I recently commented on a friend's post about research on "gay lifestyles". The post was referenced back to "Renew America", which is a Christian grassroots political organization. Such organizations have a particular agenda that they deem significant because of their belief that "God" has ordained Scripture to be the "tried and true" (and right) way to promote human flourishing. I have questions.
First of all, I do not accept that the text as "inspired by God", other than it was written by men in certain situations that granted wisdom of and for that day. Today's wisdom is a scientifically oriented one, not a religiously biased one.
Secondly, I do not believe that anyone should be promoting a re-orientation to another's identity, unless it is damaging to society. This research was promoting a "repentance" from a lifestyle that was considered forbidden by "God", as they take the text at "face value". Such "re-framing" of identity is "in Christ". It is a movement of social organizing for a specific purpose, which is "God's Kingdom", as they interpret Scripture.
Such people believe that "God" exists and oversees all things and "God" has revealed His will in the confines of The Book. This is the traditonal view of evangelical Protestant Christianity, but it does not recognize the broader questions other than take at "face value" what is "to be believed". They seek to validate Scripture by a presuppositonal stance toward it! There is no way to disprove Scripture, because one's community is a self-perpituating entity. Truth is to be proven, and experienced, instead of sought out and discovered! And those that don't believe "lack faith" to believe and be "saved"!
This "tradition" does not take into consideration the history of the Church, or the roots of Judiasm, when they think of "faith". Theirs is an experiential and lived faith that they think is appropriate to promote for everyone. Theirs is an intense "mission focused' and oriented. All people are to be brought under their umbrella, as this is promoting "the Kingdom of God". While such a movement is not rooted in "deep history", it is rooted in American Revivalist tradition, and serves the purposes of furthering the political machine of "the social".
I know what it is like to suffer under another's religious conscience. Transitional and memorable life events were tainted or undermined by those that "thought better" than what I desired! The reason could be nothing other than the "conviction" that they were right and I was wrong, or that they were the "authority"! There was no "discussion" about differences of opinion, because their "conviction" was "not an opinion"!!! It was "God's fact"! If there was resistance, then I was rebellious, disobedient and would live under "God's judgment". The fear of God was to "keep people in line". Such attitudes did not "happen" until there was a conversion experience! Then, the experience somehow gave such as these "God's mind"!
"Self" is defined by such religious cultures and ceases to exist apart from another's sanctoning, sanctimonious and righteous attitude about life and all that is! Persecution will ensue if one does not acquiesce to such "convictions". A Bible beating is the end of such questioning, or differences of opinion. One wonders if these have any sense of "self" other than what they "feel" to be "God". The truth is that "God" is really THEIR conscience! And others are to be conformed to it!
I have come to the point where religion is not beneficial to me, and I do not want to promote it, other than allow those that want to affirm their faith in a way that is non-interfering to others.
When I think back about my journey, I used to also be persuaded that leaving churches that allowed divorcees to teach, or withdrawing approval of those that chose to see things differently was an appropriate way to handle "life's problems". And if everyone would concur with Scripture everyone would come to a unified understanding and life would be "perfect". In the meantime, I was comforted with the fact that life's tragedies were to teach me for "God's purposes"! It was all about me, because I needed it to be!
I still need it to be "about me", as everyone else does. Self interst is a "fact of life". Individuals are unique in their interests, but not in their desires. The desire to be loved, accepted and understood is a human trait, but all individuals will differ in interests, values and commitments. I don't believe that to be "human" means that one has to be a clone in one's interests, values and commitments. This seems to be the case for many in the evangelical camp. They think that if one has a difference of opinion concerning such social issues as abortion, gay marriage, etc. then, you are undermining "God's order" of the universe!
Gay marriage should be legalized in our society because it is just. Society can stll affirm monogomy which affirms the value of the two individuals involved, as well as protect society from STDs. Gays have desires, as all humans do for sexual expression and commitment to the person that means the most to them. That expression should be allowed within the confines of a marital relationship, where the partners can be respected as equal before the law and not marginalized by those that think they have "God's mind"!
Showing posts with label Christian tradition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian tradition. Show all posts
Friday, October 28, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Groups and "Others"...
I find it disturbingly paradoxical to talk about "the other"," the Other" or "Othering". Why?
Groups form their identities by various distinctives. These are cultural differences, which define values. The problem comes when values conflict with another "group", which they inevitably will. Focusing on these differences and using them as forms of "entitlement" does not help those of a minority race to "overcome". But, it enables an entitlement mentality. Ethnic identities are a biological fact, but we don't have to promote the idea that their social status deserves special treatment! This is a nonesstialist position.
I read recently where the Academy has gone from "the other" to "the Other" to "Othering". It seems to me that "the other" is a particular individual that is different from you. "The Other" is another group, whether defined by differences of interest or values, or a "people group", while "othering" is an action taken toward "the other", and/or "The Other". Discrimination is about distinguishing, while "othering" is looking at commonalities. Both are useful, but must be understood within the proper "frame.
Groups are dangerous to individuation, as they do pressure individuals to conform to certain standards, or values. While this is good for children, it can be deadly for adults. Deindividuation has illustrated how group behavior all too easily becomes "herd mentality" and "mob behavior". Mobs create unrest and undermine the ability to think critically for oneself. It is peer pressure, plain and simple. Such "group think" is the group's "protection", security or defense against "foreign bodies" and is useful to maintain their survival. But, "group think" can also provide a cover for oppressive government or abusive dictators to defend their "territory". In these cases, propaganda can be used to manipulate and marginalize those that ask questions, or think "outside the box". Social conformity, in these cases, create a society where oppression rules over creativity, and individuation.
An identity is formed by one's values, which must be underwritten by liberty, not paternalistic government, that "tells you what those values MUST be", in areas that really do not make a difference in societal flourishing. Otherwise, the individual is left without the ability to choose his vocation, or compete for a particular job. Americans have valued this form of individual liberty. While it is true that not everyone has the same capacity to perform every job, it is also true that there is a wide variety of jobs or interests that should be open to the individual in a free society.
In America, the States determine many social norms or values, such as abortion, gay marriage, legal ages for marriage, and other such "standards". These "standards" are the "cultural norm" for a particular local culture. But, at the national level, diplomacy is always negotiation of differences between or among different interests, cultural values, or standards of behavior. And these are determined by international law. It does become problematic when certain cultures do not allow liberty of conscience to the individual, as to religious conviction/claims. These cultures have been given "special priviledge" or exception, to the Universal Human Rights Declaration, which is disturbing to the nonessentialist. The West has paid a high costs in tolerating "intolerance".
Both postmodernity and multiculturalism are anti-thetical to rationality. Rationality is the only way or means of finding a place for "law and order". Otherwise, laws will be conflicting and confusing, because they will defend a particular culture, while discriminating against other cultures....or individual values.. An exclusivist culture defends a particular Tradition, while an individualist defends biological propensity/genetic identity. It is probably that both social conditioning AND genetic identity make for the uniqueness of individuals across the globe. And reason, not tradition, is the only way to understand those differences.
I am only beginning to think through these issues, so I can form my own opinion, and not be led by a paternalistic "authority", that limits my ability to come to my own conclusions.
Groups form their identities by various distinctives. These are cultural differences, which define values. The problem comes when values conflict with another "group", which they inevitably will. Focusing on these differences and using them as forms of "entitlement" does not help those of a minority race to "overcome". But, it enables an entitlement mentality. Ethnic identities are a biological fact, but we don't have to promote the idea that their social status deserves special treatment! This is a nonesstialist position.
I read recently where the Academy has gone from "the other" to "the Other" to "Othering". It seems to me that "the other" is a particular individual that is different from you. "The Other" is another group, whether defined by differences of interest or values, or a "people group", while "othering" is an action taken toward "the other", and/or "The Other". Discrimination is about distinguishing, while "othering" is looking at commonalities. Both are useful, but must be understood within the proper "frame.
Groups are dangerous to individuation, as they do pressure individuals to conform to certain standards, or values. While this is good for children, it can be deadly for adults. Deindividuation has illustrated how group behavior all too easily becomes "herd mentality" and "mob behavior". Mobs create unrest and undermine the ability to think critically for oneself. It is peer pressure, plain and simple. Such "group think" is the group's "protection", security or defense against "foreign bodies" and is useful to maintain their survival. But, "group think" can also provide a cover for oppressive government or abusive dictators to defend their "territory". In these cases, propaganda can be used to manipulate and marginalize those that ask questions, or think "outside the box". Social conformity, in these cases, create a society where oppression rules over creativity, and individuation.
An identity is formed by one's values, which must be underwritten by liberty, not paternalistic government, that "tells you what those values MUST be", in areas that really do not make a difference in societal flourishing. Otherwise, the individual is left without the ability to choose his vocation, or compete for a particular job. Americans have valued this form of individual liberty. While it is true that not everyone has the same capacity to perform every job, it is also true that there is a wide variety of jobs or interests that should be open to the individual in a free society.
In America, the States determine many social norms or values, such as abortion, gay marriage, legal ages for marriage, and other such "standards". These "standards" are the "cultural norm" for a particular local culture. But, at the national level, diplomacy is always negotiation of differences between or among different interests, cultural values, or standards of behavior. And these are determined by international law. It does become problematic when certain cultures do not allow liberty of conscience to the individual, as to religious conviction/claims. These cultures have been given "special priviledge" or exception, to the Universal Human Rights Declaration, which is disturbing to the nonessentialist. The West has paid a high costs in tolerating "intolerance".
Both postmodernity and multiculturalism are anti-thetical to rationality. Rationality is the only way or means of finding a place for "law and order". Otherwise, laws will be conflicting and confusing, because they will defend a particular culture, while discriminating against other cultures....or individual values.. An exclusivist culture defends a particular Tradition, while an individualist defends biological propensity/genetic identity. It is probably that both social conditioning AND genetic identity make for the uniqueness of individuals across the globe. And reason, not tradition, is the only way to understand those differences.
I am only beginning to think through these issues, so I can form my own opinion, and not be led by a paternalistic "authority", that limits my ability to come to my own conclusions.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Choice, Responsibility, and Negotiation
Choice is an ultimate value for any human, as choice values differences as to value and interests. Responsibility is about owning the consequences for one's choices and negotiating with others about differences of value or commitments. All of society's relationships should be based upon the individual right of choice.
Negotiation is about compromise, and determining whether such compormise is possible in relationship. Negotiation is part of the process of evaluating priorites as to commitments and values. In political terms, it is knowing that one might not have an "ideal" value upheld, but knowing that living in a free society doesn't affim "ideals" as defined, otherwise, the society will not be free as to diversity of definitions".
The Founders were "Wise", not "ideologues"! Wisdom means that they knew that government had to limit itself, so the individual can have the liberty to define their own "ideals". The Founders "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was based on the understanding of "Providence", or in today's terms, leadership. Leaders do determine and define what these ideals mean in, to and for society.
Liberals value "civil rights" or the "real world", while the conservative values "traditional values" and the "ideal world". Both have a place in our society, as to America's values, because we do affirm the family, as well as indivdiual equality before the law. America does value pragmatism and science, but we also value religious liberty. The disagreement comes from re-defining certain aspects of society. Such social change is viewed byt the liberal as a necessary right to continue to maintain the value of "equality before the law". But, the conservative views such social change as a violation of traditional principles, which might undermine society's foundations. Such differences were the basis of our Civil War.
Each side has valid points. Social change has occurred and will continue to occur, but we must not loose the values of tradition that have underwritten our society. It is just a matter, hopefully, of listening, weighing, negotiating, and coming to terms. This is responsible leadership. And it is what America needs most right now! Fair and balanced!
Negotiation is about compromise, and determining whether such compormise is possible in relationship. Negotiation is part of the process of evaluating priorites as to commitments and values. In political terms, it is knowing that one might not have an "ideal" value upheld, but knowing that living in a free society doesn't affim "ideals" as defined, otherwise, the society will not be free as to diversity of definitions".
The Founders were "Wise", not "ideologues"! Wisdom means that they knew that government had to limit itself, so the individual can have the liberty to define their own "ideals". The Founders "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was based on the understanding of "Providence", or in today's terms, leadership. Leaders do determine and define what these ideals mean in, to and for society.
Liberals value "civil rights" or the "real world", while the conservative values "traditional values" and the "ideal world". Both have a place in our society, as to America's values, because we do affirm the family, as well as indivdiual equality before the law. America does value pragmatism and science, but we also value religious liberty. The disagreement comes from re-defining certain aspects of society. Such social change is viewed byt the liberal as a necessary right to continue to maintain the value of "equality before the law". But, the conservative views such social change as a violation of traditional principles, which might undermine society's foundations. Such differences were the basis of our Civil War.
Each side has valid points. Social change has occurred and will continue to occur, but we must not loose the values of tradition that have underwritten our society. It is just a matter, hopefully, of listening, weighing, negotiating, and coming to terms. This is responsible leadership. And it is what America needs most right now! Fair and balanced!
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Can All We Have Be Faith?
Today's sermon was about faith in the "unseen". The scripture about the blind man being healed by Jesus was the text. The pastor's premise was that belief in the unseen world of "God" will help you "see" the unseen realities of "God". This is faith. Indeed, it does take faith, so what does that mean? It predominately means that one bases their understanding of life and all that is on faith's premises of "text and/or tradition".
All humans have reason, but not all of us use our reasoning capacity in the same way. Those that believe based on "faith's claims" either must use their reasoning abilities to believe in Aristotle's God of the past. God is the First Cause. And even, if one suggests that God is not the first Cause, but that "God'" superintends evolution, one is still believing in a "god" outside the sphere of human reality. Then,, there are those that believe that "god is present within reality itself". Natural causes, such as man's choices are irrevocably "God's design", because God oversees the choices men make to "work all things out together for good", for those "called according to his purpose". One still has to interpret experience by "faith" in the text and/or tradition, confining reason to an "inside' group mentality. This is called God's foreknowledge. God understands the evil choices that men will make and somehow that becomes "his will". We are to submit and obey to all circumstances, for this is the "will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you"! (I wonder what leadership does, then? Sit back, trust "god", and obey? No, they are the ones accountable for making policy that plays into life. And leaders that do so to restrict another liberty are tyrannical.) This is why men and "god" cannot be above the law Our Constitution defines good government where each human is valued and has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Good governmen, as well as good leadership allows for individual liberty and choice of value. Good government is based on the consent of the governed.
The Text is not a supernatural "Gift that fell From heaven", but a human testimony of experience/belief. And these beliefs were based on an ancient paradigm, not a modern scientific understanding. But, just as much as the Text is not "supernatural", neither is Tradition Tradition is really history about the social and political context that formed the scripture/text itself. Church history is also within the context of a larger context of world history. Tradition is a specified history, based on the social/political history of the Church.
Faith-based reasoning isn't justifiable except to those that believe, because of its group mentality, and/or irrational claims of faith. Faith becomes only defined by one's choice of commitment of value. Does one find a faith community of benefit to one's life journey? If so, these faith communities will define one's faith for you. This is how the Protestant denominations have worked, even though Protestantism was resistance to defining authority. As the Protestant faith is a foundational principle to America's understanding of religion, America does not allow the State to sancton one faith above another. Some may not choose to value a faith communities' defining faith. And these will find themselves as "outliers" to faith communities. Some of the Founding Fathers were "outliers" to orthodox Christian faith and America was to be tolerant toward such faith/beliefs.
Those that use reason to justify faith are apologists. These use their reason to justify faith claims about "God's intervention" in the world, or "God", as the world. One takes God as the over-seer, while the other sees "god" as the world, itself. One focuses on a supernatural God, while the other focuses on a natural God; the God of the philosophers.
It is very dangerous to believe that one's faith is absolute, because faith is context specific (denomination or religion). Therefore,good government cannot be based on "faith claims", because then, government would have to sanction a certain specified faith, which our First Amendment forbids. We became a country that had no allegience to one size fits all "faith". America believes in the indivdiual's right of choice about that value. And America also defends those that don't have that value, just as well!
Our pastor ended his sermon by suggesting that when one was at work and chose to talk about the "Tea Party" movement to use biblical or religious language! I thought that this sleight of hand was a way for him to gain the Christian Right's attention to religious ideals and values of the "religious left", instead of economic, democratic, and political values of capitalism.
Our government and the West in general believes that individuals have a right to disagree and be a part of the political process. How does one see government and the individual? Is government to have positive liberties and rights, or is the individual to have these positive rights? Is government to be understood to only have negative liberties and rights, or is the individual to only have negative liberties and rights? Our Founders believed in limited government. That is negative liberties and rights. This is the basis of Constitutional balance of power. One cannot have a government based on government power, otherwise, those governing have all the power, while the people are pawns to government dictates. This is a dangerous position because such thinking leaves room for radical liberal ideologues to gain power in our government without any question from the Right. We must maintain the balancing of views so that our government will not be run without accountability to "the other side". Otherwise, our governemnt will be defined by a "one size fits all" and such governing would be tyrannical to those that disagree!
Irregardless of what the pastor said today, the political realm is the real world and whether one believes in god or not, one must live in and under the type of government that exists in/over one's society.
All humans have reason, but not all of us use our reasoning capacity in the same way. Those that believe based on "faith's claims" either must use their reasoning abilities to believe in Aristotle's God of the past. God is the First Cause. And even, if one suggests that God is not the first Cause, but that "God'" superintends evolution, one is still believing in a "god" outside the sphere of human reality. Then,, there are those that believe that "god is present within reality itself". Natural causes, such as man's choices are irrevocably "God's design", because God oversees the choices men make to "work all things out together for good", for those "called according to his purpose". One still has to interpret experience by "faith" in the text and/or tradition, confining reason to an "inside' group mentality. This is called God's foreknowledge. God understands the evil choices that men will make and somehow that becomes "his will". We are to submit and obey to all circumstances, for this is the "will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you"! (I wonder what leadership does, then? Sit back, trust "god", and obey? No, they are the ones accountable for making policy that plays into life. And leaders that do so to restrict another liberty are tyrannical.) This is why men and "god" cannot be above the law Our Constitution defines good government where each human is valued and has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Good governmen, as well as good leadership allows for individual liberty and choice of value. Good government is based on the consent of the governed.
The Text is not a supernatural "Gift that fell From heaven", but a human testimony of experience/belief. And these beliefs were based on an ancient paradigm, not a modern scientific understanding. But, just as much as the Text is not "supernatural", neither is Tradition Tradition is really history about the social and political context that formed the scripture/text itself. Church history is also within the context of a larger context of world history. Tradition is a specified history, based on the social/political history of the Church.
Faith-based reasoning isn't justifiable except to those that believe, because of its group mentality, and/or irrational claims of faith. Faith becomes only defined by one's choice of commitment of value. Does one find a faith community of benefit to one's life journey? If so, these faith communities will define one's faith for you. This is how the Protestant denominations have worked, even though Protestantism was resistance to defining authority. As the Protestant faith is a foundational principle to America's understanding of religion, America does not allow the State to sancton one faith above another. Some may not choose to value a faith communities' defining faith. And these will find themselves as "outliers" to faith communities. Some of the Founding Fathers were "outliers" to orthodox Christian faith and America was to be tolerant toward such faith/beliefs.
Those that use reason to justify faith are apologists. These use their reason to justify faith claims about "God's intervention" in the world, or "God", as the world. One takes God as the over-seer, while the other sees "god" as the world, itself. One focuses on a supernatural God, while the other focuses on a natural God; the God of the philosophers.
It is very dangerous to believe that one's faith is absolute, because faith is context specific (denomination or religion). Therefore,good government cannot be based on "faith claims", because then, government would have to sanction a certain specified faith, which our First Amendment forbids. We became a country that had no allegience to one size fits all "faith". America believes in the indivdiual's right of choice about that value. And America also defends those that don't have that value, just as well!
Our pastor ended his sermon by suggesting that when one was at work and chose to talk about the "Tea Party" movement to use biblical or religious language! I thought that this sleight of hand was a way for him to gain the Christian Right's attention to religious ideals and values of the "religious left", instead of economic, democratic, and political values of capitalism.
Our government and the West in general believes that individuals have a right to disagree and be a part of the political process. How does one see government and the individual? Is government to have positive liberties and rights, or is the individual to have these positive rights? Is government to be understood to only have negative liberties and rights, or is the individual to only have negative liberties and rights? Our Founders believed in limited government. That is negative liberties and rights. This is the basis of Constitutional balance of power. One cannot have a government based on government power, otherwise, those governing have all the power, while the people are pawns to government dictates. This is a dangerous position because such thinking leaves room for radical liberal ideologues to gain power in our government without any question from the Right. We must maintain the balancing of views so that our government will not be run without accountability to "the other side". Otherwise, our governemnt will be defined by a "one size fits all" and such governing would be tyrannical to those that disagree!
Irregardless of what the pastor said today, the political realm is the real world and whether one believes in god or not, one must live in and under the type of government that exists in/over one's society.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Myth Brings Meaning
Myth is known by anthropologists to bring meaning to a certain culture. And meaning is "made" or created by mythologizing history.
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
Intellectual Questions Breed Uncomfortable Challenges
One of the plays we saw this past week-end, "Spinoza on Trial", challenged the social norm of Judiasm and the Church. One had to question which was of greater value or significance, reason or revelation.
Christianity has its roots in Judiasm but has developed whole theological systems to "explain God". Judiasm is more of a "wisdom tradition". The Christian faith in certain circles is an exclusive faith. And it is the theological tradition that underwrites the exclusivity.
Judiasm is a tradition that is handed down through the generations and is an ethnic identity, whereas Christianity is not in some segments of Christiandom. Christianity is a "gentile religion" and was underwritten by "Paul", using Jesus as a means to that end.
Judiasm is a tradition that is grounded in the real world of everyday life, not in the "ideal" world of an after-life. Judiasm is a humanistic understanding of life, not a de-valuation of human life.
Spinoza had the liberty to "think outside the box" of his Judiasm in what was called a tolerant Amsterdam. Spinoza's parents had fled the Spanish Inquisition and the Jews were told by the Dutch to remain silent concerning their religion. (The Dutch are Reformed and Catholic in thier religious background. ) Although Spinoza was Jewish, Spinoza had made a Reformed friend and had fallen in love with a Catholic girl. How was he to "be himself" apart from sharing his thoughts about God?
Spinoza's "God" was a god based on mathmatical precision that underwrote his logic. Because his intellect was a strong force in his life, he couldn't help but "think out loud" concerning his faith. But, his faith was a challenge to the ruling authorities to his Jewish community and the Dutch civic authority.
Spinoza found himself betrayed by the Reformed friend, and eventually shunned by his Catholic girlfriend. His thinking and questioning of theism was at issue in his trial. His mentor was torn over whether to stand with his student and his brillant challenge to "tradition", or to stand with his traditional community. What was he to do? Was he to loose his place in his own society to defend Spinoza, and what then? What about his own life?
His mentor chose to stick by his own community, even though he had to agree that Spinoza's logic was equal to none, and one could not question the thoroughness of his "solution" about God.
Spinoza's view of "god" was monistic. God was nature, or Nature was God. People's essence is "who they are". God was no longer seen as an outside source of value, but "what is" was and is God.
The fatalistic mentality has it problems and its benefits. Those that adhere to such a view can relax, and refresh themselves on the knowledge that all that is, should be embraced. But, is this fatalism wise? Is there no moral judgment or value? And what of evil? Is evil seen as part of God, too? Certainly, this is what scriptures teach, as there is no dualistic universe. God is one, in nature. His was as monistic view of God. And monism falls in line with a scientific view of man. But, is man only his physicality?
The real world does not function on such a view. The reality is, there are "weeds" and these weeds need to be seen in our own garden, as well as the world. And the judgment on the weeds are what we are responsible for. Terrorists are alive and well. Crime exists, social evils prevail and one doesn't have to be a "rocket scientist" to know that our society is being destroyed from within. How do we "see" the world and its problems? What do we think is important to do about it? These are practical questions that impinge on what one chooses to do with one's life.
Judiasm would see the need of rectifying societies "ills" and to do so, begins with the family. The Catholic tradition also would concur with this evaluation. The family is the environment of formation for the child and unhealthy families breed unhealthy children and disturbed young adults.
All the intellectual questions in the world will not answer the child's need for his family. So, Spinoza's mentor was impressed with his mind, but he chose to stick with his community for the overall importance and value of "heritage". The mentor was challenged to challenge his tradition's social conventions. In this case, social conventions were a more important value to uphold. Spinoza was banned from his community and his mentor oversaw the judgment.
How was the mentor to encourage the young Spinoza to 'think" and continue to do so? Was Spinoza's work important and of value? Why, of why not? Did Spinoza's challenge to his community bring about their own struggle to understand or was there a prejuidice that was born our of 'self-defense'? One must think about these things.....
Christianity has its roots in Judiasm but has developed whole theological systems to "explain God". Judiasm is more of a "wisdom tradition". The Christian faith in certain circles is an exclusive faith. And it is the theological tradition that underwrites the exclusivity.
Judiasm is a tradition that is handed down through the generations and is an ethnic identity, whereas Christianity is not in some segments of Christiandom. Christianity is a "gentile religion" and was underwritten by "Paul", using Jesus as a means to that end.
Judiasm is a tradition that is grounded in the real world of everyday life, not in the "ideal" world of an after-life. Judiasm is a humanistic understanding of life, not a de-valuation of human life.
Spinoza had the liberty to "think outside the box" of his Judiasm in what was called a tolerant Amsterdam. Spinoza's parents had fled the Spanish Inquisition and the Jews were told by the Dutch to remain silent concerning their religion. (The Dutch are Reformed and Catholic in thier religious background. ) Although Spinoza was Jewish, Spinoza had made a Reformed friend and had fallen in love with a Catholic girl. How was he to "be himself" apart from sharing his thoughts about God?
Spinoza's "God" was a god based on mathmatical precision that underwrote his logic. Because his intellect was a strong force in his life, he couldn't help but "think out loud" concerning his faith. But, his faith was a challenge to the ruling authorities to his Jewish community and the Dutch civic authority.
Spinoza found himself betrayed by the Reformed friend, and eventually shunned by his Catholic girlfriend. His thinking and questioning of theism was at issue in his trial. His mentor was torn over whether to stand with his student and his brillant challenge to "tradition", or to stand with his traditional community. What was he to do? Was he to loose his place in his own society to defend Spinoza, and what then? What about his own life?
His mentor chose to stick by his own community, even though he had to agree that Spinoza's logic was equal to none, and one could not question the thoroughness of his "solution" about God.
Spinoza's view of "god" was monistic. God was nature, or Nature was God. People's essence is "who they are". God was no longer seen as an outside source of value, but "what is" was and is God.
The fatalistic mentality has it problems and its benefits. Those that adhere to such a view can relax, and refresh themselves on the knowledge that all that is, should be embraced. But, is this fatalism wise? Is there no moral judgment or value? And what of evil? Is evil seen as part of God, too? Certainly, this is what scriptures teach, as there is no dualistic universe. God is one, in nature. His was as monistic view of God. And monism falls in line with a scientific view of man. But, is man only his physicality?
The real world does not function on such a view. The reality is, there are "weeds" and these weeds need to be seen in our own garden, as well as the world. And the judgment on the weeds are what we are responsible for. Terrorists are alive and well. Crime exists, social evils prevail and one doesn't have to be a "rocket scientist" to know that our society is being destroyed from within. How do we "see" the world and its problems? What do we think is important to do about it? These are practical questions that impinge on what one chooses to do with one's life.
Judiasm would see the need of rectifying societies "ills" and to do so, begins with the family. The Catholic tradition also would concur with this evaluation. The family is the environment of formation for the child and unhealthy families breed unhealthy children and disturbed young adults.
All the intellectual questions in the world will not answer the child's need for his family. So, Spinoza's mentor was impressed with his mind, but he chose to stick with his community for the overall importance and value of "heritage". The mentor was challenged to challenge his tradition's social conventions. In this case, social conventions were a more important value to uphold. Spinoza was banned from his community and his mentor oversaw the judgment.
How was the mentor to encourage the young Spinoza to 'think" and continue to do so? Was Spinoza's work important and of value? Why, of why not? Did Spinoza's challenge to his community bring about their own struggle to understand or was there a prejuidice that was born our of 'self-defense'? One must think about these things.....
Monday, July 19, 2010
Challenging Social Conventions
Social conventions are considered to be the "norm". And norms are the values a certain society holds. This week-end, my husband and I saw two plays that challenged two values in our society; appearance, and conventional ideas.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Why Religious Liberty Is Important to Individual Conscience
Our Founding Fathers understood that religion was an important dimension to liberty. Liberty values diversity, while tradition defines to unify. The Founders did not have one interpretation as to their religious understanding, when they founded our country. But, they did understand that an appeal to natural rights was necessary for the right to dissent. Natural rights were granted by "universal order", because God was the ordainer of such rights, not the government. Their "new experiment" was a "moral government" that protected and provided for liberty against power, position and might.
"Universal order" today, underwrites social Darwinism, the power and right of the "fittest". Today, Science defines to unify, as Tradition once did. But, the basis of such unity, structures society after power and not liberty, just as it did in pre-modernity.
Liberty of conscience in regards to religion was to protect against abuse of power in the Founder's eyes. And the structuring of "moral government" was a balance of power, not power itself. The law was the "ruler" and balancer of power.
Today, those that adhere to a politicized religious conscience can do so and should, but should not enforce their position upon those that "see" things differently. The sects are alive and well, which will continue to further bring alienation of such sects from the "Mother" Church Tradition or its Jewish root. But, each and every sect is an attempt at defining religious conviction, and defining commitment. Problems arise when these convictions and commitments impinge on another's right to liberty of conscience, opinion and commitment.
We must remember that whenever one defines, one also limits and judges. And yet, definitions are necessary for understanding and maintaining "order". Our Founders defined liberty according to the Constitution. The Constitution was to protect citizens from abuses of power. And our courts are the ones that will settle disputes of definitions.
"Universal order" today, underwrites social Darwinism, the power and right of the "fittest". Today, Science defines to unify, as Tradition once did. But, the basis of such unity, structures society after power and not liberty, just as it did in pre-modernity.
Liberty of conscience in regards to religion was to protect against abuse of power in the Founder's eyes. And the structuring of "moral government" was a balance of power, not power itself. The law was the "ruler" and balancer of power.
Today, those that adhere to a politicized religious conscience can do so and should, but should not enforce their position upon those that "see" things differently. The sects are alive and well, which will continue to further bring alienation of such sects from the "Mother" Church Tradition or its Jewish root. But, each and every sect is an attempt at defining religious conviction, and defining commitment. Problems arise when these convictions and commitments impinge on another's right to liberty of conscience, opinion and commitment.
We must remember that whenever one defines, one also limits and judges. And yet, definitions are necessary for understanding and maintaining "order". Our Founders defined liberty according to the Constitution. The Constitution was to protect citizens from abuses of power. And our courts are the ones that will settle disputes of definitions.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Cultural Diversity Has Some Limits
As has been reported in certain science/religion journals, humans are prone to process things wholisically. (I really don't know how social scientists observe or measure such things) And, it seems that such is the case with the past 24-36 hours for me.
Sunday I read and blogged on my reading about 'the Dutch" and experiencing their culture through the eyes of an artistic Washington woman. She photographed and wrote and I resonated.
My pastor preached a sermon on the relationship of marriage and Monday I started to think again about civil unions, and Church and State issues.
Last night, being bored and alone, I watched a movie based on a factual case of teen pregnancy and its effect on a local high school. Even though the drama was a "little over the top", the message was how teen pregnancy is devastating to the whole community, as well as the teens involved. Abstenance is not realistic in an idealized and impulsive teen world that is bombarded by sexual messages wherever they turn.
And this morning it was reported that many European cultures are banning the "burka", a Muslim woman's head covering. This ban is only in public places and the reason was to protect Western culture.
What do all these experiences have in common? Culture, values, and impact on others.
Although I do resonate with Dutch culture because of their historicity and openness, I also resonate with the individualism in American culture. One must evaluate what makes for a culture and why. What is important to a culture and is that of primary importance for the whole to survive. That should be the question of what is of value to further and what is not.
This brings me to matters of dress, when it concerns certain religious garb. If there is a necessary covering because of a certain climate, which was most probably the case with the "burka", then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, when a religious tradition defines certain standards as mandantory because of the tradition's need to control the behavior of another human being, then I think it does not qualify to be upheld in a different culture. no matter the argument of "tolerance".
Religions have developed over the ages and those in power in these traditions had a vested interest in protecting their power. So, secularism would protect from a dominating religious tradition, which is necessary to remain a free society.
But, while religious traditions can protect their values for their own purposes, there are certain values that are necessary to protect for society's sake. Such is the issue of the family. Marriage is the foundation of society and it's future citizens. So, the family is certainly to be an important focus and interest for society at large. Since the family is so important many issues facing Western culture and it's families are necessary to challenge, study, and change.
The issue of teen pregnancy is of major concern and importance to society because it limits the teen's ability to further their future and it brings stress and pain on the teen's immediate family, as well as the reprecussions of the newborn's needs that might not be met by a teen mother's immature emotional responses/reactions.
Society finds itself "bringing up baby", but not in the sense of the past, when communities were close, life was slow and the child could find its place in the larger world without feeling "lost". Today social service agencies are stressed beyond measure and the Church shuns those whose behavior has not met their standard.
Conservatism wants to hold to past tradition for good reason. The family is the center of the child's identity and security. But, society has always brought challenges to past traditions and must address how to answer those challenges today. Abstinence is the "ideal", when it comes to teen sex, but the statistics do not bear out that Christian teens are any "better" at keeping their pledge of chasity than the larger teen population. This fact alone has bred many sectarian groups that try to protect their teens from such behavior. Though this is one response in our society, is this the only response the Church should sanction? Should society at large be of concern for the Church? And how is that challenge to be met?
Today's challenges reach beyond teen pregnancy, which has always challenged the mores of our society. Today the challenge to marriage and the family is homosexuality. Should homosexuals be alowed to express their innate desires within the boundaries of marriage? Or is marriage the tradition of the Church alone, and should never be condoned by the sanction of the insititution of marriage?
My pastor's sermon was about marriage and what makes a good marriage. Sex is not the recipe for a good marriage, but a relationship that is trustworthy and valued for its own sake. Children are a result of the physical intimacy of marriage, but should never be the purpose for marriage. Otherwise, many couples, whether older or barren, have no "right" to be married. We should think deeply about what our values are and why we have those values before we write off a challenge to tradition's "tradition".
Liberty of conscience was the value of our Founding Fathers. We must continue that tradition to continue the value they had of a "free society". A society that is free from domination of any kind, as tradition should not dominate a culture's values, at the expense of cultural needs for change.
At the same time, the Founder's knew that the value of tradition was the foundation of society's values, without them, society suffers superficiality and incongrence.
Sunday I read and blogged on my reading about 'the Dutch" and experiencing their culture through the eyes of an artistic Washington woman. She photographed and wrote and I resonated.
My pastor preached a sermon on the relationship of marriage and Monday I started to think again about civil unions, and Church and State issues.
Last night, being bored and alone, I watched a movie based on a factual case of teen pregnancy and its effect on a local high school. Even though the drama was a "little over the top", the message was how teen pregnancy is devastating to the whole community, as well as the teens involved. Abstenance is not realistic in an idealized and impulsive teen world that is bombarded by sexual messages wherever they turn.
And this morning it was reported that many European cultures are banning the "burka", a Muslim woman's head covering. This ban is only in public places and the reason was to protect Western culture.
What do all these experiences have in common? Culture, values, and impact on others.
Although I do resonate with Dutch culture because of their historicity and openness, I also resonate with the individualism in American culture. One must evaluate what makes for a culture and why. What is important to a culture and is that of primary importance for the whole to survive. That should be the question of what is of value to further and what is not.
This brings me to matters of dress, when it concerns certain religious garb. If there is a necessary covering because of a certain climate, which was most probably the case with the "burka", then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, when a religious tradition defines certain standards as mandantory because of the tradition's need to control the behavior of another human being, then I think it does not qualify to be upheld in a different culture. no matter the argument of "tolerance".
Religions have developed over the ages and those in power in these traditions had a vested interest in protecting their power. So, secularism would protect from a dominating religious tradition, which is necessary to remain a free society.
But, while religious traditions can protect their values for their own purposes, there are certain values that are necessary to protect for society's sake. Such is the issue of the family. Marriage is the foundation of society and it's future citizens. So, the family is certainly to be an important focus and interest for society at large. Since the family is so important many issues facing Western culture and it's families are necessary to challenge, study, and change.
The issue of teen pregnancy is of major concern and importance to society because it limits the teen's ability to further their future and it brings stress and pain on the teen's immediate family, as well as the reprecussions of the newborn's needs that might not be met by a teen mother's immature emotional responses/reactions.
Society finds itself "bringing up baby", but not in the sense of the past, when communities were close, life was slow and the child could find its place in the larger world without feeling "lost". Today social service agencies are stressed beyond measure and the Church shuns those whose behavior has not met their standard.
Conservatism wants to hold to past tradition for good reason. The family is the center of the child's identity and security. But, society has always brought challenges to past traditions and must address how to answer those challenges today. Abstinence is the "ideal", when it comes to teen sex, but the statistics do not bear out that Christian teens are any "better" at keeping their pledge of chasity than the larger teen population. This fact alone has bred many sectarian groups that try to protect their teens from such behavior. Though this is one response in our society, is this the only response the Church should sanction? Should society at large be of concern for the Church? And how is that challenge to be met?
Today's challenges reach beyond teen pregnancy, which has always challenged the mores of our society. Today the challenge to marriage and the family is homosexuality. Should homosexuals be alowed to express their innate desires within the boundaries of marriage? Or is marriage the tradition of the Church alone, and should never be condoned by the sanction of the insititution of marriage?
My pastor's sermon was about marriage and what makes a good marriage. Sex is not the recipe for a good marriage, but a relationship that is trustworthy and valued for its own sake. Children are a result of the physical intimacy of marriage, but should never be the purpose for marriage. Otherwise, many couples, whether older or barren, have no "right" to be married. We should think deeply about what our values are and why we have those values before we write off a challenge to tradition's "tradition".
Liberty of conscience was the value of our Founding Fathers. We must continue that tradition to continue the value they had of a "free society". A society that is free from domination of any kind, as tradition should not dominate a culture's values, at the expense of cultural needs for change.
At the same time, the Founder's knew that the value of tradition was the foundation of society's values, without them, society suffers superficiality and incongrence.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Transitions to New Realties
Change and transition are always a part of life. But, when transitions happen in one's life before the development to integrate them, it causes harm and great pain. I am speaking in personal terms of child development and the social realities of the family.
Since we are physical and historical beings, we are bound to develop within real historical realities of family, which is influenced by the culture it entertains.
In American society, where culture is diverse, there are many kinds or types of families. And these families are free to choice how they will raise their children, as long as it does not interfere with society's laws.
Society protects individual's, including children, from abuse. There are child protection agencies and social services that seek to intervene when family fails. And domestic violence groups protect women from abusive partners.
Psychologists and anthropologists have understood that we are social animals. We need social groups to meet human needs, as we develop personal identities. Experience in groups are what make for identification.
In fact, in studying Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, it was found that soldiers form a more formiable bonds to their fellow soldiers, than previous family bonds. This reality brings much heart-ache and re-adjustment to the military family, when the solier attempts to transition back into civilian life.
Adoptive and foster parents have discovered and sometime been forewarned that some children develop "attachment disorders" because of their chaotic or abusive families.
Teachers are aware of how much the parents involvment or uninvolvment affects the child's success in school. And problems at home distract student learning.
These realities are challenges to all of us, so that society will remain stable. And children can develop to fully functioning human beings.
Although family affects how the child develops in his "self-identity", i.e. who he is, what he stands for, and what he believes in and why, professors are bound by duty to expose their students to the wider world of knowledge, where children grapple with ideas and ideals that form and shape the world. These are no small or insignificant goals.
Our free society allows for free exchange of ideas and ideals. We should value more the "intellectual journey" of young adults. These are the future of America and the world. We should support those that attempt to form them in their thinking and not circumvent or suppress free information.
The Church has been challenged in this regard , in its understanding of faith, tradition and science. Today's reality of Darwinian evolution is no less daunting. And some deem this as an attack on faith altogether.
America was founded on the understanding that The Church is not the epitome, but man is. Man is created by his creator with certain inaleinable rights. These rights must be protected and sacralized by the Church. Otherwise, we disregard the person for Tradition. And Tradition is what needs changing, if it inhibits personal and societal development.
Our government forms policy that creates our political and social realities. Govenment must be protected from undue pressure from special interests groups. America or any free government needs to make policy on fact, not fiction, fantasy or fanaticism.
I think the family is a good start.
Since we are physical and historical beings, we are bound to develop within real historical realities of family, which is influenced by the culture it entertains.
In American society, where culture is diverse, there are many kinds or types of families. And these families are free to choice how they will raise their children, as long as it does not interfere with society's laws.
Society protects individual's, including children, from abuse. There are child protection agencies and social services that seek to intervene when family fails. And domestic violence groups protect women from abusive partners.
Psychologists and anthropologists have understood that we are social animals. We need social groups to meet human needs, as we develop personal identities. Experience in groups are what make for identification.
In fact, in studying Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, it was found that soldiers form a more formiable bonds to their fellow soldiers, than previous family bonds. This reality brings much heart-ache and re-adjustment to the military family, when the solier attempts to transition back into civilian life.
Adoptive and foster parents have discovered and sometime been forewarned that some children develop "attachment disorders" because of their chaotic or abusive families.
Teachers are aware of how much the parents involvment or uninvolvment affects the child's success in school. And problems at home distract student learning.
These realities are challenges to all of us, so that society will remain stable. And children can develop to fully functioning human beings.
Although family affects how the child develops in his "self-identity", i.e. who he is, what he stands for, and what he believes in and why, professors are bound by duty to expose their students to the wider world of knowledge, where children grapple with ideas and ideals that form and shape the world. These are no small or insignificant goals.
Our free society allows for free exchange of ideas and ideals. We should value more the "intellectual journey" of young adults. These are the future of America and the world. We should support those that attempt to form them in their thinking and not circumvent or suppress free information.
The Church has been challenged in this regard , in its understanding of faith, tradition and science. Today's reality of Darwinian evolution is no less daunting. And some deem this as an attack on faith altogether.
America was founded on the understanding that The Church is not the epitome, but man is. Man is created by his creator with certain inaleinable rights. These rights must be protected and sacralized by the Church. Otherwise, we disregard the person for Tradition. And Tradition is what needs changing, if it inhibits personal and societal development.
Our government forms policy that creates our political and social realities. Govenment must be protected from undue pressure from special interests groups. America or any free government needs to make policy on fact, not fiction, fantasy or fanaticism.
I think the family is a good start.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Sin, Sanctification, and Today's Sermon
Today's sermon was a continuation on temptation. The pastor emphasized how desires that are not "maintained" lead to sin. He went on to explain that it was only a complete surrender and trust not based on reason that would "help" in attaining sanctification. One must identify with Jesus.
Although he had said that he did not believe any of us are immune to the normal capacity to sin and that we all do, he also seemed to say that one's "entrustment" and "commitment" to God in modelling Jesus' life was "entire sanctification. (These were not his words, but my understanding of the implications of his sermon).
My question is if desire is not a sin, then when does it become a sin? when it impinges upon others? when it hinders other things that someone else thinks should be more important to you? when it limits other areas of your life through addiction? when it become the focus of one's life? what about goals, life purposes, and noble causes that one sees as the epitome of desire?
Buddhism teaches that if we can disengage ourselves from desire, then we can attain a "state of Nirvana". Should Christians then, disengage themselves from their desires to seek entire sanctification? I think not, as desire is not wrong, but channelling it into the right direction is important. This is why our free society is important to maintain.
I think that whenever one talks of "sin", there is an inevitable reaction in the religious of "appeasement to God", as "he is the one offended"....or a spiritual reaction of "moral superiority" because this particular "sin" is not my weakness. Religion intensifies an otherwise "decent" and civil discussion. Religion can be dangerous and often hinders open and free discussion for fear of treading on "forbidden territory".
I think that today's world of religious intolerance, dogmatism, and ideological "drivenness" is not an atmosphere open for civil discourse. Dogmatism hinders open-mindedness, because one's identity is so tied to one's understanding of "god" that any discussion is seen as a personal attack. This is an unhealthy identification, or a limited development, at least.
Traditions do breed security and identity, but can also breed prejuidice and discrimination, through a limited understanding of living and being in the world. One's "world" is "all there is" and should dominate everyone else's reality, as well.This is nothing short of self focused living in the name of "god" and it is repugnant to many who see differently.
Although he had said that he did not believe any of us are immune to the normal capacity to sin and that we all do, he also seemed to say that one's "entrustment" and "commitment" to God in modelling Jesus' life was "entire sanctification. (These were not his words, but my understanding of the implications of his sermon).
My question is if desire is not a sin, then when does it become a sin? when it impinges upon others? when it hinders other things that someone else thinks should be more important to you? when it limits other areas of your life through addiction? when it become the focus of one's life? what about goals, life purposes, and noble causes that one sees as the epitome of desire?
Buddhism teaches that if we can disengage ourselves from desire, then we can attain a "state of Nirvana". Should Christians then, disengage themselves from their desires to seek entire sanctification? I think not, as desire is not wrong, but channelling it into the right direction is important. This is why our free society is important to maintain.
I think that whenever one talks of "sin", there is an inevitable reaction in the religious of "appeasement to God", as "he is the one offended"....or a spiritual reaction of "moral superiority" because this particular "sin" is not my weakness. Religion intensifies an otherwise "decent" and civil discussion. Religion can be dangerous and often hinders open and free discussion for fear of treading on "forbidden territory".
I think that today's world of religious intolerance, dogmatism, and ideological "drivenness" is not an atmosphere open for civil discourse. Dogmatism hinders open-mindedness, because one's identity is so tied to one's understanding of "god" that any discussion is seen as a personal attack. This is an unhealthy identification, or a limited development, at least.
Traditions do breed security and identity, but can also breed prejuidice and discrimination, through a limited understanding of living and being in the world. One's "world" is "all there is" and should dominate everyone else's reality, as well.This is nothing short of self focused living in the name of "god" and it is repugnant to many who see differently.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Paul (as well as, Jesus) As a Useful "Tool" of 'Tradition".
I have not read a lot of N.T. Wright, but I am pre-supposing that he understands Paul's use of "law" as a formation of society. It is now speculated, in some circles, that "Paul" was not a historical figure, but a "form of moral modelling" and forming the "world" according to his "tradition".
The Christian tradition is the context of "Paul's" mission. And his life exemplified Jesus' life "for all people". But, his life is not the epitome of Truth, but is "true". His "life" was for the proptiation of society's values and order.
So, while tradition forms society around the values most important, let's remember that tradition is not to be absolutized in individual cases. Otherwise, one may limit another's life and choice, and value, in and of itself, which is where Luther's "law and gospel" comes to the "rescue".
The Christian tradition is the context of "Paul's" mission. And his life exemplified Jesus' life "for all people". But, his life is not the epitome of Truth, but is "true". His "life" was for the proptiation of society's values and order.
So, while tradition forms society around the values most important, let's remember that tradition is not to be absolutized in individual cases. Otherwise, one may limit another's life and choice, and value, in and of itself, which is where Luther's "law and gospel" comes to the "rescue".
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Names, Meaning and Value
"Dem dat's fighten words" is a common colloqualism. Words have meanings. And meanings define values. These are the things that life is "made of". And this is why there is so much diversity in the world. I couldn't live without diversity. Life would be dull and colorless. I just "react" to those who think their meanings are ultimate and absolute, because they de-value the diversity that makes life valuable.
Last night my grand-daughter was here. She is almost 3. She is confident and very "dramatic". I love to engage her. But, last night I was not cognizant of "where she was" and she ended up crying.why and how did this happen?
I began to point to others of her family members and give them different "names". I pointed to myself and said 'Mommy". She started out with "correcting me", but started to look befuddled and then began to cry. I recognized this as an indication that I was "confusing her world". She had names that defined people and they were defined by the roles that they signified. I was asking for her to think beyond her capabilities. So, of course, we brought comfort to her.
The challenge to educators is to expand, enlarge and encourage growth in the intellectual realm. Educators exist in many areas of our world, not just in the academic. Educators seek to bring understanding and and expansion of knowledge, so that others can grow beyond their narrow definitions and narrow and limiting worldviews.
When someone asks "what is of ultimate value", the answer will depend upon how the person has been educated. Those indoctrinated into Christian faith will have different responses depending on their understanding of faith and how broad their exposure to Christian experience is. I find that religion, for the most part, does define one's life in narrow ways.
Conventional morality is about what 'tradition' says is "correct". But, is tradition right, necessarily? Or is tradition only an aspect to a cultural ideal or norm? What is of greatest value? God, humanity, life on this planet, the environment, healthcare, growth in knowledge? The answer will depend on one's highest values in life. Religious tradition defines the highest value on an understanding of faith, while education values knowledge, and scientific endeavor values medicine and other research opportunities.
Our country does not define another's life for them, as we believe that though the individual is a social animal, he is also an independent moral agent, that must decide for himself. The individual is given opportunities by the social contexts he exposes himself to and then is free to decide what is of ultimate value and importance. There is no "right and wrong" answer, as values are about clarity of purpose and vision for one's life.
This is why the value of our country in protecting freedom is of ultimate value to and for me. I value freedom because it means that the individual does not have to confine himself to another's definition of what constitutes "greatest value". Freedom means that the individual is guarunteed justice, because the individual is a reponsible moral agent that can determine his own course.
Usually "war" transpires when others are protecting their own values. Fear of another's intrusion upon the values most held dear become self-protective walls. But, how do we engage those whose worlds are so confining and defined, that they will not engage. Diversity is not a cultural value. In fact, diversity is the very name to be destroyed.
In our world climate, Obama seems to be making attempts to change the world through diplomatic efforts. This is a noble cause, but I question how diversity can be maintained when the "absolutist laws of Sharia" will not allow such diversity. Whenever one labels another's difference with "Satan", then one cannot be rationally engaged. Religion does not allow for rational engagement because it is based on emotional connection to cultural identification in behavoiral terms, as well as a specified view of "God". This is not change that will come to the radical through diplomatic engagement. And this is why it is necessary that leaders of countries are rationally engaged with affirming difference. We have done this in the past, but with devastating consequences. And in our world climate, where the enemy is not readily identified, how do we protect the values of freedom and diversity? Do we engage countries that are dictatorial? Can we trust these?
I personally "fear" what Obama is doing, as I do not trust those who hold absolute power. And leaders who identify with those who hold absolute power are also, IMO, also untrustworthy, because those who do not hold the value of freedom and justice for all, which is a holding to the "balance of power", do not hold to the values of a liberal democracy....or a Repreentative Republic. These are those that use position to bring change, but at a costs to those under them. And this is why there has been much discussion about the "czars" that are independently appointed by this administration.
Obama has African roots and he maintains that equality is a global issue, not just a national one. This is disturbing to me because national interests (The Constitution) is the pledge of the President to uphold the values determined by our Founders. Can a globalist do this and remain true and trustworthy to "his people".
This is my concern, as words have meaning, but we must question what meaning is made when we hear those that hold values that are in opposition to ours. Then, we can be more educated about how to engage the public for the public good.
Last night my grand-daughter was here. She is almost 3. She is confident and very "dramatic". I love to engage her. But, last night I was not cognizant of "where she was" and she ended up crying.why and how did this happen?
I began to point to others of her family members and give them different "names". I pointed to myself and said 'Mommy". She started out with "correcting me", but started to look befuddled and then began to cry. I recognized this as an indication that I was "confusing her world". She had names that defined people and they were defined by the roles that they signified. I was asking for her to think beyond her capabilities. So, of course, we brought comfort to her.
The challenge to educators is to expand, enlarge and encourage growth in the intellectual realm. Educators exist in many areas of our world, not just in the academic. Educators seek to bring understanding and and expansion of knowledge, so that others can grow beyond their narrow definitions and narrow and limiting worldviews.
When someone asks "what is of ultimate value", the answer will depend upon how the person has been educated. Those indoctrinated into Christian faith will have different responses depending on their understanding of faith and how broad their exposure to Christian experience is. I find that religion, for the most part, does define one's life in narrow ways.
Conventional morality is about what 'tradition' says is "correct". But, is tradition right, necessarily? Or is tradition only an aspect to a cultural ideal or norm? What is of greatest value? God, humanity, life on this planet, the environment, healthcare, growth in knowledge? The answer will depend on one's highest values in life. Religious tradition defines the highest value on an understanding of faith, while education values knowledge, and scientific endeavor values medicine and other research opportunities.
Our country does not define another's life for them, as we believe that though the individual is a social animal, he is also an independent moral agent, that must decide for himself. The individual is given opportunities by the social contexts he exposes himself to and then is free to decide what is of ultimate value and importance. There is no "right and wrong" answer, as values are about clarity of purpose and vision for one's life.
This is why the value of our country in protecting freedom is of ultimate value to and for me. I value freedom because it means that the individual does not have to confine himself to another's definition of what constitutes "greatest value". Freedom means that the individual is guarunteed justice, because the individual is a reponsible moral agent that can determine his own course.
Usually "war" transpires when others are protecting their own values. Fear of another's intrusion upon the values most held dear become self-protective walls. But, how do we engage those whose worlds are so confining and defined, that they will not engage. Diversity is not a cultural value. In fact, diversity is the very name to be destroyed.
In our world climate, Obama seems to be making attempts to change the world through diplomatic efforts. This is a noble cause, but I question how diversity can be maintained when the "absolutist laws of Sharia" will not allow such diversity. Whenever one labels another's difference with "Satan", then one cannot be rationally engaged. Religion does not allow for rational engagement because it is based on emotional connection to cultural identification in behavoiral terms, as well as a specified view of "God". This is not change that will come to the radical through diplomatic engagement. And this is why it is necessary that leaders of countries are rationally engaged with affirming difference. We have done this in the past, but with devastating consequences. And in our world climate, where the enemy is not readily identified, how do we protect the values of freedom and diversity? Do we engage countries that are dictatorial? Can we trust these?
I personally "fear" what Obama is doing, as I do not trust those who hold absolute power. And leaders who identify with those who hold absolute power are also, IMO, also untrustworthy, because those who do not hold the value of freedom and justice for all, which is a holding to the "balance of power", do not hold to the values of a liberal democracy....or a Repreentative Republic. These are those that use position to bring change, but at a costs to those under them. And this is why there has been much discussion about the "czars" that are independently appointed by this administration.
Obama has African roots and he maintains that equality is a global issue, not just a national one. This is disturbing to me because national interests (The Constitution) is the pledge of the President to uphold the values determined by our Founders. Can a globalist do this and remain true and trustworthy to "his people".
This is my concern, as words have meaning, but we must question what meaning is made when we hear those that hold values that are in opposition to ours. Then, we can be more educated about how to engage the public for the public good.
Monday, June 29, 2009
A Call to Uniformity?
I had the radio on, while I was doing some "chores" today and heard an "annonymous" call to consider the social /communal, instead of the individual. This irked me, because it "calls others to the table, when the table is already set". Predetermination is not a value of American ideals in individual liberties of conscience. Paternalistic and patronizing ways of understanding one's social obligation and concern "rub me the wrong way", because it is presumptive of what "should be" of ultimate concern to the individual!
What ultimately is the "outcome" of such a "call" of concern? A uniformity of vision. A "moral obligation". A "religious duty". All subvert independece, liberty and creativity.
Much has been said about America's "universal" ideology, which is true. But, those whose commitment is to the "greater good" of humanity are not affirming of individual nation-states, but a globlaized "one world". How can American ideals be universal, while America holds to a sovereign right to maintain their own boundaries/securities/interests, and yet, maintain the "moral high ground"?
The religious have 'played into the hands" of these globalists for the "sake of humanity or God". These use terms like "building God's Kingdom", "missional", "communal", 'worldview", world changers", etc. focus on "wholistic understanding". These are rational in their commitments, but they call also for postmodernity's "localism", contextualizing the universal into specificities. This is the understanding of the universal and particular.
I think the height of immorality and injustice is limiting individuality in choice and liberty of conscience and conviction. Traditions do not adhere to such liberties, as they demand comformity of opinion and conviciton and commitment. They gauge each individual by the definitions of the "approved" authority. These authorities seek to bring about a uniform and unified "vision" of " god" or "purpose". There is no diversity in such groups, only conformity. So, beware of the rationalists who "use" relgion as a means of accomplishing ends that subvert individual liberties.
What ultimately is the "outcome" of such a "call" of concern? A uniformity of vision. A "moral obligation". A "religious duty". All subvert independece, liberty and creativity.
Much has been said about America's "universal" ideology, which is true. But, those whose commitment is to the "greater good" of humanity are not affirming of individual nation-states, but a globlaized "one world". How can American ideals be universal, while America holds to a sovereign right to maintain their own boundaries/securities/interests, and yet, maintain the "moral high ground"?
The religious have 'played into the hands" of these globalists for the "sake of humanity or God". These use terms like "building God's Kingdom", "missional", "communal", 'worldview", world changers", etc. focus on "wholistic understanding". These are rational in their commitments, but they call also for postmodernity's "localism", contextualizing the universal into specificities. This is the understanding of the universal and particular.
I think the height of immorality and injustice is limiting individuality in choice and liberty of conscience and conviction. Traditions do not adhere to such liberties, as they demand comformity of opinion and conviciton and commitment. They gauge each individual by the definitions of the "approved" authority. These authorities seek to bring about a uniform and unified "vision" of " god" or "purpose". There is no diversity in such groups, only conformity. So, beware of the rationalists who "use" relgion as a means of accomplishing ends that subvert individual liberties.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Politics, Ideology, and the Nation State
I have real concerns about some of Obama's actions recently. I have mentioned how he has treated our allies, but how he has treated our enemies baffles me. Perhaps, he is trying to befriend these enemies, so that the multi-cultural postmodern mind-set will win the policy debate. He has said that we should use diplomacy and not military might.
But, I think this has real implications about how one understands the world and its future. I don't doubt that we must engage across boundaries, nationally, as these have already dissolved because of economic necessity. Maybe this was misguided, as now we must "do" policy around economics, insteads of economics around policy. (This was America's "sin" and the cause of much of our heartache financially today.)
We are one world economically, but we are vastly different polictically and culturally. This is what is dividing people. If we give credibility to those who deny the Holocost, then we are denying reality, for multicultural "opinion". And we are doing a disservice to the nation-state and the ideals that our country stands as it concerns individual rights.
Obama has sent a video to Iran, wined and dined with Venezula's dictator, Chavez, and opened up Cuba. Perhaps, if earning "respect" by giving "respect" is the way to "enter the country" and bring about change toward democratic governance, then his vision would be rightly discerned. But, isn't he taking a chance in "trusting" the dictators, their media propaganda machine, and actually discriminating against our long-time allies? I think he is acting naively. Just recently a journalist was taken and tried in Iran and is to serve time in their prison, as she spied. This is reality, not a naive "hope" for peace.
The U.N. is being banned by some groups because human rights is about the ideal of the individual, not cultural rights, or ideals, unless, it is about our nation's ideals of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness". If tradition is not honored by Obama at home, like when he covered the crosses at Georgtown University, and yet, he wants to honor the discriminated "tradition" of Islam, or the persecuted "class" of Hamas, while dismissing our allies, as allies (militarily defined) then we are headed for some turbulant times.
Postmodernism is multiculturalism, perspectivism, relativism, etc. It is context oriented. But, context cannot determine policy when it comes to a nation, and this is what disturbs me, as Obama wants to change the very foundations of our government, giving all equal opportunity, while not discerning of or discriminating about accountability.
Although our nation has "done damage" abroad, we have also done much that is good. Why should we apologize over who we are, as Obama is continually doing when travelling abroad. I recognize that we have been seeking the financial benefit of our nation's interest, but all nations seek to do this. Why are we apologizing for our existence? Of course, there will be many that are jealous over our freedom, and "prosperity", that is human nature. But, alleviating envy by dissolving all of our assets does nothing to address the problem of envy in the hearts of other countries.
We have sought to bring freedom to individuals and nations. And while the means of bringing freedom have not been perfect, nothing in this world is perfect, and life is more valued as free than as enslaved by any system or form of government. So, we should continue to be proud of our nation and our military. And we should definately not be apologizing, especially to those who do not value life and freedom!
But, I think this has real implications about how one understands the world and its future. I don't doubt that we must engage across boundaries, nationally, as these have already dissolved because of economic necessity. Maybe this was misguided, as now we must "do" policy around economics, insteads of economics around policy. (This was America's "sin" and the cause of much of our heartache financially today.)
We are one world economically, but we are vastly different polictically and culturally. This is what is dividing people. If we give credibility to those who deny the Holocost, then we are denying reality, for multicultural "opinion". And we are doing a disservice to the nation-state and the ideals that our country stands as it concerns individual rights.
Obama has sent a video to Iran, wined and dined with Venezula's dictator, Chavez, and opened up Cuba. Perhaps, if earning "respect" by giving "respect" is the way to "enter the country" and bring about change toward democratic governance, then his vision would be rightly discerned. But, isn't he taking a chance in "trusting" the dictators, their media propaganda machine, and actually discriminating against our long-time allies? I think he is acting naively. Just recently a journalist was taken and tried in Iran and is to serve time in their prison, as she spied. This is reality, not a naive "hope" for peace.
The U.N. is being banned by some groups because human rights is about the ideal of the individual, not cultural rights, or ideals, unless, it is about our nation's ideals of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness". If tradition is not honored by Obama at home, like when he covered the crosses at Georgtown University, and yet, he wants to honor the discriminated "tradition" of Islam, or the persecuted "class" of Hamas, while dismissing our allies, as allies (militarily defined) then we are headed for some turbulant times.
Postmodernism is multiculturalism, perspectivism, relativism, etc. It is context oriented. But, context cannot determine policy when it comes to a nation, and this is what disturbs me, as Obama wants to change the very foundations of our government, giving all equal opportunity, while not discerning of or discriminating about accountability.
Although our nation has "done damage" abroad, we have also done much that is good. Why should we apologize over who we are, as Obama is continually doing when travelling abroad. I recognize that we have been seeking the financial benefit of our nation's interest, but all nations seek to do this. Why are we apologizing for our existence? Of course, there will be many that are jealous over our freedom, and "prosperity", that is human nature. But, alleviating envy by dissolving all of our assets does nothing to address the problem of envy in the hearts of other countries.
We have sought to bring freedom to individuals and nations. And while the means of bringing freedom have not been perfect, nothing in this world is perfect, and life is more valued as free than as enslaved by any system or form of government. So, we should continue to be proud of our nation and our military. And we should definately not be apologizing, especially to those who do not value life and freedom!
Monday, March 30, 2009
A Continued Thinking on Individualism and Collectivism
Collectivism and Individualism does not just "run" our understanding of government, or policy, but also theology.
How we understand the Church has been based on these understandings, if not directly, then presuppositionally.
Is the Church a social organization? Is the Church a "living organism"? Is membership in the Church dependent on individual choice and/or faith, or is Church membership about what "form" is required of the religious hierarchy, the traditions of the Church? Or is being a member of the Church dependent on what one does or believes, or both? Is faith dependent on or independent from organized religion and/or social intereaction?
Is the text, in a religious Tradition to be approached by the individual or the magisterum? Is the individual's devotional practice and/or personal experience to be valued? Or is submission to authority structure important in affirming one's faith?
All of these understandings and their value has formed our Traditions within Christian faith, and I think forms most organized religions. Faith itself is larger than religion, as faith is about persoal values. These values can be defined by religion, but don't have to be, they can also be defined on reason, which sometimes challenges traditional understandings of "belief systems".
Atonement theories are based on understandings of Jesus death. The meanings of these theories is like any other theory "a form of understanding and meaning making" in any discipline.
I find that the progress of natural science and our undertandng of man's understanding of the world in general, in every discipline, challenges certain traditional assumptions. This is where the broader and wider discussion on how, what, where and when policy should be made. These policy thinkers live in our "think tanks", and they hold the brightest amongst us. We should be thankful for these think tanks that question, struggle and help our government and the public to understand the issues, th questions, and the decisions of our policy makers! Then, there is a balance of power to government by the intellectual elite. But, who holds the intellectural elite accountable?
How we understand the Church has been based on these understandings, if not directly, then presuppositionally.
Is the Church a social organization? Is the Church a "living organism"? Is membership in the Church dependent on individual choice and/or faith, or is Church membership about what "form" is required of the religious hierarchy, the traditions of the Church? Or is being a member of the Church dependent on what one does or believes, or both? Is faith dependent on or independent from organized religion and/or social intereaction?
Is the text, in a religious Tradition to be approached by the individual or the magisterum? Is the individual's devotional practice and/or personal experience to be valued? Or is submission to authority structure important in affirming one's faith?
All of these understandings and their value has formed our Traditions within Christian faith, and I think forms most organized religions. Faith itself is larger than religion, as faith is about persoal values. These values can be defined by religion, but don't have to be, they can also be defined on reason, which sometimes challenges traditional understandings of "belief systems".
Atonement theories are based on understandings of Jesus death. The meanings of these theories is like any other theory "a form of understanding and meaning making" in any discipline.
I find that the progress of natural science and our undertandng of man's understanding of the world in general, in every discipline, challenges certain traditional assumptions. This is where the broader and wider discussion on how, what, where and when policy should be made. These policy thinkers live in our "think tanks", and they hold the brightest amongst us. We should be thankful for these think tanks that question, struggle and help our government and the public to understand the issues, th questions, and the decisions of our policy makers! Then, there is a balance of power to government by the intellectual elite. But, who holds the intellectural elite accountable?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Views From Below
I have been thinking about how people come to understand their faith along the lines of belief, belonging, and behavior. This is of major importance, I believe, if there is going to be an understanding across faith dimensions...
Belief is a set or way of understanding meaning. These meanings are made within our heads as we experience life. These meanings come from many factors in our life and this makes up our personal history. Beliefs contain everything from how we understand God, to how we understand life and how it should function because of these beliefs.
Behavior is how we understand what is appropriate and by what means. These are the social norms we live by and are given within our cultural and familial settings.
Belonging is our specific cultural, and familial membership. These can be formal or informal memberships, but do prescribe how behavior is to be understood, as they uphold the values that make for the social norms.
In this mix, we also must allow for individual development beyond these "identifications", or determinants. Although most people do not understand their beliefs as culturally specific, or their behavior as determined by these cultural limitations, there is development beyond these understandings, which are conventional social norms.
Whenever an individual reaches beyond their parental, and cultural "thinking patterns", then the mix will always be individually determined, as a unique "call" of individuality, which is the giftedness that is to be given back to "life".
Conventional morality is specified by "order" and the status quo. It behaves because "that is just the way it is", without question. most Americans in the South and many elsewhere just accepted the subjugation the the African American race, because this was the "accepted form". This is where the moral limits the ethical.
The conservative Church, for the most part, has held to the moral, and has limited the ethical change that needs to be made. Conservatism is the epitome of status quo and conservatism hinders the development of human flourishing due to "fear" of subversion of cultural norms.
While conservatism limits, it also gives historical bearings, so that there is some way to view life with a "frame". Without a frame there is a free for all in social change.
Perhaps, in thinking about social change, we should enlighten our understanding about how social change has taken place before and what it meant for those it impacted. Without a sense of history, we will not have the impetus to move forward or to slow down. Globalization calls for a re-working of our understanding of faith. And, I personally believe that we cannot dismiss pluralism in some form, otherwise, we are idolizing our particular reference point, or experience.
So, this morning while thinking about my faith, I question and I prod, but that is just "who I am".
Belief is a set or way of understanding meaning. These meanings are made within our heads as we experience life. These meanings come from many factors in our life and this makes up our personal history. Beliefs contain everything from how we understand God, to how we understand life and how it should function because of these beliefs.
Behavior is how we understand what is appropriate and by what means. These are the social norms we live by and are given within our cultural and familial settings.
Belonging is our specific cultural, and familial membership. These can be formal or informal memberships, but do prescribe how behavior is to be understood, as they uphold the values that make for the social norms.
In this mix, we also must allow for individual development beyond these "identifications", or determinants. Although most people do not understand their beliefs as culturally specific, or their behavior as determined by these cultural limitations, there is development beyond these understandings, which are conventional social norms.
Whenever an individual reaches beyond their parental, and cultural "thinking patterns", then the mix will always be individually determined, as a unique "call" of individuality, which is the giftedness that is to be given back to "life".
Conventional morality is specified by "order" and the status quo. It behaves because "that is just the way it is", without question. most Americans in the South and many elsewhere just accepted the subjugation the the African American race, because this was the "accepted form". This is where the moral limits the ethical.
The conservative Church, for the most part, has held to the moral, and has limited the ethical change that needs to be made. Conservatism is the epitome of status quo and conservatism hinders the development of human flourishing due to "fear" of subversion of cultural norms.
While conservatism limits, it also gives historical bearings, so that there is some way to view life with a "frame". Without a frame there is a free for all in social change.
Perhaps, in thinking about social change, we should enlighten our understanding about how social change has taken place before and what it meant for those it impacted. Without a sense of history, we will not have the impetus to move forward or to slow down. Globalization calls for a re-working of our understanding of faith. And, I personally believe that we cannot dismiss pluralism in some form, otherwise, we are idolizing our particular reference point, or experience.
So, this morning while thinking about my faith, I question and I prod, but that is just "who I am".
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Marriage as Role, Function, or Covenant?
Marriage is a sacrament in the Christian Church. Even though the Church holds this sacrament as a universal one, there are diverse views as how the marriage is to function.
Some believe that the roles and functions are defined by gender and gender determines the role. Their view takes the Scripture literally in the wife being submissive to the husband. The serpent beguiled Eve first, so, this means that Eve must submit, as she is easily decieved. This view sees "order" as primary. While there is nothing wrong with order, is there something much more important at issue when it concerns marriage?
Marriage is also understood as a covenant. Covenant was a ancient binding agreement of life for life. The exhange of life of life for life is not based on role, function or gender, but on commitment of life. This way of viewing marriage is understood in Jonathan and David's relationship. Their relationship was a protective and intimate one. Their relationship was not based on gender identification, but on what was important in the relationship. Jonathan defended David from his own father, King Saul. Saul's jealousy threatened David's life and Jonathan sought to defend, enlighten, help, and fight for David.
Those who function on an honor/shame basis, which is an "ordered" way of understanding, would see the wife's role as bringing honor or shame to the husband, but never the other way around. Shame is useful to "put someone in their place", in socially conforming to social norms. Although our culture does not function as much along those lines as in the past, there is something to be said about raising a child's conscience in regards to society and responsibility. This is where the family is important in educating the child's conscience.
I find that this is not the best way to understand marriage, as marriage should be based on friendship first and foremost, not on "forms" and confomity to a cultural norm. Relationships that are based on friendship are not defined by role and function. It is a relationship that is based on trust, respect, honor and defense. Such relationships go beyond race, gender, politics, etc. as these relationships are defined by the two people involved.
Some believe that the roles and functions are defined by gender and gender determines the role. Their view takes the Scripture literally in the wife being submissive to the husband. The serpent beguiled Eve first, so, this means that Eve must submit, as she is easily decieved. This view sees "order" as primary. While there is nothing wrong with order, is there something much more important at issue when it concerns marriage?
Marriage is also understood as a covenant. Covenant was a ancient binding agreement of life for life. The exhange of life of life for life is not based on role, function or gender, but on commitment of life. This way of viewing marriage is understood in Jonathan and David's relationship. Their relationship was a protective and intimate one. Their relationship was not based on gender identification, but on what was important in the relationship. Jonathan defended David from his own father, King Saul. Saul's jealousy threatened David's life and Jonathan sought to defend, enlighten, help, and fight for David.
Those who function on an honor/shame basis, which is an "ordered" way of understanding, would see the wife's role as bringing honor or shame to the husband, but never the other way around. Shame is useful to "put someone in their place", in socially conforming to social norms. Although our culture does not function as much along those lines as in the past, there is something to be said about raising a child's conscience in regards to society and responsibility. This is where the family is important in educating the child's conscience.
I find that this is not the best way to understand marriage, as marriage should be based on friendship first and foremost, not on "forms" and confomity to a cultural norm. Relationships that are based on friendship are not defined by role and function. It is a relationship that is based on trust, respect, honor and defense. Such relationships go beyond race, gender, politics, etc. as these relationships are defined by the two people involved.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Quandary Over Our Culture
It was reported in the newspaper that Iran was sending up a satelitte. Although the range was not to be feared, the West is still fearful of Iran's intention in regards to nuclear weapons. This fear is well-grounded through experience and the perception that Iran's president has toward the West.
Iran, as well as other strict Islamic states, do not affirm the human, but God. God is to be revered above all else, and disrupts Islam's life for prayer many times during the day. While strict tradition can limit the diversity of the 'human", so can politically oppressive regimes. The politically ideological are focused on thier own way of life at the expense of another's expression and understanding. The politically ideological also limit diverse expression of the human.
We are in a quandary in the West with many countries on the verge of bankruptcy and our own cultural demise. Many think that the West is dying and are seeking spiritual renewal. While this may help a few, I don't think that it will affect most of the cultural elites, as thier interests would not even expose them to "the revivalists". Neither will tradition's tradition help alleviate the demise. The cultural elites are those who are our policy makers and power brokers. These are not impressed by "strict traditional understandings of faith".
Tradition and revivalism is based on the supernatural. Scientific understanding is not open to such "superstition". So, there must be educated believers in all areas of "life". These believers are not radicals, but are rational in their beliefs. These have an understanding of broad issues of history, culture, and politics. These people seek to make a difference in "real life" not the "by and by".
Just yesterday I got an e-mail about a Rabbi who heads up a National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. I was fascinated by it's vision, as it is inclusive of all religious traditions, while affirming all of learning. I find it hard to swallow that one should "cut off" learning because it has led one "astray" from a speicifed "faith understanding". If all truth is God's truth, then the only thing to be cautious about is the perversion of truth. Understanding life this way means that we are open to all of learning and struggle and seek how to understand learning within an open universe, where God is not defined in limited ways, and all human learning is a way of understanding life. It is not about right, and wrong, but about cultures, peoples, and humanity at large.
Some are of the opinion that one must hold to a certain view to be "saved" or "right with God". This is a very narrow way to understand life and limits those within it "confines" to tradition's understanding, without coming to terms with one's own personhood. That is not to say that some may find themselves most at home and comfortable in such an atmosphere, but,it is not for everyone.
The West's concern over it's culture should be one about the humanities, as the humanities are about the human. The humanities are the creative avenue of expression that makes the difference between man and animal. And the humanities are as diverse as the people who create them and they are expressive of the diversity within the universe. The humanities enlarge the heart and express the transcendent. One of our presidents, John F. Kennedy, has gifted our nation's capital with the "Kennedy Center for the Arts", a place where many can gain a glimpse of the transcendent from a life below.
Iran, as well as other strict Islamic states, do not affirm the human, but God. God is to be revered above all else, and disrupts Islam's life for prayer many times during the day. While strict tradition can limit the diversity of the 'human", so can politically oppressive regimes. The politically ideological are focused on thier own way of life at the expense of another's expression and understanding. The politically ideological also limit diverse expression of the human.
We are in a quandary in the West with many countries on the verge of bankruptcy and our own cultural demise. Many think that the West is dying and are seeking spiritual renewal. While this may help a few, I don't think that it will affect most of the cultural elites, as thier interests would not even expose them to "the revivalists". Neither will tradition's tradition help alleviate the demise. The cultural elites are those who are our policy makers and power brokers. These are not impressed by "strict traditional understandings of faith".
Tradition and revivalism is based on the supernatural. Scientific understanding is not open to such "superstition". So, there must be educated believers in all areas of "life". These believers are not radicals, but are rational in their beliefs. These have an understanding of broad issues of history, culture, and politics. These people seek to make a difference in "real life" not the "by and by".
Just yesterday I got an e-mail about a Rabbi who heads up a National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. I was fascinated by it's vision, as it is inclusive of all religious traditions, while affirming all of learning. I find it hard to swallow that one should "cut off" learning because it has led one "astray" from a speicifed "faith understanding". If all truth is God's truth, then the only thing to be cautious about is the perversion of truth. Understanding life this way means that we are open to all of learning and struggle and seek how to understand learning within an open universe, where God is not defined in limited ways, and all human learning is a way of understanding life. It is not about right, and wrong, but about cultures, peoples, and humanity at large.
Some are of the opinion that one must hold to a certain view to be "saved" or "right with God". This is a very narrow way to understand life and limits those within it "confines" to tradition's understanding, without coming to terms with one's own personhood. That is not to say that some may find themselves most at home and comfortable in such an atmosphere, but,it is not for everyone.
The West's concern over it's culture should be one about the humanities, as the humanities are about the human. The humanities are the creative avenue of expression that makes the difference between man and animal. And the humanities are as diverse as the people who create them and they are expressive of the diversity within the universe. The humanities enlarge the heart and express the transcendent. One of our presidents, John F. Kennedy, has gifted our nation's capital with the "Kennedy Center for the Arts", a place where many can gain a glimpse of the transcendent from a life below.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Faith in Text, Tradition, or Life?
Dysfunctional systems are rampant within the Old Testament Scripture. Names such as Esau and Jacob, Saul, David and Jonathan, and Samson and Delilah all conjure up images that send messages about "meaning".
While most Christians understand these stories as Christian emphasis of historical revealation of God, aren't these stories also a challenge to our "modern sensiblities"?
When Jacob stole Esau's birth-right, the Christian believes this to sanction Jacob's desire to attain the "blessing of God" at "all costs", even lying to his father, with the help of his mother? Or Saul sacrificing was "out of order", which meant that he lost the Kingdom. Saul's jealousy over David, as God's choice highlights what extent jealousy will go. While some of these truths are human truths for today, some of the "spiritualized meanings" condone spiriutalized rationale for doing things that would be against modern understandings of 'justice". Most of us in the modern world would not condone this behavior. We understand such terms as fairness, which would not affirm the O.T.'s value of "attaining God's favor" through lying or pursuing God's favor through a "priesthood"'s sacrifice. Our understanding is based on the development of our laws, which protect us from lying, stealing and subterfuge.
Just recently my grandfather met with my cousin, who is the executor of his estate. In going over all of his assests, my cousin insisted that my grandfather write up the specifics to his will. This protects his interests from others doing what Jacob did, as it is not a matter of attaining God's favor, so much as doing what is just. Justice is defined by our understanding by our laws, which is equality under law. It has nothing to do with "God's favor".
Last night, a lady shared her experience with a local business that did business according to local custom. She and husband were buying a house and put up ernest money. When a three week period went by without any response from the other party, she and her husband went to investigate, only to find out that the couple had changed their minds. To this day, the lady and her husband have not gotten their ernest money back. Local custom trumped the law. Of course, I am sure that if they had pursued the case, there would have been some recourse, but would they have higher legal fees than the ernest money they paid, in the first place?
Traditions hold sway over people's minds when it comes to undestandings of justice, fairness, right and wrong. While tradition maintains a culture's values, tradition can also be misinformed and short-sighted as to a broader context and world. Tradition works at a lower level of moral development than our Constitution or legal system.
"Biblical Christians" don't even recognize that their understanding is disconnected from the real world in this sense. They are committed to the "ideals" of a Christian reality, without understanding that these realities are traditions. And even those who base their faith understandings on the text are also ill-informed to the limitations of their view because of their particular bias. This is blindness and ignorance.
I think that reason is a gift within that must be used to inform our consciences and convictions. Tradition inhibits the full use of our reason because of fear that we might displease God, because the text or the people of God are the arbitrators of truth. Believers , in this sense, are not free, but in bondage to fear. Faith is not to bring bondage and fear, but trust in life itself. Grace is the gift to be and choose in this life without fear and torment.
While most Christians understand these stories as Christian emphasis of historical revealation of God, aren't these stories also a challenge to our "modern sensiblities"?
When Jacob stole Esau's birth-right, the Christian believes this to sanction Jacob's desire to attain the "blessing of God" at "all costs", even lying to his father, with the help of his mother? Or Saul sacrificing was "out of order", which meant that he lost the Kingdom. Saul's jealousy over David, as God's choice highlights what extent jealousy will go. While some of these truths are human truths for today, some of the "spiritualized meanings" condone spiriutalized rationale for doing things that would be against modern understandings of 'justice". Most of us in the modern world would not condone this behavior. We understand such terms as fairness, which would not affirm the O.T.'s value of "attaining God's favor" through lying or pursuing God's favor through a "priesthood"'s sacrifice. Our understanding is based on the development of our laws, which protect us from lying, stealing and subterfuge.
Just recently my grandfather met with my cousin, who is the executor of his estate. In going over all of his assests, my cousin insisted that my grandfather write up the specifics to his will. This protects his interests from others doing what Jacob did, as it is not a matter of attaining God's favor, so much as doing what is just. Justice is defined by our understanding by our laws, which is equality under law. It has nothing to do with "God's favor".
Last night, a lady shared her experience with a local business that did business according to local custom. She and husband were buying a house and put up ernest money. When a three week period went by without any response from the other party, she and her husband went to investigate, only to find out that the couple had changed their minds. To this day, the lady and her husband have not gotten their ernest money back. Local custom trumped the law. Of course, I am sure that if they had pursued the case, there would have been some recourse, but would they have higher legal fees than the ernest money they paid, in the first place?
Traditions hold sway over people's minds when it comes to undestandings of justice, fairness, right and wrong. While tradition maintains a culture's values, tradition can also be misinformed and short-sighted as to a broader context and world. Tradition works at a lower level of moral development than our Constitution or legal system.
"Biblical Christians" don't even recognize that their understanding is disconnected from the real world in this sense. They are committed to the "ideals" of a Christian reality, without understanding that these realities are traditions. And even those who base their faith understandings on the text are also ill-informed to the limitations of their view because of their particular bias. This is blindness and ignorance.
I think that reason is a gift within that must be used to inform our consciences and convictions. Tradition inhibits the full use of our reason because of fear that we might displease God, because the text or the people of God are the arbitrators of truth. Believers , in this sense, are not free, but in bondage to fear. Faith is not to bring bondage and fear, but trust in life itself. Grace is the gift to be and choose in this life without fear and torment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
