Chapter 20

America's Dilemma

A few years ago I was watching a televangelist being interviewed on a news program. At one point in the interview, he was asked the amount of his annual salary. He replied with a six-digit figure and then asked the reporter how much he was paid by his network. The reporter declined to answer except to say it was a healthy sum. The reporter went on to differentiate between the relevance of the two salaries, however, by stating that the televangelist’s came from little people who were making contributions while the reporter’s salary came from a large corporation. The reporter’s implication, of course, was that television evangelists were perhaps getting rich by talking their listeners into making contributions. If the evangelists can convince people that accepting and implementing the values they preach will be of benefit to the people, then the cash will continue to flow.

What impressed me the most about the exchange between the two was that the televangelist seemed to accept the reporter’s differentiation. I question whether it was a valid one.

Was the large corporation that paid the reporter’s salary a self-generating treasure chest? Certainly not. Where did its money come from? From advertisers. Where did the advertisers get their money? From the same people who contribute to the televangelists and from many more. From every one of the people who buy goods and services they see advertised on television.

The reporter’s implication would contend there is a difference. When we buy goods and services, we’re getting something for the money. We have something to show for it.

Does advertising ever try to get us to buy something we don’t need? Does it ever try to get us to overspend? Does it ever try to sell us an image rather than a product? Does it ever try to influence our value systems? Does it ever try to lead us to believe that our identity, security, or worth is dependent on what we do, what we wear, or what we drive?

The point of this discussion is neither to promote television evangelists nor to discredit advertising. It’s merely an attempt to show how spiritual denial encourages us to differentiate between “religious” and “secular.” All of us have—or are looking for—objects of worship.

By virtue of the fact that we depend on some thing or some one (or a combination of both) for our sense of identity, worth, and security, we exercise faith in it or them. By virtue of the fact that we exercise faith, we worship. We may not call it faith and we may not call it worship, but that’s exactly what it is.

We worship those things, people, and social conventions in which we invest our sense of identity, our sense of worth, and our sense of security. We may not hold formal services or write hymns about money, power, and conformity, but we worship them. If the object of our worship is God, then our worship is labeled religious. If the object of our worship is something else, it’s not referred to as religious and it’s considered safely secular.

This differentiation is incredibly convenient for spiritual denial, of course, because the promotion of religious beliefs and values is somewhat controlled by society. It’s as though they’re labeled with a caution, just as cigarettes are. The promotion of those beliefs and values that are considered secular are unaffected by social restraint when they’re subscribed to by the majority. Because these secular values are untainted by the label of religious, they can be promoted more freely and openly and are more likely to be accepted without question.

The extent to which any of us is personally affected by the conditioning and the impact of spiritual denial is something that no one else can tell us. Nor can we honestly tell ourselves. Only by depending primarily on God for our sense of identity, worth, and security in a personal relationship can we begin to know what he wants us to believe, what he wants us to do, and what he wants us to value. As we grow in spiritual health in that relationship, we can look back and see the difference.

People who seek God in the midst of adversity are considered pretty normal. Those who truly seek his will in the midst of comfort and complacency are frequently viewed as fools. Affluence enhances the power of spiritual denial. It simultaneously offers a greater illusion of security and considerably more distractions for those who deny their spiritual needs. I suppose that is why the “eye of the needle” is so hard to negotiate. For those who live their lives in more primitive or warring countries, the insecurity of life is much more apparent. They have fewer illusions. They are more likely to seek God. I suppose that is why “those who are last will later be first.”

There are two things on which all of us can agree:

• Each of us is going to eventually die to this world.

• Each of us is going to have to cope with life in an increasingly insecure world until that time.

Our beliefs will determine how we live our lives. They will determine how we see ourselves in the context of our relationships. They will determine how we feel about ourselves and why. They will determine what threatens us and how we react to those threats. Some people will determine those things within an environment not acknowledging a loving and interactive God. Others will determine them within a universe that acknowledges the loving and interactive God. The two worldviews are worlds apart.

Americans live in a society that is overloaded with distractions. Spend some time with God. If you’re home alone, turn off the TV and the music and listen. If you’re driving, turn off the music and listen. If you’re walking for exercise, leave the headphones at home and listen. Learn how God speaks to you. Learn to pray with greater expectation.

In the first chapter, I wrote, “This book is not about religion, but rather about spirituality. It is about how to find and know God—often in spite of religion. It explains our need for spiritual nourishment in order to achieve spiritual health. It explains how the lack of spiritual health can lead to despair and spiritual death. It shows how we are taught not to believe in God—the source of spiritual nourishment. In the absence of an interactive relationship with God, we default to inadequate worldly substitutes.” I hope the message has come through.

I seldom think of heaven, but when I do I envision a place identical to our earth with people identical to us. The only difference is that there are no effects of spiritual denial. The environment is treasured and maintained responsibly. The people love all that is and all who are, committing themselves to the love and nurturing of all of creation rather than to seeking validation. I’m not aware of any group that came closer to that than the American Indians. I’ve read that none of their languages included a word that would translate into our word “religion.” Their spiritual beliefs were such a part of their daily existence they could not be separated conceptually. In the absence of spiritual denial, we wouldn’t need the word, either.

On those days when I’m feeling closest to God, I notice moments when the smog and pollution of spiritual denial seem to break momentarily and the light of God’s presence shines through. In spite of what we’ve done to our environment and to each other, I can still catch a glimpse of Eden.

Some will consider this book philosophical. Others will consider it religious. Whatever label is given, it was written because I believe God wanted me to write it. Only he can tell you what he might want you to do with it. In any event, I pray that your life in this environment of spiritual denial—and beyond—is a long and healthy one. Spiritual denial wouldn’t like that. God would love it. He’s concerned about your health. If you don’t believe me, just ask him yourself.