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.....

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.

Perfectability and Mutuality in Relationship

Some Christian denominations believe that man is "perfectable". These take "Jesus" as a moral example of faith, lifestyle and purpose. But is this necessarily a universal model for applicability in specifics?

I believe that it is the human aspect of relationship that is the highest moral virtue. And this relationship can be personal, communal, or governmental. But, personal virtue should never be sought apart from society's virtue of upholding human value and supporting human flourishing.

Quoted in Moo's James commentary: "I have often wondered that persons who make boast of professing the Christian religion -- namely love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all men (sic) -- should quarrel with such rancorous animosity and display daily towards one another such bitter hatred, that this, rather than the virtues which they profess, is the readiest criteria of their faith." Spinoza

This was a quote on Ken Schenck's blog, "Quadralateral Thoughts", this morning. I thought is was a good start for what I was thinking on for the past number of months.

The assumption of Spinoza is that something "more" than mere normal human relationships is required of the Christian community. Is this feasible? If so, is it healthy?

1). "charity to all men"....this is the "ideal" of Christian faith, but is it really possible to be charitable to ALL? As we live within contexts, we are limited by those contexts. We cannot be charitable to ALL. So location is a necessary qualification.

2.) "virtues, they profess".....virtue is personal and corporal....Is it virtuous for the corporal to "take a life" for good reason or purpose, without their personal knowledge and consent? (This is what happened to Jesus, but was what happened to Jesus, just? And should this be a "standard" for today's modern world?) Is it virtuous for a person in such circumstances, to "look the other way", "turn the other cheek" and "not speak out" against such injustice? What about those whose livlihoods are jeopordized because of someong breaking a law? ( Jesus responded by surrendering to the authorities and "not saying a word". But, what about speaking out against power that is unbalanced and "demented"?)Therefore, virtue is only illustrated within the context of community, but it does not act always in the ways that we suppose. Wisdom demands discernment about what is required in specific situations when it comes to abuse of power, issues of control, and disregard of another's person. Human rights demands that there be an "accounting".

3.)"should quarrel with such rancorous animosity and display daily towards one another such bitter hatred".....is "conflict" in itself, evil? Does peace mean by definition that there will be no differences to resolve because one party submits to the other party's desire without question? Isn't this stance allowing domination of another human being? And for what reason? Is there ever a justification to domination? I don't believe so. I don't believe this is what a free society allows, as we believe that each one of us has a "right" and a duty to use the gifts and ambitions that have been gifted. But, "selfish ambition" is not virtuous, nor considerate of another.

So, what does a "modern virtuous" Christian do?

1.) Obey the laws of their land. This is universally understood for those fortunate enough to live in free Constitutional governments.
2.) Fulfill his duty to his family. This is also universally understood in working for a living and supporting one's family, but the "duty" beyond that is interpreted in various ways according to individual conscience and human need.
3.)Loving one's neighbor. This also is understood, but is interpreted in various ways. Those that believe in a prescriptive view of the law, believe that Scripture has told us to take care of the orphans and the widow and the poor. Because these people view Scripture as absolute, they deem it mandantory for All Chrstians to do what Scripture specifically says. But, if one meets any other need of a neighbor, is this deemed "sub-par" to "what is written"?
4.) Being kind to one's enemy. Since love is so often considered a feeling in our society, then I use the word "kind", which conveys a respect and regard for one's enemy. But being kind does not mean that one agrees or submits to an enemy. Forbearance is needed.
5.) Many other virtues will be evident, but will vary according to the specific individual and giftings....and convictions.

We dare no make a list and check it twice in standardizing what we in behavior from specific individuals, unless it is the above mentioned universals of character.