i told me so: self-deception and the christian life ( Part 2: the positive part)

So the human race is massively self-deceived and now perhaps you have a better sense of how we pull it off. This by itself is in a sense more of the same. We've long known we had a problem. What's more, anyone who’s taken a class in social psychology (or probably, for that matter, Psych 101) has seen numerous studies revealing the biases and frailties of the human heart and mind. What we don’t get as often when hearing about the research is insight into a constructive response to our situation. This is yet another feature of Ten Elshof’s book for which I’m grateful.

Giving self-deception a demotion

Awareness of self-deception is not new to the Christian tradition. By Ten Elshof’s analysis, we actually used to pay it more attention, not so much because it was particularly reviled per se as that it could be a door to more serious vices. But a funny thing happened. With the rise of existentialist philosophy, personal authenticity became a more important virtue in western culture than it once was. It still rises: my generation seems to place a higher premium than do our elders on being genuine and true to one’s self. This is born out in (unreferenced) studies Ten Elshof cites where people were asked to list their top 5 qualities needed to be a good leader: those over 50 put competence at the top. College-aged people said authenticity was most important. One might say authenticity implies a type of integrity pervading the whole person. Self-deception in contrast would constitute a fundamental breach of inner integrity, where self lies to self (or so I interpret Ten Elhsof's connection).   So when authenticity rose in the ranks of virtues, self-deception naturally attained a more detested status in our cultural ranking of vices.

People don’t have a big problem admitting they’re racists in a culture where racism isn’t thought to be a big deal. But when, as in a culture like ours, racism becomes socially unacceptable, one starts to find it difficult to find people who admit to the vice—even to themselves—even when a lot of racism is still happening. In the same way, now that we revile self-deception so much, we’re less inclined to admit to seriously entertain the possibility that we might be self-deceived. Do you see what’s going on here? We Self-deceive ourselves that we’re not self-deceived, recklessly ignoring the very thing we fear for the very reason that we fear it so much.

Ten Elshof’s solution to this ironic ball of cobwebs fights irony with irony: we must give self-deception a demotion. If we can comfortably accept and perhaps even appreciate our self-deceptive inclinations, it will be easier to notice and correct them when they become harmful.

This assumes that there really is something to be appreciated in our self-deceptive tendencies, something truly good and not just agreeable. I found this an interesting thought but needed convincing. What could be redeeming about our self-deceptive inclinations?

1.       Misfiring mechanisms

Some of the abilities that enable our self-deception are essentially great capabilities:

A.      We should be grateful for our ability to temporarily suspend the question of truth through perspective switching:

     a.       The ability to switch perspectives enables empathy. Seeing things empathetically from an offender’s perspective (however distorted their perspective really is) also helps one forgive the person.

     b.      Taking unrealistic perspectives also enables us to enjoy fiction, which in turn often enriches us with its message.

B.      Attention management is a necessary skill. For example, we need to be able to block out most of the stimuli of traffic in order to focus on driving safely. And by, for example, funneling you attention onto a friend while having a conversation in a restaurant, you show love and respect.

C.      Procrastination has its uses. Sometimes we save ourselves (and others) trouble and embarrassment by not acting on impulse in our moments of conviction. Sleeping on a big decision can likewise help us make wise choices and see things we wouldn’t otherwise have seen.

2.       Embracing hope when hope is slim

People in a cancer ward who the statistics predict will probably die nevertheless believe they will be the exceptions who survive. Perhaps they have an expectant hope that God physically heals in response to their prayers, despite that most of those dead statistics prayed to be healed too. A lot of them even did it with expectant hope. Generally people don’t discourage these patients from their hopes despite that they tend to involve a certain dose of unrealistic expectations. To ferret out all that is unreal in such hopes doesn’t actually seem like the right thing to do. And in fact, those who have hope, even those who believe they will get better against the odds, thereby actually face better chances, even if still not as good of chances as they envision.

It’s arguably good at times for friends and family to embrace such hope, not just the one who needs healing. An addict trying to quit who has failed repeatedly also needs to believe that this time she will succeed. Maybe it’s good for her friends to also push aside the evidence of all the times she’s failed in the past and hope along with her. The social support in such hope makes the thing hoped for more possible. Results aside, it’s also an expression of love.

3.       Grace to self

Jesus warned about “throwing our pearls to swine”: sharing certain truths with people who are not in a position to receive them well. This isn't necessarily as mean as it sounds. A wise counselor is gracious not only in tone but in timing. In the Bible, on Mount Sinai God shields Moses from a full perception of God’s person because frankly the whole picture would have killed Moses. Sometimes we’re not ready to handle the fullness of the truth.

When we’re not ready to deal with some aspect of reality, self-deception can help us pace ourselves. As we become ready to deal with the full truth, we may obscure true things from ourselves when it’s not yet helpful to have those facts confront us.

Suppose you see a friend’s teenage son involved in something sad that you feel this friend should know about—perhaps, for example you see the boy dealing drugs. You call the friend up to break the news. But when you make the call and ask how he’s doing, he says his wife just left him for another man, and he’s had suicidal thoughts. At this point, I’m guessing you probably don’t tell him about his son, and if he asks why you called, you conceal your original reason, right? Because this just isn’t the time for him to have to cope with this type of fact. In some circumstances, some truths can be life-destroying. Perhaps God has graciously enabled us to avoid facing certain truths for just this sort of reason. We can be as gracious with ourselves as we ought to be with others, practicing discretion as to when painful truths ought to be unveiled.

Thus, Ten Elshof contends that God designed us to have a capacity for self-deception.  If we can agree to this, there will be less shame in recognizing that we are in fact self-deceived.

Clearly though, self-deception is often not our friend. So what further steps can we take when it’s not helping us?

1. Die
Die to the sins that hold you (which motivate the self-deception in order to perpetuate themselves). This is a mandatory part of following Jesus. Put into action some realistic plan to crucify the sin. For instance: Confess a secret sin to loving friends, telling them the whole truth as best you can. Declare your intention to put it to death. Seek counsel from someone who’s found their way out of your situation: get their advice on what to do. Do it, and when (as will probably happen) you fail, confess your failure, consider if you can refine (or must rethink) your strategy, and keep going, remembering God’s persisting love for you. As with other dying things, if the sin is dying it should become apparent with time.

2.  Groups without Groupthink
Groupthink tends to happen when people of a group already enjoy a common set of biases and let a culture preside where it’s uncomfortable to seriously question the favorite perspective. So if we want to guard against groupthink, we must instead cultivate safe communities of united disagreement. Such groups pursue diversity, preserving theological and sociopolitical differences without setting them aside. They pursue meaningful dialog and through it have hope of progress toward the truth. In this sort of group the grace of Christ pervades and draws us together enough that we don’t feel a need to vindicate our existing views or run from disagreement. Discovering we’re wrong is cause for celebration. With a group like this, it becomes difficult to vilify liberals or conservatives, Reformed, Lutherans or Mennonites—not because of some standard of political correctness or fear of conflict but because we share our lives with them and have come to respect them as people.

3.  The Community of the Holy Spirit
Christians believe we’re inhabited by a being who understands exactly what goes on in our heads and hearts, loves us always, is the definition of wisdom and is constantly available for a constructive relationship. Who better than the Spirit of God to help us out of our self-deceptive strategies? For many of us though (me, often) the doctrine of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can seem like mystical words that don't pan out to mean anything practical in real life.

As in other relationships, our relationship with him will be most fruitful if we make an effort to pursue that relationship. God generally doesn’t force himself on people. Cultivating our bond with him takes attention. Ten Elshof cites the way that in his relationship with his wife, writing letters to her reflecting in detail on his positive experience of her presence and love actually does as much for him as it does for her. Along these lines, if we want to take advantage of our privilege, we should:

1) Make an effort to be available, scheduling time with God.
2) Reflect in detail on our experience of being God’s beloved.
3) Stick with it for the long haul.Most things worthwhile take a while to yield most of the fruit promised.

Certain topics of inquiry, self-deception among them, carry inherent risks. So Ten Elshof concludes with three warnings:

1)      Beware of hyper-authenticity. By this, he means that expressing whatever you feel at a given time isn’t always a great idea. For instance, a waiter in a bad mood who freely expresses the mood through his service, traipsing about his labors with an unhappy expression and complaining from time to time, isn’t being  a good waiter.

Christians are called to a lifestyle of imitating Jesus. We bless those we feel like cursing. We behave generously when we’re feeling selfish. We contradict our own impulses in order to be re-trained and transformed into the people we’re meant to become.

2)      Beware of undue suspicion of self-deception in others. Often we come away from sermons thinking about the people we feel could have learned something in some area of deficiency had they been there, despite that in theory we should be focusing on learning something ourselves. There’s the same tension here. 

      Thinking about self-deception in others can actually work into a self-deceptive strategy for ourselves: Why would Sarah not see the truth as I do? She must be self-deceived! Now I can comfortably disregard her perspective. Far be it from me to actually take her thoughts seriously or even become convinced that she might have a point!

What’s more, there’s rarely much we can do about other people’s self-deception. If Alex is deceiving himself, he’s probably not ready to see the whole truth, and will probably shrug it off (or worse) if you point it out to him. On the other hand, if he is ready to come to terms with reality, he’s probably transitioning out of the self-deception on his own.

There are exceptions; this book hopes to encourage us to create communities where self-deception can be openly addressed. But such situations require a mutual invitation to help in that way, and this invitation is usually limited to a small number of people.

3)      Beware of undue self-doubt. Too much worry about self-deception can paralyze a person and keep them from acting on their convictions. Kids may go through a phase of getting their parents’ oppinions on every little choice before they can forward with confidence. But as they mature, they should grow out of this, and parents may refrain from commenting on questions that don’t seriously endanger the kid so that the child learns to take responsibility. Similarly, we may want God’s stamp of approval on everything we do, but often he doesn’t tell us what to do, letting us learn from our mistakes and grow up. 

So there you have it: I Told Me So (at least as interpreted by Tom). What do you make of the book?

Well what do I make of it? Certainly I'm grateful. I felt like this was a book I had vaguely hoped to write someday when I'm a professor of something, but now don't get to / have to, as Gregg Ten Elshof did a wonderful job.

Do I disagree anywhere? I'm not sure. I find his "strange celebration" of self-deception audacious and refreshing. But I'm not sure I go as far as it seems he might: Usually I hope for ways to productively direct focus without all-out believing falsehoods. I don't find that duplicitous even if it's not always truth-seeking either. If I were wasting away from a fatal disease, I think I would still like to face up to the statistics and encourage my family and friends do that too. But the idea wouldn't be to despair of hope. No, I like to think I would pursue a nuanced, informed type of hope. Is that necessary for everyone? I believe it's virtuous to seek that sort of hope, but that the virtue of an accurate understanding being integrated into hope often ranks rather low in priority: I would salute cancer victims who reckon the difficult facts into their ways of hoping, but wouldn't be too bothered by the ones who opt for a simpler hope. Perhaps someone reading this who has more familiarity than me with the process of dying cares to comment.

I appreciate the notion that it is God's gift to us that we can pace ourselves in our apprehension of difficult realities. I think sometimes this subconscious pursuit of willful ignorance can actually be a tool in making learning more effective: drinking from a firehose can knock you off balance, and you might hit your head in the process-- too many troublesome facts can lead to emotional storms that frustrate one's attempt to cope with and integrate the information in a healthy and balanced way.

Ten Elshof used a lot of examples of self-deception from Christians engaged in apologetics (and with good reason, I would say). My own intellectual doubts about God's reality and the truth of the Christian worldveiw come to mind in when reflecting on my experiences of self-deception. I believe I've tried to face lots of hard questions without settling on easy answers, but with a bias favoring Christian influences and a fair amount of "pacing myself" with the information I face. I suppose I'm not the one to judge how faithful I've been to the information before me in how I've modeled my worldview. But I think I could have done worse: I could have fled doubt. To do that I think I would have had to practice more pro-Christian self deception to cling to my beliefs. From where I stand, that sounds like a path of hypocrisy, given that as one who would seek to spread God's good news about Jesus I would in some cases be inviting others to open their eyes to the truth of God in front of them, when I've squeezed my eyes shut to any serious possibility that truths to the contrary are waiting in front of me.

On the other hand, without some attention management, procrastination and the like, I think I might have fallen into depression. I bet I would not have been so able to explore the junction between faith and doubt and whether a nuanced faith could meet my challenges. I have a feeling that whether in response to the fire hose I left the faith, or shut down the doubt program to return to option A (assuming there wasn't a neat victory for the Christian worldview), or languished on the fence, I might have been plagued by guilty "what if"s from one angle or another: Have I sold my integrity? Have I forsaken God (who might be real after all)?  Have I hamstrung my ability to do good things with my life by getting mired in this?

 Ten Elshof's solutions to self-deception aren't all that easy, are they? Church in Protestant America doesn't seem to be a place where we normally attain "united disagreement"."Divided agreement" is more our specialty. Mos people gravitate toward people like us, don't we? And when we do have diverse perspectives in a group, don't we usually avoid topics of contention? That or one side speaks while the other stays quiet. Finding accountability in dying to sin also feels hard to achieve.