Friday, May 31, 2013


I do not have in mind political freedom, which is always limited.  Fortunately in a representative democracy, however, the citizen has a voice in setting the limits and deciding how free "freedom" should be.  Political freedom is not absolute.  Ideally laws are drafted to give all groups the greatest amount of freedom possible under the law in a way that does not unnecessarily abridge the freedom of others who share minority views.  So in a representative democracy all give a little to get a little.
In this essay, however, I have in mind the ability of individuals to make decisions that have not been influenced, whether overtly or subtly, by their environment.  From the earliest moments in life no one can independently envision their course of life.  You cannot pick your parents, their social and economic status, or their prospects.  You take what fate decrees for you.  You cannot pick where you were born.  Your birthplace is chosen by your mother.  You cannot pick your native language, your skin color, or nationality.  All these things happen by chance.  Your religion or non-religion in the early years is the choice of your parents whom you did not pick.  You are indoctrinated by their religious views, or lack thereof.  You do not choose in the lower grades your educational institutions.  Schooling hinges on where you live and/or your parents' economic circumstances.  So the attitudes, values, quality and kind of instruction, inductively learned prejudices in the region where you live, and the acquired knowledge (both formal and cultural), which subtly mold and shape you, are also not of your own choosing.  Your socialization happens almost by osmosis.  By the time you think you have gained control from the dominant powers in your life (parents, local educational and political systems, religious institutions, regional cultural mores, etc.) you have already become something that may not be able to be changed, even if the thought occurred to you to do so.  Your future choices have already been influenced by the powers outside you in your past.  Thus people are free only to the extent that they can escape their own pasts.
In later life you find yourself immersed in a culture whose expectations, moral values, and ideals demand compliance if you are to live successfully in society.  The compliant are rewarded with status in the community and those who resist are marginalized.  In later years you marry and become focused on job and advancement—each economic institution has its own rules that must be mastered.  There are children to be tended, a home to be kept up to community standards, taxes to be paid, medical bills to be met, the children's future to consider, and retirement to be planned for.  The demands are such that you have little time to give to abstract things as thinking about becoming—and anyway you have already "become" by buying into or resisting the culture and its expectations.  You simply meet the requirements, without thinking, or challenge the expectations.  In any case you are simply too far in to life to make radical changes.
Nearing the age of retirement, some do find time for reflecting on where life has brought them, or perhaps better: on what their past and present have made them.  In retrospect, they look back over their lives searching for the turning points that shaped them. 
Religion is part of the problem rather than the solution.  All religions claim to possess Truth, particularly the missionary religions in their traditional forms: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  All three of these have attached themselves to certain cultures sympathetic to their religious systems.  They reciprocate symbiotically by helping to reinforce the cultural norms in their chosen societies.  This has always been the case with Christianity, for example.  In the first century Paul urged his churches to be subject to the governing authorities, "for there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Romans 13:1-7)—and he said this about the Roman Empire, no less!  The author of Revelation, whose time and situation were different, disagreed—calling the Roman Empire "Babylon the Great, a dwelling place of demons" (Revelation 18) and "mother of harlots" (Revelation 17:5).  Paul, a Roman citizen found in the Empire a symbiotic partner; the writer of Revelation did not. 
Christianity in America thinks of its gospel as "freeing."  Jesus said to the Jews "who believed in him":  "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).  And Paul wrote: "For Freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1).  He of course was talking about freedom from the Jewish Torah.  But Christianity has assimilated to American culture and its political system to such an extent that "Americanism" has become a synonym for "Christian."  The American flag is displayed in churches, the pledge of Allegiance is taught to children in church schools, and patriotic songs are sung in worship.  Not all churches are as blatant about the "Americanism" in their religious programs, however.  Nevertheless, the religious instruction and preaching in mainstream churches aim to produce good Christian citizens who reflect American societal norms, so that their lives reflect well on the church, something the early churches were concerned about as well (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12; 1 Peter2:13-15; Titus 3:1-2).  The early churches rejected the radical ethics of Jesus (if they happened to remember them) and turned to the ethical values (called "household codes") that governed private life in the early Roman Empire (for example, Colossians 3:18-4:1). 
Growing up in a lower middle class family in the Mississippi Delta in the 40s and 50s leaves me to wonder just how free I really was.
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

Thursday, May 16, 2013


Like most everything else in religion it depends on who you ask.  People have remarkably different ideas about what God does and does not do.   In contemporary Christian belief, to judge by the popular religious media on the internet, God does communicate through dreams.  Such a view is supported by the common view of early and late antiquity, which attests that all Gods communicate through dreams.  For example, Homer (Greek, early 8th century BC) describes the Gods appearing in disguise in dreams offering guidance (Odyssey 4.795-847).  The Greek God Asclepius encouraged the practice of "incubating" in his temples; that is, seeking cures from the God during dreams.   Plutarch (1st century AD Greek writer) said, "In popular belief it is only in sleep that people receive inspiration from on high" (Moralia 589D).  Cicero (1st century BC Roman) thought that it was "an ancient belief handed down from mythical times" that the Gods gave people the "foresight and knowledge of future events" through dreams and other means (Divination, 1-2).  Artemidorus (2nd century AD Greek), who wrote an extensive study on dreams (Oneirocritica), thought that the soul alone produced dreams, although the Gods may play a role in configuring them.  Aristotle (4th century BC Greek) in contrast to the common view of antiquity argued that dreams are latent remnants of sense perceptions and not prophetic messages from the Gods.  In sleep our sense perceptions emerge in the mind as dreams (On Dreams; On Prophecy in Sleep).
       In the Hebrew tradition God appeared in dreams either in person or through a messenger ("angels") to give guidance ( Genesis 20:3-7; Genesis 31:11-13, 24; 1 Kings 5-15; Numbers 12:4-8; 1 Samuel 28:6).  In the New Testament dreams only play a role in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically in Matthew's Birth Narrative (Matthew 1:18-2:23).  In Matthew's narrative Joseph is the main protagonist and all the significant elements of plot turn on God's guidance in dreams (1:20-24; 2:12-13, 2:19-20, 2:22).  The contrast between Luke's story (Luke 1:5-2:22) and Matthew's is dramatic.  Joseph is not the protagonist in Luke; he appears in the narrative only incidentally and only three times by name (Luke 1:27; 2:4, 16, 33, 43), and no elements of plot in Luke turn on dreams, which are not even mentioned.  Matthew also describes a troubling dream by Pilate's wife, who warns him to "have nothing to do with Jesus, a righteous man" (27:19).  There is no other indication that God communicates through dreams in the New Testament!  There is only one other reference to dreams in the New Testament: Acts 2:17 quotes Joel 2:28 ("your old men shall dream dreams," while "young men see visions"), but no indication that God invades anyone's dreams. Orthodox Christianity after the New Testament period distrusted the popular idea that gods communicated through dreams and were inclined to regard these phenomena among the pagans as the work of demons; leaders discouraged the thinking among Christians that God communicated in dreams.

       Dreams occur during the REM (rapid eye movement) stage of sleep, between unconsciousness and beginning consciousness. The modern understanding of dreams derives from the work of Sigmund Freud.  According to Freud dreams derive from our deepest desires or anxieties originating from our personal unconscious (whether id or preconscious ego).  In short, we are the source of what we dream; dreams do not come from a foreign initiative outside an individual, but arise from within, from things we have repressed and what is latent within us.  Modern theories, what little I understand of them, begin with Freud and agree that dream works derive from within us.

       So it appears that ancient and modern thought clash.  Are dream-works only the product of an individual's id and repressed ego, or are dreams subject to outside influence—that is, do Gods invade dreams for the purposes of divine communication?  The problem is more complex for someone who wants to champion what might be called the "Biblical view" (that God communicates through dreams), because Matthew's description of Joseph's dreams appears to be only Matthew's idea (or that of the author of the Birth Narrative), since Luke does not corroborate Joseph's dream works in his different story of the birth.  Matthew's birth narrative, as far as dreams are concerned, appears to be based on the common view of antiquity that Gods communicate through dreams.  The New Testament as a whole neither confirms nor denies that God communicates through dreams.

       The only evidence that God has communicated something in a dream is the dreamer's claim to be able to sort out the divine presence from the repressed desires and anxieties issuing from the id and ego.  I wouldn't bet my lifestyle on the prophetic guidance and oracular utterances a dreamer claims come from God.  And if God can't, or doesn't, get into our heads during sleep, what do we say about those who claim to have conversations with God during prayer?
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University