Bifucation of Life

I believe that for so long I lived my life in bifucation. I attempted to form and view things from separating the sacred from the secular. That is what fundamentalists do. They think that all of life's answers are found in the text. And it was a sickness for/to me. And i personally think it is also dangerous for others.

I would much rather face things as normal and everyday problems, with solutions or a seeking of a solution in the Academy. Humans are human and solutions are solutions. It doesn't matter if there are spiritual terms, (altho I find such language as disingenuous) or "holy water" sprinkled around, so the spiritually infected are appeased.

I  am a little "put off" by religion, and spirituality and for good reason. These terms are useful for manipulation, though it is not seen that way. And such terms are useful for creating a reality that might not exist. I know all the arguments for the "probabilities for God", but I would rather face my life knowing that I am responsible, not God, to fix it, to understand it, and/or to create it, whatever "it" happens to require.

I find that humans can hide behind thier relgiious terms, and groups. Don't get me wrong, I value friends as much as anyone, but religious clicks can be quite exclusive in how they define themselves. Such exclusion is not humane and I find arrogant. The ones that "reach out" might have a patronizing or paternalistic view of those that didn't have "the heritage". Such comtempt for me or others, breeds my own contempt. I am sorry, but I thought that Chrsitianity was about me and my life, as well as "humanity's life. I was finally valued as a person, not for some reformation of who I was to become, becasue I didn't measure up. I have had enough of that.

The vision of the Church is focused on surviving the culture of today that doesn't particularly value the Church. And as death approaches its doors, the Church is frantically using whatever means to remain afloat. Humans gravitate to what interests them and find their place in the chosen social group. And framing things in a supernaturalistic way appeals to the feelings of  "God", so it grows the Church. So, emergants, post-modernity, or any other philosophical, business, social, psychological "model" is used for the Church's benefit, unbeknown to those in the pew who think their reality is really "from God".

The Church must re-orient their vision to re-frame their purpose, which is not spreading a spiritualtized "gospel", but a message of hope for those that have lost it. and some have done this in reaching their communities. This is social work 101, but it benefits society.

Why Would I Be Suspicious?

Tonight I watched a former Muslim who had converted to Christianity talk about Islam. He admitted that all of Islam is radical. There is no moderate Islamic faith. But, his openness disturbed me. I just wondered why he could be so open about his conversion and Islam itself without endangering his very life.

I say this because of the facts of history. Remember the many faces that hid from those who would take revenge. Rushdie and Ali are only two. But, these took to hiding and lived in isolation. Why would we think that this person would be priviledged and protected from Islamic factions that would want to bring about justice? I am suspicious.

Would there be a possibility that Islam being so violently opposed to Christianity would love for Christians to think that Islam was tolerant? Or would there be a possibility that Islam would use "converts" to infilterate Chrstian circles to promote propaganda?

This morning. I listened to a former Muslim woman talk about her experience of wanting her independence. She explained how Muslims do not think in individual terms. Tradition forms and shapes their thinking and lifestyle. The American ideal of seeking one's destiny is not a way of seeing oneself in the world. She was fortunate to have lived in a free society where she freed herself from the traditions of her past and became a professor.

How can people think that those that are so narrow and confined in their views would be open, accomadating or tolerant to diversity or when it is expected that Muslims will not be open to tell the whole story to the "infidels"? And especially because those that have been Muslims have warned about the political agenda that these have for the West?

Dominion and Stewardship

Christians believe in the "creation mandate". These believe that since God created all that is, humans are responsible to be responsible. It is no less true for the scientific materialists. These also believe that one must dominate and steward the earth's resources. Therefore, there has been an alliance of purpose, so that the world, or globalized efforts will "come into being". But, is 'one purpose' the best way or best option among options of "leading the world"?

Science in the West has been useful to bring about a better way of life, in quality to health, and comfort of lifestyle. We believe that science gives us opportunities to explore and discover yet to be known facts about our physical environment, so the the earth can be its best in serving mankind's needs.

Christians, and other faiths, also believe that the earth is of value to protect. Therefore, the environmental movement, from global warming to recycling has impacted the globe, whether believer or unbeliever. "Avatar" is only one amongst many sci fi movies that feature American interests in science, environment and "mystery" (the yet to be discovered).

"One world" can come about through such goals and visions of stewardship and dominion. But, in our world of global conflict, ideological differences, is it going to bring about "the Kingdom of God", "peace on earth", or "Utopian dreams"?

With limited resources, and within limited means of bettering the world, how are we to envision that all will have equal? or live under equal protections of "law and order"? Is duplicity a means to that end? And what of those that are duped under such means? What is the real purpose of the law?

It becomes clearer as the West has opened its doors and heart to those "without", whether national identity or social and economic means, that the world is much too complex to hope for "utopian ideals". Laws define the boundaries around national identity. And laws conflict when ideology conflicts. This is why some in the West are frustrated by Islam's demand for special consideration of their laws. The U.N. has acquiesed. And the West is suffering under what to do with Shairi'a.

This is not to say that those that have "hearts of gold" or seek to "sainthood" should not seek to do good, waiting for a reward later, or whether they just don't "miss" the funds they send because they have so much anyway.

I just oppose those who want their visions to be everyone's. Stewardship and dominion must be held, defined and expressed within different value systems. Stewardship may mean for those without the ability to give to the poor, that they don't buy the "Coke", so they can afford the formula for the baby at home. And for those who have so much, well, they are free to give as their hearts desire, because they won't miss it anyway.

Dominion of the earth and its "goods" is a way of viewing leadership in honing the earth's resources to better mankind. Scientists have the ability to dominate the earth in the way their specific expertise designs. But the personal commitments, and values of individual scientists, will determine how that will be lived out in their lives. There is no "one way of being in the world". It is a matter of commitment, choice, and value. And it is a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What I Hate to Think

What I hate to think is that God is reduced to the "common Gospel"...
or the "common ideal"....

What I hate to think is that man is reduced to obedience, instead of rational choice....
or "devalued part"....

What I hate to think is that the individual is only understood within his function...
apart from his function, he ceases to exist....

Christians need to cease being "Christian", giving advice, and having all the answers....and knowing what "the Kingdom entails", and what God's will for everyone is...
Christians need to learn how to be, before any "doing"....

As Christians are foremost humans and maybe when they understand how to be "more" human, then they will cease to be "Christians"....

And I will cease hating to think....

Politicizing the Public Square (con.)

My last post suggested that we must allow diversity of viewpoint, if we want our Republic to survive the "cultural wars". The Establishment clause did NOT discriminate against relgious freedom, but neither did it discriminate against any other form of "being in the world". So, religion cannot be established by the government, that means a certain tradition being sanctioned under governmental power. But, religious people can form the views and opinions and have a right to assemble about political goals. This is appropriate in a free society.

We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.

Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.

Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.

Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.

What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?

Christians Hide Behind Christianity

I find that I have hidden behind Christian faith. It "protected me" from feeling that the world was a dark and forboding place. But, more so, it was a way of coping with my own anxiety and insecurity. It helped me find meaning, where there had been no meaning. It helped me to feel special, a sense of belonging, and met a need for "family" that would share life with me. It was, in effect, a denial of true reality and an attempt at "creating a new one" (a "new family", a "new me", a "new future", etc.).

Christians hide behind the various group identifiers that help them to form their own "bulwark of faith" against facing what is otherwise, horrendously difficult and challenging. People are self seeking. This should be an accepted fact of life in encountering others. Then, one is free to encounter another with their own agenda and then honestly evaluate, negotiate and compromise. This is forthrightness, as it doesn't try to dissolve self-interest, or sacrifice, but seeks to further goals directly and with honesty. This is the stage of social contract in moral development.

Christians love to define their life in altruistic ways. And most of the time, they seem to love to see sacrifice as "proof of" "love for God and neighbor". Problems of identifying sacrifice occur when there are various differences as to what defines the "correct" sacrifice. Judging another's "sacrifice" as insignificant is offensive and insulting, which alienates and complicates the relationship and the negotiating process.

These sacrifices are used to further "holiness" and "discipline" and 'create and define' Christian character. But, what is the difference in Christian sacrifice and altruism and a "secular" person doing the same? Christians can feel smug and "better than" others, which underwrites their own insecurities, rather than face them squarely and realistically.

I would much rather be "on the same page", knowing that a contract was a useful tool to protect both parties interest, rather than, some "spiritualized" service that undermines justice. Christians use and abuse terms, and situations because of their view of reality. Reality is defined in "other worldly ways" that are defined by "god". "God" justifies in their minds "abuse of power", as they feel morally superior. These "other worldly ways" are imposed upon all of life and others, which hinders one's ability to communicate in 'real terms" and truely know another in "real ways".

So, what do I wish for Christians? I wish that all of them would evaluate their life honestly, without any need to 'spiritualize", "or protect themselves". Life can be hard, indeed, but if one continues to "live in a bubble of unreality", then life cannot be embraced and fully lived. Christians need to be "real human beings" and stop seeking to be anything else.