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.....

Sectarianism, Faith, and Freedom

Sectarianism are moves away from something "mainstream". Usually, these movements have been a critique of some kind or other. The movements have been political, as well, as religious. These movements have come to identify people in ideological frames, which are meaning-making.

In Christian tradition, Protestants have understood themselves as "distinct from" Catholicism. And Catholicism was a break away from Judiasm, in the early Church's founding. Each 'sect" sought a more "pure form" of religious expression, in more 'pure definitions" that become abstract systems of philosophical discourse. This was the "project" of theological reflection.

In the political realm, theology sought to give a reason for political subversion, reformation or revolution. But, theology was always "after the fact" of political upheavel or scientific inquiry. Theology has always been about addressing and maintaining the "social order" and the "social structures" and institutions that make up civilization.

Political ideology has been based mostly on the social factors of economics, but has also been based on religious freedom, which was our country's founding heritage. How we live and are in the world has much to do with the political philosophy that holds the reins of power and their tolerance of religious conviction.

In America, we believe that freedom is of uptmost importance, as without freedom, the individual is nothing more than a slave in mind or life. So, it is imperative to address the political realm, as apart from addressing this area, there is no ability for individual flourishing, religious freedom or human rights.

The problem for today's world, is the question of religious freedom where it concern human rights or liberties. Should there be State mandated vaccinations for the young, irregardless of the families' religious convictions? Should there be a tolerance of "faith healings" when there have been deaths reported by such convictions? Should there be tolerance of 'honor killings" because of the religious conviction of "property rights' where it concerns women? What is the position of our country and it's ultimate values?

There have always been movements that have sought to "correct" or "address" a problem, as identified by some 'standard'. We live in an imperfect world, and these movements were/are to seek the "ideal". Unfortunately, the "ideal" will never be found. So, it is best to maintain one's freedom from any form of groupish mentality that would tend to seek to "perfect" the individual or society. One can only perfect what they deem needful, which cannot be defined by others. But, it can allow freedom of discourse, which is a beginning to understand and evaluate freedom's assests in assessing and committing to one's highest, or best "ideal" of society or individual. I find that America's government is the closest.

A Pastor's Sermon on Killing

I thought my pastor's sermon on killing was a good one this past Sunday. He has been doing a series on the Ten Commandments. The official title was "Choosing Life". His main point was that the Church was to be a place of safety where there was no fear of loosing life. Christians should affirm life, as much as possible. I agree.

His premise was that the Commandments don't give us the rationale of ethical decision-making, but just give us the statement, "Thou shalt not kill". Whether one is pro-life, while agreeing about capital punishment seemed to him to be "getting around the law", because the law just doesn't say. And his point is well-taken that we all do not usually hold consistant views concerning the commandment.

While I have understood the Law in the traditional Christian sense of making all guilty, so that there is a need for mercy, it seems a little misguided to justify or theologize the killing of Jesus, in my thinking today. Of course, this is what evangelicals love to claim is the Gospel's message, that a Jew died on a Roman cross for the "sins of the world". Paul says, it is foolishness to the Greek and a stumblingblock to the Jew. I find that this message has brought numbers into the "fold" and has served the Church's purposes well. But, even though this understanding has served a "purpose", has it been a "real" purpose, one that is grounded in the "real world"?

The Gospel became the Christian Tradition, but was not useful to the religious in the historical time frame of Jesus life. The Gospel was the evangelist's and apostle's interpretation of Jesus life. Jesus, as well as Paul's lives, were given to the cause of humanity. The Gospel has come to mean a "cross" to be taken up by the believer, where the costs of following Christ is viewed as a sacrifice. Sacrifice was not what God required in the Old Testament, but a pure heart. This is why historical study is important. The Jewish understanding was not a "Gospel" of blood, cross, and forgiveness at the time of its founding, but a commitment of heart.

The Ten Commandments were the identifying focus of the Jew. Since my pastor held the simple standard of the commandment, it is left to the conscience of the individual to understand how it is applicable to their life. This is what it always should have been, instead, the Tradition of Judiasm developed how the commandments were to be obeyed, which created the divisions within Judiasm itself. It set up a rule of measurement, where one could justify or condemn another. Judgment and condemnation was never to be the intent of God. Dividion has happened in the Christian world over the interpretation of Scriptures.

It seems our world will never find a unifying factor without someone's conscience being denied. What does it mean for you to kill?