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.

When To Be Concerned?

This will be a more personal blog entry, so those uninterested, be forewarned.

Our grandson was born early and was hospitalized before his first year for respiratory problems. His difficulty breathing led to feeding difficulties that resulted in adnoid surgury before his second birthday. Even though he has had a "rough road" in his short lifetime, he is a very pleasant little guy and we are all blessed.

Our daughter is a nurse, so she is more aware of what his development "should" be. This has led to her concerns over his delayed development and her anxiety about his future learning ability. He will be two in November and doesn't really say much of anything. And my daughter pointed out yesterday that he doesn't stack blocks or run without falling down.

My husband and I have enjoyed both of our grandkids and have not been overly concerned for him although he is way behind his bigger sister. Is our lack of concern because we inadvertedly compared him to her and she is functioning way above the norm? Or was our lack of concern a lack of "connection", as sort of "denial"? I don't know how to gauge, but I am glad that he will be having his two year check-up in the next two months. Maybe we can get more answers from his pediatrician. I hope so for all of us.

I tell this little story to make a point. Every individual develops differently, and at their own pace. But, there is some sort of standard in which "normal" development is measured. Is this the case with moral, spiritual or emotional development? If so, when should we expect someone to behave at a post-conventional level? How do we know when someone is morally, spiritually or emotionally handicapped? Do we make the allowances for these people and how do we do so without intruding upon another's "space", patience, and 'peace"?

It seems to me that many conservative religious people are caught up in the "own world", which is separated from the 'real world'. And it leads to much "disgrace" to the religious community. Is this because of "emotional need", "moral immaturity", or "spiritual failure"? I think that there is much that would collaborate that some never develop beyond an "pre-conventional level". Should we be concerned or let these people function in their "little worlds"?

This morning our pastor preached a sermon on "Abraham"'s faith. I checked with my husband to make sure he heard the same and he confirmed what I had understood. Our pastor was calling for a "radicalized faith" that was disrespective of reason, a "jump in the dark". He wanted to encourage people to leave their comfort zones, whether homes, family, etc. to "follow God". He used Hebrews 11, as his text. He promised that those who did would find "greatness". Greatness was not celebrity or fame, but gravity in impacting the world. I cringed because it literalizes a specific understanding of "faith" and it also suggests that faith is most "faithful" when it disregards reason. This view dismisses "reason's" reasons.

None of us want to be "wrong" or be responsible for bringing heartache or damage upon another. This is what our daughter is dealing with in feeling responsble for her son's learning difficulties. When was she to be concerned enough to demand attention, when several attempts were re-buffed by professionals? Should she have demanded irregardless of these professional opinions? Would it have made a difference?

What about our pastor's suggestion about faith? Isn't it cultish to suggest especially to young people to "trust" God and to disregard reason altogether? Should a parent be concerned if a student decides that God has called him to quit school and "do something for God"? Isn't suggesting that this kind of "call" is something that is "more" or "above" another's "common job"? I think this is dangerous and I am concerned. Should I be? Our pastor made a point that Abraham had lied, cheated, and stolen, but he did follow God.

Responsible behavior should be what every young adult increasing demonstrates in his life. Irresponsibilty in the "name of God" has brought much reproach upon Christian faith, the Church, and religion, in general. And I have found that when I have expressed concerns about "radicalized faith" in the past, the "professionals" disregarded my quesitons, as well. Were they being as presumptuous as my grandson's doctors? Will my faith in "faith communities" forever be damaged because of this "oversight"?

All I know is that really listening and hearing others is always hard. But, it is impossible if we have other agendas, like who is next on my appointment book, or minimizing another's situation with platitudes of "better days" ahead. We just never know when our concern will make a powerful difference in another's life. A lack of concern certainly has impacted my daughter, my grandson, and myself.

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.

Walled Hearts and Walled Religions

Many years ago when I was in undergraduate education as an adult, I wrote a paper for my"World Religions" course. In that paper, I wrote, "is a rose by any other name, just a sweet?" That question haunted me, but has come to have meaning to what I believe nowadays.

Is a rose by any other name, just as sweet? Yes, of course, it is. The word "rose" conjures up an image to those that have been exposed to roses and sometimes it can activate the sense of smell in our memories. But, what if someone had not known the flower by the name "rose"? If they smelled a rose, called a "chamelleon", would it smell the same? Yes! Would it be the same flower? Yes, even though it was called by a different name. The same goes for true faith and one's character.

My point in all of this "rambling" is this: is the "Christ figure" just as sweet by any other name? Is the Christ figure represented by other names, such as Gandhi, Mother Theresa, uncle Joe and aunt Harriet? Does the "image" of Christ have meaning besides the person of Jesus of Nazareth (if he is a historical person)? What is the Christ image? And does the Christ image have to be manifested in the same way as Jesus of Nazareth?

The Greek Fathers understood the image of god in man. They knew about representation within real time, not the "City of God" of St. Augustine. This is where all religions point beyond themselves to a world beyond our knowing. Some agnostics may find solace in idenifying with a community of faith as they understand the purpose of myth and myth-making. Others may find more solace in understanding their connectedness to sciences' "real reality" in this world. It really doesn't matter, as both types of agnostics will "do faith" in their own realms of influence. Both types have come to terms with faith as a real "unknown" and unknowable mystery about life in its complexity.

I named my paper "Walled Hearts and Walled Religions" because this is what I think hinders the "ideal" world, life and value. Walls bring definition, but do not bring resolution or reconciliation. Walls keep others out, while protecting one's understanding of oneself within comfortable zones of definitions, behaviors, and religious rites.

Today's world is torn because of these walls. Walls that hinder and resist. Walled hearts are not open to another's views. And walled ideas are not about academic or religious freedom. We are bound by the very definitions that we make. We enslave ourselves from our small-mindedness and our fears.

The reason I changed my major from sociology to religion and philosophy was because of an ethics course. That very ethics professor just recently died. I owe him a lot. I wrote a paper for that course about moral development and moral character. He told me at graduation that it was brillant. I found it hard to believe, but the more I have learned, the more I have come to understand that character is indeed the essence of life and it doesn't really matter about religion.

Moral behavior is more about attitude first and foremost, not behavior, as behavior is culturally bound. But, whenever moral behavior is defined by a tightly defined cultural understanding, it is a means of oppression and a hinderance to moral development. Ethics would not allow such "standards" to stand, as it is more important to protect human rights, than any cultural "ideal".

Humans, Experience, Fahtih and Reason

There has been a lot of talk lately about human beings. What does that mean to be a human beings? And what about the human being is different from the animal kingdom, if there is any difference?

Our physical bodies do impact the way we understand our life. Our physicality is our situadedness, or our culture, as well as our personal and unique identification factors. The Christian worldview is challenged today to understand how it is a distinct understanding of truth. Some have reverted to a somewhat fundamentalistic understanding of truth in Scripture. This is nothing less that a warmed over fundamentalism, where Scripture was understood apart from the other disciplines. Scripture was understood to be a uniquely inspired text, where all the disciplines were to be understood within the text's understanding. It is the pieistic understanding of truth, through faith, which presupposes the text, as foremost in the seeking after truth....

I find that understanding faith as the end of of every situation and person's difficulty is so short-sighted. And I think that the Church has an interest in "protecting" the Scritptures as special revelation, but at what costs is this "war"? The costs is the costs of understanding a broader perspective of "truth". It is, in effect, the costs of edcuation! Christians should not be perpetuating an unenlightened view of faith. We should seek to help students and others to critically think about their faith, so that real growth can happen.

I watched a documentary on Jim Jones last night. It is amazing that so many people would come under the influence of such a person. Jim Jones was not particularly chraismatic. But, the people that followed him were predisposed to being "led' into the abyss. There's was not a critical faith, but a pieistic one. Faith in faith is a leap into the dark of another's control, or an irrational priority of life. And all of this is done in the name of the "kingdom", or "the people of God" or other such terms. It is dangerous and harmful.

Reason must be embraced so that in a climate of irrationality, faith can be educated into true commitment, not based on a childish "dream" but a true conviction.

Christology, Character and the Constitution

"The Word Became Flesh" is the celebration of Christmas. What does this mean that the Word became flesh?

It affirms humanity made in God's image. But, the question in Christian circles revolves around what does the "God/Man" mean?

"All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" is the cry of our Founding Fathers. We, Americans, celebrate this tradition on the 4th of July. It is our country's "Declaration of Independence". Our Constitution was written to protect us form tyranny and empower the disempowered by giving them a right to vote.

How do these two views come together? Opportunity, Empowerment, Responsibility, and Character.

Jesus did not support the purity laws of segregating himself from those who did not meet the standards of "tradition". The values that Jesus upheld were the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He gave life to those who were disempowered by disease, poverty, and prejuidice. He gave liberty to those who were captive to their own self-judgments and weaknesses and told them to "sin no more". He gave the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness to those who were despised, rejected and oppressed. And this was the liberty of the "gospel's message", that is represented in our government's values.

Each and every person is valued in God's sight, as there are not little ones among us. And because of our values, many come to our shores to attain those liberties to pursue their own lives at peace.

Our country values "ordered liberty", which upholds one's right to worship, work and play in the way that the individual deems "fit". No one determines our "way of life", other than maintaining the ordered structure. A dissenting viewpoint is still valued, as liberty is only maintained as we allow "freedom of speech" and "freedom of press".

So, America has been rooted in Christian values, but these values are intepreted as differently as the people who make up the country we love.

My Pastor's Sermon on the Impossible God

My pastor's sermon today was on the second commandment; Thou shalt have no other gods before me. He explained that idolatry was anythint that came in between the person and God. God was alone to be worshipped, but so often we humans look at the "real world" and start to think of these things as God. And yet, I would suggest that Jesus said that humanity was the "face of God". Jesus, said that, "If you do it to one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me".

Jesus ministered to a specific group of people. He identified with the outcasts, and sinner. These were those who were outside the scope of the political (outcast) and religious (sinner) realms of power. Jesus, as a role model cannot be universal, either, otherwise, where would governmental leaders be? or educators? or any other "job" outside of charitable service?

It was a tipe rope of sorts for my pastor to stretch and walk between antinominism and nomism....the absolute and relative, context and standard. These questions are ones that plague the Church in addressing postmodernity. But, how does society, and society's social structures view this "gift of the law"?

Israel, according to the Scriptures, was not a nation at the time of the giving of the "law". Moses, according to the story, got the law from God. Therefore, Israel was known by her law and that made her "God's people". Today's modern nation-state is known by the government that rules that nation. Laws are the boundaries that define that government. Unfortunately, many nations do not have laws that protect the common person. Dictators, tribal chiefs and terrorists all seek power at the costs of others. Civilized nations have sought to come together and formulate interantional law. These laws are agreed upon to protect human rights.

But, as my pastor pointed out, absolutizing the law can bring atrocious acts of oppression and presumption, while not having law is not knowing how to distinguish between "godliness and worldliness". This is a holiness tradition within the Christian tradition, the Wesleyan Church. Their focus from Wesley's time was the question: Is there sin in your life? Wesley, the father of Methodism, started groups that were accountable to one another.

What is the purpose of accountability? Accountability helps us see clearly where we need to grow in our character. Others can help us know where our strengths and weaknesses are. The question is, what is uniquely "Christian" about this? Leadership courses that are taught all across the land are based on Character development. There has even been a move in education about character development in our public schools.

There is no unique Christian message, as the Christian message is the message of humanity. Humanity is made in God's image and though this is true, humanities' social structures are the instrucments that God uses to develop us. Today's social structures are broken in America. How do we resolve this problem? What do you think?