MK forum

OK, the title is misleading. A little misleading. I was afraid that a title like "Why We Believe" would sound too much like I was trying to start a thread on apologetics and no one would bother to read it.

So, with apologies that this is not about apologetics, I will begin.

Human beings are constituted in such a way that our default setting is to believe what people tell us. In fact, one of the underlying premises of all our relationships with other people is that they are telling the truth. Even the most skeptical skeptic has got to overcome his doubts at some stage, on some level, to be able to function. To do otherwise is to spend one's whole life in an infinite regress - always trying to prove the proof of the proof. . .

When we see a police officer, our first reaction is to believe that they are a real police officer. When we go to a doctor, we do so with the assumption that we are talking to a real doctor, not a fraud. When we buy groceries, we believe that our Almond Joys are really the genuine article, full of nutritional value. OK, maybe that last example is a stretch, but you get my drift. We have to start out believing people are who they represent themselves to be, and are telling us the truth when they speak to us. Otherwise, you could never be sure that I am not NTM's spokesperson, masquerading as Gene Long.

This default setting is what gives rise to the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." It is "shame on the deceiver" because they have taken advantage of our normal, human, necessary response to other human beings: We believed them. This predisposition to believe is not gullibility, it is not naivety. It's how we're made.

Good salespeople, as well as successful con artists, know and understand that this bent towards credulity gives rise to a reluctance to raise doubts and questions. Society frowns on such confrontations, and we usually, even in the face of the most incredible stories (I was taken prisoner by aliens from Zork!) will at least nod politely until we can escape. When the person trying to persuade us is considered trustworthy, our inner conflicts often lead us to sign on the dotted line, even when the voices in the backs of our heads are shouting otherwise. We can hardly stop ourselves; it is part of what makes us human.

In cases where the prevaricator is known to us and when he is saying things we desperately want to believe are true, our credibility kicks into overdrive. As it should, as is natural. It would be weird if it were easy for us to distrust, mistrust, doubt or otherwise reject other people's words. Because of our natural bent to believe, the Bible warns us to "Beware, lest any man deceive you" and "Take heed that ye be not deceived" and "Do not deceive yourselves." If this came naturally for us, God probably wouldn't have told us to do it. There are no commandments telling us to eat when we're hungry.

I repeat: It is normal to believe others. Such belief is absolutely necessary for society to function, for communication to take place. This is why it is so very hard to doubt others. It is even hard to doubt in the face of evidence that tells us doubt is the best response. Doubting, questioning, or just withholding judgment from others, even those who have actively earned our distrust, feels bad, it feels unnatural, it feels despicable. We recoil from it. It is often the right thing to do, but it is not an easy thing to do.

@ Gene: I would have read a thread exploring apologetics and the necessity of knowing what we believe, how we believe, and defending it rationally. (Just so you know! )

However, as usual, you posted a very articulate, well-thought out post. Thanks for sharing.

Closely related to, and almost inseparable from our propensity to believe others, is the tendency to give to them "the benefit of the doubt." This is, after all, just another facet of gullibility. Well, OK, not gullibility, but the necessary suspension of doubt that is required for life to go on. It comes to us as naturally as breathing. Certain uncomfortable circumstances may require that we quit breathing for a short time, but as soon as those circumstances change, we revert back to our normal, natural and instinctive ways. It is how we are made. We prefer it.

Certain uncomfortable circumstances may require us to question the credibility of our friends, neighbors, acquaintances. When we do that, it feels as unnatural as holding our breath. It feels weird, it feels wrong, it feels uncomfortable. It requires a great deal of effort on our part, sending our stress levels into orbit. Around Pluto. We hate it.

We take people at their word, we give them the benefit of the doubt and we think the best of them because it is normal, because it feels good and because it usually pays off. Like breathing, we prefer it that way.

Even casual readers of this thread may have noticed by now that I am tip-toeing into this subject. I have been hoping that someone would discern where this is headed, and either head it off or take the bait and save me the trouble. Maybe it's time to cut to the chase. Maybe it is. But, I'm not ready to do so! Let me drop some hints, in the form of questions - questions to which answers would be appropriate and appreciated.

How might this predisposition to trust others, to give to others the benefit of the doubt, have affected how leadership handled cases of abuse? I mean, as a contributing factor, not the only factor, and not necessarily the major factor. Just as a part of the equation. It's part of our nature; it had to have played a part.

How did it affect the reception those decisions were given by victims, their families and other members of NTM, Inc.? What conflicting emotions can we expect to find among the various parties involved?

What about those who have spoken up and spoken out against the abuse? In terms of this particular aspect of our human nature, what did they have to overcome, what forms of "cognitive dissonance" did they face? Having overcome it, how might they be viewed by others who also have this particular aspect of human nature, but not the same experiences?

What internal struggles rage in those who find hope amidst the despair? How might they be viewed by those whose struggles are in different directions?

There's more where those came from. But, I'm going to stop now. Not because I'm scared, but because I want to.

Publius, apologetics is starting to look like a pretty tame subject!

Having been Chief Gullible for many years...I think I know where you might be headed with this. I think our parents stayed with NTM, because they knew their own hearts...and they assumed everyone around them had the same agenda...and were on the same page...but sadly, some were not even reading out of the same book. They believed staff and leadership...because they really believed everyone around them had the same vision.

Even now, I think everyone wants to believe that NTM will "do the right thing." Yet, we are assuming that they are, in fact, consummed with helping MK's get through this crisis and fight for justice for each and every abuse victim. I for one am not really hung up on that...I don't think they are consummed; I think we are just another "stumbling block" that they need to step over in order to continue operations as usual. But that is my own cynical attitude. I expect NTM to do what is necessary in order to preserve the mission. I expect them to make every decision in light of what is best for the mission over what is best for the MK's. I expect them to make every decision with legal council so that this "event" costs them the least possible, and NTM will be able to continue its "mission." I do hope that this event brings about some change in leadership at NTM. I do hope people, who have abused their positions of leadership for years, will be asked to step down. I do hope there will be some long paragraphs in "Family News" about why someone is suddenly "retiring." I pray that every victim of abuse will be treated as they should have been treated ten--twenty-thirty years ago. I have not forgotten that New Tribes is about getting the gospel to the Tribes...and I don't expect them to change their mission statement for all of their MK's, but as ornerythornery states so often...what benefit is it to be preaching the gospel with a millstone hanging around your neck?

Momof4, not only did you guess where I was heading with this, but you got so far out in front so fast that you left me in a cloud of dust!

I am going to try to catch up to you by focusing in on two words you used: "gullible" and "cynical." I am only using these words because you did, and I hope to put them in the context of the general observations I made above.

You denigrate yourself as "Chief Gullible." Why? Because you granted the same charitable presumptions to your brothers in Christ that you would give to the paperboy, the clerk at the gas station or the total stranger occupying the seat next to you on an airplane. You feel that you are at fault for exercising the very traits that make social interaction possible. You are, in effect, apologizing for reverting to the default mode of communication that is hard wired into our very being.

Should you not be praised for this?

"Perhaps, but not after repeated betrayals," is a valid reply. So, then, why do you now characterize yourself - your wiser and more experienced self - as "cynical"? Without being sidetracked by precise definitions, I think there is broad agreement that being cynical is not something to aspire to - at its very best, it is the other extreme from gullibility. It is capable of carrying far more stringent implications, as well.

Why would you choose that particular word? I maintain that it is because it feels so horrible to you to entertain doubts, to raise questions, to suspend that normal, natural, reflexive gift from God - that inborn desire to ascribe truthfulness to what others say, to put the best interpretation on what others do. Regardless of the reasonableness of the doubting, it does not feel right; it feels uncomfortable, like wearing a T-shirt front to back. It even feels sinful. We feel the need to apologize for it: "But that is my own cynical attitude." It's not your experiences, your heartbreaks and lessons learned hard?

What you have styled as "cynicism" others are going to see as "bitterness." Why? Probably not because of personal animosity towards you, though that may sometimes play a role, too. But, primarily because it is also difficult for them to maintain an attitude of doubt, questioning, uncertainty, suspicion. When they see in you what they resist in themselves, they search for an explanation. Accepting the premises upon which your doubts are based is too traumatic, too unnerving. Plus, your expectations that NTM will do what is necessary to preserve the mission, even if it means doing things that are not best for the MKs is at variance with NTM's statements. And, they - like you - are hard wired to accept as true those statements above their own, much less your, doubts. All that is left is bitterness to explain the doubts you've voiced.

I don't think you are gullible, cynical or bitter. At the very least, I do not think it is necessary for you to be any of those to have trusted and been betrayed, to have been betrayed and learned. We trust by nature, almost by necessity. Even when betrayed, it is hard to abandon that trust. Being wary is a very uncomfortable mental state to be in. But, admitting the discomfort does not mean that we are wrong in being ware; it is just out of the ordinary. And, it hurts.

@ Gene: I am not "waaaay too kind". I am an appreciator of well-articulated thoughts. In fact, even if I disagree with someone's premise (I use this merely to illustrate my point), I can appreciate well-articulated thoughts in a print medium that does not resort to ad hominems in order to prove a point. BTW apologetics correctly done is not so very tame and, like Aslan, is not so very safe, but oh, so very needed!

You, sir, DO articulate yourself well. You attempt (and succeed) in reducing hard thoughts, concepts and feelings to words. This is no small gift. So, thank you for your contributions.

If I may, I'd like to comment upon momof4's reply and the one to which you responded. I think she was simply articulating the result of years of "indoctrinization" that to be the "good" Christian one didn't question, one submitted. To do otherwise was to be in rebellion, not just against human authorities, but against God Himself. In fact, one person articulated well for many of us who attended Via that the way in which God was viewed was more akin to Jonathan Edward's depiction of God in his sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", than to the composite image of a God angry at sin, yet merciful and just, calling people to repentance, but desiring a concerted effort by the Spirit's enablement to live a holy life. We who attended Via, and those who were brought up with NTM ideology simply were not given the whole picture, but a distorted image designed to subvert and enslave our psyche so that we could be subservient. Over time, this practice by NTM produced two things: people who were conditioned to be gullible because our "aunts" and "uncles" really were "in loco parentis" and therefore presumed to be "good"; and, the notion that to question was sinful, and therefore to believe (presume?) that because one professes to be a Christian, they perforce, will not screw you. (Pardon the vernaculur, but I haven't the time to sugarcoat.)

Thus, momof4 (and others, including myself) were conditioned to be "gullible". Had we not been so conditioned or "wired", had we been encouraged to seek truth, according to God's Word, and to believe things (or people) only when we saw them or the concepts modeled out according to correct Biblical exegesis, I think many of us would not have been as gullible or, too trusting, based upon what others said (for example, "So and so is a good person, because we know their family"), but rather inquired deeper. For many of us, this would have led to much different choices in our lives . . . .

Am I making sense?

"To trust, but verify" is not the sign of a cynic, but someone who rightly recognizes the susceptibility of all to sin, for all have sinned. There are many Christian atheists populating churches, in positions of leadership, and headquartered in missions, who spout piously, but when "push comes to shove", when the dirty becomes seen, retreat, rather than deal biblically with sin. To recognize this fact is to rightly understand the world around us. Indeed, it is to rightly recognize the tendency within ourselves, absent the Spirit's power.

Paraphrasing the bard, most would rather remain where they are than fly to other perils they know not of.

"Trust, but verify" is a biblical mandate: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I don't think I've ever found any command in the Bible telling us to do something that we would do anyway. If there is such a command, this one isn't it. If it were easy, if it were natural, God probably would not have taken our time telling us to do it![/quote]


Agree. Commands are just that, "commands", not so much because they are hard to do (well, at least some of them anyway), but because we are not naturally inclined to do them.