know that the Bible that we have today is essentially the same as the original text penned by the authors of the Bible. But this does not prove that the Bible is the Word of God.
Instead, one finds that McDowell makes a mental shift from rigorous technical thought to absolute truth when discussing the source of the Bible. Remember that absolute truth is ultimately based in Mercy emotion. Some person is represented within Mercy thought with sufficient emotional status to overwhelm Perceiver thought into believing that the words of this person are ‘true’. Stated simply, ‘It must be true because it is in the written in the Bible, and the Bible is the Word of God, who is The Most Important Person’. Similarly, McDowell says that “God has revealed himself to us through his reliable word, the Bible” (p.368). “We value God and his reliable word as the absolute standard of rightness” (p.369).
This mindset of absolute truth is especially apparent when McDowell discusses self-image: “The truest statements about your transformed relationship with God are what God says about you in his Word. The Bible is where God opens up his heart about who you are and how he sees you. If what you think or feel about yourself does not line up with how the Bible describes you, you are making yourself the victim of a case of mistaken identity” (p. 258). Notice the focus upon Mercy importance: What matters is the heart of God, and heart refers to Mercy emotions. Looking at this from a biblical perspective, the New Testament uses the word kardia for heart, which means ‘the affective center of our being… Heart is mentioned over 800 times in Scripture, but never referring to the literal physical pump that drives the blood. That is, ‘heart’ is only used figuratively (both in the OT and NT.)’
McDowell is saying in this quote that the heart of God should override personal feelings when defining truth about personal identity. Using cognitive language, God should be mentally represented by an MMN that has sufficient emotional power to impose its structure upon MMNs of personal identity. McDowell explicitly describes this type of emotional logic: “It has been said that our self-concept is largely determined by what we believe the most important person in our lives thinks about us… If God is the most important person in your life, then your self-concept – how you think and feel about yourself – will conform to his view” (p.258).
Building technical thought upon a foundation of absolute truth backed up by MMNs of personal authority is sufficient when living in a modern world. But it is not enough for today’s postmodern world which emotionally belittles all sources of absolute truth.
Three Shortcomings of Absolute Truth
Building upon absolute truth has three other major shortcomings.
First, it leaves Perceiver thought both awake and asleep. On the one hand, McDowell emphasizes that Perceiver truth is independent of subjective Mercy feelings. Moral truth is not just a matter of personal opinion, but rather is based in universal connections of moral cause-and-effect. Thus, Perceiver thought should learn how to function in the presence of personal Mercy emotions. But on the other hand, McDowell continually emphasizes the special nature of the Bible and how it reveals the heart of God. Thus, Perceiver thought should be overwhelmed by the Mercy of emotions associated with the person of God when accepting Perceiver truth from the Bible.
Looking at the one side of this contradiction, one is supposed to use Perceiver thought to discover truth: “As believers in God, we don’t make up a truth that’s comfortable to us at the moment. We know objective truth exists – it’s out there waiting to be discovered. And when it seems unclear to us, we seek to discover it. When making decisions. We consider facts and weigh evidence. We do our best to arrive at truth, and then we live accordingly” (p.107).
Looking at the other side of this contradiction, one is supposed to accept absolute truth from the Bible without using Perceiver thought. “The same principle applies when it comes to moral truth. Without reference to an objective standard, people struggle with the impossible challenge of trying to define truth or falsehood, right or wrong, good or evil. When we stray from the objective standard – the Word of God that reflects the nature and character of our Creator – and attempt to devise our own moral standards, the picture not only becomes indistinct and mighty, the relevance of Scripture and its positive benefits of protection and provision are lost” (p.107). Notice how one is not using Perceiver thought to carefully weigh the facts. Instead, one is using Mercy thought to view the Bible as a unique book with special Mercy status.
A similar contradiction can actually be seen in education. Education starts with rote learning and then moves to critical thinking. The student initially learns facts in Perceiver thought because they are being taught by teachers and textbooks that are regarded within Mercy thought as sources of truth. The student then makes a transition to critical thinking, in which Perceiver thought is used retroactively to analyze the truths that were originally acquired through blind faith. This juxtaposition of Perceiver thought being partially asleep and partially awake is not mentally stable. Either it leads forward to an integrated Teacher understanding composed of universal truth, or else it will fall back to a system of absolute truth based purely in MMNs of authority.
An example of falling back from textbooks to MMNs of personal authority can be seen in my home province of British Columbia where the government has just instituted a new curriculum in which all classes at all grade levels are supposed to be taught in the light of aboriginal culture and religious practice. Aboriginal culture is strongly connected with MMNs of spirituality and emotional identification with Mercy experiences from the natural world. And the curriculum explicitly states that aboriginal culture is supposed to be approached with an attitude of great respect within Mercy thought for native elders.
A similar falling back from textbooks to MMNs of personal authority is also happening in the United States. That is because for many evangelical Christians, belief in the absolute truth of the Bible has turned into support for Donald Trump. Trump has no concept of truth. Instead, he simply says whatever he wants to say and then uses his personal status to impose this ‘truth’ upon his audience.
McDowell addresses this contradiction by saying that moral truth ultimately reflects the character of God, and is not just being imposed by God. “Moral truth isn’t something you are either create or decide for ourselves. In fact, it isn’t even something God decides. It is something he is. It is God’s nature and character that define moral truth. The basis of everything we call moral and right springs from the truth that resides in the character of the eternal God who is outside us, above us, and beyond us” (p.43). This is a significant point which is also taught by mental symmetry. However, McDowell teaches this in an inconsistent manner. On the one hand, he says that moral truth is an expression of the character of God. But on the other hand, he says that the character of God is ultimately unknowable. One cannot base one’s ultimate knowing in something that is unknowable.
The second shortcoming is that one ends up with non-universal universal truth. Even if the Bible is the very Word of God, it is still a finite book with a fixed number of words. And a finite book is not capable of addressing all potential situations. Going further, if Perceiver thought discovers truth by looking for repeated connections that can be found in many situations, then it should be possible to discover truth in many situations by looking for repeated connections. Saying this another way, if truth is universal and it applies universally, then it should also be possible to discover this truth universally. But this contradicts the notion that the Bible is the only source of truth. Saying this as clearly as possible, if the Bible is the only source of truth, then truth is absolute and not universal. In contrast, if truth is universal and not absolute, then one should be able to discover this truth in places and books other than the Bible. That is why I refer to the Bible as an accurate source of truth and not as the only source of truth. It is possible to take biblical truth and translate it into cognitive language, and one can also find biblical truth described, illustrated, and demonstrated in many books and places other than the Bible.
McDowell attempts to address this problem with an illustration: “‘The Bible is God’s instruction manual for living. It is our roadmap to heaven. It is God’s love letter to us. It is the means we use to get to know him… so if people don’t study this book, they can’t very well know him.’ ‘What if we don’t have all of the Bible?… what if there’s, like, missing books or chapters? Does that mean we can’t know God?’” (p.88). McDowell responds to this problem by appealing to the accuracy of biblical copying: “The story of King Josiah emphasizes how dangerous it would be of God’s Word were lost or distorted, altered, or misrepresented to us through inaccurate copying over hundreds or thousands of years… If the facts and events the Bible weren’t carefully and truthfully recorded, then the Bible we have today is a distorted reflection of God’s nature and character. So knowing God and living in relationship with him are dependent on our receiving and possessing an accurate revelation of him. Unless the Bible is reliable, we have no assurance that its teachings we follow and obey are true at all. Imagine, for example, that God really did give Moses 15 commandments, and some scribe along the way decided to eliminate five of them. We would – at best – possess an incomplete picture of what God is like and what he requires of us” (p.90).
Analyzing what McDowell says, when education starts with some textbook or holy book, then it is important to have a book without typos. Students find it confusing and disconcerting when teachers discover mistakes in textbooks and have to point out these mistakes to the students. But having an accurate copy of an entire book does not address the problem that a book is a finite set of words that is incapable of containing all truth.
Looking at this cognitively, I suggest that McDowell is falling into a mental trap that is typical of those who use technical thought. As was mentioned before, accurate transcription is essential for using technical thought. But every technical specialization is by its very nature limited to some specific realm. The rules of hockey, for instance, apply only to the realm of an ice rink during the time when one is playing a hockey game. They do not apply at other times or in other places. Similarly, it is not possible to use technical thought to come up with a universal theory—or an adequate concept of God. Instead, if one wishes to come up with a truly universal theory, or an adequate concept of God, then one must use the patterns and similarities of normal thought to integrate many different technical specializations and mental networks. This describes the method that has been used by mental symmetry. Even if one possesses a totally accurate copy of the entire Bible, one is still dealing with a finite book that is only capable of discussing a finite number of topics.
Going further, the Bible has played a key historical role in revealing God’s truth. That is because sinful humanity will not naturally discover truth. However, if one can reformulate biblical truth as a rational general Teacher theory, one then discovers that it becomes possible to error-check biblical truth by comparing it with other disciplines. The end result is that the absolute truth of the Bible becomes transformed into truth that is truly universal and not just truth that claims to be universal, while actually being based in the absolute truth of a finite book. And when one applies this same kind of error-checking to other holy books, one discovers that they fall short, leading to the rational conclusion that the Bible is a holier book than other holy books.
The third shortcoming is that one will interpret the words from a personal Mercy perspective. This can be seen generically in McDowell’s focus upon relationship. Relationship describes Perceiver connections that exist between people within Mercy thought. Perceiver thought is being used, but it is being used within a general context of MMNs of personal identity.
This interpretation from a Mercy perspective can be seen more clearly in a practice which I refer to as promise claiming. On pages 260-262, McDowell lists about 40 verses that talk about what God thinks about me (drawn in part from a book by Neil Anderson). For instance, I am a child of God, I am reconciled to God, I am justified, I am the salt of the earth, I am Christ’s friend, I am sanctified, I have the mind of Christ, I am not condemned by God, I have been made complete in Christ, and so on. Almost every one of these statements occurs within a context which describes the path that must be followed in order to make this statement true. The statement about not being condemned by God, for example, comes from Romans 8:1 which says that “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” This statement is preceded by several chapters which describe the process by which one reaches the state of being in Christ Jesus. Applying the statement that ‘I am not condemned by God’ to every Christian is like stating that every student in a university has a PhD. One can get a PhD by following the process of attending university, but enrolling in a university does not automatically give one a PhD. However, when one approaches the Bible from the Mercy perspective of absolute truth, then there will be a natural tendency to pull phrases out of context and apply them to personal identity, because what is holding things together is not the TMN of an integrated understanding, but rather MMNs of personal identity.
We have seen that there is a fundamental conflict between Mercy emotions and Perceiver facts when one starts with the foundation of absolute truth based in some holy book or esteemed source of truth. Perceiver thought has to be overwhelmed by Mercy emotions in order to acquire truth, while Perceiver thought needs to function in the presence of Mercy emotions in order to apply truth. Technical thought can function within such a dichotomy because absolute truth is used to define the underlying assumptions and axioms of some technical specialization, while universal truth is used to do logical analysis within this technical specialization.
Perceiver facts remain the enemy of emotions when Teacher thought uses overgeneralization to come up with theories. That is because Perceiver facts limit Teacher overgeneralization, and a limited theory does not feel as good to Teacher thought as a general theory. Applying this to theology, rationally discussing the nature of God becomes interpreted as limiting the glory and majesty of God. In contrast, the struggle between emotions and Perceiver thought will be naturally eliminated when Perceiver thought uses analogies and patterns to build Teacher theories. That is because whenever Perceiver thought notices that that one theory is similar to another theory, then this leads to a combined theory that possesses greater Teacher order-within-complexity.
And such a combination is also compatible with technical thought. First, technical thought adds rigor to Perceiver analogies by making it possible to compare the details of one specialization with the details of another. For instance, this essay is comparing the details of McDowell’s book with the details of the theory of mental symmetry. Second, Perceiver analogies broaden the scope of technical specializations. This already happens within physics, because the same set of mathematical equations can often be used to analyze totally different physical situations, making it possible to apply the knowledge acquired in one specialization to totally different specializations.
Third, there is greater Teacher emotion. Teacher emotion comes from order-within-complexity. Comparing the details of one technical specialization with the details of another adds complexity to the order-within-complexity, increasing Teacher emotion. For instance, using mental symmetry to compare various technical specializations has transformed mental symmetry from a theory of personality into a meta-theory of personal existence.
Fourth, Perceiver analogies backed up by Teacher feelings of generality provide an alternate emotional source for the axioms and assumptions of technical thought. This means that one does not have to start with absolute faith in the Bible backed up by MMNs of emotional respect for the Bible and God (or emotional respect for some textbook and its author). Instead, one can start with the TMN of a meta-theory that is based in Perceiver analogies and similarities.
For instance, mental symmetry shows that there are extensive similarities between vastly different areas, including the Bible’s message of personal and societal transformation, the nature of God as described in the Bible, the structure of the mind, the findings of psychology, the deep structure of physics, and the neurology of the brain. There is no logical reason why these extensive similarities should exist, because there is no inherent relationship between these various specializations. But studying and analyzing these similarities will lead to the formation of a general theory that is emotionally backed up by a TMN. This TMN will lead naturally to the formation of a potent concept of God, and this TMN of God is capable of replacing MMNs of personal authority as the source of truth.
Saying this more clearly, absolute truth based in the Bible says that God is the source of truth but actually views God as a very important person in Mercy thought emotionally represented by an MMN. Universal truth also says that God is the source of truth but it views God as a universal being whose character is described by universal theories in Teacher thought emotionally represented by a TMN.
Proving the Existence of God
Among other things, basing moral truth in the TMN of a concept of God eliminates the need to prove that God exists. That is because the TMN that forms will be potent enough to drive people to act as if God exists. McDowell mentions four common arguments for the existence of God. p.57. These for arguments correspond with four common pathways in the mind. A person who is using such a mental pathway will naturally accept the corresponding argument.
The first argument is “called the first cause argument. The point is made that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. So if you go back in time far enough you will find the first cause – and that cause will be Creator God” (p.57). We have already seen that cause-and-effect is a basic building block for concrete technical thought. Adding MMNs of personal identity leads to the conclusion that people can be agents of cause-and-effect. A person can drop an object which then leads to the cause-and-effect relationship of the object falling to the floor. We have also seen that technical thought follows chains of reasoning. This could be chains of logical connections in abstract technical thought or chains of cause-and-effect in concrete technical thought. If one follows the chain of cause-and-effect back to the beginning, one comes the conclusion that God is the ultimate cause. Putting this together, this argument naturally emerges when one combines concrete technical thought with MMNs of personal identity and it views God as the ultimate source within Mercy thought.
Objective science does something different. It also believes in cause-and-effect, but it eliminates any personal MMNs from its analysis. Instead, it uses Perceiver thought to compare one sequence of cause-and-effect with another in order to find similar paths. For instance, objective science ignores who is dropping the object and compares the path taken by a large falling object with the path taken by a small falling object. This scientific comparing is different than the relationships of McDowell. Remember that a connection of cause-and-effect has both a Perceiver component and a Server component. McDowell is focusing upon the Perceiver connections in order to look for relationships, while science examines the Server path. Will discuss this later when looking at exemplars.
The second argument “is the argument for design. The point is made that life, the laws of nature, and the whole universe demonstrates immense specified complexity, the mark of a designer; therefore, the universe must have come from a personal designer” (p.60). At first glance, this sounds like Teacher order-within-complexity, because one is looking at a complex system and noticing the presence of underlying order. However, what typically happens is that Teacher thought is being used to shut down Teacher thought. The person who is arguing from design notices the incredible Teacher order-within-complexity that is exhibited by biological life. The intelligent design advocate then turns to the evolutionist and says, ‘Stop using the theory of evolution to try to come up with a rational explanation. Instead, you need to recognize that biological life was created by a divine being whose intelligence utterly transcends normal human rational thought’. In other words, intelligent design typically pits an overgeneralized concept of God against the rational Teacher theories of evolution. (This situation is changing, because advocates of intelligent design are starting to perform their own research. However, I suggest that the overall situation still remains as described in this paragraph.)
The third argument is the moral law argument. “Every human culture known to man has had a moral law. While there is some variety regarding moral practices across cultures, there is a striking universal agreement about the validity of moral principles such as justice, courage, and fairness. Without appeal to a higher source, namely God, what could account for the moral sense that is common to the entire human race throughout all of history?” (p.63) Moral law adds MMNs of personal agency to principles of cause-and-effect and then uses Perceiver thought to look for common connections. Notice how McDowell is pointing out similarities between the moral codes of various cultures. Cognitively speaking, this argument emerges naturally from a mind that uses Perceiver thought to compare connections of moral cause-and-effect.
The fourth argument is that of personal change. “People have asked me, ‘How do you know you became a Christian?’ ‘How do you know God is real?’ For one, he changed my life. This transformation is one way that I’m assured of the validity of my conversion and the existence of a real and personal God” (p.64). This argument may sound at first glance to be similar to the words of a familiar hymn: “You asked me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart.” Or it may sound like a person who says that he knows that he is a Christian because he had a salvation experience at some place and time. But there is a difference. A salvation experience is an emotional experience within Mercy thought that overwhelms Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ what is true. Similarly, God ‘living within my heart’ is a warm and fuzzy feeling within Mercy thought which also overwhelms Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ what is true. A changed life, in contrast, is an example of personal cause-and-effect: I was this kind of person, but now have become a different person. Perceiver thought looks at the me of the past, compares it with the me of the present, and concludes that they are different people.
Mental symmetry suggests that it is usually a waste of time and effort to try to prove that God exists. That is because a person will naturally form an implicit concept of God that is consistent with the content of his mind. This implicit concept of God will tend to override any explicit concept of God in which a person claims to believe. One can see this with the theory of evolution. The evolutionist explicitly proclaims that there is no God, while at the same time continually referring to the work of Nature, attributing to Nature the characteristics of a deity. Similarly, notice that McDowell’s four arguments for God are consistent with the level of cognitive programming that we have seen within his book. Thus, McDowell is mentally resonating with arguments for God that line up with the way that he is using his mind when discussing God and Christianity.
Thus, I suggest that believing in the existence of God is a secondary effect. If one programs one’s mind, then one will end up with a concept of God that is consistent with how one has programmed one’s mind. If one programs one’s mind so that all the parts function in harmony, then one will acquire the concept of a Christian Trinitarian God, and one will believe that such a God actually exists. Thus, the real issue is not proving that a Christian God exists, but rather becoming mentally whole.
This leads to the following chain of logic. If one wishes to find lasting happiness, then one must program the mind so that all parts of the mind function together in harmony. A mind that is mentally whole will lead to the mental concept of a Trinitarian God. The only option that is consistent with lasting happiness is to assume that such a Trinitarian God really exists. If one starts with this assumption, one comes up with a coherent, integrated understanding of both physical and supernatural existence. Once one reaches this point, it becomes emotionally impossible to follow any other path.
Incarnation
We have seen that there is a relationship between how one develops the mind and one’s concept of God. We will now turn to McDowell’s concept of incarnation, guided by an understanding of how the mind forms a concept of incarnation. This means discussing briefly how a concept of incarnation forms within the mind.
We have seen that technical thought exists in two basic forms: Abstract technical thought uses precise definitions to work with general theories in Teacher thought, while concrete technical thought uses cause-and-effect to improve some bottom line in Mercy thought. Both of these forms of technical thought are under the control of Contributor strategy. The description of Jesus in the Gospels corresponds to that of a Contributor person. The typical intellectual Contributor person follows abstract technical thought within some specialization guided by the TMN of some limited paradigm. Similarly, the typical practical Contributor person follows concrete technical thought within some business or game in order to improve some peripheral bottom line in Mercy thought. Unlike the normal human fallen Contributor person, Jesus was fully guided by the TMN of a concept of God in Teacher thought and he came to bring salvation to MMNs of personal identity in Mercy thought.
Saying this simply, human Contributor persons usually follow paradigms; Jesus followed God. Human Contributor persons usually improve things; Jesus transforms people. Both are using the same mental circuit, but one is using it in a partial manner while the other is using it in a manner that leads to mental wholeness. Saying this cognitively, a concept of incarnation emerges within the mind as abstract technical thought becomes integrated with concrete technical thought.
Notice that this statement adds content to the overgeneralization that there is a ‘perfect union of love and relationship’ within the Trinity. God the Son is interacting with a fully developed concept of God the Father in Teacher thought, as well as interacting with a fully developed concept of God the Spirit in Mercy thought. (We will look at a mental concept of the Holy Spirit later.)
One can see from the diagram of mental symmetry that Contributor connects Server and Perceiver. Contributor thought by itself will naturally become specialized with limited benefits. Contributor thought needs Server sequences and Perceiver facts to extend beyond some limited specialization in order to become a legitimate concept of incarnation. We have already seen this when looking at the relationship between technical thought and Perceiver connections. This unfolding role of Perceiver thought is seen in the doctrine of the keys of Peter.
Putting this all together, Jesus refers to the human side of incarnation who uses concrete technical thought to bring salvation to people. The name Jesus means Savior, and in Matthew 1:21, the angel tells Joseph that “you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins”. Christ refers to the divine side of incarnation, who uses abstract technical thought. John 1 describes Jesus as the ‘Word made flesh’—a finite human expression of divine incarnation. Peter describes God lifting up Jesus—the human side of incarnation—back to the divine level of Christ in his Pentecostal sermon: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). And Philippians 2 describes the process of Christ Jesus starting as God, becoming human in Jesus, and then returning to divinity.
Looking at this distinction in more detail, McDowell refers in passing to abstract technical thought: “Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. There are many things that exist that are uncaused, such as mathematical truths and the laws of logic. Even if the world had never been created, it would still be true that 1+1=2” (p.59). This statement describes one of the basic differences between abstract technical thought and concrete technical thought, which is that concrete technical thought exists within the time sequences of cause-and-effect, while the equations of abstract technical thought are independent of time. However, McDowell’s reference to abstract technical thought is made in passing, and he does not build upon this concept, focusing instead upon the cause-and-effect of concrete technical thought.
One can learn about Jesus-the-man by reading the Gospels. Jesus-the-man combined Server and Perceiver a fundamental level, because Jesus was a Jew who founded the religion of Christianity. Judaism emphasizes Server actions, while Christianity emphasizes Perceiver beliefs. Similarly, I suggest that forming an adequate concept of Christ-the-God has a Server component and a Perceiver component. Exemplars provide the Server component while Platonic forms provide the Perceiver component. (This is explained in the first part of this video.)
Thomas Kuhn came up with the idea of exemplars. Stated briefly, an exemplar recognizes that there is a fundamental relationship between Server actions and Teacher understanding. For instance, one learns the Teacher theories of physics by doing the Server actions of solving problems of physics. In order to understand Newton’s laws of gravity, for instance, one uses mathematics to calculate how an object will move when affected by the gravity. On the one hand, an exemplar recognizes that natural law is a description of how the world behaves—the general Teacher theories of physics describe the Server actions of Nature. On the other hand, an exemplar teaches general Teacher theories through the process of performing Server actions. In other words, general Teacher theories describe Server behavior and they are learned by doing Server actions.
An exemplar is different than salvation-by-works. Salvation-by-works performs Server actions in order to reach the Mercy goal of personal salvation. An exemplar performs Server actions in order to lay a mental foundation for Teacher understanding. This distinction is closely related to the idea of righteousness taught by Jesus in Matthew 6:1-4. One performs acts of righteousness in order to be rewarded by God in Teacher thought rather than by MMNs of personal status and culture in Mercy thought.
I mentioned earlier that Judaism equates monotheism with mysticism, and I quoted from a webpage on Kabbalah. That same webpage describes the concept of exemplars: “An adult sets up a school for children, where he will teach them dignity, responsibility and justice. But those are abstract concepts, meaningless to a child. Therefore, he makes a rule that white shirts and ties be worn at all times, that a certain amount of homework be the duty of the child to prepare, and that studying or the lack of, will be noted and publicized. In the child’s mind these are concrete rules, and physical realities that the child can relate to. Yet underpinning the rules are abstract principles that the child is meant to learn. When the child grows up, he will perceive the inner values represented in these rules.” Notice how the Server actions of the child make it possible for the child to acquire an abstract Teacher understanding. The typical Christian does not view law in a Jewish manner. For the typical Jew, divine law describes something that is done in Server thought. In contrast, the typical Christian views divine law as a set of boundaries within Perceiver thought.
McDowell does not appear to have a concept of exemplars or righteousness. This is not just a doctrinal shortcoming. Instead, it colors many the statements that McDowell makes about God and salvation.
Atonement
McDowell holds to the substitutionary theory of atonement. “There are various views on the doctrine of atonement, with substitutionary atonement the most widely accepted by Protestant and evangelical churches. That is, God’s perfect justice demanded that the penalty for sin be paid, and Christ stepped in and paid it” (p.191).
McDowell clarifies what substitutionary atonement means in a four-page dramatization portraying his idea of what will happen when a human stands before the throne of God. “The judge reads from a sheet in front of him… . He looks at you and says, ‘How do you plead?’ ‘Not guilty, your honor,’ you answer… Satan strides forward, cocky, arrogant, his pitiless countenance exuding contempt and disdain. ‘So you think you’re innocent,’ he sneers. I happen to know otherwise. I have a long record of all your sins, and they are legion… According to the law, your birth as a sinner warrants your death’” (p. 225). Jesus then appears on the scene, “looks up at the great judge and says, ‘Justice has been done, your honor. Sin was committed, and my death as God the Son paid the penalty for it. Now that justice has been served, this court has every right to extend mercy and exonerate this human. My dear friend here is legally innocent because I have taken all sins committed upon myself and suffered the penalty’” (p.226).
The problem with substitutionary punishment is that it breaks the link between moral cause and effect. It says that someone else can be punished for the crime that I committed. This kind of substitution is only possible if laws are imposed upon people by MMNs of personal authority. That is because the punishment comes from a person. Therefore, the person doing the punishing can decide to punish someone else. But substitutionary punishment is impossible if the punishment is built into the crime. For instance, it is not possible for someone else to plummet to their death if I jump off the cliff.
Mental symmetry suggests that Christianity describes the path of reaching mental wholeness. I cannot run away from my mind. If my mind is mentally fragmented and inadequately programmed, then I will experience the consequences. Similarly, if my mind becomes whole, then I will also experience the benefits. These are inescapable connections of moral cause-and-effect.
This leads to a different concept of atonement. I cannot escape the consequences of having an inadequate mind. But if someone else has a transformed mind, then they can teach me how to follow the path of being transformed by the renewing of the mind. This leads to the school interpretation of atonement. Jesus’ death and resurrection opened up a new school of personal transformation. A person who becomes a Christian enrolls in God’s school of personal transformation.
This results in a different concept of justification. God views the school of Jesus from a Teacher viewpoint, and Teacher thought thinks in terms of theories, domains, and processes. One sees this Teacher mindset illustrated by countries. A country describes a domain governed by certain general laws and legal procedures. A person who is a citizen of a country is subject to the laws and procedures of that country. A person who becomes a Christian moves from being a citizen of Satan’s domain to being a citizen of God’s domain. Using the school analogy, a Christian is officially recognized as a student of the school. But every modern state expects its citizens to go through an educational process that teaches them how to be mature members of society. Justification can be defined as God from his Teacher perspective viewing me as a citizen of the ‘country’ of heaven, while sanctification describes my viewpoint in Mercy thought as a student taking the classes of the school of Jesus.
Going further, I mentioned previously that the equations of abstract technical thought exists outside of time, whereas concrete technical thought functions within the time sequences of cause-and-effect. This is a fundamental principle of physics. On the one hand, physical reality is ruled by what is called the arrow of time, in which cause leads to effect. On the other hand, there is no sense of time in the mathematical equations that govern physics. Similarly, God living in Teacher thought sees the salvation plan of Christ from a perspective that is outside of time, leading to the concept of being verbally justified by God. This same salvation plan functions within time when viewed from the concrete technical viewpoint of Jesus, leading to a process of sanctification, in which one step of cause-and-effect leads to another.
This may sound like minor quibbling, but consider the following statement: “Godlike acceptance says: ‘Even if nothing about you change, I would love you anyway’; ‘I want to know how you’re feeling, because how you feel is important to me’” (p.181). Notice how this statement centers upon my personal feelings and my personal identity. My personal feelings in Mercy thought are important to God. God will still love me even if my sinful, childish MMNs remain unchanged. This describes a Mercy perspective in which God changes the emotional label that is applied to personal identity from ‘bad’ to ‘good’.
The school analogy, in contrast, emphasizes that what really matters is the character of God in Teacher thought. God declares me as righteous because I have been enrolled in a school that will transform my personal identity to be compatible with the character of God in Teacher thought. God would not ‘love me anyway’ if nothing about me changed. God loves me because Jesus guarantees that his school will transform me into being like Christ in character.
The same fallacy can be seen in the following quote: “If we are to live out godlike acceptance in our own lives, we must learn to accept others for who they are, no matter what. And God will be glorified, and others will experience a relational connection. It reflects Christ’s connection to us” (p.178). God is not glorified when we accept people the way they are no matter what. Instead, God is glorified when people become godly. But the process of becoming godly starts by enrolling in God’s school and acquiring the verbal declaration of being righteous.
A Mercy Perspective to Salvation
McDowell describes what it feels like personally to experience a verbal declaration of justification: “For me, one aspect of his new life was peace. – The relief from my restlessness. Before I trusted Christ, I always had to be occupied… but after I turned my life over to Jesus, a kind of mental peace settled over me. Don’t misunderstand; I don’t mean all conflicts ceased. What I found in this relationship with Jesus wasn’t so much the absence of conflict as the ability to cope with it” (p.229). Using cognitive language, McDowell recognized that his personal experiences were now being guided and arranged by a concept of God in Teacher thought.
But McDowell confuses personal Mercy emotions with the Teacher emotions generated by a concept of God. “We should read, memorize, and meditate on the Bible, primarily to get in touch with God’s heart. The more we know God’s heart, the more we know who we are in him, which will naturally result in acting like him. The truest statements about your transformed relationship with God are what God says about you in his Word. The Bible is where God opens his heart about who you are and how he sees you. If what you think or feel about yourself does not line up with how the Bible describes you, you are making yourself the victim of a case of mistaken identity” (p.258). The goal of studying the Bible is not to have warm feelings about God in Mercy thought, but rather to gain an emotional understanding of the character of God in Teacher thought. There will be Mercy emotions, but these are a byproduct of growing understanding and transformation. In contrast, McDowell interprets biblical statements about personal identity as God using his personal status in Mercy thought to override personal feelings: ‘If what you think or feel about yourself does not line up with how the Bible describes you, you are making yourself the victim of a case of mistaken identity.’
McDowell then follows this with the promise claiming that was mentioned earlier. And McDowell describes these promises using a personal Mercy perspective: “We have listed the many benefits of transformation that describe your position in Christ. Remember, the statements from God’s word are already true of you because you are in Christ. They are part of your basic identity apart from how you might perform from time to time. This list shows how the most important person in your life sees you. The list is written in the first-person, so that you can read the blessings as your own” (p.259). Notice that these promises already define personal identity. They are ‘true’ because they reflect the opinions of the personal MMN with the greatest emotional status. And they need to be read from a first person perspective. This illustrates what it means to approach God from a personal perspective in Mercy thought rather than from a universal perspective in Teacher thought.
Using the school analogy, this is like a student enrolling in electrical engineering, looking at the list of courses that will be taken, and proclaiming: ‘I know how to design integrated circuits. I know how to build robots. I can program operating systems. I understand differential equations and Laplace transforms. I know control theory. I am a fully qualified electrical engineer.’ But the student who has just enrolled in engineering does not even know what these words mean. If the student continues in school without dropping out, then the student will acquire an understanding of these various topics. God, looking at the school curriculum from his Teacher perspective outside of time can predict that this will happen. But these statements are not yet true within the human reality of Mercy experiences. Instead, the engineering student must go through a curriculum, in which concepts are taught one class at a time, with second-year classes building upon first-year classes, and so on. And one cannot simply choose to take any class. Instead, every class has certain prerequisites. In other words, as far as the student is concerned, learning is a process of going through Server steps. Using Christian language, the student goes through a process of sanctification. In contrast, McDowell’s list of statement on pages 260-262 ignores any concept of Server sequence, process, or prerequisites.
When a person embraces such a Mercy viewpoint, then this transforms school into a diploma mill. All one has to do is register and one automatically experiences all of the benefits. I am quite certain that McDowell would recoil from such a blatant interpretation. However, when one takes dozens of Scriptural statements out of context and applies them to personal identity, then one is functioning like a diploma mill. And many members of evangelical Christendom do take this perspective.
Looking at this more carefully, if one views Christianity as enrolling in God’s school of character development, then personal integrity and personal transformation will be viewed as essential and non-optional. However, if one adopts the Mercy perspective of promise claiming and substitutionary punishment, then one will feel at a gut level that it is possible to divorce the message of God from the personal behavior. This distinction is especially significant today, because American evangelical Christians as a group have chosen to continue to support Donald Trump as president, even though he has repeatedly demonstrated an utter lack of personal integrity and personal transformation. This proves at a pragmatic level that the average American Christian views personal transformation as something optional and not as something essential.
It also leads to an inadequate concept of Jesus: “Jesus not only accepts us for who we are, he identifies with all that we feel. He knows what we are going through, no matter what it is, and he understands it like no other. And that creates a bond and intimacy like nothing else can. Remember, he experienced life as a human baby, child, teenager, and man. He suffered embarrassment, humiliation, and rejection. As God, Christ understood his creation perfectly. But by becoming a human being, he let us know how intimately and completely he identifies with us – and with all we experience” (p.175). This statement is partially true. Jesus does know what it means to experience human emotions. He did suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and rejection. He did experience life as a baby, child, teenager, and man. But this does not mean that he intimately and completely identifies with us and all we experience.
Instead, Hebrews 5:7 gives a rather different impression: “In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.” This is not talking about the death of Jesus, but rather describing the days of his fleshly existence; these are the feelings that Jesus felt as he was living on earth. The word prayers means ‘heart-felt petition, arising out of deep personal need’. The word supplications is found once in the New Testament and ‘was frequently used of a suppliant carrying an olive branch as a token for seeking peace’. In other words, physical life with humans hurt Jesus deeply in Mercy thought, and he begged to be guided by the Teacher feelings of peace that McDowell describes earlier. ‘Save from death’ gives the impression that Jesus is thinking about his future death, but the word from actually means ‘out from’. In other words, Jesus was already living in a state of death and wanted to be delivered from it. Going further, the word crying means ‘loud crying, done with pathos… like a wounded person committing unearthly types of sounds’. The word loud means ‘mighty, strong’, and tears mean ‘tears’. This describes a gut level response. But where is Jesus directing his gut level response with all his strength? He is not identifying emotionally with the sinners around him. Instead, he is directing his prayers to the one who has the power to save him out of death. And he is getting a response. The word heard is an unusual term that combines ‘into’ with ‘hear’ and means ‘to listen intently’. Jesus is being heard because of his piety. The word piety means ‘taking hold of what God calls good; holy caution, inducing circumspect behavior’. In other words, what Jesus has foremost in his mind is not the MMNs of his neighbors and his culture. Instead, he is clinging to his TMN of God with all of his being and begging to be saved out of the death of surrounding MMNs.
This is not a Jesus who is the buddy of shallow Christian consumers. Instead it is a Jesus who is trying not to gag while going through the process of living as a human. It does not describe someone who ‘accepts us for who we are and identifies with all that we feel’. But it does describe someone who leaves his comfortable home and sets up a school in the slums, even though it turns his gut to be there.
In contrast, the following quote does not give the impression that evil turns McDowell’s gut: “I walked into the Bible study, and all the participants were like Steve: long-haired, ear-pierced, tattooed freaks! I was definitely the odd man out. But that night I experienced something radical. All of these long-haired, ear-pierced, tattooed freaks loved Jesus. The meeting wasn’t just to get together and listen to U2; they actually read the Bible to get to know its author… I remember thinking, with these guys, it’s not about following a certain set of rules, it’s about loving a certain person. I started meeting with them more and more. There was something about them that I sensed was authentic and real, and I was drawn to them” (p.251).
I lived in Korea for seven years from about 2002 to 2010. During that time I saw about one tattoo a month. When I came home to Canada and saw all the tattoos and piercings, it literally turned my gut. I felt that I was surrounded by people who had no concept of their bodies being temples of God. When behavior feels authentic, then this means that people are expressing themselves in a manner that is consistent with their core MMNs. A Christian who pretends to get excited about God on Sunday while being driven by the MMNs of society the rest of the week is not being authentic. But the solution is not to become authentically driven by the MMNs of society. Instead, the solution is to submit to the TMN of a concept of God in order to be saved out of the death-oriented MMNs of a godless society.
McDowell says that “Jesus loved us sacrificially, which is why he was willing to come to earth, live with us, and give himself up as our perfect sacrifice… When we accept God’s sacrificial and affirming love and in turn love others with the same sacrificial and affirming love, we are living out the truth of Christ’s real love” (p.210). The type of unconditional love that McDowell says that Christ practices is not what one finds described in Hebrews 5:7. And if one reads the Gospels in an honest manner, one does not find unconditional love. One finds forgiveness, honesty, compassion, and salvation, but when people refused to be changed by Jesus’ message, he did not continue with unconditional love. Instead, he started talking in parables.
Thus, I suggest that one needs to think in terms of conditional love. God is happy with me as long as I stay in his school, take the classes, and pass the exams. He doesn’t expect me to get an A+ in every course, and when I’m struggling with some lesson, Jesus will come alongside and help me, if I honestly ask for help. But he does expect me to remain in the school.
This leads to a modified view of eternal security. Can one lose one’s eternal salvation? Mental symmetry suggests that one should not view this question from a Mercy perspective of good or bad. Instead, one should think in terms of the emotional power that is wielded by the TMN of a concept of God. It is possible to drop out of school, especially as a beginning student. But as one continues to walk through God’s school, one will gain a deeper understanding of the nature of God in Teacher thought, resulting in a more potent mental network within Teacher thought. Similarly, every time one takes a step of righteousness, some aspect of personal identity will become emotionally driven the TMN of a concept of God. Eventually, it becomes emotionally impossible to run away from God.
This is how McDowell describes the process: “The transformation process isn’t about becoming a new person by just doing right; we are to discover the new person we have become in Christ and act accordingly” (p.257). “Living a Christlike life is about discovering the new person we already are in relationship with Christ and acting accordingly… Studying the Bible, attending church, and sharing our faith do not cause God to regard us as more redeemed, justified, sanctified, or adopted more as his child. He already sees us in these ways because they define who we really are” (p.257). It is true that God in Teacher thought views the process of personal transformation from the timeless perspective of Christ. So in that sense, one has already become a new person in Christ, just as the beginning engineering student has already become a fully-qualified engineer. But this timeless Teacher perspective describes exemplars of server sequences, and humans living in concrete thought have to walk through these exemplars one server step at a time.
And a concept of Christ does not emerge automatically. Instead it also has to be constructed one concept at a time. Thus, in order to become a new person in Christ, I must construct a mental concept of Christ and become guided emotionally by this concept of Christ. And Christ refers to the divine side of incarnation, who lives with God in Teacher thought. It is true that both the beginning Christian and the mature Christian are justified by faith, just as both a freshman and a senior are students of a university. But Scripture is also clear that God interacts with the mature Christian in a different manner than the way he interacts with the starting believer. Saying this another way, most of the promises in the New Testament have prerequisites. Using the language of McDowell, progressing in God’s school of transformation will cause me to become more redeemed and more sanctified.
Looking at this from a personal viewpoint, the theory of mental symmetry began with a study of the seven spiritual gifts mentioned in Romans 12. this study led to the development of exemplars in my mind. First, I realized that human behavior is not random. Instead, each spiritual gift (or cognitive style) behaves in a certain manner. Thus, if one observes the Server actions carried out by one Contributor person, one can learn how all Contributor persons tend to behave. Second, studying human behavior is not just a matter of acquiring facts in Perceiver thought. Instead, one will only gain a Teacher understanding of how the mind works if one follows a Server path of personal transformation. One finds the same two elements present in the exemplars of science. First, science describes how the natural world behaves, and these natural processes fall into predictable Server sequences. Second, one learns how the natural world behaves by doing the Server actions of solving problems.
Cognitive Styles?
McDowell gets close to making this statement, but then avoids building a Teacher understanding: “‘Just as our bodies have many parts,’ Paul said, ‘and each part has a special function, so it is with Christ’s body. We are all parts of his one body, and each of us has different work to do. And since we are all one body in Christ, we belong to each other, and each of us needs all the others’ (Romans 12:4-5). There will never be another you. God especially gifted you to fill a role – a purpose – that no one else can fill. You and I want to know our place in the world. God is crafted a specifically for that place that we – and only we – can fill. You have unique characteristics with which to love and live for God in a way that only you are empowered to do. God needs you, because there will never be another who can fill that place as you can” (p.72). Notice how McDowell quotes the preamble to Romans 12 spiritual gifts which talks about different parts of the body functioning together. But instead of recognizing that one arm is similar to another arm, or that one Perceiver person is similar to another Perceiver person, McDowell then concludes that: ‘There will never be another you. God needs you, because there will never be another who can fill that place as you can’. This is a sweeping statement that prevents the mind from looking at any details. Thus, it is compatible with a mindset of Teacher overgeneralization.
Mental symmetry has led me to the conclusion that this is not the case. In most situations, an individual could be replaced by many other individuals who have the same cognitive style, similar training, and similar upbringing. God does not automatically need me. Instead, God will usually call many individuals, train them, test them, and then pick those who pass the test.
This does not mean that no one is unique and that we are all carbon copies. Instead, a person can become more unique by undergoing various kinds of training, including academic and spiritual, theoretical and pragmatic. For instance, I eventually came to the conclusion that if mental symmetry was to develop into a full blown theory, then I was going to have to do most of the work, because I was not aware of anyone else in the world who could do this task. Similarly, there are many people in the world who have become experts in their field that capable of performing tasks that few others can.
However, it is pure wishful thinking to tell the average person that ‘God needs you, because there will never be another who can fill that place as you can’. This conclusion is easy to prove, because the average person loves to be told that he is unique and that God needs him—as long as he hears these words while sitting passively in a group. Actually being unique and needed by God means leaving the crowd and walking a very lonely path with God. Few are willing to walk such a path.
McDowell does not appear to be endorsing such pure wishful thinking. That is because he recommends looking at two books. The first is Why You Do What You Do. The reviews say that this book focuses in a pragmatic way upon dealing with personal feelings. This sounds useful but it also focuses upon MMNs of personal identity. This is consistent with the approach that we are seeing in McDowell’s book, which is learning how to deal intelligently with personal feelings. This is helpful, but it’s not theology, and it is not enough to challenge today’s postmodern world.
The second book McDowell recommends is Discover Who You Are. This book has three components: First, the author says that people can exhibit six different life gifts labeled realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional. Second, the book takes the three lists of spiritual gifts from Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 and presents them as a hodgepodge. Third, the book describes the MBTI categories. Stated bluntly, there is just enough personal information to be helpful but not so much to feel threatening. I say this from personal experience, because I found people were most receptive to mental symmetry when I presented some information but not too much information. In other words, people want some Perceiver facts about personal identity, but they don’t want personal identity to be ruled by the TMN of an integrated, rational understanding.
I mentioned that the average person likes to hear that he is unique but is unwilling to walk the lonely path that is required to become unique. Psalm 23 describes such a path of righteousness. The Psalm opens by describing emotional healing in Mercy thought: “He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters. He restores my soul” (v.2-3). This describes what the beginning Christian often experiences. But it is only the starting point, because it is followed by “He guides me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake” (v.3). A name is a label within Teacher thought which summarizes the character of some person. Think, for instance, of the name of plumber or dentist. Notice how walking a path of righteousness in Server thought makes it mentally possible to understand the character of God in Teacher thought, consistent with the concept of exemplars. This path of righteousness leads through personal rebirth: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me” (v.4). Notice that this is a valley of the shadow of death. That is because following the TMN of a concept of God through righteousness makes it emotionally possible to handle the fragmentation of MMNs within Mercy thought—it turns death into the shadow of death. This leads to a new concept of law: “Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me” (v.4). Instead of seeing law as something that restricts my freedom, one views it as a source of emotional comfort.
In contrast, McDowell appears to views righteousness and holiness from the Perceiver perspective of staying within certain walls rather than from the Server perspective of following certain paths: “God’s holiness is reflected in his absolute perfection of goodness and righteousness. There is no imperfection of character or motive in God; he is the holiest of the holy, the purest of the pure. To be holy is to be set apart from the unclean. A blemish or imperfection would mar anything holy, and it would therefore become impure” (p.264).
Holiness is associated with purity, but I suggest that this purity should be viewed as a byproduct of righteousness and not as the primary characteristic. One can see what this means by looking at how integrated circuits are constructed. Computer chips are fabricated in clean rooms that go to extreme levels of purity to eliminate any physical blemishes and imperfections. Quoting from the Wikipedia article, “Cleanrooms are designed to maintain extremely low levels of particulates, such as dust, airborne organisms, or vaporized particles. Cleanrooms typically have a cleanliness level quantified by the number of particles per cubic meter at a predetermined molecule measure. The ambient outdoor air in a typical urban area contains 35,000,000 particles for each cubic meter in the size range 0.5 μm and bigger in measurement, equivalent to an ISO 9 cleanroom, while by comparison an ISO 1 cleanroom permits no particles in that size range and just 12 particles for each cubic meter of 0.3 μm and smaller.” But the purpose of this purity is not to be pure. Instead, the purity is a requirement for constructing ‘righteous’ devices—integrated circuits with awe-inspiring Teacher order-within-complexity which are capable of performing Server sequences of actions. Similarly, I suggest that a person who is being emotionally guided by the TMN of an understanding of God’s righteousness will actually end up becoming holier than the individual who is attempting to avoid being personally contaminated by evil MMNs.
Three Jewish Feasts
I mentioned earlier that Judaism naturally understands the concept of exemplars better than Christianity (It is probably not a coincidence that Thomas Kuhn was Jewish). That is because the Torah tells the Jews what to do, implanting the idea that a monotheistic God in Teacher thought is associated with human actions in Server thought. And Jewish history is a long story of God guiding the Jewish people along a Server path.
McDowell does include some Jewish content from the Torah at a pragmatic level. The last 50 pages of the book contain material that is needed to celebrate a version of the three Jewish festivals of Passover (Pesach), Pentecost (Shavuot), and the feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). McDowell is to be applauded for this inclusion. I spent some time in Israel, as well as playing string quartet for several years with Merla Watson. The Watsons played a major role in starting the modern Christian celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. We will look briefly at these three festivals and how they are interpreted by McDowell.
Passover is discussed in previous essays. As McDowell says, “The traditional Jewish Passover celebrates God redeeming his people from the hands of Pharaoh and out of the land of Egypt to lead them into the Promised Land” (p.435). McDowell universalizes this Jewish story by looking at the sequence from Adam to Jesus: “In this redemption celebration we trace your heritage and that of your family back to the very first couple. We show how because of their sin we are all separated from our Creator, and how Jesus came to earth in human form, an event called the incarnation, to redeem you specifically to a relationship with him” (p.436). Notice how this path leads to relationship, the theme of the book. McDowell includes the topic of apologetics by referring to the ‘prophet tree’, which emphasizes all of the Old Testament prophecies that pointed forward to Jesus being the promised Messiah.
What McDowell suggests is much better than what I have often seen done in churches to celebrate Easter. But does it encapsulate the ultimate message of Passover? During the Passover, the Jews prepared to leave Egypt in order to follow God in the wilderness. A sacrificial lamb was required to ensure that the angel of death would ‘pass over’. Egypt is a picture of the secular world, while the word wilderness refers to uninhabited land or land used for pasture. In the wilderness, the Jews received the law from God and were led supernaturally as a group. God’s goal was for the Jewish people to go into the promised land guided by the TMN of God that they had gained in the wilderness. But when the spies were sent into the promised land, but they concluded that the inhabitants were more powerful than God. Thus, I suggest that the real meaning of Passover is that one must leave MMNs of culture in order to follow the TMN of a concept of God in an environment that lacks MMNs of culture.
Unfortunately, instead of following the TMN of a concept of God in Teacher thought, the Israelites kept longing for the MMNs of Egypt that they had left behind. Similarly, Moses himself seemed to place more emotional emphasis upon the MMN of Pharoah, the MMN of the Jewish tribe, and the MMNs of surrounding tribes than he did upon the TMN of God. Notice how Moses is telling God how to respect the Egyptians and the Jewish people in the following passage: “Then Moses entreated the Lord his God, and said, ‘O Lord, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, “With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth”? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people’” (Ex. 32:11-12). And when Moses reviews this event in Deuteronomy 9, he focuses upon the unrighteousness and stubbornness of the Jewish people, rather than upon the righteousness of God. Moses was telling the truth, but he was still focusing upon the wrong mental networks. If Moses had allowed God to start again with Moses, then Moses would have focused upon God’s righteousness without having to deal with the unrighteousness and stubbornness of the Jewish people.
Applying this to McDowell’s version of Passover, notice that it focuses upon the past with humanity falling in Eden and then being redeemed through Jesus. These are both fundamental truths, but the goal of the Passover was not to focus upon restoring the MMNs of the past but rather to be guided by a TMN of God in order to experience totally new MMNs of rebirth. This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it also shows up when McDowell discusses heaven.
The second festival is Pentecost or Shavuot. McDowell says that “The Revelation Celebration is a time to celebrate God’s revealed Word, and the Holy Spirit, whom God sent as a means to know him on a deep relational level, because he is the ‘God who is passionate about his relationship with you’ (Exodus 34:14)” (p.456). Notice again the reoccurring theme of relationship.
McDowell quotes a verse in Exodus. This verse and the previous verse say that “you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim—for you shall not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” Notice that God is telling the Israelites to get rid of Mercy elements such as altars, sacred pillars, and Asherim (wooden symbols of a female deity). That is because God has a Teacher name of being jealous. He is not a jealous person, but rather a jealous God. This is different than McDowell’s theme of relationship, which focuses upon personal interactions within Mercy thought.
One can see a Mercy focus in McDowell’s universalizing of this festival: “God gave the children of Israel and each of us his Word as his love letters on how to come to know him personally. Because humans have sinned against God, they are separated from him. The Scriptures – his written Word – are instructions on how to regain a personal love relationship with God” (p.460). It is possible for humans to have an intimate relationship with God in Mercy thought. But one has to do this on God’s terms. If one wants to be a friend of God, then one has to recognize that God is based in universal understanding in Teacher thought.
This principle is vividly portrayed in Leviticus 10, because two sons of Aaron approach God on their own terms by offering ‘strange fire’ and are struck down dead by God. God then warns Aaron and his two remaining sons that they will also die if they mourn this death in Mercy thought. The ‘strange fire’ is specifically related in verse 1 to using the wrong incense. Smell triggers mental networks in the mind, because the sense of smell bypasses the thalamus and goes directly to the orbitofrontal cortex, the primary brain location for mental networks. Looking at this cognitively, one must not approach God with one’s own mental networks but rather by using God’s officially sanctioned mental networks.
McDowell adds apologetics to the celebration by describing the care with which the Bible has been copied over the millennia, and then using the verbal relay game mentioned earlier to illustrate this concept. Similarly, the Jews associate Shavuot with the God giving the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai.
But there is no biblical connection between Shavuot and the giving of the law. Instead, the four times that this festival is mentioned in the Torah all describe it as a festival of first fruits, in which one offers to God some of the initial harvest. Looking at this symbolically, one is receiving the initial results in Mercy thought of following a process of sowing-and-reaping. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is described three times by Paul as a ‘down-payment’. The initial experience of Pentecost during which the Holy Spirit was given occurred on the Jewish festival of Shavuot. This relates to Platonic forms, which will be discussed in a few paragraphs.
The third celebration is Sukkot. McDowell explains that “This celebration is based on the Jewish holiday called the Feast of Tabernacles or Shelters (Booths). God commanded the children of Israel to live in makeshift shelters for seven days every year. ‘This will remind each new generation of Israelites that their ancestors had to live in shelters when I rescued them out of the land of Egypt. I, the Lord, am your God’” (p.473).
McDowell Christianizes this festival by saying that “The Restoration Celebration is a time to look forward to the new bodies and new home God is preparing for us. And in so doing, just like in the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, a sukkah (temporary shelter) needs to be built” (p.478). McDowell then adds apologetics by pointing out that it would be physically impossible for a swooned Jesus that was wrapped in grave clothes to escape from the grave.
These are both good statements, but are they consistent with the real message of Sukkot? A different message emerges when one looks at the original passage: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations; you shall celebrate it in the seventh month. You shall live in booths for seven days; all the native-born in Israel shall live in booths, so that your generations may know that I had the sons of Israel live in booths when I brought them out from the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 23:41-43). This does not describe people in temporary homes and temporary bodies looking forward to the permanent bodies and home of heaven. Instead, it describes people who have grown up in the promised land of Israel living for a whole week in temporary shelters in order to experience what it means to follow God in the wilderness.
Obviously, we do not yet live in heaven. But we do live in the relative heaven of the modern consumer society. Thus, the modern equivalent of Sukkoth would be living in a tent for a week, preferably out in the woods, without electricity, without cell phones, without television, and without Internet.
Platonic Forms
In each case, McDowell’s version of the biblical feast seems to miss the original message. One could attribute this to sloppy exegesis, but I suggest that there is a cognitive reason. In brief, I suggest that all three of these interpretations can be explained as expressions of inadequate Platonic forms. Remember that Contributor combines Server and Perceiver and that a concept of Incarnation is based in Contributor-controlled technical thought. This means that a concept of incarnation has a Server side and a Perceiver side. The Server side is exemplars, which were discussed earlier. The Perceiver side is Platonic forms, which we will now examine.
Plato came up with the idea of Platonic forms. Copying a paragraph from a previous essay, a Platonic form emerges when Perceiver facts about Mercy experiences are adjusted by Teacher thought. Saying this a slightly different way, a Platonic form is an imaginary Mercy image that results from adjusting Perceiver facts in a way that increases Teacher feelings of generality. For instance, think about the Platonic form of a circle. First, Mercy thought is filled with images of round things from the real world. Perceiver thought notices that these images are all similar and comes up with the category of circle. Teacher thought then forms a general theory of circles by looking for the essence of ‘circleness’, in order to generate order-within-complexity. This Teacher simplification modifies Perceiver facts about circles leading indirectly to the imaginary image within Mercy thought of an ideal, perfect circle, the type that one encounters when studying geometry. The perfect circle of geometry does not exist within real life. Real circles can become more like geometric circles but there is no such thing as a real circle of geometry. Thus, even though the raw material for a Platonic form comes from the external world, the Platonic form is an imaginary image that emerges when Perceiver facts about this raw material are modified by Teacher understanding.
Going further, Plato said that Platonic forms come together within the mind to create a form of the Good. Mental symmetry equates the form of the Good with a mental concept of the Holy Spirit. Each Platonic form is an image within Mercy thought of the idealized essence of some Perceiver category, such as the Platonic form of a circle. When Teacher thought comes up with a universal understanding, then this will indirectly integrate all of the Platonic forms within Mercy thought, leading to the form of the Good. Saying this another way, the Teacher concept of a monotheistic God will lead to the mental concept of a Holy Spirit within Mercy thought. This means that a concept of the Holy Spirit is a secondary image within Mercy thought that emerges as a result of a concept of God in Teacher thought. This idea of Mercy emerging out of Teacher is explored further in the essay on the Trinity. If one moves directly from specific experiences to general images in Mercy thought, then this will produce a ‘spirit of the world’ and not a Holy Spirit.
I am currently aware of three ways in which Platonic forms can emerge. First, a Platonic form can emerge when something good from the past is lost. Suppose that Mercy thought acquires good experiences from the environment in some manner. This will cause MMNs to form within Mercy thought. If this environment is lost, then this MMN will no longer be reinforced by physical experiences (and thus will cease to be an aspect of a spirit of the world). One can respond to this loss by clinging emotionally to these lost MMNs with an attitude of bitterness and/or blame. Or one can respond with reflection, using Teacher thought to guide one’s thinking about these past experiences. This Teacher processing will cause the mind to ‘remember the past through rose-colored glasses’, because Teacher thought by its very nature will focus upon the purified essence. The end result is a Platonic form, an internal image of the past that is actually more perfect than the actual experiences of the past. This kind of Platonic form will lead to a desire to restore the presumed perfection of the past. For instance, this describes how medieval Europe viewed the previous Roman empire.
Second, a Platonic form can emerge when one studies a book, especially if one gives emotional significance to this book. For instance, studying the Bible will naturally lead to Platonic forms about heaven. However, if the Bible is viewed as a special book that is different than normal books, then any Platonic forms that emerge from studying the Bible will have no connection with the normal experiences of life. Something similar can happen when reading fiction or fantasy. In other words, studying the Bible as the word of God will lead to Platonic forms about heaven, but this mental concept of heaven will be totally separate from human experiences of Earth. In a similar manner, reading the works of J.R.R. Tolkien will lead to a mental concept of Middle-Earth that is separate and distinct from normal human reality. It is this separation of Platonic forms from reality that causes some theologians to be apprehensive of the concept of Platonic forms.
Third, the Platonic form can emerge through the mechanism mentioned when describing Platonic forms. Perceiver thought analyzes real world experiences and comes up with categories. Teacher thought comes up with a theory that summarizes the ideal essence of this Perceiver category. This then leads to the formation of a Platonic form within Mercy thought. Because these Platonic forms emerge as an idealization of the facts of reality, it is possible to make reality more like Platonic forms. Platonic forms then become the values that guide the Mercy goals of normal concrete existence.
With this in mind, let us look at the three Jewish festivals as interpreted by McDowell. We will look at Passover last because that will lead us to McDowell’s description of heaven. McDowell says that ‘Pentecost is a time to celebrate God’s revealed Word, and the Holy Spirit’. One sees here a relationship between a verbal understanding of the Bible in Teacher thought and a concept of the Holy Spirit. This corresponds with the revealed truth version of Platonic forms: One studies a book and the resulting Teacher understanding causes Platonic forms of alternate reality to emerge within Mercy thought. This is a form of first fruits, in which one experiences the first benefits within Mercy thought.
Pentecost and the Holy Spirit
But what McDowell describes in a chapter entitled “living bodily on earth with our hearts in heaven” (p.303) is more like the third method of viewing Platonic forms as an idealization of reality. He explains that “It’s not a matter of sitting around pining away and hoping for the day were dead and in heaven. It means our priorities, our interests, and our devotion are placed in another world with another person – Jesus. And when we get too focused on earthly things, he gets jealous” (p.304). He adds that “Living for future homes with new bodies in the presence of Jesus isn’t a matter of just daydreaming, day in and day out. It’s about what kind of treasures we are building and where our priorities are in this life” (p.305). This describes a mentally healthy way of being guided by Platonic forms of heavenly perfection to make Earth more like heaven. And McDowell quotes C.S. Lewis as saying precisely that: “If you read history, you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those those who thought most about the next… Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in” (p.305).
This healthy application of Platonic forms lines up with looking for connections of universal Perceiver truth within moral cause-and-effect. Perceiver thought is looking for moral connections, Teacher thought is coming up with general theories about moral connections, and this is leading to Platonic forms of ideal morality. Using religious language, sowing to the Spirit is resulting in the first fruits of a better world on earth.
McDowell talks about the work of the Holy Spirit. He says that the Holy Spirit has five purposes. The first is ‘to make us one with God’: “The Holy Spirit takes up residence in your life with the intent to create a miraculous oneness, like that which exists in the Trinity. He is fully giving himself to you as a model for you to fully give yourself to him” (p.329). This describes an attitude of mysticism, in which personal identity in Mercy thought emotionally identifies with a concept of God in Teacher thought. But McDowell does not teach pure mysticism. After emphasizing that “we find it impossible to grasp the absolute perfection of God’s triune relationship”, he explains that “the Holy Spirit brings God actually into our lives. He is the active, moving nature of God that impels us to action… We experience him in our everyday living. He demonstrates himself, even in our capacity to love as God loves” (p.325). Thus, after apologizing for questioning the Teacher overgeneralization of mysticism, McDowell ends up saying something similar to what mental symmetry suggests: The Holy Spirit is an experiential concept of God that emerges within Mercy thought as an expression of an abstract concept of God the Father in Teacher thought.
The second purpose is ‘to make a Christlike’. McDowell explains that “The Holy Spirit is in us to be with us and so we may be with him. It is then we begin to see through his eyes, to hear through his ears, to think like he does, and to act as he acts. As we give ourselves over to him, as Mary did to Jesus, he exercises his power to live his life through us. He is our power source” (p.330). We saw earlier that righteousness is an emotional drive to perform Server actions that are consistent with the character of a concept of God in Teacher thought. Righteousness is based in exemplars, and McDowell seems to be lacking both the concept of exemplars and the corresponding idea of righteousness. However, Platonic forms also exert an emotional force, because they will create a Mercy drive to be more like a concept of the Holy Spirit in Mercy thought. McDowell does describe this from personal experience, because Christians do have, to some extent, a concept of Platonic forms.
The third purpose is ‘to illuminate the truth of Scripture’. McDowell clarifies that “The presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives does not mean pastors and teachers of the Word are not necessary… If the Holy Spirit were our sole guide to truth, then we wouldn’t need the Scriptures, let alone books like The Unshakable Truth. We must not simply disregard all study or the wisdom of good teachers and rely solely on the internal leading of the Spirit. This is a deeply un-biblical approach that often leads to disastrous results” (p.331). Going the other way, “Nonbelievers can often grasp the truth of the Bible, but it’s only through the power the Holy Spirit that the truth can take hold of our lives and transform our character” (p.332).
One sees here the intermediate nature of a holy book. On one hand, a holy book is based in MMNs of personal status. One believes the holy book in Perceiver thought because one feels in Mercy thought that it was written by a very important person. On the other hand, a book is written using words with meanings that are arranged in a rational structure. Therefore, studying a book encourages the development of rational Teacher understanding. Using the language of education, one approaches the book with an attitude of rote learning, but studying the book will develop critical thinking. When one regards the Bible as the source of absolute truth, then one will always struggle between the two extremes of blind faith and rational thought. And one will also end up wondering why nonbelievers are also capable of making rational statements about the Bible.
Mental symmetry suggest something slightly different, which is that the Holy Spirit illuminates all truth, including the truth in the Bible. This is described in John 16. Jesus says that he will leave his disciples and go to the Father. He then explains that “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come” (v. 12-13). In other words, the disciples are only capable of limited comprehension because they are thinking in terms of the physical Jesus. But if Jesus ascends to God the Father, then the finite Mercy-based concept of Jesus-the-man will become expanded to become a Teacher-based concept of Christ Jesus the God/man. The resulting expanded understanding of God in thought will cause a concept of God-the-Spirit to form within Mercy thought, which will then become capable of leading disciples into all the truth and not just into biblical truth. (I am not suggesting that this passage is talking only about a concept of God, but rather that one can comprehend what is happening with the real Trinitarian God by examining how a concept of God develops.)
The fourth purpose is “to empower us for service”. McDowell explains that “Whether God’s Spirit empowers us to perform miracles or die courageously as a martyr, he is there in our lives to reflect his light to this darkened and needy world” (p.332). McDowell also mentions spiritual gifts: “It is the Holy Spirit who distributes these gifts and then empowers us to use them. In Romans 12:6 Paul explains that ‘God has given each of us the ability to do certain things well. So if God has given you the ability to...’ Then Paul goes on to identify what those gifts are and how we are to use them. The point is, the Holy Spirit empowers us to serve others, spread his Gospel message, and, in short, do extraordinary things for his glory” (p.332).
The ellipsis in the second quote is interesting because it is in the original quote. McDowell talks about Romans 12 spiritual gifts, he says that Paul goes on to identify those gifts, and then he stops quoting Paul precisely where Paul starts to identify those gifts. But those precise spiritual gifts which McDowell says that Paul describes—but McDowell himself avoid describing—are the basis for the theory of mental symmetry. And mental symmetry turns out to be a meta-theory that one can use to explain just about everything, including Christianity. (McDowell does mention four of the gifts specifically on page 398, but this is done in a vague way within the religious context of church.)
This essay has been suggesting that Jesus refers to the human side of incarnation who lived as a man, as described in the Gospels, while Christ refers to the divine side of incarnation, who expresses the character of Jesus as universal principles. Romans 12 describes spiritual gifts as the body of Christ: “For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Since we have gifts that differ...” (v.4-6). (McDowell’s quote of verse 6 matches the Living Bible, which is a paraphrase and not a legitimate translation. In this case, the paraphrase barely resembles the original text.) Paul talks about the body of Christ in several passages and sometimes compares it to the parts of the physical body. But in Romans 12, Paul actually defines the body of Christ. If Jesus the human side of incarnation came to save people, and if Christ represents the universal principles of the divine side of incarnation, then it makes sense that understanding the body of Christ would lead to a meta-theory of cognition, and that this meta-theory describes universal principles of saving people. If you
My goal is not to attack McDowell, but rather to point out what happens when one mentally limits the work of the Holy Spirit to illuminating the words of the Bible. A critical early transition in the development of mental symmetry happened when my brother Lane Friesen used Romans 12 spiritual gifts to analyze 200 secular biographies. He discovered that the Holy Spirit actually leads us into all truth, and not just biblical truth. Lane interacted very briefly in the 1980s with Bill Gothard, and Gothard broke off this relationship precisely because Lane chose to analyze secular biographies. Bill Gothard illustrates what typically happens when one tries to limit one’s thinking to religious topics. One ends up with flaky thinking and personality cults. The thinking of McDowell is significantly more rigorous, largely because McDowell interacts extensively with secular thought. But one is still dealing with a limited concept of the spirit, who gives spiritual gifts to help the church, who serves others in self-denial, who spreads the message of the Bible, who performs miracles that violate natural law, and who makes it possible for believers to deny self by dying courageously.
These are all meaningful expressions of the power of the Holy Spirit, but John 16 describes something more. “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged” (v. 8-11). This is not just a Holy Spirit enabling the persecuted believer to withstand the attacks of the world system. Instead, it is a divine spirit demonstrating to the entire world what it means to walk in righteousness, what it means to miss the mark through disbelief, and what it means for the ruler of this world to be judged.
One can understand what this means by looking at modern technology. I have mentioned that science is based in exemplars. Technology is a partial illustration of righteousness, because technology constructs gadgets that perform Server actions that reflect a Teacher understanding of the laws of nature. Those who do not believe in science will ‘miss the mark’ (sin means to ‘miss the mark’) when it comes to experiencing the benefits of technology. Technology makes obvious the benefits of being guided in a righteous manner by a Teacher understanding of God’s creation, and technology has spread around the world, replacing almost all traditional cultures.
Technology is only a partial illustration of righteousness, because science is limited to an objective understanding of the physical world. Thus, technology transforms the world while leaving people unchanged. Postmodern thought looks at these personal and societal inadequacies of technology and concludes that science and technology are flawed. But that is a faulty conclusion. Technology has delivered what it promised. It has transformed the physical world. The solution is not to abandon science and technology, but rather to extend the thinking of science and technology to the subjective realm, which describes the path that mental symmetry is trying to follow. Mental symmetry says: If science and technology have managed to transform the physical world, then imagine the personal benefits that would result from applying the same kind of thinking to people and the subjective. This internal vision of what could happen matches the description of the Holy Spirit in John 16. And Jesus describes this predictive attribute of the Holy Spirit in verse 13: “He will disclose to you what is to come”.
The fifth purpose is “to bring meaning to our lives”. McDowell explains that “We were meant to live in an intimate relationship with God as his child. When we do this, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we find our true meaning and purpose” (p.333). This is a significant statement. That is because the Platonic forms of the spirit take the abstract doctrines of God in Teacher thought and translate them into experiences within which humans can live in a meaningful way. But this can only happen to a limited extent if one views the Bible as the source of absolute truth. It can happen to a far greater extent if one treats the Bible as an accurate description of universal truth.
McDowell finishes that chapter by asking “How do we actually connect with the Holy Spirit? How do we live out the life with God that he offers? How and when are we actually filled with the Holy Spirit?” (p.333). He answers that “Generally speaking, most Christians hold to one of two schools of thought. One view is that a believer receives the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion and is steadily and increasingly empowered by the Spirit as he or she yields more fully to God. The other position is that there is a two-step process. The first step redeems the believer and makes him or her God’s child through the power of God’s Spirit. But the person is not yet filled with the Holy Spirit… Some additionally believe their infilling or baptism of the Holy Spirit is accompanied by signs or evi manner by a Teacher understanding of God’s creation, and technology has spread around the world, replacing almost all traditional cultures.
Technology is only a partial illustration of righteousness, because science is limited to an objective understanding of the physical world. Thus, technology transforms the world while leaving people unchanged. Postmodern thought looks at these personal and societal inadequacies of technology and concludes that science and technology are flawed. But that is a faulty conclusion. Technology has delivered what it promised. It has transformed the physical world. The solution is not to abandon science and technology, but rather to extend the thinking of science and technology to the subjective realm, which describes the path that mental symmetry is trying to follow. Mental symmetry says: If science and technology have managed to transform the physical world, then imagine the personal benefits that would result from applying the same kind of thinking to people and the subjective. This internal vision of what could happen matches the description of the Holy Spirit in John 16. And Jesus describes this predictive attribute of the Holy Spirit in verse 13: “He will disclose to you what is to come”.
The fifth purpose is “to bring meaning to our lives”. McDowell explains that “We were meant to live in an intimate relationship with God as his child. When we do this, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we find our true meaning and purpose” (p.333). This is a significant statement. That is because the Platonic forms of the spirit take the abstract doctrines of God in Teacher thought and translate them into experiences within which humans can live in a meaningful way. But this can only happen to a limited extent if one views the Bible as the source of absolute truth. It can happen to a far greater extent if one treats the Bible as an accurate description of universal truth.
McDowell finishes that chapter by asking “How do we actually connect with the Holy Spirit? How do we live out the life with God that he offers? How and when are we actually filled with the Holy Spirit?” (p.333). He answers that “Generally speaking, most Christians hold to one of two schools of thought. One view is that a believer receives the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion and is steadily and increasingly empowered by the Spirit as he or she yields more fully to God. The other position is that there is a two-step process. The first step redeems the believer and makes him or her God’s child through the power of God’s Spirit. But the person is not yet filled with the Holy Spirit… Some additionally believe their infilling or baptism of the Holy Spirit is accompanied by signs or evidences of that reality, for example, the speaking of tongues” (p.333).
McDowell is referring to the evangelical and the charismatic Christian. I suggest that this dichotomy is a natural byproduct of connecting the Holy Spirit with the Bible. The evangelical believer studies the Bible, builds a Teacher understanding, and follows the resulting concept of the Holy Spirit that emerges. Such a person is ‘increasingly empowered by the Spirit as he or she yields more fully to God’.
The charismatic believer looks at this and knows that God is bigger than a book. And so the charismatic takes an intellectual plunge into the unknown and allows a concept of the Holy Spirit to guide all behavior. But the charismatic Christian lacks an adequate concept of God in Teacher thought. Thus, being led by the Holy Spirit becomes equated with abandoning common sense. One can tell that the charismatic is being guided by an inadequate concept of God in Teacher thought because of speaking in tongues. The person who practices charismatic speaking in tongues is literally using Teacher thought in an inadequate manner by saying words that have no meanings. But the charismatic Christian is correct in asserting that the Holy Spirit goes beyond the Bible.
A similar dichotomy can be seen in McDowell’s description of what it means to live in the power of the Holy Spirit. McDowell emphasizes that ‘giving up is the key’: “Once we give up and sacrifice ourselves to him, the Holy Spirit empowers us. And that is when spiritual exercise and discipline come into play. It is when we want the Holy Spirit’s power defining our living that we need to cultivate good spiritual fitness. We do this by consistently studying his Word, going to him in constant prayer, worshipping with fellow believers, and fulfilling all the ‘one anothers’ of Scripture” (p.338).
Mental symmetry has led me along a path that is almost like this, but subtly different. I have found that ‘giving up is the key’. Cognitively speaking, one lets go emotionally of being guided by human MMNs in order to be guided by a TMN of God together with an MMN of the Holy Spirit. This letting go feels like dying to self, because existing MMNs of personal identity are falling apart and dying.
But what exactly puts the mind back together after personal identity falls apart? McDowell connects this with the Bible. But what happens when one views the Bible as a special book that is different than normal books? Any Platonic forms that result from studying the Bible will also end up being different than normal mental networks. Being empowered by the Holy Spirit then becomes a matter of either/or: one dies to existing MMNs of identity and culture in order to be motivated by a completely different set of mental networks rooted in the Bible. In contrast, I have repeatedly found that mental symmetry leads me to a dying to self that is both/and. Coming to the end of one’s rope and calling upon God is necessary if one wants to turn theoretical understanding into power from the Holy Spirit. But what emerges at the other side is not a denial of physical reality, but rather a fuller grasp of existence which includes physical reality, human existence, and secular books and research. Instead of abandoning common sense in order to follow the Holy Spirit as the charismatic believer often does, one discovers that the Holy Spirit respects common sense, while making it possible to go beyond the limitations of common sense.
One can find a partial example of this in the transition from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics is largely compatible with common sense. Quantum mechanics, in contrast, violates common sense in major ways. Quantum mechanics has officially replaced Newtonian physics, but Newtonian physics is still taught because it remains fairly accurate when dealing with normal situations. Quantum mechanics is needed when dealing with atomic and subatomic particles. Similarly, one encounters the power of the Holy Spirit when going beyond the normal experiences of life. And living by the Holy Spirit can lead to results that violate common sense. But the mental networks of common sense still remain—like Newtonian physics—relevant for normal life.
Sukkot and Resurrection
Sukkot is a festival in which of those who are living in the Promised Land look back at the time when their ancestors followed God in temporary homes in the wilderness. McDowell, in contrast, interprets it as a festival for those who are living in temporary homes in this world to look forward to living in permanent homes in the Promised Land. He illustrates Sukkot by referring to the physical resurrection of Jesus.
I suggest that this change in focus is a natural byproduct of believing in the absolute truth of the Bible. Absolute truth occurs when the Mercy status of some source of truth overwhelms Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ what is ‘true’. First, the source of ‘truth’ will be viewed as special and different than normal people. Second, the ‘truth’ that comes from this source will also be viewed as special and different. Third, we have seen that studying a book of absolute truth leads to the formation of Platonic forms that cannot be realized because they come from special facts that are distinct from the normal facts of reality.
The third principle leads to a concept of ‘heaven in the sky by and by’, a concept of heaven off in the distance that can never be turned into reality. In fact, if earth ever became too much like heaven, then this would cause believers to doubt absolute truth, because the Mercy memories associated with heaven and its absolute truth would become indistinguishable from the Mercy experiences of normal life. Something similar happens when the growing teenager begins to doubt parents and other authority figures because a teenager is no longer a small and vulnerable child.
The second principle means that unreachable heaven will not be mentally connected with human progress on earth. The believer in absolute truth will not consciously think of comparing science and technology with some future heaven, because one is secular and the other is religious. Thus, the average Christian does not recognize that the modern consumer society is a partial version of the Promised Land.
But this type of comparing is happening subconsciously. This can be seen by the history of Pentecostalism. Pentecostalism began in 1900 in Los Angeles, at about the same time that the consumer revolution started filling the average person’s home with the gadgets of modern technology. The Pentecostal believer instinctively felt that if science can transform personal life through technology, then God should be able to transform personal life through the Holy Spirit. This subconscious connection became conscious in the ‘name it and claim it’ form of Pentecostalism, because the ‘blessing of the Lord’ was explicitly associated with material prosperity—having the latest technological gadgets was proof that God was blessing me.
The first principle regards Jesus as special and different than normal humans. This leads to the conclusion that the physical resurrection of Jesus is also special and different. It is true that Jesus was both God and man. But he had a human mother and he lived a life that appeared human enough to his neighbors for them to think that he was a normal human born out of an illegitimate relationship.
If one puts these three points together, one ends up focusing upon a future, unreachable heaven, ignoring the current partial heaven-on-earth of modern technology, and viewing the resurrection of Jesus as an illustration of the future, unreachable heaven.
Passover
That brings us to the final feast of Passover. Passover symbolizes leaving normal earthly existence in order to follow a supernatural God in the wilderness, because that is exactly what the Jews prepared for when celebrating Passover. McDowell, in contrast, views Passover as God restoring through Jesus the relationship with God that was lost by Adam in the Garden of Eden.
This concept of restoration characterizes McDowell’s view of future heavenly existence. “God made the heavens and the earth and called them ‘very good’, and he hasn’t surrendered his title and right to them. They may be in ruins now, but he has definite plans to restore them to a perfect world for us to live in” (p.409). “God will do more than just restore the earth to its pristine and perfect condition; he will restore us as well. Whether it’s pain of the past or suffering in the present, God has promised to renew each of his children to its original design and restore this Earth to what it once was” (p.409). “When God’s restoration project is complete, we will experience a renewed earth in the perfection of the Garden of Eden” (p.410).
I suggested earlier that Platonic forms can emerge in one of three ways. One way is to lose something good and then use Teacher thought to reminisce about the past. One can see this focus upon the past in McDowell’s concept of restoration. It is true that Adam and Eve lived in an idyllic environment with uncorrupted physical bodies. But they also had no civilization. They had no cities, no tents, no music, no metal, and no knowledge of raising livestock. That is all described as being invented in Genesis 4, after Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden.
The Platonic forms that come from absolute truth will also tend to focus upon the heroes of the past. That is because absolute truth comes from heroes who lived in the past, emotional sources of truth who are regarded as special and different than normal people. Thus, the ideal for absolute truth is a restoration of the presumed perfection of the past. But the past wasn’t so perfect.
A different kind of Platonic form emerges when Perceiver facts about reality are placed within a general Teacher theory. What emerges is an internal picture of how much better and more ideal reality could be if it were rearranged. This happened within my mind, for instance, as I developed the theory of mental symmetry. I saw internally how much better the world would be if the existing fragments of the society in which I lived were reassembled in a way that reflected a Teacher understanding of mental wholeness. This leads to a concept of the Holy Spirit who ‘will disclose to you what is to come’ (John 16:13).
Looking at this in terms of mental networks, the TMN of a concept of God leads to the formation of reassembled and idealized MMNs of the Spirit, and these mental networks make it possible to let go of current MMNs of identity and culture. One can see this illustrated by the continual flow of new-and-improved gadgets. The computer or cell phone that I had twenty years ago may still function perfectly, but it feels totally inadequate compared to the new-and-improved computer or cell phone of today. A device that I used to view as state-of-the-art for which I paid hundreds or thousands of dollars, I now view as worthless garbage compared to the latest-and-greatest.
Future Existence
In contrast, McDowell emphasizes that future existence will be old-and-familiar. “The home God’s plan for you for all eternity will be a pristine, glorious new home, yet it will retain the comfortable familiarity love. God is not creating a strange place for you that will require you to completely readjust your tastes and change who you are. Rather, he is restoring the old – getting rid of the scars, damage, and malfunctions inflicted by the fall… While everything will be fresh and new, you will see it as a place of complete familiarity. You will realize that this is where you are meant to be all along – in a place where you fit so perfectly that it’s clear it was designed expressly to your innermost tastes” (p.421). Stated cognitively, McDowell is convinced that heaven will satisfy existing MMNs of personal taste and identity. Presumably, this heaven will include a corner where ‘long-haired, ear-pierced, tattooed freaks who love Jesus’ will feel totally at home. But Paul says “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Cor. 15:50). In other words, the MMNs of normal human existence have to be transformed in order to handle living in future reality.
Similarly, when the Sadducees asked Jesus a question about heaven in Luke 20, in which they assume that heaven will just be more perfect version of current earthly existence, Jesus responds that “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (v. 35-36). This is not ‘a place of complete familiarity’ but rather is being populated by humans who have become ‘like angels’ and ‘sons of God’. The word like angels occurs once in the New Testament, and combines the word ‘equal in substance or quality’ with ‘angel’. The average Christian today is not equal in substance or quality to an angel, and does not even have a concept of what it means to be an angel. In contrast, mental symmetry leads naturally to the concept of angels as beings with minds that are like human minds, but to live in a mirror-image Server based realm. If one pursues this train of thought, then one comes up with conclusions that are consistent in detail with statements being made about angels and aliens. If that sounds weird, then this proves my statement that people today are not equal in substance or quality with angels. Going further, the word considered worthy his only found three times in the New Testament and means ‘weighing that reflects actual, precise worth’. This is not a matter of standing beside a screaming and gesticulating Satan and then ‘feeling the arm of your defender [Jesus] wrap around your shoulders. He pulls you to him. You look into his face. He smiles and gives you a wink of assurance” (p.226). Instead, it is a result of going through gut-wrenching lonely trials that transform a person’s character piece by agonizing piece into something that is actually worthy of living in God’s precious resurrection. This is not salvation by works, but it is definitely following a path that leads through the valley of the shadow of death. Saying this more simply, living in the future resurrection should not be confused with being a member of today’s throwaway, consumer society. Those who are at home with today’s shallow trinkets will not find themselves capable of enjoying the future resurrection with its deep pleasures.
Saying this more generally, I suggest that Eden should be regarded as childish innocence rather than as divine perfection. Innocence is attractive, but it is also vulnerable. One has to grow up out of being childish in order to become childlike. A childlike person combines the exuberance of the child with the wisdom of the adult. Childish persons get dirty as soon as they step into their first mud puddle. Childlike persons can step through mud puddles and remain clean. A childish mind is attracted to the excitement of a mud puddle. A childlike mind enjoys pleasures that are far more lasting and constructive than splashing in mud puddles. It was inevitable that Adam and Eve lost their innocence and left the Garden of Eden. But it was not inevitable that they would lose their innocence in such a destructive manner. It was inevitable that Jesus had to die and be resurrected in order to lead creation from childishness to childlikeness. But it was not inevitable that Jesus had to make the transition by dying such a horrible death in such an evil world.
Looking at this from a different perspective, I suggest that a distinction needs to be made between mental hardware and mental software. Mental symmetry suggests that God will modify future existence to be compatible with minds that are mentally whole. New Testament prophecy makes sense when interpreted from this perspective. But Scripture also seems to indicate clearly that future existence will not be compatible with the mental software—the mental networks—that currently drives most human behavior.
McDowell also suggests that future existence will be totally compatible with current MMNs of family. “Your future home will be a place for you will be with your loved ones, a place where the word family takes on a whole new meaning… in our new home. These relational imperfections will be removed along with the imperfections of the environment. People relate to each other exactly as they should have related all along” (p.422). Stories about people visiting heaven usually include being met by loved ones. But they also convey the impression that current human concepts of family no longer apply. Jesus gives a similar reply when asked the question regarding family and heaven by the Sadducees. Quoting this time from Matthew, he explains that “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:29-30). In other words, the Sadducees are applying the wrong assumptions to heaven because they are thinking in terms of human MMNs of family rather than being guided by the TMN of a concept of God.
Mercy thought is naturally attracted to the face of a person, because the face conveys the emotions within a person. McDowell takes an entire page to describe future existence from this Mercy perspective. “Our first joy will be to see him face-to-face, which will be a thrill beyond imagining… With new glorified bodies we will be able to see God’s glorious face. And the first thing we will undoubtedly see is his expression of pure joy. To be in the presence of our God and Savior and to see him face-to-face will, in itself, be the greatest experience we will ever have” (p.423). McDowell acknowledges that he cannot explain this feeling. “Some readers may wonder why simply gazing into the face of God would be such a magnificent experience. We know we cannot fully explain why this will be such a joy, but it’s such an important aspect of our life in God’s restored kingdom that we must give it a shot” (p.423).
However, I suggest that one can explain this feeling from a cognitive perspective as mysticism modified by personal Perceiver facts. On the one hand, McDowell uses Teacher overgeneralization to view the character of God from a mystical perspective, leading to a desire to be emotionally united with God. But on the other hand, McDowell has developed considerable Perceiver confidence by searching personal MMNs for common connections—as shown by his emphasis upon relationship. If one puts the one hand together with the other hand, one ends up with a strong desire to see God face-to-face (as well as badly mixed metaphors).
McDowell describes the mystical basis for his concept of heavenly relationship. “When God invites you to enter into his joy, he is allowing you to share a relational experience that has previously been beyond your emotional ability to comprehend… Just what is this relational joy of God? It is being invited to participate in the Source of love, who fills the universe. The Father has eternally loved the Son. The Son has eternally loved the Father. The Holy Spirit has eternally love the Father and the Son. The Triune Godhead has been in perfect relationship with each other for all eternity. Yet God is inviting us into their perfect circle of relationship. The simplicity and purity of enjoying a growing love relationship with God is at this point incomprehensible to our mortal minds” (p.424). Notice the multiplicity of sweeping statements—expressions of Teacher overgeneralization.
I am not pointing this out in order to belittle McDowell’s hope, but rather to point out that such a hope cannot be realized, even in heaven. That is because overgeneralization cannot handle contact with reality—any reality. That is because Teacher thought can only overgeneralize when Perceiver thought lacks facts. Actually meeting God face-to-face would add Perceiver facts to McDowell’s overgeneralization about relationship. A mind that is based in absolute truth will reject such an argument because it ‘knows’ that the ‘truth’ of the Bible is different than normal facts about reality. But in heaven the truths of the Bible will become the normal facts of reality.
A mindset of absolute truth will respond to this by asserting that the human mind will be totally different in heaven than it is here on earth, because the absolute facts about heaven have a different mental basis than the normal facts about earth. But absolute truth and universal truth are different ways of programming the same mind. Living within some reality naturally causes absolute truth to crumble while building a common sense of universal truth. Besides, the Bible says that we will have new bodies. It does not say that we will have new minds. Instead, we are repeatedly told that we need to transform our minds now in preparation for heaven.
McDowell thinks that new bodies will allow new emotions: “Of course, without a new and transformed body. We couldn’t even look fully into the face of God and live. But with new glorified bodies we will be able to see God’s glorious face. And the first thing we will undoubtedly see is his expression of pure joy” (p.423). It is true that new physical bodies would make it possible to handle physical sensations that would fry our current mortal containers. But would this new physical sensation automatically translate into emotional ecstasy? One of the primary differences between rats and humans is that for a rat physical sensation is the same as emotion. In contrast, physical sensation only provides the starting point for emotion in the human brain, and most of an emotion is created by the mind itself. This strongly suggests that having new bodies would not be sufficient to guarantee future ecstasy. Instead, what would be required is new bodies inhabited by transformed minds. And the passage in Luke 20 that we have examined suggests that mental transformation will be much more difficult because the new bodies are described as lacking the power to ‘die away from’. One of the key aspects of mental transformation is that one ‘dies away from’ the old in order to live within the new.
A mistaken concept of personal transformation is also reflected in the following quote: “Pastor and theologian Calvin Miller captures the secret to the true peace we can have when we see God through the power of the Holy Spirit: ‘God becomes visible to those who look for him in the right place. Therefore, no eye – no literal eye – can see him! No ear can hear him! No mind can conceive him! He hides his vastness only in the deepest dimensions of our inner existence’” (p.308). This passage describes an attitude of mysticism, and Calvin Miller promoted a form of mystical Christianity.
This passage actually misquotes the Bible, repeating a mistranslation that is found in the NIV. The verse being referred to is 1 Corinthians 2:9. The NIV says “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived—the things God has prepared for those who love him.” This is an accurate translation, except for one critical word. The Greek word translated ‘mind’ is actually kardia, which means heart and not mind. Thus, the NASB translates this accurately as “things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man”, and the KJV also refers to the heart.
In other words, Paul is saying that one cannot learn about God’s plans for humanity through the senses or through the MMNs of the human heart. Paul does not say that the heart is fatally flawed, but rather that the problem lies with the human heart—MMNs that have been programmed by human physical existence. Verse 10 explains that God reveals his plans through his Spirit. In other words, if one wishes to grasp what God will do in the future, one should not focus upon MMNs of relationship. The NIV mistranslates this to say that God is incomprehensible to the mind, giving the impression that the Spirit of God must be approached through the incomprehensible path of spiritual mysticism.
Moving on, McDowell does not just view heaven as staring into God’s face. Instead, he views heaven as a place of service. “Service as a reward, not a punishment… We think that faithful work should be rewarded by vacation for the rest of our lives. But God offers us something very different: more work, more responsibilities, increased opportunities, along with greater abilities, resources, wisdom, and empowerment… The more we serve Christ now, the greater our capacity will be to serve him in heaven” (p.426). Mental symmetry also suggests that heaven is a realm that is based upon Server sequences rather than upon Perceiver places. That is why Jesus says in John 14:2-3 that he has to go to heaven to prepare Perceiver places for humanity: “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself.” The word place, which occurs twice, is topos, which refers to physical place or location.
And mental symmetry agrees that ‘The more we serve Christ now, the greater our capacity will be to serve him in heaven’. McDowell adds that “Whatever task he has planned for you will fit you exactly. When you receive your assignment, you will suddenly understand just what your particular talents were meant to accomplish. It will be your dream job” (p.426). This statement is also consistent with mental symmetry, but I suggest that it should also be viewed as a potential threat and not just as a promise. If I do not follow Christ, but rather follow some other master, then I will also receive a task that fits me exactly. Getting one’s dream job is wonderful if one has pleasant dreams. But if one insists upon dreaming nightmares, then getting one’s dream job literally turns nightmare into reality.
Saying this more generally, it appears that God does not judge by dividing between good and evil in Mercy thought, but rather by applying the same general law in Teacher thought to everyone, and people then divide themselves into good and evil based upon the deepest desires of their heart. This explains why Malachi describes the same day of the Lord as both good and evil: “‘For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall’” (Mal 4:1-2). A sun represents a general theory in Teacher thought shedding light upon the earth of human experiences. A sun of righteousness describes a general theory based in Server exemplars. This same sun harms the evildoer while healing the righteous.
Church
McDowell defines the church as “Christ’s visible representation on earth, in which each transformed follower of Jesus is made part of his living body to individually and collectively fulfill God’s redemptive purpose” (p.381). This is a good definition, because it refers to transformed people who are working together to implement the plan of Christ in order to save the world.
But what exactly does it mean to be Christ’s visible representative? If one examines how the mind forms a concept of incarnation, then one concludes that engineers and technicians fit McDowell’s definition of church. They are the visible representation of the abstract technical thinking of scientific understanding. They have become transformed by gaining an understanding of how the physical creation functions. They are followers of practical salvation because they transform the laws of science into gadgets that help people. As a group, they are part of a living body of researchers who are individually and collectively using an understanding of God’s natural laws to redeem the physical life of people.
One might respond that science and technology save people physically while the church saves people spiritually. And that is a valid distinction. That is why I keep referring to science and technology as partial illustrations. McDowell compares these two forms of salvation: “Our needs can be placed largely into two broad categories: human needs and spiritual needs. Human needs include such things as our emotional needs, physical needs, mental/educational and economic needs, and so on. Spiritual needs include such things as the need to be redeemed and justified by grace through faith in Jesus, the need for the Holy Spirit, the need to be consistently renewed through prayer, God’s Word, and so on. Which of these two needs – human needs or spiritual needs – do you think is the most important?” (p.393).
McDowell explains that “Christ, the head of the church, gives us the answer. The truth is, Jesus didn’t make a clear distinction between human needs and spiritual needs… Jesus actually met people at the point of their need of the moment, whether it was a spiritual or human need… Jesus was moved with compassion for the human and spiritual needs of these people, and set out to meet them both” (p.395). Using the language of mental symmetry, when one approaches the topic from the abstract perspective of Christ, one observes that both human needs and spiritual needs follow similar universal laws. The physical universe, physical bodies, human minds, and spiritual reality were all created by the same Christ translating an integrated Teacher Word of God into concrete existence. As Colossians 1:16 says, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.”
The problem is that science has a better concept of Christ while the church has a better concept of Jesus. Science knows what it means to approach both physical and psychological reality from the abstract perspective of Christ. And I am not just saying this in a handwaving manner. There really is a detailed correspondence between the deep structure of physics and a mental concept of Christ. But science has gained its knowledge by studying the physical world while eliminating subjective emotions. Jesus, in contrast, saves people with their subjective emotions. And we have seen that McDowell repeatedly emphasizes the subjective Mercy side of God and salvation.
There is also another aspect to this overlap. Is Christianity spiritual or is it cognitive? Is one saved spiritually by becoming a Christian, or is one transformed by the renewing of the mind? McDowell says that “Spiritual needs include such things as the need to be redeemed and justified by grace through faith in Jesus, the need for the Holy Spirit, the need to be consistently renewed through prayer, God’s Word, and so on” (p.393). But each of these elements can also be defined from a cognitive perspective, using the theory of mental symmetry. And mental symmetry is consistent in detail with the wiring of the brain. McDowell says that Jesus did not make a clear distinction between human needs and spiritual needs. Similarly, I find that it is impossible to make a sharp distinction between cognitive and spiritual. My general hypothesis is that the spiritual realm interacts with the mind by inhabiting and empowering mental networks. This is both spiritual and cognitive.
One can pose a further question. What is salvation? Is it taking people who are lying in the gutter and turning them into normal people, or is it taking normal people and leading them to some place better? Or is this also an artificial distinction? When McDowell defines heaven as God restoring the perfection of Eden, is this not limiting salvation to taking humans who are lying in the gutter of sin and restoring them to the normality of Eden? Science and technology, in contrast, is capable of taking normal people and leading them to better places—at least physically, and to some extent psychologically. Similarly, the goal of mental symmetry is not to lead hurting people back to the normality of partial wholeness, but rather to take the so-called normal mind and lead it to total metal wholeness.
McDowell discusses the current church with a chapter titled “evidence that God’s authentic church is alive and well” (p.383). But I think we have seen in this section that this is not the case. The church may be alive but it is not well. That is because it focuses upon Jesus without comprehending the nature of Christ. It struggles to differentiate physical from spiritual need, not knowing how to tie these together. And it focuses upon rescuing people from hell, rather than leading them to heaven.
But Jesus says something different in the Sermon on the Mount. “Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt. 6:31-33). The word worry means ‘to go to pieces because pulled apart’. Thus, Jesus is saying that one should not become mentally fragmented because of human needs. Jesus adds that the Gentiles ‘make inquiries about’ these things. In other words, secular thought focuses upon human needs. The word knows means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. Thus, God the Father up in the heaven of Teacher thought sees the physical need and makes a transition to internal knowing. In the English, both the Gentiles and the heavenly Father focus upon ‘all these things’. However, the Greek is different. When talking about the Gentiles, the word pas is used which means ‘viewing the whole in terms of the individual parts’. But when talking about the heavenly Father, a different word is used that ‘focuses on the individual parts and their totality and thus “sweeps with a wider broom” than pás (each, every)’.
Putting this together, humans approach their needs in a fragmented manner that pulls the mind apart. God the Father, in contrast, approaches the same needs from the integrated perspective of Teacher thought. He sees the needs and how they fit together. In other words, he is aware of order-within-complexity.
This explains the instructions of Jesus in the final verse. One is supposed to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Seek means ‘to search, getting to the bottom of a matter’. A kingdom of God implies submitting personal MMNs to the TMN of the realm of God. This means becoming a citizen of God’s kingdom with all that is entailed in becoming a citizen. And one is supposed to focus on righteousness, which means seeking a divine kingdom of exemplars and then allowing this Teacher understanding of how God works to guide personal actions in Server thought. If one does so, then everything will be ‘added to you’, and the word added means to ‘put together for a purpose; to gather’. In other words, one will discover that these various either/or questions all become a case of both/and. God does not meet one need or another need. Instead, he meets all needs in an integrated manner. Science and technology have learned, in the objective, what it means to “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” Does the church know what this means?
Ten Relational Needs
McDowell discusses ten relational needs that should be met by the church. He explains that “the better we understand these relational needs, the better we can understand how God wants to love others through us to meet the human and spiritual needs of those around us. It is through this love of the whole person that God is pleased to make the church truly relevant in the lives of others” (p.399). Thus, these ten relational needs summarize what McDowell regards as a ‘relevant church’ that loves ‘the whole person’. Let us examine these from a cognitive perspective.
1) “Love meets the need for comfort”. McDowell clarifies that “Comforting others isn’t about trying to fix them, discipline them, or give them a pep talk. A love that comforts is realized simply by a person being there to share and another’s suffering and letting him or her know you hurt with him or her” (p.399). Looking at this cognitively, when more than one mental network is triggered at the same time, then each will attempt to impose its structure upon the others. Comforting gives a person the freedom to express their MMNs of personal hurt openly without attempting to impose any other mental networks upon this emotional expression. This is a good starting point and it is often necessary to begin with this form of comfort. Stated simply, sit there, be quiet, and allow the other person to talk. But allowing a person to express their personal MMNs should not be confused with saving a person out of these painful mental networks.
2) “Love meets the need for attention”. McDowell explains that “Our Christlike love of others is able to meet them at the point of their need for attention as we sacrifice our time and energy to be with them. This kind of caring for persons, human needs often readies their heart to receive Christ’s spiritual message” (p.400). This is a more active version of the previous point. One is not just allowing the other person to express their MMNs freely, but doing this to the point of making one’s own personal MMNs uncomfortable. As McDowell points out, this can open people’s hearts, but allowing another person to express their personal MMNs at the cost of not expressing one’s own MMNs should also not be confused with saving another person out of their painful mental networks.
3) “Love meets the need for acceptance”. McDowell adds that “When we accept others without conditions, it tells them they are of great worth to us and to God. When we accept others regardless of their physical ailments, deficiencies, or handicaps, they can feel like they belong. And it can open them up to receive God’s acceptance” (p.400). God does meet us where we are, but he does not just look at us and clap with total approval. What McDowell has described so far is basically a safe place, in which people are able to express their personal MMNs freely no matter what the content.
4) “Love meets the need for appreciation”. McDowell explains that “God has made each of us with the need to be praised by others. When we express gratitude to a spouse, child, a fellow believer, a friend, or a stranger, we are demonstrating a love that meets that person at the point of their need for appreciation” (p.400). It is good to be thankful. But Jesus says in John 5:41-44 that we should seek approval from God and not look for approval from people. Thus, a church that is implementing the plan of God will encourage people to seek the approval of God in Teacher thought rather than surround them with MMNs of human approval.
5) “Love meets the need for support”. McDowell clarifies that this means helping people physically: “We can do things like running an errand for them, mowing their lawn, repairing a broken item, giving financially, praying with them, helping them with homework, or anything that would ease the pressure and lighten their load” (p.401). This is practical Christianity. As James says, “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?” (James 2:15-16). But is Christianity merely a version of social service with some personal Mercy feelings added? Is Christianity merely a knee-jerk response to the MMNs of peoples’ personal needs? Where is the kingdom of God and his righteousness? Where is the integrated response guided by the TMN of a general Teacher understanding?
6) “Love meets the need for encouragement”. McDowell explains that “Christ’s love flowing through us offers a cheerful word, an inspirational card or song, an uplifting prayer, a light moment… anything that would lift the spirits of the discouraged” (p.401). What is being described is emotionally supporting people’s existing mental networks. But salvation involves the transformation of mental networks. One constructs and submits to the TMN of a concept of God in order to rip apart fragmented, childish MMNs so that they can be reborn in a way that expresses mental wholeness. Using a physical analogy, what is needed is surgery and not just an uplifting card. This does not mean attacking people in a judgmental manner. Instead, it means submitting to the righteousness of God, recognizing that one must submit to how things work. Similarly, a surgeon who is performing surgery tries to do so in a gentle manner, but being gentle is not enough when surgery is required.
7) “Love meets the need for affection”. McDowell clarifies that “Affectionate words and appropriate touching between friends go a long way toward removing our aloneness and letting others know they are cared for… Physical affection is one of God’s designs to express his love for us to others” (p.402). There is a place for caring words and appropriate touching. But this is still a matter of affirming a person’s existing mental networks. In contrast, I have found that it is precisely when I feel that I am all alone that God becomes my friend. It is when there are no physical people around to touch me that I reach out to the spiritual realm for friendship.
8) “Love meets the need for approval”. McDowell explains that “We all need to hear the words, ‘I’m pleased with you.’ We communicate that sentiment to others through words and actions, we meet them at the point of their need for approval” (p.402). The Bible does talk about giving appropriate approval to people. But the Bible also makes it very clear that those who follow God often will not receive approval from others. In fact, Jesus warns in Luke 6:26, “Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.”
9) “Love meets the need for security”. McDowell says that “When we rest in God’s loving protection and provision, it gives us a sense of security. We meet people at their point of need for security when we help them feel safe and confident they will be cared for in the future” (p.402). McDowell talks about ‘resting in God’s loving protection and provision’. But this is not an attribute that one acquires automatically. Instead, one learns to trust in the invisible God precisely when people do not meet our need for security and we are not confident that others will care for us in the future. I am not suggesting that one should avoid insurance and not plan for one’s retirement. It is important to plan for the long-term, and to help others to plan for the long-term. But if one wishes to become a transformed member of God’s church, then one has to go through episodes of uncertainty where one has only God to turn to.
10) “Love meets the need for respect”. McDowell explains that “When we respect another person’s ideas, perspectives on things, opinions, time, wishes, and schedule, we are conveying he or she is valuable to us” (p.403). It is important to respect everyone as a person who has been created by God. And it is important to interact with others in a way that respects their opinions, perspectives, and schedule. But God does not automatically respect every person’s ideas, perspectives, opinions, wishes, and schedules. On the contrary, if we are to be a people of God, then we must respect God’s opinions more than the opinions of people around us, we must submit to his timetable and not our own, and we must take his perspective rather than our own. This does not mean imposing our ‘wisdom’ upon others in the name of God. Instead, it means patiently holding on to the truth, and believing that God will ultimately lift up the truth as well as those who hold on to the truth.
Summarizing, McDowell defined the church as “Christ’s visible representation on earth, in which each transformed follower of Jesus is made part of his living body to individually and collectively fulfill God’s redemptive purpose” (p.381). This is a good definition, but I do not see anything of this definition in McDowell’s ten points. There is no concept of Christ. Instead, all that matters is people and their personal MMNs. People are not being transformed. Instead, their existing MMNs are being affirmed. The name Jesus means salvation, and salvation means taking me out of my place and putting me in a better place. In contrast, these 10 points leave people in their current place and make them feel good about their current place. There is no living body, but rather a cacophony of personal MMNs, each crying out to be affirmed, touched, coddled, and comforted. And there is no redemptive purpose of God, because human MMNs are running the show.
We began our discussion of the church by showing that science and technology are a partial illustration of McDowell’s definition of the church. If science and technology partially illustrate the church, while McDowell’s description of the ideal relevant church contains nothing of McDowell’s definition of the church, then one concludes that science and technology are actually closer to a knowledge of the kingdom of God than McDowell’s ‘ideal church’. We also conclude that the church is not alive and well.
McDowell does talk in other pages about discipleship and the church: “This womb-like atmosphere of mentoring and discipling is a spiritual-formation process that includes training the disciples to produce themselves spiritually. The church is responsible for equipping believers until they are formed spiritually to maturity” (p.388). This quote describes personal growth, but notice the Mercy-like language. There is a ‘womb-like atmosphere’. One person is mentoring another. There is spiritual formation. Disciples are being trained.
This will have some affect. But where is the theology? And I am not referring to theology as a set of logical facts to which one intellectually asserts Instead, I am referring to theology as a rational understanding of God, his character, and his ways. Instead of mentoring one another, one should be learning how God works, and then stepping out in obedience to God without getting patted on the back by people. God does not want spiritual formation. He wants spiritual transformation. McDowell’s 10 points may describe spiritual formation, but there is no transformation.
Transformation
McDowell actually refers to a book entitled Transformation: “Bob Roberts Jr., pastor of a mega-church and author of the book transformation, said he had to travel halfway around the world to see firsthand what the church looked like. He relates this story: I didn’t even realize how lost I was until I saw what the church was really supposed to look like… I had to go halfway around the world to find it – in the persecuted underground house church in Asia. I had heard the stories and statistics, but I had never met anyone face-to-face. They were nothing like me. They were nothing like any believers I had ever met. Not just culturally, but spiritually they blew me away. Sure, their theology is fuzzy. Some don’t even have whole parts of the Bible, only perhaps an entire book or few passages. But they know God at a depth I never had nor knew anyone else who had… These people are living what I grew up hearing the church should be. Through small, indigenous, underground house church networks, these churches are transforming lives and their cultures” (p.385).
Why did this pastor have to travel halfway around the world to find a real church with real believers? Could it be because North American churches are preventing Christians from experiencing transformation by applying McDowell’s 10 points? When one is in a persecuted underground house church, one is not experiencing comfort, attention, acceptance, appreciation, support, encouragement, affection, approval, security, or respect from one’s environment or from one’s government. And it is precisely the lack of these qualities that is driving the underground believer to discover God at a depth that the North American believer cannot even conceive of.
But one does not have to suffer persecution to reach this depth of personal transformation. I have found the one can also follow a path of patience without having to go through suffering. A path of patience emerges when the Platonic forms of God’s perfect character become so blindingly bright internally that one has no option but to let go of the approval of existing society in order to follow the light of God. Similarly, the clarity with which one grasps exemplars is so striking that one dare not take any shortcuts to reach the goal. That type of internal emotional drive will produce the same kind of transformed believer that one encounters in an underground persecuted church.
When I question McDowell’s 10 points, I am not suggesting that the church should ignore Mercy feelings. The purpose of the church is to deal with mental networks of God and personal identity. The question is how one should approach these mental networks. If one follows the 10 points, then MMNs of identity and culture play the defining role; they are cuddled and coddled while God dispenses unconditional acceptance. Saying this another way, when MMNs of personal identity come into contact with the TMN of a concept of God, then personal identity is imposing its structure upon God. That is one major problem with defining the character of God as transcending human comprehension. It sounds very respectful but it turns a concept of God into a formless blob that takes on the shape of sinful humanity. It creates a god in my own image.
I suggest that one finds a better approach illustrated by the medical profession. Medicine takes care of people. But it does not just hold their hands and give them affirming statements. Instead, it transforms MMNs of personal identity guided by TMNs of understanding how the physical body functions. A medical doctor does not condemn a patient. But he also does not condone the behavior of a patient and accept the state of the patient. Instead, a doctor accurately assesses the current condition of the patient and then takes steps to improve that condition. The church should be doing the same thing, guided by Perceiver rules of moral cause-and-effect. McDowell should be saying this, because he talked extensively about moral cause-and-effect earlier in the book, but when it comes to applying moral cause-and-effect within the church, then his emphasis shifts from salvation to unconditional acceptance.
I suggest that part of the problem is that McDowell is thinking in terms of needs rather than the kingdom of God. He compares human needs with spiritual needs, and asks which the church should emphasize. But a need is an inadequacy imposed by some outside entity: Some person with a need comes to the church and asks for help. But what is causing that person to view himself as needy? The implicit moral and physical standards of society. A person who falls below this societal norm will regard himself as needy. One can see what this means by comparing needy people of today with needy people of the past. The average person of the past lived with all manner of physical inadequacies and medical conditions—and considered this to be normal. The same person in the same condition would today be considered needy. When an implicit standard of normality exists within society, then the church can help needy people by dispensing unconditional acceptance.
But this no longer functions today because postmodern society no longer has an implicit accepted standard of normality. Many who considered themselves to be needy in the past now celebrate their conditions as lifestyles. Instead of being saved they want safe spaces. But the very fact that a group demands a safe space suggests that the behavior of that group is creating negative consequences for personal identity. A person who is being successful does not need a safe space, because the success provides its own inherent reward. This inherent reward makes it possible to live with considerable personal disapproval. For instance, the average rich man doesn’t care if he is hated by others, because he can use his money to buy a comfortable lifestyle.
Saying this more simply, people and groups are being oppressed today, and the church does need to meet such people in their need. But salvation takes people out of their state of need and brings them to a better place. It does not leave people in their need and give them affirmation.
This leads to a curious twist in the argument often made by Christian apologists that a system of morality requires a belief in God. Mental symmetry suggests that it is possible to support rules of moral cause-and-effect with MMNs of painful consequences or pleasant benefits. But this will lead at best to a collection of isolated moral rules. An integrated system of morality has to be emotionally backed up by the TMN of a concept of God. However, a church that is functioning at the level of meeting peoples’ needs in Mercy thought does not have such a concept of God in Teacher thought.
Going further, the TMN of a concept of God will only continue to guide personal behavior if it describes how the natural world and the mind actually function. But if such a correspondence exists, then this will naturally cause a person to believe that his concept of God in Teacher thought corresponds to the character of a real God who created the universe. Thus, it is accurate to state that an integrated system of morality requires a belief in God. But becoming a Christian does not automatically create a concept of God that is capable of supporting an integrated system of morality.
Ironically, it is the individual who believes in the absolute truth of the Bible and who lacks the TMN of an integrated concept of God who will tend to proclaim that morality requires a belief in God. This verbal proclamation will inevitably be accompanied by an inconsistent and incomplete application of God’s supposedly universal rules of morality. In contrast, the person who has the TMN of a concept of God that is based in understanding of ‘how things work’ will not feel driven to proclaim the connection between God and morality, because he recognizes that morality exhibits itself in ‘how things work’. He has learned that those who violate rules of morality will discover soon enough that they are trying to fight ‘how things work’. Such a person will realize that the best alternative is to stop preaching and wait for people to violate moral principles, and then point out the underlying moral principles as people naturally experience the painful consequences.
Looking at this from the perspective of cognitive styles, my brother-in-law used mental symmetry at a pragmatic level for several decades in his pastoral counseling and found it to be very helpful. That is because each of the seven cognitive styles has natural strengths and weaknesses, and struggles with specific issues. For instance, if I know that someone is a Perceiver person, I know that they will have to deal with issues such as judgmentalism, anger, escapism, and procrastination, that they will have to learn how to define truth, and that they are naturally talented at discovering connections. I also know that they will probably marry either a Mercy person or a Facilitator person, and I know what type of struggles will emerge in both of those marriages. In other words, I automatically know most of their deepest psychological needs. But notice that these needs have not been defined according to the norms of society. They also have not been defined according to the norms of the typical church. I say this because I discovered that the average churchgoer no longer wanted to learn about mental symmetry when my knowledge of cognitive styles became too accurate. Instead, these needs have been defined according to a higher standard of mental wholeness, and this higher standard is held together by a Teacher understanding of how the mind could function if all of the parts worked together in harmony.
The Future of the Church
Summarizing our discussion on the church, I am aware of five possible directions that the current evangelical church could take:
The first option is to embrace mysticism. Postmodern questioning has successfully belittled all absolute truth, because it asserts that all supposed truth is merely the opinions of some person or group that is using its personal status in Mercy thought to impose its opinions upon the rest of society. When Perceiver facts are eliminated, then Teacher thought is free to overgeneralize, leading to the ‘discovery’ of mysticism. This expresses itself as spirituality without content, it heads in the direction of Buddhism, and it violates the Christian concept of incarnation.
The second option is to copy Hollywood. This follows the path of unconditional acceptance, in which all personal and societal MMNs are accepted and confirmed. In essence, this path takes McDowell’s 10 points and follows them to their logical conclusion. It is the path followed by the seeker-friendly church. As was already pointed out, this contradicts the idea of Jesus as a savior and it turns Christianity into a social club.
The third option is to reimpose absolute truth. If people no longer respect the Bible, then the response is to use personal status in Mercy thought to reimpose respect for the absolute truth of the Bible. The problem with this approach is that re-imposing absolute truth requires the Mercy status of some dictator who views himself as a personal source of ‘truth’. This describes the Donald Trump option, in which Christians support Donald Trump because Trump is re-imposing some of the absolute truth of the Bible back upon American society. But it overlooks the fact that Trump himself has no concept of truth but rather uses his personal status to override any Perceiver facts that he finds uncomfortable.
This may work in the short term, but it is disastrous in the long term. That is because one cannot use personal opinion to override the facts of reality. This is becoming obvious with Trump’s response to the coronavirus. I am writing this sentence on March 26, 2020. There are currently 80,000 cases of coronavirus in the US, 81,000 in Italy, and 82,000 in China. If present trends continue, the US will become the world epicenter for coronavirus. (I checked two hours later, and the US now has the most cases of any country in the world. One day later when editing this essay, the US total was at 100,000. Two days later, the US total was at 124,000.) It is possible that other countries are not reporting all of their cases, but the situation in the US is clearly out of control. Despite this, Trump wants to reopen the US by Easter, April 12. As Dr. Fauci, the top infectious disease expert in the US has pointed out, “You’ve got to be realistic, and you’ve got to understand that you don’t make the timeline, the virus makes the timeline. So you’ve got to respond, in what you see happen.” The end result of using Trump to re-impose absolute truth is that the church ends up losing any moral authority by allying itself with an amoral leader, and it loses any claim to being a source of truth by connecting itself with a leader who has no concept of truth. Thankfully, some Christian leaders are beginning to question Trump’s arrogant, irresponsible idiocy.
The fourth option is to break through to a Teacher understanding of Christianity. This is the path that is being followed by mental symmetry. In my personal experience, this is sufficient to transform the mind. But it is not enough to change the world. However, it can lay a foundation that makes it possible for God to step in and change the world. That is my current hope. Saying this in more detail, after studying all of the New Testament prophetic passages in the original Greek (this analysis has been posted to the mental symmetry website), I have come to the conclusion that there will not be a ‘rapture followed by a tribulation’. Instead, it appears that there will be what I call ‘a theoretical return of Jesus’ followed by what I refer to as ‘spiritual technology’. In other words, a rational theory Teacher of God will acquire power in some manner that affects people in a way that is real but nonphysical. This will be followed by normal technology acquiring spiritual overtones. I do not know exactly what form this will take, but I do know that the main qualification for participating will be personal integrity and mental wholeness. This means that to the extent that the current church preaches—and practices—being transformed by the renewing of the mind, to that extent the current church will be able to participate in what God does in the future.
That brings us to the fifth alternative, which is related to the fourth. If spiritual power becomes added to secular technology, then this will re-create an implicit moral standard for society. That is because people will personally experience in some manner the repercussions of using technology in a manner that is personally harmful or personally helpful. For instance, if one uses a computer to play violent video games, then one will experience spiritual violence. I suspect that this effect will be most potent with electronics and the Internet because these seem to reflect the structure of the angelic realm most closely. If such an environment emerged, then the current church could be revitalized, because many people who are currently using technology are using it in a manner that is personally destructive or personally meaningless, and they would become spiritually needy if technology acquired spiritual overtones. The current church could then play a major role in comforting and helping these needy people. But a church would only be able to play such a role if it itself was using technology in a spiritual healthy manner. And I suggest that most modern praise-and-worship does not qualify as using technology in a spiritually healthy manner. Using an analogy, the church would be like a hospital chaplain, bringing spiritual help to patients within a system guided by science and technology.
Worldview
We will conclude this essay by looking at what McDowell says about worldview. McDowell says that “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions which we hold about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being. Most of us arrive at our worldview without even knowing it” (p.363). Stated cognitively, a worldview describes one’s core mental networks.
A worldview is similar to a general theory but slightly different. It is similar because both involve mental networks. It is different because these mental networks are formed in a different manner. A theory is a rational structure within Teacher thought. If a theory continues to be used, then it will acquire the emotional power of a TMN. A worldview is more pragmatic and intuitive and is composed of the core mental networks that drive a person’s thought and behavior. It is possible to rebuild one’s worldview guided by a general theory. Mental symmetry suggests that the purpose of Christianity is to rebuild one’s worldview—one’s core mental networks—upon the TMN of an understanding of God and his righteousness. But what usually happens is the opposite: Peoples’ theories in Teacher thought are instinctively molded by their worldviews.
McDowell describes a process that sounds like using the TMN of a concept of God to reprogram MMNs of culture and identity. He starts by posing the question, “Can you live in Rome and not do as the Romans do? Can you walk among sinners and not walk in sin? Can you live in the world and not be part of it?” (p.367). In other words, can one be guided by core mental networks that are different than the mental networks of the surrounding society?
McDowell says that “You can, just as faithful followers of Christ have done for centuries before you, when your thinking and behavior flow out of your intimate relationship with God. That relationship provides you, as God’s child, solid beliefs about him, about yourself, and about the world around us. Those beliefs create certain values that you then embrace. Those values reflect themselves in all your attitudes and actions. This is the process of forming and living out a biblical worldview that brings you that deep abiding peace and joy in life” (p.367). Translating this into cognitive language, one starts with a relationship with God in Mercy thought. This leads to absolute truth in Perceiver thought. This absolute truth is then used to evaluate Perceiver facts about normal life. These absolute truths also lead to the formation of Platonic forms of value within Mercy thought. These Platonic forms then shape the Mercy goals that are pursued by concrete thought. This process is similar to that suggested by mental symmetry, but it has a different starting point. Instead of starting with the TMN of an integrated understanding, one starts with the absolute truth of the Bible.
Nine Foundational Truths
One can see this different starting point by examining nine points mentioned by McDowell, which “demonstrate how the foundational truths of Christianity give meaning to our relationships, our beliefs, our values, and our actions” (p.367).
1) “The creator God exists”. McDowell clarifies that “we value God as the giver of life and loving relationships. We value ourselves as his temple, and we maintain ourselves physically, spiritually, and relationally. We value every person and relationship God has given us, and we value their God-given rights to life and loving relationships. We value the planet God has given us and endeavor to nurture and protect it” (p.368). This seems to be saying that we recognize the existence of God by valuing creation. It is absolutely essential to preserve the existence and well-being of both creation and created beings. This is the opposite of mysticism which feels that the ultimate goal is for finite beings to lose their identity and become reunited with God. But maintaining and valuing creation is not the same as valuing God. Instead of starting with the character of God in Teacher thought, one is starting with the existence of creation in Mercy thought. One is beginning with the Mercy perspective of absolute truth rather than the Teacher perspective of universal truth.
2) “God gave us his Word”. McDowell explains that “God has revealed himself to us through his reliable word, the Bible… We value obedience to God’s Word because it informs us of the benefits we derive from a relationship with him, and gives us protection from the negative consequences that result from living outside of his loving boundaries” (p.369). In other words, the starting point is not a Teacher understanding of the nature of God, but rather Mercy respect for the Bible as the source of absolute truth. One then makes a transition to universal truth by recognizing that the Bible describes universal principles of moral cause-and-effect, but the starting point is still the absolute truth of the Bible.
3) “Sin brought death”. McDowell relates this to absolute truth: “We believe the truth that choosing our own way in deciding from within ourselves what is right or wrong, rather than believing that God is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, has resulted in death – a separation from God for all humans… We value God, and his reliable Word as the absolute standard of rightness. The essence of God’s character and nature defines all that is right, perfect, holy, and good” (p.369). Notice how McDowell contrasts moral principles based in the Bible with internal decisions regarding right and wrong. This is a valid contrast—if the human mind is built upon childish MMNs acquired from living in a physical body within the physical world. Starting from such a foundation will lead to inadequate moral conclusions. And one needs the absolute truth of the Bible to emerge from such self-deception.
But the message and morality of the Bible can be translated into the Teacher theory of a rational understanding of how the mind functions, and when such a theory acquires the emotional power of a TMN, then one increasingly acquires the ability to ‘decide from within ourselves what is right or wrong’. This ability does not come from personal identity because it is rooted in the TMN of a concept of God. And it does not turn into subjective opinion because one continually sees the same moral principles being reflected in all of society and all of creation. After having followed this path for several decades, I can state with considerable confidence that it is consistent with the moral truth of the Bible. In contrast, when one starts with the absolute truth of the Bible, one is leaving intact the childish assumption that Perceiver moral truth is ultimately based in MMNs of personal status. One may win some battles against the sin nature, but one has lost the war. One may experience some of the life of God, but one is still following the basic mental assumptions which led to sin and brought the death of separation from God.
4) “God entered our world”. McDowell juxtaposes several statements: “We believe the truth that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ. He was born of the virgin Mary to redeem us and restore us to relationship with God… We value unconditional love and acceptance, because God demonstrated his unconditional love and acceptance by entering our world to redeem us. We value compassionate understanding because Jesus demonstrated he understood by experiencing all the joys and sufferings we as humans have experienced” (p.369). The first sentence is a statement of faith based in the Bible. It can be restated in cognitive terms, if one understands how abstract technical thought descends to concrete technical thought to help people. This leads to a fuller understanding of the third sentence, which says that Jesus experienced the joys and suffering of living in the human world.
The key point is that human life can either start from MMNs of childish identity acquired from the physical environment, or it can start with a TMN of a concept of God, descending through incarnation to live within physical reality. Both of these forms of human life live within the real world as humans, but the way they think and feel is totally different. One can understand this contrast by comparing the person who drives a car with the engineer who designed the car. The average consumer views a car as a tool to lead from one Mercy goal to another. The engineer, in contrast, views the same car as an intricate expression of the laws of science.
Jesus was not the typical human. Instead, he was the Word made flesh. This is not just a doctrinal statement. Instead, it describes the very fiber of Jesus’ being—his gut level assumptions. Jesus always did what he saw the Father doing, while being surrounded by people who had no concept of a Father God. This conclusion contradicts McDowell’s second sentence. Jesus has compassion and understanding because he experienced what it is to live in physical reality, but he does not demonstrate ‘unconditional love and acceptance’ of humans, just as an engineer who designs a car will not demonstrate unconditional love and acceptance of a driver who has no clue about technology.
However, when one believes that absolute truth is ultimately based in Mercy status, then one will not realize that there is a qualitative difference between starting with Teacher thought and starting with Mercy thought. One will not realize that the engineer does not think like the consumer. (I am referring here to the engineer rather than the scientist because we are looking specifically at God entering our world, and the engineer translates science into technology.)
5) “Jesus atones for our sin”. McDowell explains that “Jesus laid down his life as a sacrifice for our sin” (p.370). He adds that “Our love of God for sacrificing his son for us is reflected in the sacrificing of our own comforts, our time, and our personal possessions for others. We strive to give of ourselves unselfishly until it hurts, and forgive those who do wrong against us” (p.370). I suggest that McDowell is confusing religious self-denial with righteousness. Absolute truth leads naturally to self-denial, because absolute truth assumes that I am nothing in Mercy thought compared to my emotional source of truth. Thus, valuing my source of ‘truth’ implies denying myself.
There is a place for ‘giving of ourselves unselfishly until it hurts’. That is because altruistic behavior leads to righteousness. Personal identity becomes mentally connected with the TMN of a concept of God when one chooses to follow the TMN of a concept of God rather than MMNs of personal identity or societal approval. But self-denial by itself has no intrinsic worth. What matters is the positive quality of righteousness. The goal is not to suppress MMNs of childish identity but rather to follow the TMN of a concept of God.
Hebrews 12:2 describes this attitude of Jesus: “Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Jesus’ goal was not to deny self, but rather to build faith, and faith means to ‘be persuaded’. Jesus was motivated by the positive emotion of joy, and joy describes Teacher emotion that is related to a concept of God. To endure means to ‘remain under’. Jesus did not approach the cross with masochistic feelings of self-denial. Instead, he was willing to stick with the process and see it through. Instead of welcoming self-denial, he viewed the cross as shameful. And he despised the shame, which means ‘thinking down on; esteem lightly’. Instead of emotionally inflating the self-denial of the cross, he emotionally belittled it, because he did not want to build his mind around MMNs of pain and suffering. The end result was that his personal identity became connected with a concept of God in Teacher thought—he sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
As I have mentioned before, I am not trying to minimize the atonement of Jesus or belittle the suffering of Jesus. Instead, I am trying to approach atonement from a Teacher perspective. This Teacher perspective is pursued further in the essay on the crucifixion of Jesus as described in the Gospel of John.
6) “We are justified by grace”. McDowell clarifies that “There was nothing we could do and nothing we could offer to deserve the love relationship with God. When we were his enemy he still loved us. Our initial relationship was one-sided – he loved us when we didn’t love him… We value grace – a love given when it is not deserved or when no love is given in return” (p.370).
This statement is consistent with an attitude of absolute truth, which feels that I am nothing compared to my source of truth. If the source of truth comes up with a method of salvation then, by implication, this salvation depends totally upon the source of absolute truth has nothing to do with personal identity.
Starting with a Teacher understanding leads to a different perspective. Salvation still comes totally from God and not from personal identity in the sense that MMNs of personal identity must submit totally to the TMN of a concept of God in order to experience total transformation. This means that an attitude of absolute truth is itself a symptom of incomplete transformation. But because God is a God of exemplars, every step of further revelation from God in Teacher thought must be accompanied by some human action in Server thought.
Saying this more simply, I must follow the understanding of God that I currently have in order to gain further understanding. This is not salvation by works. Instead, it recognizes that God is leading me along paths of righteousness. I may be acquiring the power to walk this path through the righteousness that comes from the TMN of a concept of God, but I am still walking the path. Justification by grace then becomes viewed as the first step of walking the path of righteousness. As Paul says in Colossians 2:6, “Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him. The word receive means ‘to take by showing strong personal initiative’. And walk means ‘walk, hence Hebraistically (in an ethical sense): I conduct my life’. Notice the relationship between this word and the Jewish sense of ‘doing’ the law in Server thought.
7) “Our lives are changed”. McDowell elaborates that “We believe the truth that as a follower of Christ we are destined to be conformed to the likeness of Christ” (p.371). Unfortunately, believing that something is true does not make it true. McDowell clarifies what it means to be Christlike: “We value all the characteristics of Christlikeness – love for God, submission to him, self-sacrifice, and love for others” (p.371). These qualities are all byproducts of a mindset of absolute truth, in which one focuses emotionally upon the source of truth, one submits personal identity to the source of truth, one denies self in favor of the source of truth, and one shows that one is ‘transformed’ by practicing self-denial with others. Thus, when it comes to the character of Christ, what McDowell is valuing is the mindset of absolute truth, and not any characteristics inherent in Christ.
However, it is a different story when dealing with the human person of Jesus. Here one finds not self-denial, but rather Perceiver thought attempting to apply the same standards to everyone: “We strive to think like, be motivated like, and live like Jesus – to love others as ourselves by making the security, happiness, and welfare of others as important as her own. We strive to fulfill the ‘one anothers’ of Scripture” (p.371).
8) “Jesus rose from the dead”. McDowell asserts that “Jesus had to rise from the dead for our faith to mean anything” (p.371). And Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:14. But what does it mean for Jesus to rise from the dead, and how does this mean anything? McDowell interprets this in terms of the physical resurrection of Jesus providing hope for a future physical resurrection: “We live with an expectant hope, and with an anticipation of what awaits us in the next life. We don’t fear death, for we do not face it alone; God is with us. We do not despair when a loved one dies, who has trusted in Christ. We don’t live our life for this temporal world and build up treasures here. Instead, we strive to store up treasures in heaven” (p.371).
This is all extremely important. But Paul says something different in his well-known passage on the death and resurrection of Christ in Philippians 2. “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (v.8-11). The word bestow means ‘favor that cancels’ and ‘is used of God giving his grace to pardon’. And confess means to ‘fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (wholeheartedly)’. Putting this together, a name represents a personal label in Teacher thought. God is rewarding Jesus by giving him a name that is more general in Teacher thought than any other name. And this Teacher generality extends beyond human earth to heaven and ‘under the earth’. And this is not just a case of enemies grudgingly recognizing that Jesus is their conqueror, because confess means to ‘agree openly and wholeheartedly’. Instead, this is describing the person of Jesus being generalized in Teacher thought to become the divine incarnation of Christ.
McDowell says that “our relationship is with the living Christ, who rose from the dead” (p.371). But a Christianity that is based in the absolute truth of the holy book cannot be a relationship with a living Christ because it is rooted in dead words. The resurrection of Christ requires dying to the concept of a holy book and allowing God to pardon the shortcoming of absolute truth with the grace of a general Teacher theory. Going further, this name that is above all names does not destroy other names. Instead, it acts as a meta-theory that ties everything together, making it possible for everyone to agree openly and wholeheartedly that the name of Jesus is above other names. The theory of mental symmetry shows that this is possible.
9. “God is three in one”. McDowell begins by describing this using rational content: “God has manifested himself in his handiwork of creation, he has revealed himself in bodily form in Jesus, and he has now entered our very lives in his person of the Holy Spirit” (p.371). This is similar to what mental symmetry suggests regarding the Trinity. But then a transition is made to Teacher overgeneralization: “We believe the truth that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons with infinite love for each other in perfect relationship” (p.372). This Teacher overgeneralization then becomes an emotional motivation: “We value intimacy – an unbroken cycle of relationship between God, ourselves, and others. We value the oneness and bond of the father, son, and Holy Spirit in Scripture and desire to be part of it, and emulate it in all of our relationships” (p.372).
The final paragraph returns to content—if one interprets it from a cognitive perspective. “We give up trying to live like Christ through our own efforts and allow the Holy Spirit to empower us, so he can make us intimate with God, make us like Christ, lead us into all truth, equip us for service, and bring true meaning to our lives” (p.372). McDowell is talking about the emotional impact exerted by Platonic forms of the spirit within Mercy thought. They lead to intimacy with God because they translate Teacher words into Mercy images. They make us like Christ because they turn abstract theory into concrete experience. They lead us into all truth because they are visual expressions of Teacher understanding. And they bring true meaning to our lives, because they build Mercy thought around emotional absolutes that are more permanent than physical reality. As for ‘equipping us for service’, this is probably an expression of religious self-denial. That is because what this description is missing a concept of righteousness guided by the exemplars of God the Father expressed through Christ, the divine side of incarnation.
Conclusion
I have analyzed The Unshakable Truth by Josh and Sean McDowell because Josh McDowell has the reputation of being one of the premiere apologists of evangelical Christianity. Therefore, I was curious how far he has walked along the path from blind faith in the Bible to a rational understanding of Christian principles. I was hoping for more.
Several years ago I heard Josh McDowell speak at Missions Fest in Vancouver, BC. I remember one thing from his talk, which was his statement that “I no longer talk about absolute truth, I now refer to universal truth.” One can see from this book that McDowell has broken through to universal truth in the pragmatic area of moral cause-and-effect, and this is a significant breakthrough. But he still starts with a foundation of absolute truth based in the words of the Bible. And his concept of God is still ultimately based in the Teacher overgeneralization of mysticism. This may qualify as a worldview, but it is not an integrated Teacher understanding.
McDowell says that absolute truth is consistent with the character of God. McDowell describes God as an infinite being on pages 54-55, using the adjectives eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, and omniscient, as well as personal, to describe God. If God is an infinite being, then God will by his very nature create truth that applies everywhere, which is the definition of universal truth. But McDowell defines his concept of God using a collection of Platonic forms that are revealed in the absolute truth of the Bible and held together by a mystical God of Teacher overgeneralization through the vague characteristic of relationship.
In contrast, the strong angel of Revelation 10 swears in verse 7 that “the mystery of God is finished, as He preached to His servants the prophets.” Notice that this end to divine mystery is not the proclaiming of new content, but rather is consistent with the absolute truth that was proclaimed through the prophets. It is a paradigm shift in which the same biblical content is explained in a rational manner that no longer includes the concept of divine mystery.
McDowell says that a person’s thinking is implicitly guided by his worldview. We have seen in this essay that this principle applies to the thinking of McDowell. His theology is consistently characterized by the juxtaposition of an overgeneralized concept of God, absolute truth based in the Bible, and pragmatic principles of moral cause-and-effect. These three viewpoints are not consistent with one another: Overgeneralization is incompatible with rational content, absolute truth overwhelms Perceiver thought, while pragmatic principles are discovered by using Perceiver thought. Thus, one finds McDowell shifting between incompatible viewpoints throughout the book.
In contrast, I have found that mental symmetry makes it possible to place even the core Christian doctrines within the framework of a rational Teacher theory as well as extend Christian doctrine out to many areas which McDowell does not mention.
McDowell emphasizes throughout his book that the Bible is the Word of God—the source of absolute truth. And yet, we have seen that what McDowell states is often inconsistent with the original Greek text of the Bible. One would think that a person who insists that the Bible is the source of absolute truth would be more careful about ensuring that the truth which he proclaims is consistent with the Bible. However, I have found that one characteristic of absolute truth is that the focus will be more upon defending the Mercy status of the Bible as the source of absolute truth than upon using Perceiver thought to study the Bible and see what it actually says. And when the Bible is studied, then it will be interpreted through a lens of absolute truth.
This attitude can also be seen in the ‘translation’ that McDowell uses for most of his biblical quotes, which is the New Living Translation. This claims to be a translation, but it is actually a revision of the Living Bible, which is a paraphrase and not a translation; biblical scholars started with the Living Bible and tried to make it more like a translation—and they succeeded in eliminating many inaccuracies. A paraphrase is fine for casual reading. However, an apologist who claims that the Bible is the Word of God and the source of absolute truth, and who takes a whole chapter to emphasize how accurately the original text has been copied over the centuries, should be quoting from the original text and not from a modified paraphrase. In the words of one reviewer, “The revised NLT continues to be much less accurate than other versions commonly used in American churches (including even the New International Version), and it does not rise to the level of accuracy that readers need for serious study or appreciation of the Bible’s details.” McDowell quotes from the original NLT, which is even less accurate than the revised NLT.
Looking at this cognitively, McDowell has made a major transition from absolute truth to universal truth when working with the concrete technical thought of moral cause-and-effect. McDowell also emphasizes the need to respect the biblical text, and McDowell interacts extensively with secular thought and individuals. This combination could construct a potent concept of incarnation if it were combined with using the precise definitions of abstract technical thought to analyze the biblical text itself. When McDowell quotes primarily from a loose translation without referring to the original Greek and Hebrew words, this indicates that he does not really believe that abstract technical thought is needed to study the Bible. Consistent with this, we have seen that McDowell builds upon the cause-and-effect of concrete technical thought while largely ignoring abstract technical thought in his analysis. This is rather strange for someone who has made a lifetime out of apologetics, because Wikipedia defines apologetics as “the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse”.
I am not saying this in order to be a hyper-literalist or to fixate upon logical reasoning, but rather because of the incredible structure, possibility, and insight that emerge when one analyzes the biblical text with a combination of concrete and abstract technical thought. I no longer feel the need to try to prove that the Bible is a special book, because it has become blindingly obvious to me that there is no other book like it. However, in order to truly recognize this uniqueness, one has to look at the original Greek text. Even the most literal English translations muddy the waters. (Sean McDowell is the general editor of the Apologetics Study Bible for Students which is based upon the Christian Standard Bible, a reasonably accurate translation. This is good, but one can go much further.)
If my ideas are so great, then why don’t I share them with Christian apologists? I have tried several times, and I have received some initial interest. However, in each case, those who follow apologetics have ultimately concluded that mental symmetry is worthless. Those who claim that the Bible is special seem unwilling to discuss a theory that treats the content of the Bible as special. Those who argue that one should use rational thought when approaching the Bible seem unwilling to use rational thought when discussing the content of the Bible. And those who quote from the Bible that one should be ‘transformed by the renewing of the mind’ seem unwilling to evaluate a theory that is based upon this biblical passage which describes what it means to be transformed by the renewing of the mind.
Instead of trying to defend my ideas, I have tried to view this rejection (and rejection in general) as the hand of God, and have focused upon extending the theory of mental symmetry and applying what I know personally. My hope is that God will eventually lift up my name. Philippians 2 talks about God giving Jesus a name that is above other names, but this is actually presented as a pattern to follow, because Paul instructs in verse 5 to “have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus”. And the word attitude ‘is difficult to translate into English because it combines the visceral and cognitive aspects of thinking’. Thus, one is supposed to follow both the thinking of Christ Jesus, as well as his gut level feelings. This describes the combination of thinking and feeling that McDowell advocates at a concrete level, and which mental symmetry describes at both a theoretical and a concrete level.
What McDowell has done would be good enough if we were still living in the late 20th century, but it is not enough if Christianity is to survive current postmodern questioning. This does not mean that the Bible will fail or that God’s plan will fail. Instead, it seems that the church age is now coming to a close, and God will turn to other groups to carry out his plan. This does not mean that the church will vanish, but I think that it will become of secondary importance within the divine plan.