Touch Starved and Touch Averse to God

Not too long ago I found this video where Thaddeus Russell and his insistence on teaching his students that there is no such thing as objective truth was discussed. I went into some of the ramifications for this project of Russell’s and other post(?)-modernists, all of which are familiar relativist arguments to Catholics who study their faith and the rudimentary apologetics for it. Outside of apologetics, perhaps, these arguments are not so well known. But the fact remains that many moderns – including those “nones” in religious surveys – have been taught by Russell’s Red comrades that objective truth does not exist.

This is something that apologists and evangelists are attempting to combat, but for some it is difficult to engage in the fray except via Scripture and the Catechism. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this method of battle, others have noted that this is not necessarily the best method of reaching out to the “nones” whose idea of faith is very, very weak. It is also not going to persuade those who have been “burned” by an overuse of the Bible. As Crossover Queen noted in her post here:

“...I’m not advocating starting with any book of faith [to teach the fact that truth exists]. We have large swaths of our population who’ve never really been taught any faith, or were so badly mistaught and abused by people hailed by their community as “pillars of the church” that they’re willing to throw out the Bible with the bathwater. Trust me on this. Someone who’s been that badly burned needs to go back to the basics of truth and reality.”

Given her history, which can be learned through careful perusal of her site, she knows of what she speaks. Nor is she the only one to have made note of the fact that Christians – and in our case, Catholics – are often too quick to resort to the Good Book and other religious texts to make their point. On his YouTube channel known as The Council of Trent, Mr. Trent Horn made note of the fact that Wes Huff, a Protestant, did a better job of speaking to Joe Rogan about Christianity than some Catholic apologists would.

For those who may have missed it, Mr. Huff won a debate with Billy Carson about Christianity in the last few months. Carson is a TV personality who is said to be an expert in ancient civilizations and who has made patently bizarre claims about Christianity, as the linked video demonstrates. He thought that he could best Huff in a debate and discovered his error too late.

What is notable about Mr. Horn’s breakdown of Mr. Huff’s interview with Rogan is that he points out how Huff focuses not on religious texts but on contemporary and/or proven historical sources. This is something that Horn notes many Catholic apologists and evangelists will not do; there are some who will, but many more will not. They will, instead, retreat to Scripture and the Catechism because many Catholic apologists are used to debating Protestants. Not non-Christians, “nones,” or even pagans but our Protestant brethren who know the Bible well and have disagreements over its interpretation.

This means that these apologists are vulnerable whenever they go into “combat” to evangelize: they are only debating other Christians, or have only practiced arguing with other Christians. They are missing all the non-Christians whom they ought to be prepared to face, which leaves them ill-equipped to deal with those like Crossover who have been burnt badly by “Christians” who were anything but. They are also hampered when they have the opportunity to talk to those who, like Rogan and his audience, have a mistaken understanding of Christianity.

Russell and his comrades have done their work far too well. They have convinced legions of young people (many of those young people now being 35 and over) that there is no objective truth; there is only what you want, and how willing you are to get it. Anything goes in that form of relativistic belief, as we have seen all too well recently; but how do you counteract that teaching? If the people you are talking to have no concept of God, of deity, as anything other than “Odin = Zeus = God = Jesus Christ,” then how are you supposed to follow Christ’s mission to evangelize them?

Crossover’s advice as an agnostic is to go back to basics. Mathematical and tactile type basics (2+2 = 4, a cat is a cat, A = A) are immutable. No matter how many times Johnny is told that 2+2 = 5, it does not, and if you assemble 2+2 items in front of him, he is going to have to bend into a pretzel trying to convince himself to include the table on which those items sit thus makes five. Even if he will not concede that 2+2 =4, the audience watching you debate him will get the point.

If he refuses to accept this truth and you have no audience to convince besides him, consider walking for the exit. Sometimes “obstinate refusal” can be bait from a predator to lure in the unsuspecting. You do not want to end up prey, so yes, be prepared to leave the debate when you realize the other party is not being genuine.

The next piece of Crossover’s advice is to refer to murder mysteries, as these demonstrate that each life has value. It does not matter if the dead person in the narrative was the scum of the earth; he was murdered, that is, unlawfully removed from this world. This means his life had as much value as an innocent’s even if that person will be missed more than the scum who lies dead in the murder mystery. Only the state, after finding evidence of wrongdoing and proving unequivocally that a man committed a crime that requires execution, is allowed to take the life of a criminal. It is in self-defense, if you are in fear of your own or another’s life, that you may legally and morally take an assailant’s life by whatever means are available, as seen in The Forest of Lost Souls by Dean Koontz.

A murder mystery, by it’s nature, means someone – good or bad – lies dead outside the confines of the law. You cannot argue that the victim was a bad person and so “deserved” to die unlawfully without making law itself moot and, thus, making everyone prey. Robert Bolt observed this fact in his play A Man for All Seasons: When all the laws are taken down, including the law against murder, what will protect you? How will you defend yourself from being murdered simply for the crime of, perhaps, having the wrong hair color or frowning when someone thought you should have smiled?

Murder mysteries imply, if they do not outright state, that all lives have value. A sinner’s life is no less valuable than a righteous man’s life, and if either a sinner or a righteous man lies dead unlawfully in the narrative, then someone has violated the law and is attempting to avoid the consequences. Someone is trying to hide the truth that they killed another person, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

In response to a question I asked, Crossover discussed two other items on her site: these are touch starvation and touch aversion. The former is the desire above all else to be touched, because via touch one is assured of safety. They are assured that another person cares about them and will see to their needs if they cannot, or at least help them manage their own needs. According to Crossover, touch aversion can come from either “miswired nerves” – as seen in autistics – or trauma.

We live in a society that is at once starving for God’s touch and yet which is filled with individuals who have a similarly strong aversion to His touch. St. Augustine noted that our hearts are restless until they rest in God. But he who fled the Almighty for so many years also knew that the human heart which has been abused (and Russell and his kind are abusers, make no mistake about that) will flinch from even the gentlest direct touch. Perhaps that is one reason why Christians were given the commission to evangelize their fellows: God knew that some people would be too hurt to receive aid from Him directly. They would need to find Him through other people.

As Mr. Horn said, many Catholics have gotten very comfortable debating with Protestants. It is good to make the effort to bring our straying siblings back home to Rome, but what about all those other siblings we have outside the fold of Christ entirely? How are we to reach out to them, who have been burned by one form of abuse or another, to the point they flinch or freeze at the barest mention of the Bible? Or who can’t accept an overtly religious argument in the first place?

Once more, Crossover has the answer: don’t try to “cure” them of their “touch aversion” to God. They have good reason to be twitchy. Let them come to you, not the other way around, and don’t try to win the argument this way. Ask God to show you how to help, back off if you know you are losing your temper or the other person is getting too angry to think. Change the topic to cool off. There are Protestants as well as “nones” who have “touch aversion” to God, too. Try to be gentle when you speak with them.

Sometimes it’s not a direct conversation on “hot button topics” like religion that will help them come to Him. You might be surprised at how a discussion about Dungeons and Dragons, or Marvel Comics, or Star Trek could lead to a religious discussion. Simply telling others where the writers got a detail wrong (for instance, “No, Catholics do not and never have used the KJV Bible...okay, it’s a long story and I’m not surprised the writers think we use it, but…”) might be enough to convince them to ask more questions.

Remember (or look up) your history. The Didache is useful, but so are some of Huff’s resources. Others list historical examples that you can rely upon, and a little research (it will be morbid) into how crucifixion worked will also be helpful. Pick out some of the mysteries that Crossover lists. If they helped her then they are sure to help others.

Most of all, ask the Lord for help. He knows what you need better than you ever will. Even if you get caught off-guard and need to scramble for an item, He will have seen it ahead of time. Do your best, then let Him do the rest, as the saying goes.

In the end, that’s all any of us can do: our best. He only asks our best, having reserved the impossible for Himself. Don’t go taking His job from Him! Do your best – and leave the rest to Dad! He’s got it covered, and He has your back. Go forth and fear not!